Citizens of Saint Paul -vs- The City of Saint Paul Part 6 "SMRLS Attorneys say GUILTY"
Scroll down the page for parts 1 thru 5.
Note: The Fair Housing Lawsuit complaints are located to the right of the screen under the Scales of Justice.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
Note: The Fair Housing Lawsuit complaints are located to the right of the screen under the Scales of Justice.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Wednesday, January 21, 2009
2 Comments:
Testimony of SMRLS attorney PERRY de STEFANO
I left out some of the legal mumbo jumbo and posted the meat of this testimony.
There maybe copy errors.
Q. Perry, let's go back to the summer of 2004 time
23 period. And we were talking about Robert King
24 who became a client yours and apparently was a
25 caretaker of a property located at 321 Bates
1 Avenue in the City of St. Paul, do you recall
2 that?
3 A. Yeah, I'm not sure that's the exact address but
4 I recall Robert King was on Bates.
5 Q. Do you recall if you represented the owners of
6 that particular property that he was caretaking
7 at?
8 A. I clearly did not.
9 Q. Okay. And you didn't represent the tenant,
10 other tenants in that property, did you, at any
11 time?
12 A. I believe I did have another tenant there under
13 contract, yes.
14 Q. Okay. Was that a tenant that was occupying
15 that property at 321 Bates during the summer of
16 2004?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you some documents and
19 that may be a little easier for you to refresh
20 your memory. I'm going to show you what's been
21 marked as Exhibit 2 and I've got a copy here
22 for Portia.
23 And, Tom, I'm going to have you look
24 at the exhibit, if you would. I apologize for
25 not having an extra copy.
1 I'm showing you what's been marked
2 as Exhibit 2. And it, just for the record,
3 it's been marked as STP 018291 through 018293.
4 I want you to take a look at that if you would,
5 please, for a minute. And it appears to be a
6 letter that you had authored to one of the
7 councilmembers at the City of St. Paul.
8 Does that look familiar to you?
9 A. It does.
10 Q. Okay. Just for the record too, I had produced
11 copies of the documents that I had received
12 from the City of St. Paul with STP Bate numbers
13 to you maybe two, three weeks ago. Do you
14 recall getting those documents?
15 A. I do recall getting the packet from you.
16 Q. Through one of your colleagues at your office?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. Okay. Was this one of the documents that was
19 included in that packet that I sent to you?
20 A. I do recall that, yes.
21 Q. The August 11th, 2004, letter that you prepared
22 and sent to Councilmember Kathy Lantry that's
23 three pages represented by this exhibit, that
24 particular letter, did that summarize your
25 involvement on behalf of your client,
1 Mr. Robert King, up to that point in the
2 summer?
3 A. I believe this letter summarizes the hearing
4 and the subsequent hearings.
5 Q. Okay. Your involvement on behalf of Mr. King
6 with the City, whether it was at the
7 legislative hearings or filing the appeal
8 dealing with the Inspection Department dealing
9 with hearing officers would be at least the
10 topics of your letter to Ms. Lantry?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Okay. Now I notice in the first paragraph of
13 your letter that you were including with your
14 letter some additional correspondence and
15 documents. And what I did is I made copies of
16 those and I've marked them in the order that
17 they're referenced in that paragraph there that
18 talks about the July 22nd inspection notice.
19 Okay. So what I'm going to do is, actually the
20 first one is the August 5th letter from you and
21 I've marked that as Exhibit 3.
22 And, Portia, I'm going to give you a
23 copy of that there. And Tom and Perry, I'll
24 give you the exhibit itself marked as Exhibit
25 3, the August 5th, 2004, letter.
1 And then the next document that's
2 referenced, that was at least referenced in
3 your letter is a July 22nd, 2004, inspection
4 notice from the City of St. Paul which I'm
5 handing to you, it's marked Exhibit 4. And,
6 Portia, I'm going to give you a copy of that
7 document as well which is, it looks like four
8 pages and then it has an attached bulletin
9 that's two pages. Do you see that?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. Okay. And then the next document was a July
12 27th letter from the owner of the property to
13 Marcia Moermond for the City of St. Paul as a
14 hearing officer.
15 And the final document I believe
16 that's referenced in your letter is the
17 July 29th letter to the Legislative Hearing
18 Officer from your staff, which I've marked as
19 Exhibit 5 -- oh, 6. Okay. And, Portia, I'll
20 give you a copy of that July 29th, 2004,
21 letter. Thank you, Tom.
22 All right. Let's look at the group
23 of documents together. I just want to ask you
24 some questions. And if you need to refer to
25 the documents that we've marked here as
1 exhibits feel free to do that, Perry.
2 MR. KAYSER: Do you have any other
3 copies of these documents other than what
4 you've given us here so I have my own set?
5 MR. SHOEMAKER: Sure. I'll tell you
6 what, can you just give me two minutes and I'll
7 get them for you, Tom.
8 MR. KAYSER: Sure.
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you. Let's
10 just go off the record for a minute.
11 (Off the record discussion.)
12 MR. KAYSER: I think we have another
13 observer.
14 MR. SHOEMAKER: Matt, do you want to
15 do the introduction there, please?
16 MR. ENGEL: Also joining us is
17 Plaintiff Joseph Collins from the Gallagher, et
18 al., versus Magner, et al., suit.
19 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. Just let the
20 record reflect that I gave a copy of the August
21 11th, 2004, letter, August 5th, 2004, letter,
22 both from Mr. de Stefano's office, and the July
23 22nd letter as well, I should say from the Fire
24 Prevention Office, and the July 27th letter
25 from the owner. And I think the final one was
1 the July 29th letter, right, from your office
2 as well.
3 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
4 Q. The August 11th letter, Perry, that you sent to
5 Councilmember Lantry, what was the purpose of
6 your sending that correspondence to her with
7 the copies as noted on the third page to the
8 other councilmembers as well as your client?
9 A. They closed the hearing on Mr. King and I was
10 supposed to get a decision by noon that day so
11 I can make written comments to the City
12 Council. They never did. So I was advocating
13 for my client and getting his position in to
14 City Council.
15 Q. At the time that you were preparing the letter
16 there of August 11th what was the situation
17 with the property at 321 Bates Avenue from a
18 standpoint of its legal occupancy status?
19 A. What was the status regarding --
20 Q. The property as far as for rental property?
21 A. At the time I wrote this letter?
22 Q. Right.
23 A. Boy, I don't recall exactly, so you might want
24 to look at a transcript of it. I believe it
25 was revoked, the Certificate of Occupancy might
1 have been revoked.
2 MR. KAYSER: Do you know?
3 THE WITNESS: No, I guess I don't.
4 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
5 Q. You were writing the letter expressing some of
6 the concerns that you had about the way the
7 City Council and the City and the Inspection
8 Department had dealt with the tenants of this
9 particular property, including the caretaker
10 tenant that you represented, correct?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Okay. What were your concerns that you were
13 expressing in your letter to Councilmember
14 Lantry with notice to the other councilmembers?
15 A. I believe the letter speaks for itself, it's
16 very specific.
17 Q. Well, I'm not asking you about the letter, I'm
18 asking you what you recall. And if you don't
19 recall then I'll have you go through the
20 letter. But you've had a chance to review the
21 letter prior to the deposition here recently.
22 And my question to you is that from my review
23 of the letter it looks like there were a number
24 of complaints that you were expressing to the
25 City Council about the way that the Inspection
1 Department had handed this particular rental
2 property that included tenants that were
3 protected class members.
4 Can you tell me what your concerns
5 were that you were expressing to the City
6 Council as of August 11th, 2004?
7 A. One was, I guess go to paragraph number two on
8 page two. I recall unit number one was being
9 condemned for being overcrowded, and yet no one
10 lived there, they had vacated. And it was our
11 position that should no longer be condemned, if
12 it was condemned for being overcrowded no one
13 lived there.
14 The second one that was quite
15 concerning is the inspection notices were never
16 sent out.
17 Q. You're talking about the inspection notices
18 that were prepared by the Code Enforcement arm
19 of the City, the Five Prevention Office?
20 A. That's right. I got copies of the inspection
21 notices at the actual hearing.
22 Q. Was that in two separate hearings where you got
23 two separate notices?
24 A. That's correct. And so that was a big concern,
25 as they represent in the letters they were sent
1 out and I got them at the hearing.
2 Q. How much longer let's say in the first case
3 where you got a notice, the date of the notice
4 to the time that you actually go to the
5 hearing, how much delay time are you recalling?
6 A. You know, I don't recall but you could probably
7 answer your own question by just looking at the
8 date of the letter and see when the hearing is.
9 But I, it was like three years ago so I don't
10 recall.
11 Q. You do remember two different notices that were
12 not received by you and your client until you
13 actually got to the hearings?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Okay. So that was a concern for you from a
16 standpoint of just providing notice to the
17 caretaker as to what needed to be done as far
18 as the position of the Fire Prevention officer?
19 A. That's correct, and we were to have those
20 repairs done by the hearing or make progress.
21 And, of course, we didn't have notice of the
22 repairs until the hearing.
23 Q. So if you didn't have notice ahead of time
24 there's no way that you could comply with the
25 request for compliance with the code by the
1 time of the deadline which was the hearing?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. All right. So, obviously, that's a concern for
4 you from a standpoint of fair play is it?
5 A. Yeah, I think I -- yeah, I did.
6 Q. What other concerns did you have that you
7 noticed to the City in your letter here of
8 August 11th, 2004?
9 A. I believe there was an inspection that was
10 supposed to occur on August 10th regarding the
11 status of repairs that did happen which never
12 happened.
