Saint Paul Department of Safety and Inspections/ The House of Cards is about to fall.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Custom Search
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Low down and dirty!
- EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT PROGRAM "Budget Amendment"
- Words of wisdom from a wise man.
- Strip-club owner will time plea to facilitate his ...
- The Great Minnesota Recount
- A Honey for the guys!
- Apple Valley's rental registration program helps p...
- Who will save this old house?
- Property Tax's Push Highland Nursery Out Of Business
- Federal judge denies motion to dismiss lawsuit see...
124 Comments:
November 7,2008
St. Paul Police Dept.
Attn: Fraud Unit
367 Grove St.
Saint Paul, MN 55101
RE: TO REPORT FRAUD BY THE CITY OF
ST, PAUL - DEPT. OF SAFETY
& INSPECTIONS - SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FIRE INSPECTIONS
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROGRAM
My name is Geri Boyd and I have been an employee of the City of Saint Paul for 16 years. I have worked in the Departnent of Safety & Inspections for the past 6 years For the past 8-9 months I was assigned to work in Fire Inspections for this program. I was
being trained to receive payments for this program. Briefly, Checks would come in that had credit amounts and instead of an overpayment being sent back to the citizens, they would manipulate the bill in the system and remove the credit and keep the checks. I
have copies of some of these items for documentation.
This is still happening, they have the same person handing the checks, and ALL of
Administration (Robert Kessler, Director, Christine Rozek, Assistant to the Director Robert
Humphrey, Pat McGinn, Office Manager (who also entered
some of these checks) mad Lisa Drake, Office Mmager) ALL have been aware of
this for sometime.
I called the State of Minnesota Auditors Office and by going to there web site, and the
information I have received from her, I am writing this to fiIe a complaint with the Fraud
unit in Saint Paul for this to be investigated.
My name, as I stated is Geri Boyd, and I live at **** **** St. #306, White Bear Lake,
MN 55110. I can be reached at home a f t e r 590 at 651-***-**** for any further information. I have talked to the State of Minnesota Auditor's Office and am in the
process of getting information to them.
Because I have this information, I am being retaliated against by Manaemgement, but it is
my legal duty according to Minnesota Law, and I have a moral obligation to report this
information. Therefore, I am doing so. According to Minnesota Law, "no one is above
the law", therefore they all should be held accouttable. The citizen's of the city
shouldn't be paying a lot of these fees that the Dept. is keeping and retribution should be
made to every one of the citizen's, once they are investigated and/or audited.
Sincerely,
Geri Boyd
Cc: State of Minnesotas Auditor's Office *
City of Saint Paul Council members
wcco
This is a letter Geri sent to a citizen regarding these scum bags in DSI
There maybe copy errors.
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: CITY OF ST PAUL FIRE TNSPECTIONS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
I am writing to you regarding your payment for the Fire Certificate of
Occupancy program. You had overpaid your bill and instead of them sending it back to
you for a new check they processed it. You actually had a credit balance.
I have turned the Dept. of Safety & Inspections into the State of Minnesota Auditor, I
have proof of what I am saying. I have heard that they are being audited.
I called the newspaper, no one responded. Maybe if the citizens call the Mayor's
complaint line 651-266-8989 or the Director of the Dept., Robert Kessler at 651-266-
9013, stating you have information that the Dept. processed your check or charge
knowing that you had a credit, the Administration would be held accountable.
Adminstration has known for months what was going on and did NOTHING about it. The Director, Asistant. Director, Assistant to the Director (who was told repeatedly),
2 Office Manager's (who were also told repeatedly).
Please tell anyone that you khow about this who owns property and has a Fire Cenificare
of Occupancy. Have them call also.
I have already baen retaliated against by the City and I may lose my job, but it is time
someone stands up to Government and what they get by with.
I am for the "little people" like myself and I bops that the citizen's will also ptand up
behind me.
In my book Geri Boyd is a Hero. She is courageous and honorable.
That is more than I can say for the filthy scum bags she works with.
I'm tellin ya, nobody messes with DSI! Ya all, will comply!
Does this suprise anyone? It shouldn't after what the landlords discovered in their lawsuit against the city. Go get em girl!
So we have multiple people stealing money that people send in through the mail with checks that when cashed cause funds to be transferred out of federally insured finacial institutions and then the overeage money is skimmed and kept for the benefit of the city.
I wonder if Repke would consider this to be a benefit.....as he thinks is required under the Federal Racketeering statutes?
I wonder if Eric will give her any credibility since this is not anonymous?
I doubt it. They'll have some spin to try and convince people all is well and just a small oversight.
Ms. Boyd, my wife and I will pray for you. God bless you!
Alex Wendt
"losing pride on the east side"
Time for all city employees to come forward and fess up to the dirty deeds being perpetrated upon citizens. Are the property and sales tax not enough that they have to steal from people to boot?
I seem to remember something about NHPI wanting to write excessive use tags because they were told by someone that they could spend the money. Is this a new low? Or is the bottom yet to come?
This is a pretty nasty looking city if anyone wants my 2 cents worth.
I know of a guy who was billed the excessive use fee for a property he didn't even own any longer. He was told if he did not pay it that the city would revoke his rental licenses on all his other properties, so he paid it. A week later it occurred to him to call the new owner and see if he ever recieved any bills for excessive use fees and sure as heck, the new owner was also charged and he paidf it too.......THE SAME DAMN THING! It was charged twice to 2 different people!
Hey Bob..... remember when the landlords caught the city shredding inspection reports and destroying all the emails? Maybe this was one of the things the city was trying to cover up.
Thank you for your courage Geri. It would be nice if there were more people like you around.
I think it is time for the current city council and the Mayor to go. Their leadership style of looking the other way and cover up when possible has done great damage to this city. Damage that the rest of us are going to be paying the price of for years to come.
Wasn't there some problems with this Department in the past? Krinke sued them and proved they had discriminatred against him. There were also some gambling problems in this Department that seemed to get swept under the carpet. There was corruption with the 14 Jessamine property. Then there's the current lawsuit with the landlords. When the Foster murder trail was going on there were statements made by a certain housing inspector that the St. Paul Police cover stuff up. It sounds to me like this city is out of control while people like Kathy Lantry and Lee Helgen are busy managing problem properties and people's behavior issues. Maybe they should clean off their own doorsteps before they start taking action against others.
And then there is Eric and Chuck spinning like a couple of tops. No problem here huh boys?......as long as your are on the right side of the problem that is!
Ah a disgruntled worker I think.Huh Repke?The city has no bad intents ever!
John
It's all about the money boys. Don't expect any changes. Don't expect any action to be taken. You'll be happier that way.
News to me folks. I don't work for the City so I read about this stuff at the same time you do.
Is she saying that the City bills someone, they over pay and then the City changes the bill to match that amount?
If so, that is pretty f'ing crazy and someone is going to find themselves in a lot of hot water. And, people ought to get refunds, with interest.
Or, is it that the City sends out a bill someone over pays and then the City leaves a credit on the account and bills them less later. That wouldn't be any different than what the phone company or Xcel does with an overpayment.
Because it doesn't appear that she is saying that anyone was being deliberately misbilled.
I have overpaid my Xcel bill in the past and Xcel leaves it as a credit until my next bill, they don't send me a check. Neither does my bank (I have had a credit of $8.06 on my line of credit for the last 6 months...I overpaid the interest).
So, if anyone that overpaid has a credit on their account, that is normal business practice, the City didn't create the error, just like Xcel or my bank didn't create the error. I would guess you could ask for a refund back, but the City was under no obligation to return the check that was written for to large of an amount. They were owed money, they billed you correctly, you overpaid and they credited your account the extra money... sounds like the real world to me...
Anyway, it will be interesting to hear more.
If it turns out that someone was "keeping" the money. I want their ass in jail. But, if they were doing what any business would do, Geri is pretty naive.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Just another thought. It sounds like Geri and some people here think that if I send in more than what is owed to Xcel that they should send my check back to me and ask me nicely to send in the correct amount.
You have to be kidding me if you think that would ever happen in the real world.
So, if the City had a policy of sending all checks back if there was an over payment, raise your hand if you would EVER send in the correct amount!
I WOULD NEVER SEND IN THE CORRECT AMOUNT!!!! ARE YOU CRAZY???
If I could avoid ever having to pay fees by simply sending in a check that was $5, $10, $100 over, I WOULD NEVER SEND IN THE CORRECT AMOUNT!
And neither would anyone else that post on this list.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck read this statement again;
" Checks would come in that had credit amounts and instead of an overpayment being sent back to the citizens, they would manipulate the bill in the system and remove the credit and keep the checks."
It clearly states' MANIPULATE THE BILL AND REMOVE THE CREDIT!
Spin it Chuck!
Something's rotten and the stench comes through. One lie or coverup leads to another. Other employees might want to have a discussion with the plaintiffs attorneys, before the whole thing comes crashing down on their heads.
With all this spinning, the city alibi artists might go into orbit.
Chuck Repke, Ceri Boyd is not naive, Geri has the Blood & Guts to be a Whistleblower, Others must come foward. Perhaps this is why the Reporter Paul Demko http://minnesotaindependent.com/author/paul-demko
3rd & 4th Post downBlowing smoke: Is there a movement to recall Dave Thune?
By Paul Demko 12/2/08 12:52 PM
St. Paul City Council member Dave Thune has long provoked passionate responses from both his admirers and detractors. He drew the ire of bar owners by championing a smoking ban (despite his own long-standing nicotine jones) and initially opposed expanding liquor-license hours during the Republican National Convention for fear of puking GOP lobbyists. So it’s no surprise that some residents might be interested in booting the liberal Democrat from office.
But she also wrote this...
"I am writing to you regarding your payment for the Fire Certificate of
Occupancy program. You had overpaid your bill and instead of them sending it back to
you for a new check they processed it. You actually had a credit balance."
So, that was my only point if what the City is doing is creating a credit balance because someone overpaid, that is life in the Big City kiddies...
That is what, Xcel does, that is what the phone company does, that is what Wells Fargo does....
The issue here is what?
You make an over payment and you want the company you owe money to to send the check back and wait another thirty days for you to send the right amount?
You're kidding me aren't you?
There is no crime there. That is standard business practice. You should see a credit on your next bill. If that wasn't what was going on, then we have an issue. But, from the second post it is pretty clear that the City acted like anyone acts that you owe money to.
NOBODY SENDS YOUR CHECK BACK WHEN YOU OVER PAY.
Name me one business that does.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
The Police wouldn't do anything for her. Instead they turn it over to the Minnesota State Auditor to handle! Unbelievable, the city of St. Paul gets caught red handed laundering money and the Police don't want anything to do with it. Ever wonder why? Let me expouse a bit.....I have a friend who called the Police for help last week concerning a car parked illegaly on his property. Come to find out the car was stolen and the Police go inside the apartment to talk to the tenant and find out if they know anything. Afterwards, the Police inform my friend that they are going to call code enforcement because of the condition of the apartment. Not code violations, but the tenant was a messy and dirty one. So much for ever calling the Police again for him. From now on, he'll just push the car out into the alley and let someone else deal with it and the Police lose the opportunity to follow up on a maybe good lead regarding the crime.
So are the Police not interested in the city's money laundering scheme because they are too busy busting landlords for technical violations or are they so dirty also that they have their own little deal going on and don't want to draw attention to themselves?
Bank of America does. If you have a credit balance more than a month old, they send it to you in the mail. Not a credit, but a real check.
Cops not taking action doesn't suprise me. If a tenant writes a bad check to a landlord, the Saint Paul Police have a ploicy that they WILL NOT go after the tenant for writing bad checks. You see, in Saint Paul it's OK to steal. The important thing is who's doing the stealing and who they are stealing from.
Chuck look closer at the statement you provided.
(Clue... The key word in the statement is "Had")
"I am writing to you regarding your payment for the Fire Certificate of
Occupancy program. You had overpaid your bill and instead of them sending it back to
you for a new check they processed it. You actually HAD a credit balance."
Definition of had; Retrieved from;
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/had
had (hd) KEY
VERB:
Past tense and past participle of have.
Spin it again Chuck!
Chuck;
"they would manipulate the bill in the system and remove the credit and keep the checks."
My understanding of this statement with the words "REMOVE THE CREDIT" meaning no longer exists along with your copied statement that said "HAD" that also reflects nonexisting tells me that would not be considered ethnical procedures and very illegal, and you understanding of it is what?
11:17 - I saw that as well, but I am not as confident as you in Geri's skills.
Like I said we shall see which it is. If they have a credit or if someone made the credit disappear.
My only question would be, why would someone do that? There is no personal profit to a staff person to not give you the credit. Nobody is getting paid more because they screw up somebody's bill.
So, I would suggest that "had" may mean "have," and that Geri is upset that the City doesn't send the check back. If they had a balance there will be someway for people to find out what happened to it, and there will be evidence that is disappeared. If this is an on going problem as suggested, then you will see people billed the wrong amounts.
And Bank America sends you the overage once your credit has sat there for thirty days, they don't send your check back to you, which is what Geri is saying is the City's criminal act.
We shall see...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck you are correct it may be that Geri is upset and has her own way of thinking of the way the city should handle citizens finances but I would think after being a city employee for 16 years that she would also have the knowledge to know the difference between what is ethnical and what is not and really find it hard to believe that she would jeopordize her career with an error like this on her behalf if you are correct.
I also would think Geri may have or at least should have consulted with a legal advisor prior to filing a complaint like this so I am lead to believe her filing to date, but we shall see.
Chuck, it is very puzzling as to why a staff member would do this if there is not a personal gain, I am sure there is more to this story then what is being revealed here and we will have to wait to find out the details that lead up to this along with the facts, evidence, and etc. of this issue to become public information.
The personal gain is that they get to keep their job. Many employees in DSI want to talk about things such as the landlords lawsuits becasue they know the city is violating people's rights and they don't hink it's right. BUT.....they have families and mortgages and need the job. We saw what happened to McDonald when he complained about the city minority hiring practices. Fired on the spot the next day. Geri says she's being retaliated against for doing the right thing. This city's leadership style is to rule with intimidation and harrassment and people are sick and tired of it. People came forward and tolds the landlords Attorneys what was going on in NHPI and now someone else. How many more are going to come out of the dark in the future? How long is the city leaders going to turn a blind eye to crime and corruption? How many more people are going to be thrown into the cold winter nights becasue certain city council people have a problem with their behavior? Are these the people you aspire to Chuck? What about you Eric? Is this the kind of change your DFL represents? You are all a bunch of hypocritical phonies.
It sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why people make charges of wrong doing anonymously sometimes. The powers that be count on it because it helps them discredit the charges and comtinue the illegal behavior after they dirty up the accusing parties credibility because he wished to remain anonymous.
Chuck checks in often to keep the spin under control!
Thanks for your work Bob. I have forwarded this to the Rico group. I'm sure they'll find it more than just a little interesting.
Let's try this again.
The customer errors by sending to much in on the bill.
The additional monies are credited to the customers account (the same as all utilities do.)
The new employee (been assigned to that task as of the letter 8-9 months) objects to that practice and believes that the employer should instead send the money back and rebill the customer (from her letter... "You had overpaid your bill and instead of them sending it back to you for a new check they processed it."). She informs management that she believes they have some obligation to perform the way she thinks...(Robert Kessler, Director, Christine Rozek, Assistant to the Director Robert Humphrey, Pat McGinn, Office Manager (who also entered
some of these checks) mad Lisa Drake, Office Mmager) and they apparently must tell her that she is in error and tell her to do her job.
She then sends letters to customers alleging criminal activities of her employer based on her misconception of what is good business practice and then we wonder why she might be in trouble at the office?
Yup whistler blower, or blowing smoke, or something like that...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
How about trying it this way Chuck? The city gets money from landlords who they've declared open war on and the city discovers that the bill has been overpaid. So like any good thug, they get rid of the original bill by crediting it out and creating a new one for the wrong amount sent in by the landlord. Now they apply the payment and everyone's happy. The city has extra money and the landlord doesn't have to get stressed out communicating with a NAZI police state and risking getting screwed over again. The new guy in the office immediately recognizes this as racketeering and money laundering among other things and blows the whistle which brings on harrassment and retaliation which the city has been long known for. I'm afraid this is out of your hands Chuck. These appear to be hardened criminal tactics (Fraud)operating in their normal practice and pattern. The cat's out of the bag and now someone is going to have to take responsibility.....a new idea for you DFLrs, but none the less something that cannot now be avoided. The only question is wether the city is going to make a another sucessful lawsuit in the way they treat this courageous person.
The city is depriving the citizens of fair and honest service Chuck and that is a bad spot to be in.
1:41 and that would be caught in a New York minute. Anyone that notices at some point that they overpaid could stimulate an investigation that would blow the thing up.
Also, why would City employees jeopardize their careers and their futures to get the City a few more bucks? They would have to all be insane. They don't get anything out of it and we are talking nickels and dimes here in the scheme of the City's budget.
This is what amazes me about the thinking of the people on this list. First all of the City employess are a part of some massive conspiracy to get a small group of landlords and they are extremely sophisticated about how they hide all of this crafty criminal dealings and at the same time they would be like a bunch of idiots deleating $5, $10 credits.
Yup, that's the ticket.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I'm still trying to figure out what the complaint is. You over pay and
you get a credit. That's normal legal everyday business. You overpay
and someone else pockets the extra, that's criminal. No spin from me.
Let's see when all the facts get out what the problem is.
I say that because if its as black and white as Geri puts it, then I
find it strange that no one, out of dozens of reporters would cover
this. This is the kind of story that gets the whistle blower on the
cover of Time magazine, the perp gets a prison sentence and the
reporter who blows this open gets a Pulitzer Prize.
So, simple logic tells me there's more to this. Not to mention that I
know some of those names on that list and frittering away their
careers for a few measly bucks is not in their DNA.
I've said it for three years, you will not hear me defend bad behavior
by individual city employees or doubt if it happens as I'm sure it
does in some departments at some level.
The whole point of this site, and my entire disagreement is based on
the ever-changing conspiracy among city employees and city officials
to condone illegal activities. Its just not happening.
12:34 and 1:41,
Ease up on the adjectives.
Eric
To 2:09
The city is not crafty one bit about they hide the stuff you talk about. They have a scorched earth policy of destroy and shred all the evidence and anything else the landlords want. No records equal no evidence equal no proof.