13 Q. Tell me a little bit about that. How was that
14 in your mind supposed to have been set up?
15 A. The inspector was supposed to go out and
16 inspect the premises prior to an August 10th
17 hearing to report back on what repairs were
18 made, which ones weren't, and they didn't.
19 Q. So then when you got to the hearing what was
20 effect of the non-inspection by the inspector
21 in charge of this property?
22 A. The repairs that were done we had pictures of
23 and they had to go inspect them to confirm it
24 was done. For some reason the pictures weren't
25 good enough and that never happened.
1 Q. Okay. Now do you attribute that to any
2 particular individual or party's fault?
3 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection,
4 calls for speculation.
5 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't know.
6 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
7 Q. Was your client supposed to contact the
8 Inspection Department, have the property
9 accessible for an inspection?
10 A. No, the inspector would contact them as the
11 normal routine, so I don't know that.
12 Q. All right. What other concerns did you have
13 that are stated in your letter about the way
14 that the inspection process was actually
15 conducted here?
16 A. Well, there was stuff that was backdated. The
17 July 22nd letter had a re-inspection date of
18 July 12th, so the re-inspection date was
19 preceding the actual inspection.
20 Q. And you could see that in the exhibit. They're
21 a couple down from you. I think you'll see
22 that in the first paragraph of the July 22nd
23 letter.
24 MR. KAYSER: Also identify the
25 exhibit.
1 MR. SHOEMAKER: What exhibit number
2 is that marked there?
3 THE WITNESS: I believe it's 4.
4 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
5 Q. Okay. And it's the first paragraph of the
6 first page of that with STP 019895, is that
7 correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And that's what you're referring to, the
10 re-inspection date there was set up for
11 July 12th which is actually ten days earlier
12 than the date of the notice?
13 A. Yeah, yeah.
14 Q. Okay. Why did that concern you?
15 A. Well, he's supposed to, that re-inspection
16 date's the date that repairs are supposed to be
17 made. And by time the notice was drafted it
18 was overdue.
19 Q. Okay. Did that have an effect that you could
20 see that was somehow adverse to your client?
21 A. Again I don't think we got this one until the
22 actual hearing. This is one of them so --
23 MR. KAYSER: The one you're
24 referring to, Exhibit 4?
25 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
1 Q. You didn't get that until the subsequent
2 hearing with the legislative hearing officer?
3 A. So I guess it really had no effect because we
4 had no notice of the repairs in the first
5 place. But it was a concern that I raised.
6 Q. Let me just take these exhibits back for a
7 minute.
8 Let's continue with the August 11th,
9 2004, letter that you had sent. What are some
10 of the other concerns that you had about the
11 way that the Inspection Department was working
12 on this particular property other than what
13 you've already indicated, Perry?
14 A. Well, there's a paragraph three. I guess it
15 doesn't really state any facts.
16 Q. You're looking at that paragraph, are you?
17 A. I guess I'm onto page three now.
18 Q. Okay. I was going to refer your attention to
19 paragraph three that you just referenced
20 because that seems to be a conclusion, more of
21 a paragraph that has conclusory statements by
22 you about what you think the effect of the
23 overall conduct by the Inspection Department on
24 this particular four-plex rental property
25 actually had, is that correct?
1 A. That is. And again the purpose of the letter
2 I'm advocating for my client here, that's what
3 that was.
4 Q. Now did you have a concern that the neighbors
5 of this particular property had been making
6 false allegations, false charges about the
7 occupants including your client, the caretaker?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Tell me a little bit about what you believed
10 were false allegations and false charges about
11 conduct that you recall.
12 A. There was allegations that the caretaker was
13 involved in criminal drug activity.
14 Q. And what efforts did you take to investigate
15 whether or not that, in fact, was occurring?
16 A. Well, what I did is I asked him and he said --
17 I guess that's attorney-client but --
18 Q. Did you make some independent contact, however,
19 with the police department of the City to
20 confirm for yourself independently of your
21 client whether or not there was an issue there
22 that would collaborate what the neighbors were
23 complaining of?
24 A. Yeah, I called Officer Ruth Ann Eide of the
25 FORCE unit.
1 Q. Okay. And were you satisfied from discussions
2 with her that the neighbors' allegations with
3 regard to alleged drug dealing were, in fact,
4 untrue?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What other allegations do you recall that the
7 neighbors were making about the property,
8 occupants of the property, tenants, maybe your
9 client, that type of thing. I know you've
10 listed some of the others in your letter.
11 A. I don't recall so I'm going to have -- it
12 happened a long time ago.
13 MR. KAYSER: Well, do you want to
14 read the exhibit?
15 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
16 Q. You can certainly do that.
17 A. Sure.
18 Q. Take a minute to take a look at that and then
19 that way you can answer the question.
20 A. (Witness reading exhibit.)
21 Q. Do you recall if there was a complaint by the
22 neighbors that, for example, the grass had been
23 too long and you actually went out and did some
24 investigation about that?
25 A. I did. And I know that's a false statement.
1 So I went out there myself and there was mulch.
2 This guy mulched all the ground cover so there
3 was no weeds, tall weeds as the neighbors
4 represented. It was pretty clear that it was
5 just mulch, it clearly was not.
6 Q. All right. So did you take position that if,
7 in fact, the neighbors' allegations with regard
8 to long grass being false, well, then you
9 questioned whether or not any of the other
10 allegations that they were making had any
11 validity as well?
12 A. That's true, that's what I'm implying.
13 Q. Do you remember any other specific allegations
14 that the neighbors were making that you
15 independently proved to yourself that were not
16 valid?
17 A. They claimed there were squatters living in the
18 building, that they were sneaking in. And I
19 went over there one day to take pictures I
20 believe and I couldn't even get in the
21 building, it was secured. So I found that to
22 be false as well.
23 Q. The way that Inspector Pat Fish handled the
24 inspection role on behalf of the Fire
25 Prevention Office, do you have an opinion as to
1 whether she acted appropriately with notices
2 and with the way that she conducted
3 inspections, that type thing?
4 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection as
5 to form, speculation.
6 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
7 Q. Did you have any contact with Inspector Fish?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How much contact did you have with her?
10 A. I called her on this case and spoke with her at
11 the hearing.
12 Q. So you had a couple of communications with
13 Inspector Fish?
14 A. About Robert King, yes.
15 Q. Okay. What do you recall from your
16 communications with her as to how she handled
17 the City's inspection role on this particular
18 four-plex?
19 A. Well, the big concern I had was not getting
20 copies of the inspection reports.
21 Q. You yourself not being copied?
22 A. Either me or my client, Mr. King, in our goals
23 to fix the place up so --
24 Q. Was it your understanding that there had been a
25 request by your client caretaker to the
1 Inspection Department to receive inspection
2 reports?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And had Ms. Fish acknowledged that request and
5 said that she was going to provide the notices?
6 A. I don't recall it, again it was a long time ago
7 so --
8 Q. I understand that when you went to the first
9 legislative hearing you had with you a June
10 notice of Revocation of the Certificate of
11 Occupancy, do you recall that, that that's what
12 started the process off as far as for the
13 appeal?
14 A. I appealed a June notice, I'm not sure if it
15 was a revocation though but it was a June
16 notice.
17 Q. There had been a condemnation for overcrowding
18 on one of the units, I know you mentioned that
19 earlier.
20 A. I don't think that was a June notice though.
21 Q. And you brought photographs to that initial
22 hearing as well?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. All right. That had been taken by your staff?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Of the property?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you still have those photographs in your
4 file at Legal Aid?
5 A. There are two photos in the file. The photos
6 we gave for the hearing with the City we don't
7 have.
8 Q. The photos, did they depict the work that had,
9 in fact, been completed by the time of that
10 hearing?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And was it your opinion that, in fact,
13 substantial repairs had been made that would
14 have been concern to Inspector Fish by the time
15 of that first hearing in June?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So what was the City's response, did they
18 reissue the Certificate of Occupancy and allow
19 the tenants back into the building in full
20 form?
21 A. No, I believe their response was they had to
22 see it for themselves, which I believe is why I
23 mentioned the subsequent inspection. And then
24 they actually, it looks like they had a team
25 inspection based on these other exhibits and
1 cited them for multiple other things.
2 Q. Yeah, it was your understanding though from
3 talking with the inspector, with the hearing
4 officer, with those that were responsible for
5 the property that just prior to your
6 involvement this four-plex had been through a
7 renewal inspection for the Certificate of
8 Occupancy and actually had been granted a
9 renewal by the City, isn't that correct?
10 A. I wasn't aware of that, no.
11 Q. You weren't aware of that?
12 A. I don't recall knowing that.
13 Q. Yeah, if the City records indicate that that's
14 the fact you just hadn't reviewed them, is that
15 what you're saying?
16 A. I didn't know that so I don't have knowledge of
17 that.
18 Q. Are you familiar with any correspondence that
19 was issued by the neighbors in complaining
20 about this property, sending that
21 correspondence to Kathy Lantry, councilmember's
22 office?
23 A. I was aware of correspondence or knowledge of
24 it at the hearing.
25 Q. You got a copy of that correspondence from
1 neighbors to Kathy Lantry's office, did you,
2 while you were at the hearing?
3 A. No, they, I believe they said they would give
4 me some but I didn't get any. I believe the
5 first I got it was from you.