I have to applaud Geri for her courage and for anyone else that stands up for the rights of the little guy. St. Paul has gotten away with their corruption for years and their schemes are about to be unraveled. Quite frankly, I have had personal experience with the City overcharging me and have been retaliated against and have been illegally code enforced. I am certain Geri is telling the truth.
Geri was hired back when the city was something to be proud of. Now she is surrounded by dipshits, who can't help the little things when they are ripping off the citizens on the big things. It is part of their conceit and pomposity.
The City Council just thinks they know what's going on. How long will it take them to find out deeply they have been lied to by DSI.
I don't think the Council has been lied to by anyone. I think they are behind the wrong doings.
You are absolutly right 7:52. The city council has full knowledge of what's going on and they know they have some liability in the landlord deal. They also have egos, and to give money to landlords is quite frankly a bit more than they are able to deal with. They have given orders to the city attorney to drag it out as long as possible in the hopes the landlords will go away. With the way they micro manage things, they knwo every little detail of what's going on within DSI. Some of it is actually ordered by the a certain city council member.
7:52
The city council gives their stamp of approval to the wrongdoings, for sure. But there is no honor among thieves. They are totally dependent on code knowledge from Inspections and they are being lied to as well. The whole thing is anal.
8:04 PM Your right.
The people that city government messed with prior, they are just waiting for their opportunity to strike back.
We will be lurking in the back round till the city falls at our feet, then they can lick our boots clean.
We stand behind the landlords, not this local government.
Chris Coleman is a great disappearing Mayor.Where has he been?He's got to be the worst 1 term mayor.
John
Sooner or later the house of cards will fall. The city doesn't think they are doing anything wrong. Like any other criminal, they have been doing this crap for so long they don't think there's anything wrong with it.
Whistle Blowers Act.
There maybe copy errors.
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
DUNNELL MINNESOTA DIGEST
Copyright 2008, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,
a member of the LexisNexis Group.
EMPLOYMENT
PART 4. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; BREACH OF CONTRACT
Dunnell Minn. Digest EMPLOYMENT § 4.12 (4th ed.)
§ 4.12 Prohibited grounds for termination or adverse action
The Whistleblower Act prohibits an employer from discharging an employee who, in good faith, refuses an order to
violate a law or reports a violation or suspected violation of a law. n865 Many common law claims for retaliatory
discharge have been replaced by the Whistleblower Act. n866 However, because the Minnesota legislature does not
prescribe the Minnesota Whistleblower Act as an exclusive remedy, the Act does not displace the common-law tort that
permits an employee to bring an action for wrongful discharge for refusing to participate in an activity that the
employee, in good faith believes violates any state or federal law or rule or regulation adopted pursuant to law. This
common-law action n867 is limited to a refusal to participate in an activity that violates a law or promulgated
regulation or rule. n868
The supreme court has not determined whether the common law requirement that a clearly mandated public policy
be implicated in an employee's report of wrongdoing applies to the whistleblower statute. n869
Both the common-law public policy exception and the whistleblower statute only protect employees who expose
violations of law designed to protect the public's morals, health, safety, and welfare. n870
JL:Footnote,"EMPLOYMENT -866">
The Whistleblower Act does not abrogate the common-law action in tort for wrongful discharge for refusal to
perform an unlawful act, because the legislature did not prescribe the act as an exclusive remedy. n871
The common-law action is limited to a claim for wrongful discharge for refusing to participate in an activity that
the employee, in good faith, believes violates any state or federal law or rule or regulation adopted pursuant to law.
n872 A claim for wrongful discharge that is not based on an allegation that the discharge was for refusing to participate
in an activity that violates a law or promulgated regulation or rule is not within the ambit of the common-law action.
n873
An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee
regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because:
1. the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected
violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law
enforcement official;
2. the employee is requested by a public body or office to participate in an investigation, hearing, inquiry; or
3. the employee refuses an employer's order to perform an action that the employee has an objective basis in fact to
believe violates any state or federal law or rule or regulation adopted pursuant to law, and the employee informs the
employer that the order is being refused for that reason. n874
Page 1
While the Human Rights Act defines an employer as a person who has one or more employees, n875 the
Whistleblower Act defines employer to include the state and any political subdivisions of the state. n876
The state cannot claim the protection of statutory immunity to protect it from claims under the Whistleblower Act.
n877 To do so would contravene the legislature's decision to include the state in the list of employer's who must abide
by the provisions of the Whistleblower Act. n878 The Whistleblower Act operates as an implied waiver of the statutory
immunity provision. n879 If public officials are allowed to act against whistleblowing subordinates in malicious and
willful ways, without threat of suit for illegal employment practices, the purpose of the Whistleblower Act would be
utterly thwarted. n880 Thus, the Whistleblower Act and the statutory immunity provision cannot exist in concert. n881
Neither official nor statutory immunity applied to a defendant regulatory board in the plaintiff's suit against it
brought under the Whistleblower Act because the plaintiff could only be fired by the board acting in its joint capacity,
and no individual board member was responsible for the acts that the plaintiff claimed were in violation of the
Whistleblower Act. n882
Official immunity may be available to protect the state against whistleblower claims; however, official immunity
does not protect actions taken willfully or maliciously in that the official has reason to believe the act is prohibited.
n883 The definition of employer in the Whistleblower Act does not impose liability on individual supervisors. n884
The United States Supreme Court's three-part McDonnell Douglas analysis for evaluating discrimination claims
applies to a wrongful discharge claim brought under the whistleblower statute, Minnesota Statutes section 181.932,
subdivision 1(a). The McDonnell Douglas analysis requires
1. the plaintiff in a whistleblower case to establish a prima facie case that his discharge was motivated by an
impermissible reason;
2. the burden of production shifts then to the employer to articulate another permissible reason for the discharge;
3. if the employer offers such a reason, in order for the employee to recover, the fact-finder must then determine
whether the employer's proffered reason is pretextual. n885
An action brought in district court under the Whistleblower Act and the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health
Act (MOSHA), n886 alleging the tort of retaliatory discharge and seeking only money damages, is a cause of action at
law with a constitutional right to jury trial. n887
The Whistleblower Statute only protects employees who expose violations of laws designed to protect general
public interest. n888
An employee injured by a violation of the Whistleblower Act may bring a civil action to recover any and all
damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees, and may
receive such injunctive and other equitable relief as determined by the court. n889
Reporting sexual harassment furthers a clearly mandated public policy and, therefore, constitutes conduct protected
by the Whistleblower Act. n890 In addition, federal cases have allowed plaintiffs to assert claims under both the
Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Whistleblower Statute. n891
The Whistleblower Act applies specifically to governmental employers. n892 Employer means any person having
one or more employees in Minnesota and includes the state and any political subdivision of the state. n893 Employees
of the state and its subdivisions who claim to be injured by violations of the Whistleblower Act are entitled to a civil
cause of action in the district court as provided by statute. n894
The elements necessary to make a prima facie case under a whistleblower claim are:
Page 2
Dunnell Minn. Digest EMPLOYMENT § 4.12 (4th ed.)
1. the plaintiff engaged in conduct protected under the act;
2. adverse employment action by the employer; and
3. causal connection between the two. n895
A whistleblower claim need not identify the specific law or rule that the employee suspects has been violated, so
long as there is a federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law that is implicated by the employee's complaint, the
employee reported the violation or suspected violation in good faith, and the employee alleges facts that, if proven,
would constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to law. n896
MOSHA also provides a remedy for a whistleblower-type claim when the reported violation of law implicates
MOSHA. n897 The act provides that no employee shall be discharged or in any way discriminated against because the
employee has filed a complaint, or instituted or caused to be instituted an inspection under or related to the act, or
because of the exercise by the employee of any rights afforded by the act. n898 Any employee believed to have been
discharged or otherwise discriminated against for exercising any of the rights afforded by MOSHA may file a complaint
with the commissioner of labor and industry, who shall cause an investigation to be made as the commissioner deems
appropriate, which could result in a hearing before an administrative law judge and injunctive relief. n899 The
employee may also bring a private action in the district court for relief. n900
Claims for retaliatory discharge, seeking only money damages, brought under the remedy provisions of both the
Whistleblower Act, n901 and the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act, n902 may be pursued concurrently
in one action. n903
A discharged employee established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under both the Whistleblower Statute
and the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act (MOSHA) where she reported the employer's possible violation
of MOSHA and conflicting evidence existed on whether the employee's discharge was causally connected with the
report. n904 A discharged employee of a state regulatory board established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge
under the Whistleblower Act when he showed that he made investigations or reports of illegal activity and that some
board members admitted that the plaintiff had been fired because the objects of these reports had shown anger towards
the plaintiff. n905 A discharged president of a venture capital investment partnership did not establish a prima facie
case under the whistleblower statute; his report to the chief executive officer of the partnership's possible failure to
register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act was insufficient because the chief executive officer was
already aware of this issue. n906
A discharged employee established a prima facie case under the whistleblower statute where her discharge occurred
after she gave a statement to authorities investigating alleged criminal activities by the employer, and after the employer
attempted to control the information the employee provided to the authorities. n907
A prima facie case of reprisal discrimination under the MHRA requires the same elements. n908 Close proximity
between a complaint of discrimination and a termination decision has been held to support an inference of reprisal. n909
The exclusivity of remedies provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act preempts a cause of action under the
Whistleblower Act where the employee relies upon the same facts and seeks redress for the same allegedly
discriminatory practices to support both a reprisal and a separate retaliation claim. n910
The whistleblower statute protects good faith reports of misconduct that constitute violations of a statute or rule.
n911 Thus, firefighters' reports that some fire officers had falsified roll call sheets so that they were paid for fire calls
that they did not attend and that some firefighters had driven fire trucks while drunk were protected by the
whistleblower statute because the reports implicated possible state law violations. n912 However, firefighters' reports
that some of the fire officers were showing up at fire calls while drunk were not protected by the whistleblower statute
because such conduct, albeit reprehensible, did not implicate a violation of any statute or rule. n913
Page 3
Dunnell Minn. Digest EMPLOYMENT § 4.12 (4th ed.)
An employee's report that the employer failed to follow its customer's quality assurance plan did not implicate the
Whistleblower Act because the reported conduct did not violate any law. n914
No employer shall engage in any reprisal against an employee for declining to participate in contributions or
donations to charities or community organizations, including contributions to the employer itself. n915 An employee
injured by a violation of this section may bring an action for compensatory damages, injunctive or other equitable relief,
attorney's fees and costs. n916 For purposes of Minnesota Statutes section 181.937, "reprisal" means any discipline;
any form of intimidation, harassment, or threat; or any penalty regarding the employee's compensation, terms,
conditions, location, or privileges of employment. n917
An employee cannot claim retaliatory discharge for filing a report of abuse or neglect of patients under the
Vulnerable Adults Act if the employee's actions do not meet the statutory criteria for a "report." n918 § 4.12
Legal Topics:
For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics:
Labor & Employment LawDiscriminationRetaliationRemediesInjunctionsLabor & Employment
LawDiscriminationRetaliationStatutory ApplicationWhistleblower Protection ActLabor & Employment LawWrongful
TerminationWhistleblower Protection ActRemedies
FOOTNOTES:
n865 Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). See Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a), (c).
See also Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2002).
n866 See Minn. Stat. § 181.932; Piekarski v. Home Owners Sav Bank, 956 F.2d 1484 (8th Cir. 1992) (rejecting
plaintiff's common law claim for retaliatory discharge independent of his action under Whistleblower Act). See also
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref Corp, 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987) (after enactment of Whistleblower Act, court not
required to consider policy question of whether Minnesota should recognize cause of action for wrongful discharge).
n867 Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987) (Phipps II) (definition of common law
action).
n868 Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 841, 2005 Minn. App. Lexis 579, 9 No. 23 Minn. Lawyer
6 (2005).
n869 Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897 (Minn. 1998) (unnecessary to determine if narrow common law
requirements apply to claim brought under statute where firefighters' reports of misconduct by other firefighters
implicated state law violations and, therefore, fell within protection of whistleblower statute). See
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2002) (common law
protects those fired for their refusal to violate law); Keckhafer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis
19320 (D. Minn. 2002) (employee's wrongful discharge claim under Minnesota's Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. §
181.932, was dismissed because his contention that he was reporting conduct by co-workers that could give rise to
common-law causes of action did not state a basis for a claim under the Act).
n870 Donahue v. Schwegman Lundberg Woessner & Kluth, 586 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (law firm
employee's report of employer's payroll deduction was not covered by whistleblower statute because policy had internal
impact only and did not affect morals, health, safety, and welfare of public).
n871 Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
n872 Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
Page 4
Dunnell Minn. Digest EMPLOYMENT § 4.12 (4th ed.)
n873 Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
n874 Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1. See Nordling v. Northern States Power Co, 478 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 1991)
(dismissal of retaliatory discharge claim was justified; although surveillance of employees may be distasteful and
ill-advised, it was not shown to have been illegal), rev'g 465 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Michaelson v.
Minnesota Mining & Mfg Co, 474 N.W.2d 174 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (in-house corporate counsel had no cause of
action against employer for wrongful discharge; no causal connection between opinions to employer and subsequent job
assignment; no reports were made to any state or federal agency); Vonch v. Carlson Cos, 439 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1989) (employee who was discharged after reporting that his supervisor was committing theft and fraud from
company was not entitled to maintain action for wrongful discharge under statute). See also Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d
100 (Minn. 1991) (Minn. Stat. § 181.932, "whistleblower act" did not apply retroactively; unclassified state employee
was not entitled to recover on wrongful discharge claim), aff'g on other grounds 458 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990);
See Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2002) (common law
protects those fired for their refusal to violate law).
n875 Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 16.
n876 Minn. Stat. § 181.931, subd. 3.
n877 Janklow v. State Bd of Examiners, 552 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1996).
n878 Janklow v. State Bd of Examiners, 552 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1996).
n879 Janklow v. State Bd of Examiners, 552 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1996).
n880 Janklow v. State Bd of Examiners, 552 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1996).
n881 Janklow v. State Bd of Examiners, 552 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1996). See State v. City of Mounds View, 518
N.W.2d 567 (Minn.1994) (acknowledging that official immunity may be abrogated by necessary implication).
n882 Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Bd, 558 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
n883 Burns v. State, 570 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (whether official immunity protected state because
there was fact question as to when judge formed intent to discharge his court reporter).
n884 Obst v. Microtron Inc, 588 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
n885 Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
n886 Minn. Stat. §§ 182.651 et. seq.
n887 Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W. 2d 342 (Minn. 2002)
n888 Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 530 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), rev'd on other grounds
551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996); Vonch v. Carlson Cos, 439 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). See Cokley v. City of
Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (as a matter of law, a letter that does not reference any concerns about
violations of law is not a whistleblower report protected under the statute, and its proximity to elimination of employee's
job did not constitute relevant evidence of causation to support whistleblower claim); See Anderson-Johanningmeier v.
Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2002) (public policy exception to at-will employment
protects the general public, and the public does not have an interest in a business's internal management problems).
n889 Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul, 538 N.W. 2d 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). See Minn. Stat. § 181.935 (a)
Page 5
Dunnell Minn. Digest EMPLOYMENT § 4.12 (4th ed.)
n890 Thompson v. Campbell, 845 F. Supp. 665 (D. Minn. 1994); Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 530
N.W.2d 852 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), rev'd on other grounds 551 N.W. 2d 483 (Minn. 1996).
n891 Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 530 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), rev'd on other grounds
551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996). See Thompson v. Campbell, 845 F. Supp. 665 (D. Minn. 1994) (denial of summary
judgment on MHRA reprisal claim and whistleblower claim); Baufield v. Safelite Glass Corp, 831 F. Supp. 713 (D.
Minn. 1993) (discriminatory reprisal under MHRA and whistleblower claims tried together).
n892 Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul, 538 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
n893 Minn. Stat. § 181.931, subd. 3; Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul, 538 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
n894 Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul, 538 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). See Minn. Stat. § 181.935(a).
n895 Hubbard v. United Press Int'l Inc, 330 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. 1983); Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625
(Minn. Ct. App. 2001); Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 530 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), rev'd on
other grounds 551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996); Thompson v. Campbell, 845 F. Supp. 665 (D. Minn. 1994).
n896 Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002).
n897 Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002). See Minn. Stat. § 182.654, subd. 9.
n898 Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002). See Minn. Stat. § 182.654, subd. 9.
n899 Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002). See Minn. Stat. § 182.669, subd. 1.
n900 Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002).
n901 See Minn. Stat. § 181.935(a).
n902 See Minn. Stat. § 182.669, subd. 1.
n903 Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002).
n904 Cox v. Crown Coco Inc, 544 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
n905 Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Bd, 558 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
n906 Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers Inc, 556 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
n907 Bersch v. Rgnonti & Assocs, 584 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
n908 Hubbard v. United Press Int'l Inc, 330 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. 1983); Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical
Center, 530 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), rev'd on other grounds 551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996).
n909 Dietrich v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 536 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. 1995); Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625
(Minn. Ct. App. 2001). See Thompson v. Campbell, 845 F. Supp. 665 (D. Minn. 1994) (termination four months after
plaintiff filed complaint, together with other circumstantial evidence in record, raised issue of material fact concerning
causal connection between protected conduct and termination).
n910 Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center Inc, 551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996), rev'd on other grounds 551
N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996). See Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.04 (construction and exclusivity provision of human rights act),
181.932 (whistleblower law).
Page 6
Dunnell Minn. Digest EMPLOYMENT § 4.12 (4th ed.)
n911 Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897 (Minn. 1998) (plain language of whistleblower statute protects
reports made of violation of any state or federal law or rule adopted pursuant to law).
n912 Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897 (Minn. 1998).
n913 Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897 (Minn. 1998).
n914 Obst v. Microton Inc, 588 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2000) (failure to follow quality control plan did not implicate
federal safety regulations concerning manufacture of automobile parts; while employee claimed that employer's failure
to follow control plan implicated federal law, employee did not make good faith effort to report violation to federal
Secretary of Transportation, but instead reported violation to his employer).
n915 Minn. Stat. § 181.937.
n916 Minn. Stat. § 181.937.
n917 Minn. Stat. § 181.937.
n918 Cannon v. Habilitative Servs, 544 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
Page 7
Dunnell Minn. Digest EMPLOYMENT § 4.12 (4th ed.)
Yes Bob, even if one is clueless on the law and accuses one's employer of violating the law, they are protected by the whistle blower statutes.
That doesn't mean that the employer has to keep the person in the position where they would continue to claim that lawful business practices are unlawful. They can reassign the person to somewhere where they won't be in contact with the public or with the financial operations of the organization.