6 Q. Okay. So you had never seen the email
7 correspondence from the neighbors to Ellen
8 Biales, the councilmember's aide for
9 Councilmember Lantry, until I provided you a
10 copy of that?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. All right. Had you seen the May correspondence
13 from the neighbors to Councilmember Lantry
14 before I provided you with a copy?
15 A. I don't think so.
16 Q. Did you review that correspondence after I
17 provided you a copy?
18 A. I read through it, yeah.
19 Q. All right. Did that raise any concerns to you
20 about the way the neighbors were using the
21 Inspection Department to vacate a property that
22 you claim had protected class members housed
23 within it?
24 A. Well, if you ask my opinion on it, yeah, it
25 did, yeah.
1 Q. And you hadn't known about the neighbors'
2 involvement to that degree prior to receiving
3 the documents that I forwarded to you?
4 A. The neighbors complained at the hearings so --
5 Q. A couple of the hearings, correct?
6 A. Yeah, so I got the wind that this might be
7 neighborhood issues at the hearing, at the
8 actual hearing, yeah.
9 Q. But it was your feeling that at least as of
10 August 11th, 2004, that the inspection office
11 of the City had set this particular property up
12 for failure?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Tell me a little bit why you believe
15 that.
16 A. I believe that again based on not getting the
17 inspection reports so the repairs couldn't be
18 made, get made, things of that nature.
19 Q. Okay. The things that you've pointed out
20 earlier by looking at your August 11th, 2004,
21 letter?
22 A. Yes, I think I summarized it in the letter, my
23 concerns.
24 Q. How did you determine that the occupants of the
25 building had been protected class members?
1 Tell me a little bit about how you did that.
2 A. Well, I know Mr. King is African-American.
3 Q. From your personal observations and dealings
4 with him?
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. Tell me about any of the other occupants that
7 you confirmed were also members of minority or
8 what would be protected class members under
9 state or federal law.
10 A. I believe another person that lived in that
11 building came to my office who also was
12 African-American.
13 Q. Okay. Is it your understanding from your
14 involvement with this four-plex rental property
15 that during the time period that the City was
16 conducting inspection activity in 2004 that all
17 of the tenants in that property were protected
18 class members?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Were all of the occupants of the property
21 African-Americans?
22 A. All the ones that I had personal knowledge of
23 were.
24 Q. Which are the two that you just indicated?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you have any basis to believe that the
2 others may have been African-American?
3 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection,
4 calls for speculation.
5 THE WITNESS: Attorney-client
6 privilege, I don't know.
7 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
8 Q. All right. So, in other words, one of your
9 clients may have told you something?
10 MR. KAYSER: You don't have to
11 answer that question.
12 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
13 Q. Do you know if any of the occupants of the
14 building during the time that the City was
15 focusing their inspection activities on that
16 building were disabled in any type of manner?
17 A. Again I'm going to have to raise
18 attorney-client privilege on that.
19 Q. The concerns that you had here that you've
20 outlined in paragraph three, page two of your
21 August 11th letter, Exhibit 2, have you seen
22 this type of activity by City code inspectors
23 with tenants in any other case like this?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Let's focus before, the time period before this
1 particular matter here. Prior to getting
2 involved with Mr. King had you seen any type of
3 City code inspection activity that had had a
4 disparate impact on protected class?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And subsequent to the time that you were
7 representing Mr. King have you seen City
8 inspection activity on housing in the City
9 having a disparate impact on protected class
10 tenants?
11 A. Well, that's kind of conclusionary I guess. I
12 seen similar fact patterns to this I guess.
13 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, let's look in a broad
14 sense first. Tell me the general nature of the
15 other situations that come to mind in response
16 to my question.
17 A. I recall a couple cases where there were
18 complaints about African-American males hanging
19 out on the corners. I recall shortly
20 thereafter buildings of clients I represented
21 being condemned for small repairs.
22 Q. Those buildings that your clients occupied,
23 were they adjacent or very close to where these
24 complained activities were occurring?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Tell me how close.
2 A. One was right on the corner just like this one
3 (indicating). Another one --
4 Q. Just like the 321 Bates property?
5 A. Yes. Another one I don't have personal
6 knowledge on but my clerk reported back to me
7 it was fairly close to the corner.
8 Q. Okay. So you had two situations there, two
9 different properties. Any others that can you
10 recall right now?
11 A. Yeah, there is, there's been more than two,
12 yeah.
13 Q. That you personally have dealt with as an
14 attorney?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. How about others within your office that
17 you have had any conversations with, and I'm
18 talking about attorneys. Any other attorneys
19 that have voiced concerns about the way that
20 the City Inspection Department has operated
21 with regard to having some type of an adverse
22 effect on protected class tenants --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- in the City?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. How many times have you heard that from other
2 attorneys in your office?
3 A. Boy, I'd be guessing.
4 Q. More than once?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. More than five times?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you think more than ten times?
9 A. I mean I'd be guessing but -- so I'm not sure.
10 Q. Okay. Well, I don't want you to guess but if
11 you have a sense as to how often you've heard
12 that I'd like to know that.
13 A. I'd say it probably was more than ten.
14 Q. Okay. What time period are we talking about
15 with regard to the two situations that you
16 referenced, when approximately? You said one
17 prior to this particular 321 Bates Avenue
18 matter that you handled?
19 A. I don't think I said one.
20 Q. Well, maybe more than one before?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. Okay. Tell me what you recall prior to your
23 involvement on behalf of Mr. King at 321 Bates
24 Avenue.
25 A. There was some other buildings with minor
1 repairs that were condemned.
2 Q. Okay. What were the nature of the buildings
3 that then were focused on by the City to the
4 level of condemnation, what kind of buildings
5 are you talking about, were they single-family
6 homes?
7 A. They're going to be a combo of two just the way
8 I look at them. When they come in they're
9 going to be two units or less or three units or
10 more, and that's just the way I look at them.
11 I'm not going to be able to answer.
12 Q. Do you remember if it was a triplex or larger?
13 A. One subsequent were --
14 Q. Subsequent to the 321 Bates matter?
15 A. Yeah, were triplex or larger, a couple of them
16 were two or less.
17 Q. Okay. And these were all subsequent to the --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- 321 Bates matter?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Let's focus then on prior to the 321
22 Bates matter. Do you remember the type of
23 structure whether it was duplex and smaller or
24 a --
25 A. I don't remember, it was so long ago. I'm
1 sorry.
2 Q. All right, okay. So we've got some situations
3 prior to 321 Bates in the summer of 2004 where
4 there was inspection activity that concerned
5 you. And we've got some events after the 321
6 Bates Avenue matter where you represented
7 Mr. King where the inspection activity directed
8 against what you believe were protected class
9 concerned you.
10 Let's focus on the most recent
11 activity if that will be helpful for you in
12 recall. What do you recall as the most recent
13 situation where you were concerned about a
14 condemnation of a property for minor issues
15 where you had protected class tenants living in
16 the property?
17 A. Okay. There was one where there was a
18 complaint about African-Americans hanging out
19 on the corner. I had a clerk that reported back
20 to me saying she overheard an inspector state,
21 "Well, let's call Pat Fish." Within a week
22 later that condemnation for that right down the
23 street came into my office and it was condemned
24 for a greasy stove I believe. And that
25 concerned me.
1 Q. How many occupants were in that property about
2 the time that the condemnation took place, do
3 you know?
4 A. I was so busy I don't recall, I wish I
5 remembered. I was representing just one family
6 in it and I just presume this is three units or
7 more. I'd be guessing so I guess I don't know.
8 Q. Did the family come to you subsequent to the
9 condemnation so that you would know that
10 there's an issue there that the housing is
11 going to be no longer available?
12 A. She wanted my help to stay, that was her house.
13 Q. But when she came to you was it after the
14 condemnation took effect?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. Do you know what the difference is between
17 condemnation and an actual order to vacate
18 date?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. So you understand that in the
21 condemnation placard that the City posts on the
22 property there will be an indication as to when
23 the occupants actually have to leave the
24 property, correct?
25 A. Usually, yeah.
1 Q. Usually, okay. Have you seen situations where
2 there isn't an actual date?
3 A. I've seen situations where it's been posted and
4 the date's already expired.
5 Q. Okay. How many times have you seen that?
6 A. The one I just told you about.
7 Q. All right. So by the time the posting on the
8 property occurred by the City the occupants
9 were already supposedly in violation of the
10 order to vacate?
11 A. They were.
12 Q. Were they still in the property as far as you
13 knew?
14 A. They definitely were.
15 Q. Was there some efforts by the City to try to
16 them out of the property because of date of the
17 vacate?
18 A. Yes, they charged them criminally with a
19 misdemeanor.
20 Q. Were you representing them to just get back
21 into the property or to try to avoid, to defend
22 against the criminal misdemeanor charges?
23 A. Well, we represented them to get the repairs
24 made from the owner and so they could stay in
25 their home. Legal Aid doesn't do criminal work
1 but since it was so closely related I got
2 permission from our director to work on the
3 misdemeanor case and then referred it out to a
4 criminal attorney as well to get some help. I
5 don't do criminal so, yeah.
6 Q. What was the resolution there of this issue
7 about the condemnation where you believe that
8 there were minor repairs? Tell me a little bit
9 about that.
10 A. We had pictures of the unit just like we would
11 in most normal cases. And the repairs were, I
12 said they were minor. And I don't think --
13 that was a greasy stove, you really couldn't
14 tell from the pictures. And I don't recall the
15 other repair sites but they were pretty minor,
16 they were minor.
17 Q. Now this unit you're talking about is in a
18 multi-unit rental property, correct?