The accusations are now in front of the State. They will determine if these normal business practices are against the law or not.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Good piece Bob but these housing inspectors are too stupid to read and comprehend it. They just follow orders and do what they're told to do because they think they have immunity because some 2nd rate attorney who's not good enough to get a job anywhere but the governemnt told them so. We shall see how far their immunity gets them.
So whgat your saying Repke is that the city will ship them out to parts unknown so they can cover up the dirty deeds. No sense having a snitch in a position to watch you break the law huh?
You are a demented soul Chuck. You need help.
10:12
If I had a dollar for every-time someone said that to me, I'd be a rich man...
I just love how the law, and evidence and justice are such an annoyance to people on this list. Those things you have no time for. What you like is accusation, rumor and innuendo. That turns your crank.
We have no evidence here of anything other than an employee who recently got transferred into a position where she had to process checks, objects to the standard business practice of processing the checks and assigning a credit and decides to go on a mission.
Sounds like fun.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
And there is no evidence in the landlords lawsuit wether is there Chuck. Maybe you need to take a class some where about what is considered evidence.
Well she says she kept some of the evidence Chuck so it looks like we'll see in the future. Can you get a hold of her Bob and find out what the real deal is before the city moves in with the taxpayers checkbook and buys her off?
To JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke
10:07 AM
This looks like if one starts telling the truth about something, they try to shut you up somehow or should we say in any manner possible.
One of the landlrods suing the city told me that they came after them with false criminal shit right after they filed their lawsuit. I guess when you are desperate you will do anything.
To JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
10:07 AM
Mr.Chuck
This looks like if one starts telling the truth about something, they try to shut you up somehow or should we say in any manner possible.
St.Paul has covered up about crime from the early 1930's till now.
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
Do they call that Mob Rules
No answer huh Chuck?
Even if Chuck and I don't know what evidence looks like, the attorneys and judges are experts at it. They are still waiting for some real evidence. Federal Court.
You got it, bring it on, its been years now.
-----
Using A-Dem Posters logic, Geri was an accomplice to the the city's dirty deeds for at least 6 years, right?
For six years she worked in DSI when they were treating all of you so badly and she said nothing.
Now, that she has a beef with the billing practices, she's a saint?
For the entire time your lawyers were searching for some kind of evidence she never stepped forward. She never did the right thing, which according to the Whistle blowers act, the moment she would have said something, she would have been protected. Naw, she watched your case go down and said nothing.
Now, in a pure move of self preservation, she speaks up about something and she's your hero?
Idiots.
Eric
Bill Dahn, there was no DFL in the 1930's. Don't worry about it, I wouldn't won't facts to get in the way of your story/rant.
Eric
Chuck said, "I would guess you could ask for a refund back, but the City was under no obligation to return the check that was written for to large of an amount. They were owed money, they billed you correctly, you overpaid and they credited your account the extra money... sounds like the real world to me..."
Chuck what "REAL" world do you live in? The city was paid an amount that was over the required amount. They need to return it just like the government comes calling or will put you in jail if they send you extra by mistake.
The city has every obligation to return this money!
We have seen here many problems with DSI. We have seen Thune get special treatment just because he is a city council member. We have seen Thune misuse his position of authority when the city raided the RNC Welcoming committee and shut down the building for building code violations only to see Thune using his power as a city council member overturn them. Those buckets of urine were for what Chuck? Didn’t their toilet work. They were for urine bombs Chuck. How about the physical code violations of that building they were using?
These double standards have to stop.
Eric your 10:41 PM post indicates what I have said before, you are a cretin.
Chuck said, "If I had a dollar for every-time someone said that to me, I'd be a rich man..."
Chuck you have been living off the city and government for years. Your connections have made you a very wealthy individual.
Eric aren't you the guy who gets mad and yells at neighborhoods meetings?Aren't you the guy who wishes you could be in politics but can't control his temper?Know your place and quit saying wheres the evidence.I've seen tons of it posted here.What?Can't read?You have a St.Paul public edjamacation?Or are you just to syupid and biased?
Figure it out skippy.
Randy
Great Site, for educational purposes www.constitution.org
to pdf_Url letter o Geri Boyd
http://grandjury.googlegroups.com/web/Fullpagefaxprint1.pdf?hl=en&gsc=ynO4jxYAAAAOlncquWDZypHEg_34W4cC57an5Fe8QJeePd7zpGv9tg
Since Trader Joes is coming to town (Thune opposed this), instead of "Two Dollar Chuck" it should be "What The Fuck Chuck."
Will try again to upload Rodney Stich's government trouble shooter, re: Airlines etc.,Housing Fraud book
Books on Government Misconduct
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/list_of_books.html
Randy, don't know what you're talking about. I haven't been involved with the district council for some time but, there is not one meeting that I chaired that everybody who showed up, and wanted to speak, rather you got on the agenda or not, got to speak. Even after the fact of a binding vote, I made room for those who didn't follow the rules. I'm proud of that record, and you can check that record.
The only meeting where I got into a yelling match was when the crowd of 150 started to argue among themselves and the meeting was out of control (over the Hmong American Partnership building). There were threats and bigoted statements being made, so, I took the mic from the moderator and broke up that none-sense. This is the East side, we speak our minds over here and if you need someone to hold your hand to speak up or, are afraid your feelings may get hurt, you may want to move over to Minneapolis (nice nom de plum by the way).
I spent over ten years in politics. Fight the battles that I have, you to would be angry at times. I have stated over and over, I am not interested in being in elected office. I don't suffer fools well, which seems to be one of the requirements. Hats off to those, Republicans and Democrats, that can deal with it.
Lastly, I'm not a product of the St Paul public schools, which a couple are tops. I have seem 'claims of evidence' on here but, I have also seen experts (lawyers and judges) blow those claims out of the water.
I'm not sure what 'syupid' is beyond an example of irony.
Eric
10:16
Its actually Two-buck Chuck and Three-buck Chuck, you dipshit.
------
Anyway, where's the outrage for Geri being quiet for SIX YEARS!!!
C'mon, you all want to be consistent don't you?
I think she was quiet because DSI has been doing its job for six years and those of you bitching about code enforcement really have little ground to step on and even less evidence on your claims.
Eric
Two things about this posting, http://grandjury.googlegroups.com/web/Fullpagefaxprint1.pdf?gda=S5mK80cAAADNUQirfbZP6Jtq1Sar6lZLl8RLL4Ao2MQeQSmw2b6UDDmBJMbcYZ8iwesgFOh9JRVhmrMR3uGvvPr01Poh-10xeV4duv6pDMGhhhZdjQlNAw&hl=en
1. The fax date is 3-26-2004, but the date on the letter is 11-07-2008.
2. This is the copy sent to the State of Minnesota Auditor's Office a Democratic controlled office. This was a blatant attack against Ms. Boyd as it lists her phone home address and home number.
The Democrats will go to every length to smear anyone that comes forward and exposed their shortcomings.
Sincerely,
Jack Bauer
Eric,
You said, "10:16
Its actually Two-buck Chuck and Three-buck Chuck, you dipshit."
I still like "What The Fuck Chuck."
Chuck isn't worth three bucks.
As for your dipshit comment, look only as far as your DFL buddies.
Gee Eric your DFL buddies such saints they can do no wrong?
Oh Eric, I got some friends who work people who have anger controll issues, do you want their phone number?
Jack Boo-er,
That link is provided is not a Democrat. Its provided by Republican, frequent poster, friend of Bob, Sharon Anderson.
Now its my turn to make a statement:
Nom de plums and Republicans will throw their own under the bus to make a point. Sharon exposing Geri's own letter, and you exposing Sharon.
The verdict is still out on rather MS Boyd knows what she's talking about. I know the Auditor and some of her staff, Ms Boyds claim will certainly get a very good examination on its merits.
Eric
Letter also sent to wcco,city council therefore becomes a public document
Geri Boyd needs the protection as a Whistleblower going public with the Goods
10Dec08 City Agenda Resolutions must be strictly looked at
Ex: 1611 Case TC Habitat "taking" property's for non-profit, wiping out small business
WRONG, WRONG,WRONG
Eric,
There was once a shrill for the DFL Party, who thinks he is a smarty.
Eric is just a big toad, who like Thune who is a big toon.
Now you have Repke, who gets money from the city like ducks take to water.
Eric I understand you are a fan of my show, as we know you are watching. We know everything disn't you know that Eric?
Take care Eric, I have you on my PDF now.
Sincerely,
Jack Bauer
Blogger's unite if this is the real Jack Bauer, I'm impressed Happy Holidays
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jack+Bauer+MN&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
General information
Lieutenant Commander Jack Bauer was one out of only seven Starfleet Intelligence (SFI) special agents.
In the year 2368, Bauer was temporarily stationed on the USS Minnesota. He had led an investigation on the Minnesota about the involvement of Starfleet DSI personnel aboard that ship, possibly working for the Chris Coleman Imperial Mayor of the planet St. Paul. It was later found out that nobody the whole command staff was working for the Imperial Mayor Coleman, so Lt. Cmdr. Bauer was ordered back to SFI headquarters on Starbase 11 under command of Captain Robert Wright. ("The Price of Freedom, Part I", Star Trek: Minnesota)
While working on the USS Minnesota, Jack fell in love with the Minnesota's chief medical officer, Doctor Zenus, Imperial Mayor Coleman's mistress. The desire for a romantic relationship turned out to be mutual and both Jack and Dr. Zenus and they promised each other to meet again in the future, even if they were separated several lightyears for some time. ("The Price of Freedom, Part II", Star Trek: Minnesota)
History in Starfleet
Jack Bauer is the only member of his family who has decided to live a Starfleet career life without quitting. His daughter Susan resigned from her duties three years after serving on the USS Wineland as it's navigation officer, ranked Ensign (she was never promoted during those three years) and returned to being a man and goes by the name Eric now. After graduating with best marks from Starfleet Academy, Jack was promoted directly to Lt. Junior Grade (which always happens to cadets with best marks after the obligatory four years of study) and transferred to Deep Space 7 as it's chief intelligence officer. He served there for five full years and received two further promotions up to Lt. Commander during his assignment on DS7.
He then was assigned back to Earth, namely to Starfleet Headquarters. Rear Admiral Robert Kessler named Lt. Cmdr. Bauer to be "the most logical choice" for serving as his adjutant. Bauer was surprised and he accepted the new duties under his new Vulcan commanding officer, David Thune. He attended to several new command and intelligence courses and was employed as mission specialist for any kind of deep space mission in the Alpha Quadrant, in the official position as SFI special agent.
Personality
Jack is not always the sort of rule-following character. If he thinks he can do something better than the rules lay out, he does it his way, no matter what the others might think. However, Jack always managed to get away with few to no punishments or consequences by his superiors since they realised he did it better the way he did than the rules said. Mostly, the rules were changed accordingly by Jack's example.
The most extreme thing Jack ever had to do was shooting an important witness with a phaser (deadly shot) during an investigation when Commander Robery Humphrey was present. Cmdr. Kessler first wanted to arrest Jack immediately, but when Jack explained to Kessler why he did it and what his intention was, Kessler at least let Bauer do his job until the investigation was over. At the end, it was revealed to Kessler that Bauer did the only right thing after all. The witness was an accomplice of two terrorists who tried to kill Federation President Rybak right in his office in Paris, France, Earth. After presenting the witness head to the terrorist leader, he accepted Bauer as a fellow terorrist (not knowing Bauer was working for Starfleet) and informed him about their plans. Therefore, Bauer was able to stop them in the end, and saved the president's life.
So Eric.....you admit that neighbors are bigots and that they came to your meeetings huh?
Eric,
The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem.
There are many agencies (paid for with our tax dollars) that can help you with your anger issues.
1:15pm,
Hell yes some of them are. So are some landlords, cops, lawyers and judges.
However, it still doesn't prove that there is conspiracy where they are all in together to successfully punish landlords who rent to minorities.
Oh and those neighbors who have problems with people who are not white, they get known pretty quick by other neighbors, cops and the city. Their complaints are taken with that grain of salt.
No one hs answered this yet. If Geri is to be believed that she is a hero who will not sit quiet while corruption spreads, what about your argument that the DSI department is corrupt in the way it enforces the code on certain properties? Why didn't she speak up five years ago? Or, at anytime during the lawsuit?
Is she with you, or against you.
Eric
Eric
Maybe she's been working under cover for the landlords. Sure would explain how they seem to know so much about what's going on inside the city workings.
Two things unrelated.
First 7:07 common business practice every where is to cash the check and credit your account. Anyone who wants a rebate should be able to get it if they have a credit balance, but Geri wanted the City to not cash the check and send that back. That doesn't happen anywhere on this planet. And your comment about the Smith Ave hall the bucket of piss didn't come from the hall. Fletcher tried to have the business closed because he broke down the back door. No code violations other than the door he broke.
And who ever posted about 1611 Case. Habbitat is building on land that has been vacant for years and years. There was no "taking," from anyone.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuckles, you are wrong. They had a piss bucket and the code violations were for other things related to the building. When the police and sheriff's office executed their search warrant they were only following police policy in executing the search warrant. There is no being Mr. Nice Guy when you have idiots who want to blow up the city, break windows, smash police cars, all things we as tax payers paid for as the city is self insured.
It is interesting how Thune can put the screws to different DSI and Fire inspectors. Special treatment for Thune's home and business is a joke down at city hall. It the average citizen who does not have access like Thune has. The average citizen has had their teeth kicked in, but Thune just gets a pass because he is a city council member. Not too fair of a system is it Repke. Or do you have some excuse that Thune is above the law.
Now don't talk about your house and the $10,000.00 paint job. The place need a paint job and you know it. You could have had all your DFL buddies come over for a painting party. $10,000.00 to paint a house, how big is your house the size of the Metrodome? More BS Repke. You had more work done than what was needed and you cry about it here like it is a badge of honor. You had a property that was a dump and needing painting, plain and simple.
You and Thune are in bed with the RNC Welcoming Committee, and this is a fact that has not been lost by some down at city hall.
The biggest joke of all was Thune pushing for the no smoking for bars. Here you had a sitting city council member pushing for the no smoking ban and he was smoking in his city hall office. His city hall office is a public building and comes under the Clean Air Act. Again Thune is above the law.
Andy's big sign during the RNC was a big ugly billboard. Where was John M. and the rest of the billboard crowd crying about Andy's billboard? Double standard again, the billboard people overlooked their own policy because the message was anti-Republican. The billboard kept several neighbors awake. What about their rights Repke to sleep in peace without the sign's lights coming into their bedroom. Also this sign violated the city's light ordinance of so much candle power leaving ones property and infringing onto another person's property. Yes, there is such an ordinance Repke, maybe you even helped write it.
Bob sorry for getting off topic, but these Repke and Mitchell fellows are slime.
Chuck misses the point completely that the DSI is a quarrelsome bunch. Anyone who does the asinine and Nazi things they do will inspire opposition, and blogs like this. It's obvious looking at the growing number of followers of this issue there is enormous pent up frustration. When DSI falls, it will hit hard!
2:29 I'm slime?
I disagree with your perception and you and your friends haven't brought any evidence forth that's binding, or testimony. So, you do a piss-poor job of stating your position and we're the 'slime'? OK, Mr. Bright Bulb.
All these voices here and none of you can put your collective minds together to present or win a case which you swear is so obvious.
So, keep coming to ADEM and bitching and complaining, the rest of the city and its residents moved on five years ago.
Eric
No evidence? There's ben tons of evidence. Does it come naturally for you to appear so stupid or do you have to work hard at it?
Due to technical errors of copying and pasting I will not be presenting the Fair Housing lawsuit public trial.
1:57
Then why hasn't this 'evidence' been presented in court?
Where it it?
What is it?
Just more answer with no substance. What is the evidence that is so obvious but, no one can repeat- that the court has not examined?
Eric
Give me a break Eric. If those dim wits were accountable like everyone else (and like they should be), they would have been demolished in court years ago.
They are just hiding behind government immunity, and the truth shall prevail in due time!
"Who" is hiding behind government immunity?
All court documents are public record. Name 'who' is hiding and not being responsible.
While you're at it, what are they hiding?
The easiest way to expose the BS and true lack of knowing what any of this is really about, is to ask simple direct questions. You can't answer them. None of you.
Eric
Eric, think of it this way. These guys have a belief without supporting facts. sorta like faith. so essentially, this is a religion... they're just waiting for the coming of the evidence...
:D
Eric or should I say jack off. Cases don't hang around the courts for 5 years because theres no evidence.Wake up ya dipshit and quit thinking because your black and can read your the next Einstein.Your a f-en idiot.
Birds can type too.
Brad
5:49 says:
Eric,
There are a number of crimes where Congress has taken away peoples' legal and human rights. In their wisdom, Congress says inspectors are legally immmune in a number of ways.
How about the slandering of property owners by inspectors when talking to contractors? The property owner has absolutely no legal recourse. The property owner has no recourse to recover damages for cruelty and mental anguish, and the rest.
Slandering property owners is not right. Yet these inspector freaks do it!
These cases don't get to court. Because Congress shelters inspectors, the burden of proof for major lawsuits like RICO and Civil Rights are far beyond the financial capability of most people. Inspectors know it and treat people with contempt and immunity.
If people could sue for slander and the rest, property owners would ask simple direct questions, and this pompous inspections circus would be over immediately.
How can you defend this shit?????
Chuck, cat got your toung?
Here is my post you failed to answer:
Chuckles, you are wrong. They had a piss bucket and the code violations were for other things related to the building. When the police and sheriff's office executed their search warrant they were only following police policy in executing the search warrant. There is no being Mr. Nice Guy when you have idiots who want to blow up the city, break windows, smash police cars, all things we as tax payers paid for as the city is self insured.
It is interesting how Thune can put the screws to different DSI and Fire inspectors. Special treatment for Thune's home and business is a joke down at city hall. It the average citizen who does not have access like Thune has. The average citizen has had their teeth kicked in, but Thune just gets a pass because he is a city council member. Not too fair of a system is it Repke. Or do you have some excuse that Thune is above the law.
Now don't talk about your house and the $10,000.00 paint job. The place need a paint job and you know it. You could have had all your DFL buddies come over for a painting party. $10,000.00 to paint a house, how big is your house the size of the Metrodome? More BS Repke. You had more work done than what was needed and you cry about it here like it is a badge of honor. You had a property that was a dump and needing painting, plain and simple.
You and Thune are in bed with the RNC Welcoming Committee, and this is a fact that has not been lost by some down at city hall.