19 A. There was more than one unit, yes.
20 Q. Was the condemnation as to the entire structure
21 or the entire dwelling?
22 A. Nope, just hers.
23 Q. Just her unit?
24 A. Yep.
25 Q. Do you have any independent knowledge as to the
1 nature of the race of other occupants in the
2 other units?
3 A. That would be attorney-client privilege,
4 unfortunately.
5 Q. Okay. But you didn't make any independent
6 observations at the property --
7 A. No.
8 Q. -- seen any of the other tenants?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. But you knew that this particular client
11 from your observations was African-American?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was she ever able to get back into her home?
14 A. Nope. She was so upset we actually sued the
15 landlord in the tenant remedy action. The City
16 Attorneys showed up, which that was a surprise
17 to me since they weren't a party. And the
18 owner settled, gave her some money so she could
19 find a new place to go. And that's what
20 happened.
21 So I was able to help her find
22 housing. That was her goal, to make sure she
23 wasn't homeless so, yeah.
24 Q. How long of a period was she without a home
25 because of the condemnation order to vacate?
1 A. I went in immediately the same day I believe,
2 or within 24-hour notice, and got an order from
3 the District Court stopping any move out of her
4 through the police or whatever unless further
5 order of the Court. So I stopped that. So I
6 don't think she was actually out on the street
7 for a day. I think they cited her criminally
8 for being there.
9 Q. Did she have any family members with her or was
10 she a sole occupant under the lease?
11 A. It was a family.
12 Q. Family. How many children, if any?
13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. Also African-American family members?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. This was more recent than the summer of 2004,
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. What year are we talking about here with
20 this generally if you can remember?
21 A. A lot of cases. Again it's going to be after
22 2004 and, you know, I'd be guessing. It might
23 be somewhere between --
24 MR. KAYSER: Do you know?
25 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
1 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
2 Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about the other
3 case or cases where subsequent to 321 Bates
4 property you made some observations about
5 similar type of conduct by City inspection
6 officials.
7 A. There was a case, African-American family,
8 kids, corner house somewhere in St. Paul, got
9 condemned. Spoke with the inspector, forget
10 the inspector's name. He claimed there were
11 squatters there and he was condemning it. I
12 asked him, again I don't remember the name,
13 what emergency repairs need to be made so they
14 could stay. His position was, "Well, they're
15 squatters so that's the way it is, none.
16 They've all got to made."
17 And the building was essentially
18 condemned for no screens. The allegations they
19 raised in the repair order we went to go take
20 pictures of, tall grass. There was no tall
21 grass. Junk in the yard with -- they had kids,
22 they had some toys in the yard, they picked
23 them up.
24 So when we went out to take pictures
25 that kind of popped out as, "Hmm, that smells."
1 And there was complaints about
2 African-Americans hanging out on the corner.
3 Q. Out on the corner on the boulevard, sidewalk
4 type areas?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That particular property, what was the nature
7 of the code enforcement activity by the City,
8 was it just a citation of correction notices,
9 correction orders, or was it to the level of
10 condemnation?
11 A. Yeah, I don't, I don't recall. Well, it was
12 actually either a revocation or a condemnation
13 because it got my attention and they were
14 vacating so it had to be one of them.
15 Q. Okay. So the City inspection tool, enforcement
16 tool, was resulting in a mandatory departure of
17 the tenants of the property?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that's how you got involved?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were you able to avoid having the occupants of
22 that property have to leave their home?
23 A. No, they eventually had to leave. I think we
24 cut a deal on a move-out date, they gave us
25 some time. I don't think they were able to get
1 out in time. And, you know, I think they, I
2 eventually lost contact with them. I don't
3 know what happened to them.
4 Q. Now there's two situations following the 321
5 Bates matter with Mr. King that you've been
6 able to recall. Are there other situations
7 where you were concerned subsequent to the 321
8 Bates 2004 matter that would be similar to this
9 that we've been talking about?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell me as much as you know about this third
12 case following the Bates matter.
13 A. There was a case where I had an active tenant
14 remedy action place a legitimate repair
15 problems. It appeared the owner walked away.
16 I don't know if it was in bankruptcy or
17 foreclosure. But we got an administrator
18 appointed to take over operation of the
19 building to make repairs.
20 The building wasn't condemned when
21 we started the action. The inspection came
22 back over, mind you it's in a lot better shape
23 now than it was when we started 'cuz we had a
24 professional management company making repairs
25 and they condemned it.
1 Q. Now was this VIP as an administrator?
2 A. I believe so, yeah.
3 Q. All right. Joe Bianz' group?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Have you had any dealings with Mr. Bianz
6 over the years?
7 A. I don't know what you mean by that.
8 Q. Well, from a standpoint of have you had
9 communications with him other than this
10 particular time?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. How have you found Mr. Bianz from a
13 standpoint of an individual in the community,
14 is he pretty straightforward with you?
15 A. Oh, the limited times I've talked to him, yes.
16 Q. Okay. Have you observed any of the work that
17 his company has ever performed on properties?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What type of repair from a professional
20 standpoint have you observed his company does?
21 A. I'm not a contractor so I wouldn't know. But I
22 do know from personal knowledge and going to
23 cases and then having inspectors come in and
24 inspect it to see if it's up to code and then
25 passing so --
1 Q. Okay. So you've seen that City inspectors --
2 MR. KAYSER: We're going to take a
3 break.
4 MR. SHOEMAKER: That will be fine,
5 Tom. Let's do it.
6 MR. KAYSER: There may be a problem
7 here. I didn't realize you were going to get
8 into the Bianz. We may have a conflict.
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: That would be it,
10 that's the last question I've got for him.
11 MR. KAYSER: Then you can continue.
12 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. Thank you.
13 Should we take a break or --
14 MR. KAYSER: No, that's fine.
15 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. Thanks.
16 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
17 Q. Let's go back then to this I believe it would
18 be the third situation where you've just
19 described we had an administrator appointed and
20 the administrator did the repairs. And then
21 what happened after that point?
22 A. I think you misstated what I said. They did
23 some of the repairs. And then there was an
24 inspection. So when they re-inspected it
25 actually it's in better shape now than when it
1 was first inspected. When it was first
2 inspected it wasn't condemned. In the
3 subsequent inspection when it was in better
4 shape they condemned it.
5 Q. Okay. So let's go back for a second. When the
6 first notice came in after the first inspection
7 it was a correction type notice to the owner
8 that you have to do the following items in
9 order to meet the City's code compliance,
10 correct? Not a condemnation?
11 A. I mean I don't recall, I'd have to look.
12 Q. But it wasn't a condemnation as a result of the
13 first inspection of the property?
14 A. No.
15 Q. It was just a requirement by the owner to do
16 certain repairs?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Which then some of those repairs were done,
19 correct?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. All right. And then a subsequent inspection
22 actually resulted in condemnation of the
23 property?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. All right. And what was your conclusion based
1 upon that type of code enforcement activity on
2 that property?
3 A. I just thought that was pretty unusual when
4 it's not condemnable when they initially
5 inspected it and it's in better shape now than
6 it that was when it wasn't condemnable but now
7 it's -- yeah, I think it's pretty
8 straightforward.
9 Q. That property as far as for tenants, do you
10 remember the nature of the tenants?
11 A. They were African-American.
12 Q. Okay. So their race was African-American. Do
13 you remember how many units were in that
14 particular building?
15 A. Duplex.
16 Q. And were both units occupied by
17 African-Americans?
18 A. No, the upper unit was vacant.
19 Q. Okay. So your clients were in the occupied
20 unit?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. All right. Were your clients forced out of
23 their home as a result of that condemnation?
24 A. No.
25 Q. What activity did you take in order to assist
1 them with the City in trying to keep them in
2 their home?
3 A. I called the City and questioned their
4 condemnation of the building.
5 Q. Did you contact the Inspection Department that
6 was responsible for that particular property?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Or the inspector in charge?
9 A. I don't recall exactly who, if it was inspector
10 in charge.
11 Q. And what was the result of your communication
12 with the City after the condemnation?
13 A. They lifted it.
14 Q. All right. Any other situation that you can
15 recall that would be more recent than the 321
16 Bates matter that would be similar to what
17 we've been talking about?
18 A. There is, there's also another one, yes.
19 Q. Tell me about that, if you would, as best as
20 you can recall.
21 A. Same kind of situation. The property's on the
22 east side of St. Paul. The place gets either a
23 revocation or Certificate of Occupancy or
24 condemnation. I appealed it.
25 In that case the owner showed up,
1 said the City was pressuring her to get rid of
2 these tenants. She didn't have a beef with the
3 tenants, they were actually really good
4 tenants. And the City settled that case with
5 us and let them stay.
6 Q. Let the occupants stay?
7 A. Yep.
8 Q. Let's go back to the four situations that
9 you've described here. Do you believe there
10 was any interference by the City Inspectors
11 with the owner's ability to try to make repairs
12 that the tenants would have wanted in those
13 cases?
14 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection,
15 calls for speculation.
16 THE WITNESS: I guess I don't
17 even under --
18 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
19 Q. You don't understand the question or --
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you believe that in those cases where there
22 were condemnations were there any examples
23 where the owner of the property could have
24 merely just fixed up, for example, the greasy
25 stove issue and everything would have been okay
1 from your standpoint?
2 A. In that case, yes, we sued the owner to make
3 the repairs.
4 Q. Okay. What were the nature of the repairs that
5 were the basis of the TRA in that case where
6 you had a greasy stove issue with a
7 condemnation?