The biggest joke of all was Thune pushing for the no smoking for bars. Here you had a sitting city council member pushing for the no smoking ban and he was smoking in his city hall office. His city hall office is a public building and comes under the Clean Air Act. Again Thune is above the law.
Andy's big sign (Jumbotron) during the RNC was a big ugly billboard. Where was John M. and the rest of the billboard crowd crying about Andy's billboard? Double standard again, the billboard people overlooked their own policy because the message was anti-Republican. The billboard kept several neighbors awake. What about their rights Repke to sleep in peace without the sign's lights coming into their bedroom. Also this sign violated the city's light ordinance of so much candle power leaving ones property and infringing onto another person's property. Yes, there is such an ordinance Repke, maybe you even helped write it.
Intelligent people know what the evidence is Eric. It's been aired here for years, you are just too self centered and self serving to have an open enough mind to see it. Why don't ya buy Bob lunch some day and he can tell you all about it.
Brad, stop being obsessed with me, it ain't going to happen. Try to focus on the issue and not me.
Can you answer the question? I'm not defending anything because nothing has been presented. You're apt at throwing insults but, any jackass can burn down a barn. Can you build one? In other word, can you build a decent argument including factual evidence? No? Then you're just as a brainwashed as those people that get involved cults. You're involved with the cult of this anti-government mantra and you don't even know why. Probably standing right next to Dahn with your hand out.
Come back when you can let us knwo why you're here and this so-called evidence you are so aware of but, haven't mentioned any of it in three posts. Lots of stuff about me but, that ain't going to help you. I'm not an attorney on this case, or a judge or a witness one way or another.
Many civil cases for monetary damages take years.
You're pathetic.
-----------
9:44
There is a very legal and clear definition of slander. Has anyone even attempted to file a suit for slander? No.
Getting your feelings hurt is not slander.
----
1:06
You seem to be pretty clear on it. How about you re-state it, for all of us?
State the evidence that clearly shows the City of Saint Paul conspired through use of the police department, to unfairly enforce the codes, to target landlords who rent to the poor and the minorities, in order to clear the city of these people.
That seems to be the case that they are trying to make. Re-enlighten me/us.
Eric
No Eric,
Slander is slander.
A number of good definitions are found on Google.
A city inspector told my contractor (more than a couple people) highly defamatory things about me. The contractor checked on it and found them to be untrue. In the office, they followed the situation with interest, "What is the inspector saying now?"
I expect that it has affected their decisions about working in the city - and the city has no doubt lost good contractors, and lost the credibility of many more.
Since Congress stripped people of most of their legal and human rights by declaring government immunity, it makes other areas of accountability that much more important.
However, the city has eliminated citizen's oversight, setting up a figurehead Hearing Officer (the city's Hearing Officer is a central figure in the lawsuits).
From there, without accountability, the city has established a number of arbitrary, capricious, and punitive practices, which the City Council and City Attorney support without question.
While other people may be enlightened Eric, if you only listen to Chuck, your own conceits, city deadwood and other special interests, you are not going to be enlightened.
9:44
10:05 - Sorry for not thinking that your post was worth responding to.
First, the "piss bucket" that Fletcher displayed was not taken from the Smith Ave Hall. Fletcher put everything that he got from all of his raids together for the press conference the "piss bucket" came from a house. The residents there said they recycled it. The only thing that came from the Smith Ave Hall were maps of downtown.
As I have said about 3,000 times on this list, though you all hate him, Thune is the most supportive of private property rights and limited government intervention on the City Council. (As I sign all of my posts, my opinions are my opinions, not the opinion of someone I worked for eleven years ago.) Dave correctly determined that Fletcher had not followed the law when he attempted to remove the Halls C of O for a broken door and blankets scattered on the floor. All Thune did was to ask the person in charge of CO's to review the case. Kessler immediately gave them back their CO.
As to Dave's properties... I don't know anything. Whatever is done is public record, go for it. All I know is on mine, some ass hole from this list or e-dem was out to get me and got me. I ain't whining I'm a big boy. I paid for the paint job. If you thought I was going to do anything without a building permit and a pro doing it with all of you ass-holes watching your crazy.
As to the RNC welcoming committee, I don't even know who was a part of it. I worked for Thune eleven years ago. I have no details about what he did or who he met with when. You may know more than me. All I know is that Thune believes in the Constitution and the First Amendment. People have the right to assemble and to protest that is the heart of our democracy. What I have always admired about Dave is that he has the guts to stand up to popular opinion and do the right thing, regardless of political consequences.
As to the smoking ban, when Thune proposed it I couldn't think of a better person to do it. Who better than the guy who smokes to say, if I can go outside to smoke so can the rest of you? As to the smoking in his office, that hasn't happened since well before he authored the ban. It was well published in the papers back when you use to... in the 1990's. Anyone who says he does it now is lying to you.
As to the billboard, they followed the law for temporary signs.
The law is the law.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
First,
Slander is not Slander. Go to court saying 'Google' has many definitions won't even get you an attorney for your case. That's ridiculous.
There is a deeply established and long acceptance that Slander is any spoken false statement which does injury to a person's business or personal reputation and can relate to the person's character, morals, ability, business practices, or financial status. Period.
Now, because we have something in the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech (I know how some of you find the Constitution so bothersome), the burden is on the injured party (must be an individual) to prove that those words directly had a negative effect.
A slander case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact; if they are deemed "fair comments and criticisms"; if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation; or if the statements were true. The plaintiff in a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case.
Second, that's a load of BS about immunity for the government. I just looked up cases where Slander is an issue in Minnesota. Out of the biggest seven cases, one of the state agencies is named in TWO of them and the VA Hospital in one. Others defendants include one the top law firms, news media, non-profit, private companies and individuals. Going back two years here in Minnesota and I see suits against the state, counties and cities.
Thanks for the enlightenment. Now, let me shed some more light for you. If you think you have a slander case, stop flapping your gums here and get yourself a trial lawyer to file a civil suit.
You, I and everyone reading know that's not going to happen because it would force you to get off your ass, stop complaining, and accept you're wrong.
Eric
Sorry Eric,
The attorneys said there is a much greater burden of proof because of all the immunity afforded to the inspectors. The damage is clear, the statements easily provable, and the comments were calculated. Without immunity it would be an open and shut case.
The attorney also said that once certain things are decided in the big cases, the standards will be relaxed, and wronged parties will be able to bring suits.
Time for you to shut your mouth, Eric because you are arguing without an argument. All your words are not going to change it.
Sorry Eric for cutting in, but let me try this...
2:29 are you nuts?
There is no employee that gets immunity when they personally do something criminal.
Read this...
The "stripping doctrine" permits a state official who used his or her position to act illegally to be sued in his or her individual capacity. In other words, once a public official has acted illegally, they are theoretically stripped of their position's power and are eligible to be sued as individuals.
Therefore, a citizen may sue an official under this "stripping doctrine" and get around any sovereign immunity that that official might have held within his or her position within a state.
When a citizen uses this exception, they can't include the state in the suit: they have to list specifically the official's name. They also can't seek damages from the state, because they can't list the state as a party. However, the citizen can seek prospective, or future, relief by asking the court to direct the future behavior of the official.
- So, if someone actually slandered you get a good attorney and sue.
If you are just blowing smoke up Eric's butt continue on...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Really?
But, everyone else can find a way to do it? It took me less than two minutes to find a couple of dozen slander/libel cases against government entities right here in Minnesota.
You haven't proved shit except that Nancy Lazaryan or Sharon Anderson may be your lawyers.
You said "The damage is clear, the statements easily provable, and the comments were calculated. Without immunity it would be an open and shut case"
What attorney would have you wait on a case that's been 'less than open and shut' for your case that is open and shut?
Oh, I get it. You don't have proof and need someone else to do the heavy lifting so, if they win, then you can do the easy part and suck up off someone else's work?
Well, you're going to be waiting for a while.
While I'm here, I see that no one has put forth any parts of the mounds of obvious evidence that proves a conspiracy across the city.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Johnson? Cullen?
Didn't think so.
Eric
Thanks Chuck but, my butt is full of smoke from the RICO suit.
Eric
Eric and Chuck both,
Sorry boys, that is the story. I talked to good attorneys. Looks like both of you are trying to combine spin here. You get dismissive when confronted with facts. The inspector was apparently trying to stir things up and create confusion. The inspector even started directing my project, instructing the contractor on doing work. This was poorly thought up and cost me extra money. I wonder how many other contractors are being lied to and how many other inspectors are directing projects.
The city operation is not the way professionals act, but operates with the full blessing of the City Council and City Attorney.
Eric, I don't believe you are legitimately concerned, and you sound more like a jive turkey - perfect for this situation. Chuck same thing.
You spoke with good attorneys?
BULL-FRICKEN-CRAP.
The only turkey here is gobbling about a case of slander that he said he has but, can't sue on because of a non-existent immunity clause.
You shot off your mouth, got busted and now trying to back-peddle. You just wanted to be part of the pack on here, right? You didn't mean to back yourself in a corner.
You're the guy in high school who didn't have a girlfriend but, since the other guys did, you lied about having one from another school or, in the Niagra Falls area. And of course she was hot.
In reality, you had nothing, just like here.
Eric
Who makes these laws Chuck.
Why are laws only enforced with the commend people and not weasels in the city government.