8 A. I don't recall the rest, but they were so minor
9 I just don't recall. I just remember the
10 greasy stove.
11 Q. Okay. Were the other three instances that you
12 recalled, were those also resulting in tenant
13 remedy cases?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Any of them?
16 A. Well, one of them I told you it was. The
17 administrator was appointed in one.
18 Q. In a TRA action?
19 A. Yeah, it could have been that, TRA. And then I
20 don't really recall or know about the others.
21 Q. Yeah, the TRA action, were the repairs that
22 were the basis of the TRA also minor like the
23 other case where they had the greasy stove?
24 A. No, there were some serious repairs in that
25 one.
1 Q. Do you know what a life-safety issue is from a
2 standpoint of the inspection office on housing
3 in the City of St. Paul?
4 A. I guess I'm not an expert on it, no. No.
5 Q. All right. You've heard inspectors talk about
6 life-safety issues, have you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Was there any claim that there were
9 life-safety issues on the property that was
10 subject to the TRA where the administrator was
11 appointed?
12 A. I don't recall, it was a time ago.
13 Q. Do you know if there was any life-safety issues
14 that were remaining after the administrator had
15 done some work on the property before it was
16 condemned?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You don't think there were any?
19 A. No.
20 Q. They were minor repairs left?
21 A. I think there were a number of repairs but
22 nothing that rose to the level of life safety.
23 Q. Okay. And was that a concern to you as to why
24 the City went to the level of condemnation when
25 there wasn't any serious code issues still
1 remaining on the property?
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection as
4 to form.
5 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
6 Q. Did you think that there was some alternative
7 motivation for the inspector and the City in
8 condemning that property after the
9 administrator had completed the more serious
10 repairs?
11 A. That would be speculation, I just thought it
12 was unusual that it got condemned after the
13 fact, yeah.
14 Q. Okay. So we have four situations that you
15 recall happening subsequent to 321 Bates from
16 the 2004 time frame. Any others that you can
17 recall that would have occurred after the
18 Robert King matter?
19 A. I can remember one more, a larger building
20 complex, four or five buildings. And they were
21 complaining about --
22 Q. You're talking about the City was complaining?
23 A. The City was complaining about tenant behavior,
24 things of that nature and repair problems in
25 the building, yeah.
1 Q. Was this a Certificate of Occupancy larger type
2 rental building?
3 A. Yeah, they were large buildings.
4 Q. Was there more than one building in that
5 complex?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. Do you remember whereabouts that property was
8 located?
9 A. East side of St. Paul.
10 Q. Do you know the name of that property at all?
11 A. Burgundy Ridge.
12 Q. Burgundy Ridge Apartment complex?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. How many different properties there were
15 subject to the code enforcement that were of a
16 concern to you then?
17 A. I don't know what you mean by that.
18 Q. Tell me about how you got involved in that
19 particular Burgundy Ridge Apartment situation.
20 A. I believe the building got condemned and people
21 were being moved out. And a bunch of people
22 called my office looking for help. I believe
23 that happened.
24 Q. Was it more than one building in the complex
25 that was being condemned?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you go to the Burgundy Ridge Apartments at
3 any time to --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- kind of look at it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Tell me about the layout because I'm not
8 familiar with that.
9 A. There's a number of buildings next to each
10 other.
11 Q. More than five buildings?
12 A. I would be guessing, I don't think so.
13 Q. Okay. All in the same block?
14 A. Again I don't recall.
15 Q. Okay. Do you remember if these are buildings
16 that would house more than ten units per
17 building?
18 A. Don't recall.
19 Q. Okay. Was more than one building being
20 condemned by the City?
21 A. Again I'm not sure if they were condemned or a
22 revocation but, yeah, they were all in, to be
23 vacated.
24 Q. Okay. So there were orders to vacate that were
25 already in place by the time that you got
1 involved in the matter?
2 A. I believe so, yes.
3 Q. Was there one owner for the entire complex that
4 you can recall?
5 A. My understanding there was a change of
6 ownership right when we were bringing the
7 action.
8 Q. Did you bring a tenant remedy case to assist
9 the tenants in that particular matter?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what was the result of the TRA that you and
12 your office brought on behalf of the tenants?
13 A. Well, I think it was the tenants that wanted to
14 stay got relocated and got to stay rent free
15 until the code violations were made.
16 Other tenants got their security
17 deposits back and back rent forgiven so they
18 could take their money and move so they
19 wouldn't be homeless.
20 Q. The race of the tenants that you assisted in
21 the Burgundy Ridge Apartment complexes,
22 describe that for me, would you, please?
23 A. All of them, with the exception of one person I
24 represented, was a person of color.
25 Q. So only one out of the entire group was a none
1 person of color?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Were there families there as well that
4 were minority status as well?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. What were the nature of the repairs that
7 had led to the order to vacate on those
8 properties, do you recall that?
9 A. No, I'm sorry.
10 Q. Do you recall if they were serious type code
11 deficiencies?
12 A. I don't, I really don't recall.
13 Q. Did you find anything to be of concern to you
14 from a standpoint of thinking that the City was
15 somehow misusing their code enforcement powers
16 as it related to minority tenants there?
17 A. I was in one building that was, some of the
18 units were pretty nice but it was condemned or
19 they had to move. And the apartment was
20 actually pretty nice. A common area of --
21 yeah, there was dirty carpet, might have been a
22 roof leak. But I think one building was fine.
23 Q. And that building still had a condemnation
24 order to vacate on it?
25 A. When we were done it did not. That was a
1 building people were relocated into.
2 Q. But actually when you got involved that
3 building was under an order to vacate the
4 entire structure?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The building that you thought when you went in
7 was actually in good shape, fine shape?
8 A. You said "good," "fine," I didn't say -- that
9 had code violations, yeah.
10 Q. Okay. But generally it was in what type of
11 shape?
12 A. I didn't think there were -- it had repair
13 problems but it didn't look like it was
14 condemnable to me. The units I were in were
15 nice.
16 Q. Okay. Do you know if any of the owners on
17 these five property matters that we've talked
18 about other than 321 Bates have ever made any
19 claims to the City that would be similar to
20 what the plaintiffs in these cases are making
21 that the City's misusing the code powers that
22 are having a disparate impact on persons of
23 color?
24 A. I guess I'd be guessing, I don't know that.
25 Q. You don't know of any claims by the owners that
1 would be similar to, let's say, your statement
2 in paragraph three of your August 11th letter
3 of 2004 to Councilmember Lantry where you're
4 saying that the code inspection operations were
5 having a disparate impact on persons of color?
6 A. No landlord's told me that.
7 Q. Okay. Any other situation where you recall
8 having a concern that the City Code Enforcement
9 officers were misusing their authority and it
10 was having a disparate impact on protected
11 class other than the five situations that
12 you've mentioned here that occurred after the
13 Robert King matter?
14 A. My instinct is there was more but I don't
15 recall. You know, all this stuff happened a
16 long time ago.
17 Q. Now it will be a little more difficult because
18 I'm going to focus your attention on the time
19 period prior to the 321 Bates Robert King
20 matter.
21 Can you recall generally any similar
22 concerns coming to your attention on code
23 inspection activity related to protected class
24 tenant occupancies prior to 321 Bates?
25 A. I really don't remember but it's possible,
1 yeah.
2 Q. Let's focus on the City Code Enforcement
3 operations that Mr. Dawkins directed starting
4 sometime in the summer of 2002. Do you recall
5 ever having concerns about the way that
6 Director Dawkins was managing code enforcement
7 in the City as it related to protected class
8 tenant rental properties?
9 A. I mean I really didn't know what was he doing,
10 you probably want to ask him that. I just see
11 the tenants that came in so I only see the
12 complaints that come in.
13 Q. Were the situations that you've described that
14 occurred subsequent to the 321 Bates matter
15 that you handled, were those all during Mr.
16 Dawkins' directorship of the Code Enforcement
17 up through December of 2005?
18 A. No.
19 Q. How many of them were subsequent to December of
20 2005?
21 A. I don't know but I know some of them were. I
22 would say --
23 MR. KAYSER: Do you know?
24 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
25 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's take just five
1 minutes. Do you want to just take a short
2 break? Tom, do you agree to that?
3 MR. KAYSER: That's fine.
4 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. Thank you.
5 (Whereupon, a brief recess was
6 taken.)
7 (de Stefano Deposition Exhibit 7
8 marked for identification.)
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's start again
10 here after a short break.
11 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
12 Q. And what I've marked for use here in the
13 deposition, Perry, is Exhibit 7 which is a copy
14 of some minutes from the special legislative
15 hearing on 321 Bates Avenue. The copy here is
16 dated June 29th, 2004, marked STP 0180 -- I'm
17 sorry, 018104 running consecutively in number
18 through 018111. Is that what your copy has,
19 Perry?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you. And I've given a copy to
22 counsel.
23 We referred during the early part of
24 the deposition this afternoon to a legislative
25 hearing that you attended on behalf of your
1 client, Mr. King, shortly, occurring shortly
2 after your notice that the property had been
3 ordered to be vacated.
4 And have you had just a brief minute
5 or so to look through the minutes here that
6 we're referring to as Exhibit 7?
7 A. I'm still looking through.
8 Q. Okay. I just wanted to ask you if you see on
9 the first page here that it indicates you
10 attended that particular hearing with your
11 client?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. I'm going to point you to different
14 paragraphs of the exhibit so that if you need
15 time then just let me know.