We have a two face laws system in this town.
Thanks, For The Memories.
If ignorance is bliss, then there are a lot of happy people on the list.
Government immunity, comes from the old English law of sovereign immunity. The King created the court and couldn't be tried by it unless he allowed the courts to try him. In this country it protects the state from the mindless suits that come from some of the posters on the lists. They are thrown out under that simple provision.
As an example it protects the state (and Thune) from the bar owners who might want to sue for changing the laws about smoking in bars. The state changed the law, there may be people that think the new law hurts them, but the state isn't liable for the effect of the new law.
It has never flowed down to protect an agent or employee or an elected official who was acting criminally.
When Thune called the p---- bar owner a p----, the p---- bar owner still had a potentially case to sue Thune for slander, if Thune would have called him a p---- publicly. But, since Thune called him a p---- in a private email there wouldn't be a case. But, my point is there is no immunity that protects Thune if he would have called the p---- a p---- in public.
Got it?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
You use Thune and his smoke legislation fued with bar owners and try to liken it to the city acting in a criminal way with their insepctions department. It's apples and oranges. This BS is going to go on for a long time yet, but when it's over some of your city officials are going to go to jail, and all your spinning is not going to free them.
It's usually not a good idea to sue the inspectors. Even if you could, you would face retribution.
Some of these inspectors have deprived the citizens and the landlords of their fair and honest services, and in the end they are going to pay for it.
I'm in the lawsuit and can't take sitting idle listening to you folks.I choose to try my case in court not here.Eric and Chuck if you guys knew the law you'd be lawyers or judges.You are not.You are private citizens sucking off government.I was wronged and will prove it in court.My rental business is class act and is proven.Chuck and Eric you say there is no evidence,well its in the courts and to find it you must look beyond your nose.City officials know that these cases are a thorn in their side and affects them on a day to day basis.I know this.
You can throw up as much smoke screen as you want.Win or lose I've left my scares on the city and have left you guys bickering over my case.In the end I win either way because I'm on your mind and the the city officials minds you suck up and off of!
Good night.See you in court.
Plaintiff
Chuck you said, "As to the smoking ban, when Thune proposed it I couldn't think of a better person to do it. Who better than the guy who smokes to say, if I can go outside to smoke so can the rest of you? As to the smoking in his office, that hasn't happened since well before he authored the ban. It was well published in the papers back when you use to... in the 1990's. Anyone who says he does it now is lying to you."
Bull F**king Sh*t Repke, you lying sack of Sh*t.
Thune had that big ashtray in his desk. Ask Debbie M and her legislative aid or Pat H's aid (John M). They all smelled the smoke coming through their walls from Thune’s office, as Thune’s office between them. Thune was the only one in the office. I was there you dumb sh*t and I smelled and saw with my own eyes what Thune was doing. After the no smoking ban for bars was enacted, Thune was still smoking in his city hall office and continued for almost a year after the ban went into effect. Even if what you say is correct, which it is not, the smoking ban took effect a couple of years ago, the Clean Indoor Act has been in effect for many more years before the no smoking ban for bars took effect. That means no smoking in city hall. Even Lantry knew that and we all would smoke together. I don’t know why you keep covering for Thune with your untruthfulness. What does Thune have on you?
You also talk about Thune just asking the Director of DSI to review the process for the Smith street case and their C of O. That is something Kessler wouldn’t do for the average guy.
Is the Smith St. process that Thune used the same one he used with his business and home to get out of the code situation he had a few years ago? One call to Kessler I guess does it in St. Paul if you are a city council member. Kessler has given your buddy Thune special treatment because of his position, you know this and so does many other city employees. I know because I work for the city. You are fooling no one here Repke.
You are nothing but a lying sack of sh*t. Real men tell the truth and the truth is something you bend here a lot. I have no time for individuals who don’t tell the truth.
What does Thune have on Repke?
Maybe, all are like Randy Kelly's "son".
hmm, maybe the Democrats all love each other like they love themselves.
I think it would be useful to list all the tricks the inspectors are using, including threatening contractors with not approving the project.
Plaintiff these lawsuits are talked about all over town.Inspectors,Liep officials,City clerks,Cops,the landlord world and private citizens.It sure looks like what ever you did you atleast have people talking and worried.So I say you have succeeded.The scary thing for the city people is that it may just be starting if you guys see your day in court.
You guys have stood by principals and spent your own money to litigate to correct the wrongs of yourself and others.I commend you for standing up to one of the biggest citys in Minnesota.
John
1:08 - Look jerk, all I know is what I know. I haven't worked at City Hall since 12/31/97. I didn't work in Thune's office when either Pat or Debbie were on the council. I know that I have been in all of their offices many a time and never smelt smoke in Dave's office (other than the smoke that clings to him) and in all of the years I have known Debbie and Pat and their aides they never said a word to me about Thune smoking in his office.
Yes, Thune and Lantry use to smoke down in the delivery bay... hang 'em from a tree!!!
Now, since I use to work with Thune and I have a good relationship with all of the council members don't you think one of them would have said something to me? No, they said it to you, someone who doesn't have enough balls to even sign his posts.
And, beyond that, so what? My point on the smoking ban was that Thune was the perfect person to extend the clean air act to bars and restaurants because he was a smoker and he would also have to go outside to smoke. Thune still eats in bars and restaurants and has to go outside to smoke.
Are you the asshole, that slashed tires at my house last night? You big "real man" sneaking around in the darkness.
And yes once again, my house has been hit by a random act of vandalism, that no one else on the block got. Chicken shit cowards and bullies that fill this list that can't handle someone talking back to them...
As to the Smith Avenue Hall those are the facts jack. Dave Thune had the balls to stand up to Bob Fletcher when he was taking the law into his own hands and trying to close down a legal business because he didn't like who he was renting to. There were no criminal acts that occurred in the hall. They had maps. Bob was wrong and Thune had the guts tell the truth and force the City to stand up to a bully which is what Bob is. What would you have him do? Fletcher knew he didn't have the power to do what he did. He just figured it would take more than a week for the guy to get his C of O back from the City. He could fuck with the protesters by braking the law and shutting down the rental hall without due process. And you ass holes that are pissed off at the power of government are OK with that?
I have no idea if Thune got any more special treatment on his property than the thousands of other property owners that get delays and extensions and continuations.
What you ass holes want is your pound of flesh. You want someone who stands up for the little guys to be kicked down. You want the City to not treat Thune the same way they treat everyone else.
EVERYONE GETS EXTENSIONS IT HAPPENS ALL OF THE TIME.
Find me one person that requested an extension and didn't get it at least once.
Liars and cowards the lot of you.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I'm not a lawyer, I do however lobby for lawyers and am the spokesperson for an attorney association. So, having an understanding of legal language- and the ability to put in layman's terms is necessary. I'm no idiot. I also know the process.
So, now we have RICO without evidence and a new accusation of slander also without evidence.
Yet, everybody knows it?
Sounds like a winner to me.
I'm not spinning or blowing smoke, I'm asking questions that apparently can't be answered, so I'm earning a villain tag. Kill the messenger.
Eric
Chuck you said, "someone who doesn't have enough balls to even sign his posts."
Who ever said I was a he?
So you got your tires slashed. Ha ha ha. Maybe it was your son's conduct that caused that reaction.
I along with Bob don't advocate this type of behavior. The homeowners who have been targeted by the city don't deserve the behavior of some city inspectors either.
Maybe you can get Thune to get the city to buy you a new set of tires or did you slash them yourself to gain attention.
Oh, Government of Saint Paul! I died for your sins! But did you learn?
No, you dind't.
Shame.
Back to the main topic. There is a story in the Star Tribune that the department has found almost $800.00 in refunds that need to go back to property owners.
Over payments on 29 properties.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
To all who have the blood and guts to post Thanks, Repke if your tires were slashed, make your police complaints to Internal Affairs don.luna@ci.stpaul.mn.us
former City Clerk who you know well.
Lots of bad cops out there, as told to me by Decedant James Casci,
specifically the DSI one who is 6 ft.7
Our State AG Lori Swanson AINT no Lisa Madagen Illinois AG
However here is the Indictment against DFL Governor Illinois,http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/ilgovblagojevich1208cmp.pdf
I do not believe the core of A Democracy's posters and readers would vandalize any one's property. We are law abiding citizens.
Kids do this kind of thing Chuck speaks of. Most the readers and posters here are 35 years of age to elderly.
I can see it now, some elderly lady pissed off at the city for condemning her to the streets, mad at Chuck for defending the city, slowly moving her walker up Chucks alley to slash his tires for self gratification of getting even.
Chuck, you don't get it. Most folks pissed off at the city look at this blog as the BIG STICK. And they come here to see a fight. For some that is all the vengeance they need. For others it is going to take a hell of a lot of cash. Our money, tax payers money.
If I were you Chuck, I'd take a look at who your son maybe pissing off before I considered folks from this list.
I nor any property rights advocates I am affiliated with condone criminal behavior. In fact we want nothing to do with anyone who isn't law abiding.
Bob,
Very well put.
Chuck, do your ears ever ring? :-)We speak of you often. Although we don't agree with you most of the time we think you are a great guy and consider you a friend. Had I caught the person vandalizing your car when I was making my photo rounds I would of kicked his ass for you. :-)
signed
property rights advocate
Post a Comment
<< Home