16 It appears that there was a staff
17 person present from the City of St. Paul
18 Inspection Department, the Fire Prevention
19 Office, whose name was Pat Fish. Do you see
20 that on the first page?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You recall that she was there during the --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- entire hearing?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Any other staff people that were present
2 from the Inspection Department that you can
3 recall?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. I notice here that on the, let's say, third
6 paragraph down where it identifies your name
7 that there's some statements attributed to you.
8 Do you see under the paragraph that
9 identifies that you appeared? Would you read
10 that out loud, please, starting there, with
11 your name.
12 A. "Mr. de Stefano stated Item 10 of the
13 deficiency list condemns the property. A
14 condemnation notice was posted and police came
15 and evicted everyone from the property. There
16 was also a Revocation of the Certificate of
17 Occupancy."
18 Q. Let me just ask you when I ask you to read out
19 loud if you could read a little slower for
20 Cheryl here. That would be good. Thank you.
21 All right. Read starting with the
22 next paragraph as well out loud, if with you.
23 A. "With regard to Item 8, Mr. De Stefano
24 responded that the electricity is on. There
25 was a threat of a shut-off and the bill was
1 paid."
2 Q. Do you know who would have paid the bill there
3 to the electric company?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. But at least your statement was at the
6 time of the hearing here there wasn't an issue
7 with regard to lack of power to the building,
8 is that correct?
9 A. I don't understand your question.
10 Q. Well, what you're saying is the electricity's
11 on so there is power to the building, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Had there been an issue about lack of
14 power to the building at some time prior to
15 this?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. Okay. Skip the next paragraph and then start
18 reading out loud again slowly, the paragraph
19 that identifies your statement there, if you
20 would?
21 A. "Mr. de Stefano said he can show pictures
22 verifying that all the violations have been
23 fixed. Ms. Lehe was at the property on June
24 28th and took photos of all the items."
25 Q. Let me just stop you right there. Is that one
1 of your staff individuals from your office
2 referring to Ms. Lehe?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was she a paralegal?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. Okay. Go ahead.
7 A. "He does not think there are life-safety issues
8 at the building. The property is in the
9 Dayton's Bluff neighborhood. A person" brought
10 home a -- "a person bought a home next door to
11 the building and fixed it up. That person is
12 complaining about the neighborhood and claiming
13 a nuisance activity but" they "have not been
14 problems. It is a neighborhood problem and not
15 only this building."
16 Q. What do you recall about that issue about this
17 neighbor that had purchased a property and then
18 proceeded to make some complaints about
19 activities in the neighborhood? Does this help
20 you recollect what was happening there from a
21 standpoint of neighborhood interactions with
22 the occupants of 321 Bates property?
23 A. I'd have to say attorney-client privilege on
24 that.
25 Q. Okay, that's fine. I think the next reference
1 that I could tell to you was where there is an
2 indication that there's a review of the
3 deficiency list, and that's on page three, Bate
4 018106. Do you see the second paragraph there
5 where there's a reference to your name?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Okay. Why don't you read that out loud slowly
8 if you would, please?
9 A. "Mr. de Stefano stated he does not feel the
10 property is being vacated for the repair
11 problems but due to neighbors calling the
12 police. There is no evidence of criminal
13 activity; no one has been arrested. Every
14 person in the building is a person of color or
15 disabled and they have been displaced. If the
16 police cannot remove the tenants by legal
17 means, they call the inspectors to condemn the
18 building or do a Revocation of the Certificate
19 of Occupancy which he feels is an abuse of the
20 statute. He said all the listed items have
21 been repaired and the use of a gun took place
22 in June 2003. The responsible person called
23 the police and turned herself in. Mr. King has
24 a fiancee who is homeless and is now homeless
25 and living in his van."
1 Q. So Mr. King was also homeless and living in a
2 van because of the fact that the building had
3 an order to vacate by the City, correct?
4 A. That's what this says.
5 Q. Okay. While you were working with tenants in
6 the 2003 through, let's say, the 2006 time
7 period in the situations that you described
8 before we had a break, were you ever concerned
9 that the City of St. Paul was using code
10 enforcement as a way to address behavior in the
11 City?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Why was that a concern to you as a Legal Aid
14 attorney?
15 A. I don't understand your question.
16 Q. Why was it a concern to you in any type of
17 fashion?
18 A. Well, if they're using it and I represent
19 people to help make repairs and I can't repair
20 behaviors, so that would be my concern.
21 Q. All right. Do you have any other basis for a
22 concern where the City is using code
23 enforcement inspection methods to address
24 tenant behavior in the City?
25 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection as
1 to form.
2 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
3 Q. You can answer.
4 A. I don't really understand what you're asking
5 me.
6 Q. Well, do you believe that it's a misuse of code
7 enforcement authority to use code enforcement
8 methods to address tenant behavior?
9 A. My personal opinion you're asking?
10 Q. Right.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. And why is that?
13 A. I think codes are for repair problems, not
14 behavior problems, you can deal with the police
15 on those so --
16 Q. This next paragraph here in reference, on page
17 three to the minutes of June 29, 2004,
18 indicates that you reviewed items on the
19 deficiency list. And it looks like Racquel
20 Naylor, I believe she's the one that takes care
21 of the minutes on behalf of Marcia Moermond,
22 she had actually listed out the items here.
23 What I want you to do is to go
24 through each, it looks like there is seven on
25 page three and then there's three more on page
1 four. And you're indicated here as having had
2 a response to these. And I want you to read
3 them slowly as to the item and what was
4 allegedly wrong, and then what your conclusion
5 was at the time that you were at the
6 legislative hearing on June 29, 2004. So let's
7 start with item number one.
8 MR. KAYSER: Do you want him to read
9 what's on here?
10 MR. SHOEMAKER: Yes, and I'm going
11 to ask him some further questions. I think
12 it's easier to do that, Counsel.
13 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
14 Q. But just read it carefully, you can just say
15 "item one, second floor," don't read the code
16 provision. And then just what was alleged to
17 be wrong, what your comment was. And then I'm
18 going to ask you some questions on each one.
19 That will make it clear. Go ahead.
20 A. "Item 1. 2nd floor. Remove materials that
21 cause an exit obstruction. Maintain a clear
22 and unobstructed exit way."
23 Q. Now you indicate here that there's no
24 obstruction. Did you go out to the property
25 and make some observations at the property?
1 A. I don't remember.
2 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection as
3 to form. Counsel, there's been no testimony
4 that Mr. de Stefano prepared the document that
5 you've got him reading from.
6 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
7 Q. Do you recall having an opportunity to go
8 through the items at a legislative hearing and
9 to point out why or at least what had been
10 fixed by the time of the hearing?
11 A. I did and I had pictures.
12 Q. Okay. So do you recall saying there was no
13 obstruction?
14 A. No, it's a long time ago.
15 Q. Yeah. Have you ever reviewed legislative
16 hearing minutes before prepared after
17 legislative hearings?
18 A. No, this is my first time.
19 Q. Okay. Well, with the objection standing it
20 looks like here that you said there was no
21 obstruction?
22 A. Yes, what appears I said.
23 Q. Okay. And then the second item, it was on a
24 basement, and read the alleged deficiency and
25 what your response was.
1 A. "Item 2. Basement. Provide, repair or replace
2 the fire-rated door and assembly. The minimum
3 rating must be one hour. Repair and maintain
4 the door closer. He showed photographs
5 indicating this item was fixed."
6 Q. Okay. So these may have been the photographs
7 that your paralegal had brought to you so that
8 you could present to the hearing officer, is
9 that right?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. And you believe those photographs were left
12 with the hearing officer at the end of the
13 hearing?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay, all right. Then it looks like number
16 three that there was an issue with regard to
17 the door and the screen door closer. And you
18 said that that was fixed?
19 A. That's what it says, yeah.
20 Q. Okay. And it looks like the next item four you
21 indicated that that had been fixed by the time
22 of the hearing as well, is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. There was a guardrail issue in number five?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And what was your response there, can you read
2 that, please?
3 A. "The guardrail goes all the way down and the
4 door to the balcony is nailed shut. Ms.
5 Moermond responded that there is no balcony
6 according to the photograph."
7 Q. Okay. Number six there was an issue of the
8 Certificate of Occupancy having been revoked
9 for this nuisance activity that was a basis at
10 least of the revocation on unit four. Read
11 your response there on that item that you told
12 the hearing officer on this date.
13 A. This claims I said, "The person, who is a
14 protected class, is no longer living there."
15 Q. Okay. And then read the next sentence, please.
16 A. "The City was sued in a similar situation
17 and it would not be a good public policy to
18 uphold" --
19 Q. Now --
20 A. -- "de Stefano said."
21 Q. My apology there for interrupting. Do you
22 recall the case where you were referring to
23 here where the City had been sued in a similar
24 situation?
25 A. Actually I do. Yours, I brought your case and
1 waved it at them.
2 Q. Okay, all right. What was this issue about
3 good public policy, what were you referring to
4 there?
5 A. I was just being an advocate.
6 Q. On item seven then, read the actual claim of
7 what was wrong that was being stated at least
8 on the notice to the owner of the property.
9 A. "This building is not being maintained as
10 required by City ordinance. The certificate is
11 being removed for failure to maintain."
12 Q. And what was your response to that, at least as
13 the minutes indicate here?
14 A. Well, the minutes say, "Mr. de Stefano
15 commented that this is a general statement. It
16 is not a mandate of whether it has been a code
17 compliance but it is up to Ms. Moermond to
18 decide."
19 Q. Do you know what a code compliance inspection
20 is within the overall inspection system within
21 the City of St. Paul?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Have you ever heard the term "code compliance?"
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. What does that mean to you?
1 A. It could mean a number of things to me. Up to
2 code.
3 Q. Right. How about an inspection by the City's
4 License Inspection Environmental Protection,
5 more frequently referred to as the LIEP office,
6 with a code compliance inspection --
7 A. Yeah, I think --
8 Q. -- have you heard of that?
9 A. Yeah, I think subsequently, I don't know if I
10 knew what that meant at this time but if you're
11 referring to what they had called team
12 inspection.
13 Q. Yeah, I believe the team inspection is where
14 you have a Certificate of Occupancy building --
15 A. So I don't know --
16 Q. -- and it's a code compliance but they call it
17 a team inspection. Is that your understanding?
18 A. Yeah, I guess I don't what a code compliance
19 is.
20 Q. Have you ever seen a situation where a property
21 owner that had a rental property was required
22 to go through a team inspection?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How often have you seen that?
25 A. I don't know.
1 Q. More than five times?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Have you seen that demanded by the City more
4 than ten times of an owner?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. And were these rental properties where the code
7 compliance was demanded? I should say the team
8 inspection was demanded?
9 A. They would be rentals, yeah.
10 Q. Okay. Did you make any observation as to
11 effect of the requirement by the City for a
12 team inspection on those rental properties?
13 A. I don't understand the question.
14 Q. Did you talk with the owners at any time about
15 a team inspection on a rental property?
16 A. Not that I recall, I don't know.
17 Q. Did you talk with City inspectors at any time
18 about what a team inspection would require as
19 far as the owner doing repairs on a building?
20 A. I guess I don't know.
21 Q. You don't remember that?
22 A. No, no.
23 Q. How about a code compliance where substantial
24 renovation was required by the City, have you
25 ever heard of that?
1 A. I don't know what that, I guess I don't
2 understand your question. What do you mean?
3 Q. Have you ever heard Mr. Dawkins use the phrase
4 "renovation of properties"?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Have you ever heard him use the term "code
7 compliance"?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Did you ever have any situations where you
10 represented tenants and the City joined as a
11 plaintiff in suing a landlord?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. How many times did that happen?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. More than 50 times do you think?
16 A. No.
17 Q. More than 25?
18 A. No.
19 Q. How many times approximately?
20 A. I don't know that.
21 Q. Okay. More than once?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Did it happen more than ten times do you think?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Okay. Do you ever remember as part of the
1 demand by the plaintiffs, the City of St. Paul
2 and tenants that you represented, that there
3 should be a code compliance done on the
4 property by the owner in order for the property
5 to be reoccupied?
6 A. I don't remember really, no.
7 Q. Do you ever remember during tenant remedy cases
8 talking about the economic viability of a
9 property?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. What did that mean to you?
12 A. That's a statutory requirement under 504(b)445.
13 Q. For the tenant remedy action in order for the
14 Court to determine that the property would be
15 able to have substantial repairs or to have to
16 be an economic viability analysis, correct?
17 A. It'd have to be economically viable.
18 Q. Right, before the Court could require a certain
19 level of repairs to be done on the property?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Describe it for me.
22 A. You can just read the statute yourself. It's
23 504(b)445, Subdivision 8, it will tell you what
24 it is.
25 Q. All right. But do you know what the policy is
1 behind that particular provision on economic
2 viability?
3 A. I didn't read the legislation.
4 Q. Did you ever have any discussions with anyone
5 as to why there would have to be an economic
6 viability analysis by the Court when you're
7 doing a tenant remedy case?
8 A. I only do economic viability in court when I'm
9 seeking money from the City to make repairs to
10 the property.
11 Q. If you aren't seeking money from the City or
12 from some other source other than the landlord
13 then you don't, it's your understanding you
14 don't have to do the economic viability
15 analysis?
16 A. No, you need to read the statute, it will tell
17 you when you have to do it and when you don't
18 (indicating).
19 Q. Okay. But is it your understanding that there
20 was a concern by the legislature that if you
21 had a certain particular rental property if
22 you're only going to get a thousand dollars
23 worth of rent on a yearly basis on a property
24 that you not require a hundred thousand dollars
25 worth of repairs?
1 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection,
2 lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
3 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
4 Q. Do you understand that that's the reason why at
5 least the Court is going to be looking at
6 whether or not it makes sense to put a lot of
7 money into a property?
8 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Same
9 objection.
10 THE WITNESS: I don't know what the
11 legislator -- because I didn't write the bill,
12 I don't know about any talk or discussion about
13 it to the legislators.
14 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
15 Q. Have you ever had any concerns on behalf of
16 tenants that the City was demanding repairs
17 that were in such a great extent that you knew
18 the landlord was going to just walk away from
19 the property because it wouldn't make any
20 economic sense to do that level of repairs?
21 A. No one's ever, I've never had an owner tell me
22 that so I guess I don't know of that happening.
23 Q. Have you been following the level of vacant
24 buildings in the City of St. Paul over the last
25 year?
1 A. There was something in the paper, I heard there
2 was like 600 or, I can remember skimming an
3 article but --
4 Q. Have you followed the increase in vacant
5 buildings, let's say, during the period of 2004
6 to 2005?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Has it ever been a concern to you from a
9 standpoint of protected class tenants that the
10 City has got so many vacant buildings now?
11 A. I guess I don't understand.
12 Q. You haven't had that concern?
13 A. Well, I had a concern about it. I think I've
14 stated my concerns in the letter.
15 Q. But from a standpoint of just the vacant
16 buildings, that hasn't raised an issue to you
17 about whether or not that's having an adverse
18 effect on protected class tenants in the City?
19 A. I guess I might think about it, I don't know,
20 yeah.
21 Q. Is it your understanding that the City has
22 targeted protected class rental properties over
23 the last three to four years for code
24 enforcement activity?
25 A. I don't -- you'd have to ask the City if they
1 target them. I see stuff happen is when a
2 tenant comes to me.
3 MR. KAYSER: Counsel, you have a
4 wide latitude taking a deposition but I think
5 we're hitting the boundary here.
6 MR. SHOEMAKER: Yeah, that's why I
7 appreciate it.
8 MR. KAYSER: But I think it's
9 hitting the boundary where you're just asking
10 for his opinion and not facts within his
11 knowledge. And he's not an expert witness in
12 this case.
13 MR. SHOEMAKER: I understand that
14 but, you know, he indicated that there were
15 maybe ten situations where he saw protected
16 class situations where code enforcement had had
17 an effect on their occupancy. And then we
18 talked about this particular 321 Bates property
19 and five specific instances. Let's go back to
20 the facts. I appreciate the objection,
21 Counsel.
22 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
23 Q. Let's go back to the minutes, Perry, where we
24 left off at number seven on page three. Let's
25 go to page four and finish off the last three
1 items, item eight.
2 It looks like there was an
3 electrical service issue there. And what was
4 your response, if you can read that, please?
5 A. It alleges that I stated, "Mr. de Stefano said
6 this is another allegation and he feels there
7 is something else going on other than the
8 repairs."
9 Q. The item nine there was order to repair and
10 maintain a window screen, some screens were
11 torn. Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. And what was your response?
14 A. "One screen was missing but it has now been
15 replaced."
16 Q. Based upon your work as an attorney with Legal
17 Aid did you frequently learn that the
18 properties that you dealt with would have
19 missing screens, torn screens, damaged screens,
20 that kind of thing?
21 A. It's a pretty common violation I'd say, yeah.
22 Q. Okay. Look at item ten then, it's apparently a
23 condemnation and is unfit for human habitation.
24 And my understanding is is that you had a
25 response to that as well. Do you recall
1 saying, "This is not a repair problem"?
2 A. Like I said, this happened a long time ago so
3 this note says I said, "This is not a repair
4 problem."
5 Q. But look at the next sentence there and read
6 that out loud slowly, if you would, where it
7 starts with "people."
8 A. "People are calling the cops to vacate the
9 building because they would like the owner to
10 sell it."
11 Q. All right. Do you recall facts about that
12 particular situation based upon your review of
13 the documents that I've sent to you and your
14 looking at some of the documents here today?
15 A. That's pretty --
16 Q. My question is: Do you recall other facts
17 concerning this particular concern you had that
18 someone was trying to force the owner to sell?
19 A. At legislative hearing the neighbor showed up
20 with a big list of police calls and they were
21 trying to attribute it to the building, that's
22 what I recall.
23 Q. And do you recall that some of those police
24 calls were actually for other properties in the
25 area, not for the 321 Bates Avenue property?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In other words, it was more general area police
3 reports?
4 A. Yes, my recollection in talking to a police
5 officer was they had, they make a call and they
6 go to the corner, they've got to attribute it
7 to an address, that's the address because
8 they've got to attribute it to so --
9 Q. All right. So, in other words, a call would
10 have come in about some conduct maybe out on
11 the street or on the street corner --
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. -- adjacent to this particular 321 Bates Avenue
14 property and the way that the police officer
15 that you talked to said that the system worked
16 is they have to attribute it to at least an
17 address that's next to that particular spot
18 where the claimed activity took place?
19 A. They attribute it to an address, yeah.
20 Q. Okay. Did you feel that that was, it was
21 appropriate for the neighbors to be then trying
22 to blame the tenants and the owner for that
23 particular criminal activity complaints that
24 were out on an adjacent area of the property?
25 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: Objection as
1 to form and foundation.
2 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
3 Q. You can go ahead and answer.
4 A. As to my client I did, they were trying to --
5 yeah, they were attributing calls to him.
6 Q. Let's look at page five. There's actually two
7 pages four so skip past the next page, it's a
8 duplicate.
9 And I want to point your attention
10 to the paragraph that's almost, let's see, it's
11 the second large paragraph from the bottom
12 where it starts with "Mr. de Stefano asked Mr.
13 King to explain some of the comments he made."
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. And read just for yourself the next couple of
16 sentences, I want to ask you a question there.
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Do you recall Mr. King making that statement
19 about a neighbor next door saying he was going
20 to use all his power to shut the building down?
21 A. I don't remember the exact statement but, yeah,
22 I remember it was one of his complaints, yeah.
23 Q. Did you ever have any discussion with any of
24 the neighbors about their concerns on this
25 particular property at any time?
1 A. I tried to make arrangements to work it out
2 amicably with the neighbors. They wouldn't
3 talk to me.
4 Q. They wouldn't talk to you?
5 A. Only in the hearing context. They were a
6 pretty hostile group so that was my attempt.
7 Q. I see in the City documents and sometime in the
8 August time frame after you sent your letter of
9 August 11th, 2004, to Councilmember Lantry and
10 my question to you is: What do you recall was
11 the result of your letter to Councilmember
12 Lantry wherein you indicated your concerns
13 about the way the inspection process had been
14 handled, what you believed was a disparate
15 impact. Tell me what you recall happening
16 after that.
17 A. Recall what?
18 Q. Well, what occurred with regard to the
19 property?
20 A. I don't believe I really went out to the
21 property afterwards so I'm not sure what
22 happened to property. I do know there was a --
23 I received a phone call or a letter from
24 Moermond talking about the decision, her
25 decision. I don't know what happened to the
1 property.
2 Q. All right. Did you ever have any conversations
3 with the owner of the property, Christy
4 Akinropo?
5 A. I believe I called and spoke with her a couple
6 times, yeah. I think I referred her to you.
7 Q. Did you ever talk to her about what eventually
8 happened to her property there?
9 A. I don't remember, it's a long time ago. Sorry.
10 Q. Your office and you in particular worked on a
11 number of TRAs where you would report to Mr.
12 Dawkins and his department during that 2003 to
13 2004 time frame, is that correct?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you handle TRAs though on behalf of tenants
16 where you would provide some written notices to
17 Mr. Dawkins as to like how many cases that you
18 had taken?
19 A. I think there was a time the City required us
20 to send them reports on TRAs we filed but we
21 stopped doing that.
22 Q. Okay. So just a short period that that
23 reporting may have occurred?
24 A. Pardon me?
25 Q. There may have just been a short period where
1 you would have notified Mr. Dawkins of at least
2 some TRAs that your office was prosecuting?
3 A. I don't know if "prosecuting's" the right word
4 but --
5 Q. Well, yeah.
6 A. The number, yeah.
7 Q. Okay. Was it your understanding that Tom
8 Fulton and the group that he was with had put
9 up some foundation money to assist if there was
10 a need for repairs on properties that were
11 subject to TRAs?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. What was the name of his organization,
14 do you remember, was it Family Housing Fund or
15 something?
16 A. I believe that's it, yeah, yeah.
17 Q. Okay. Did you have discussions with Mr.
18 Dawkins about how to utilize those funds for
19 necessary repairs on rental properties?
20 A. I don't recall specifically but he controls the
21 fund so if I wanted to get money for repairs
22 I'd have to call his office and, you know, get
23 permission to use the fund for repairs.
24 Q. Okay. Do you remember a tenant remedy case
25 where you represented a tenant named Leo Sider,
1 S-i-d-e-r, on a property on 297 Burgess Street
2 owned by Kelly Brisson?
3 A. I remember the name. Leo Sider, it sounds
4 familiar.
5 Q. Yeah, a gentleman on Social Security disability
6 that was in a Section 8 rental property, you --
7 A. I mean I do --
8 Q. -- don't remember that?
9 A. -- a lot of cases. I recognize the name
10 though, Leo Sider.
11 Q. Do you have any independent memory of why there
12 was a TRA on that particular case?
13 A. I mean that might be attorney-client privilege
14 I mean.
15 Q. Do you remember anything about independent
16 observations you made on the property? Did you
17 go out and take a look at the property --
18 A. I don't remember.
19 Q. -- at any time? Would you typically visit a
20 property that would be subject to a TRA on
21 behalf of your clients?
22 A. Not at the time, too busy. Sometimes things
23 are condemned, there's a move out tomorrow. If
24 I did that every time if I couldn't help
25 everybody so --
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
PERRY de STEFANO - 02/22/07
95
1 Q. Let's look just quickly at the exhibits that we
2 had that were referred to in your August 11th
3 letter. That letter there, does that appear to
4 be the authentic copy of your letter that you
5 sent to Kathy Lantry on August 11th, 2004?
6 A. Exhibit 2?
7 Q. Correct.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. All pages there are the photocopy
10 of your original letter?
11 A. It does look like it.
12 Q. Let's have you look at Exhibit 3 and my same
13 question to you: It looks like a letter from
14 your office, two pages in length as Exhibit 3
15 from yourself.
16 Is that an authentic photocopy of
17 your letter addressed to Karin DuPaul at
18 District 4 Community Council?
19 A. It looks like it, yes.
20 Q. And you cc'd that to Councilmember Lantry?
21 A. Mm-hmm.
22 Q. And also to Inspector Pat Fish and a few
23 others, correct?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Then Exhibit 6 I'm going to show you from your
1 law clerk. Were you copied on that letter?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did she prepare that letter at your request?
4 A. I don't remember.
5 Q. Was she working on this particular client
6 matter with you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And it looks like your client, Robert King, was
9 copied on that as well as Inspector Fish,
10 correct?
11 A. Mm-hmm.
12 MR. KAYSER: You have to answer
13 audibly.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry.
15 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
16 Q. Is there anything else that you can recall
17 about the 321 Bates Avenue matter that you
18 think may be helpful to understanding what your
19 concerns were as addressed in the August 11th,
20 2004, letter other than what you've told me?
21 A. I don't believe so.
22 Q. You think you've told me everything that you
23 remember as a concern to you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Anything else would be contained in your August
1 11th, 2004, letter?
2 A. To the best of my recollection.
3 Q. That would be true?
4 A. To the best my recollections, yeah.
5 MR. SHOEMAKER: All right. That's
6 all the questions that I have for you, Perry.
7 And I'll slide it here to Mr. Engel if he has
8 any.
9 MR. KAYSER: Yeah, hold on a minute.
10 There's a subpoena in one case as I recall.
11 MR. SHOEMAKER: Counsel, it's a
12 consolidated case under Judge Erickson, the
13 three cases. You can only put one caption in
14 the subpoena. If you want to talk about, you
15 know, how that's been working we're
16 subpoenaing --
17 MR. KAYSER: This not a free fire
18 zone.
19 MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, I understand
20 that. I don't think he's got a lot of
21 questions. If you want to inquire of how much
22 time he's got I mean that's fine. We're not
23 trying to take advantage of your client in any
24 way here.
25 MR. KAYSER: Well, I understood this
1 was one case that we were discussing that you
2 were going to be asking the questions and the
3 City Attorney was going to be asking the
4 questions.
5 MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, that's fine.
6 MR. KAYSER: There is not going to
7 be several people just going back and forth
8 going after a witness.
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, we're not
10 going after your client, we're just trying to
11 find out what he knows about a very important
12 issue. But I can certainly, I had given him
13 some notes so I can certainly look at what his
14 concerns are and briefly and in some summary
15 fashion address any questions he's got.
16 MR. ENGEL: There's just a couple
17 questions, John. I can just show you what they
18 are.
19 MR. KAYSER: Okay. Are we talking
20 about five minutes?
21 MR. ENGEL: Or less.
22 MR. KAYSER: Go ahead.
23 MR. SHOEMAKER: All right. Thank
24 you, Tom, I appreciate it.
25
1 EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. ENGEL:
3 Q. Did you get a response from the City Council or
4 Councilmember Lantry on your August letter, did
5 they send anything back to you?
6 A. I don't remember if it came from City Council
7 or Lantry.
8 Q. But you did get something back?
9 A. I think I got something from Marcia Moermond,
10 and it was either a phone call or --
11 Q. Well, you had referenced that before. It was a
12 phone call or a letter --
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. -- about her decision?
15 A. Yeah, and I looked through my file and I didn't
16 find -- I'm sure you would have had it. I
17 don't know if their decision was in writing.
18 Q. Do you recall if it addressed any of your
19 concerns from the letter or was it just about
20 her decision on the property?
21 A. Well, I didn't address any of my concerns in
22 the letter.
23 Q. Did anyone from the City or the City Council
24 address the concerns from your letter?
25 A. Nope.
1 Q. How often do you attend legislative hearings in
2 front of Ms. Moermond?
3 A. I don't know, appeal condemnations but I
4 couldn't give you an exact.
5 Q. Once a week, once a month, any idea?
6 A. It comes sporadic so you might be able to get
7 that from them.
8 Q. From your experience in attending the
9 legislative hearings in front of Ms. Moermond
10 do feel as though you'd get a fair shake?
11 A. I didn't on this one in my opinion.
12 Q. Any other hearings where you felt you didn't
13 get a fair shake?
14 A. If I didn't I had, I can appeal before City
15 Council so I'm not shy about that. And I
16 represent my clients so sometimes it doesn't
17 agree with me so --
18 MR. ENGEL: Okay. I don't have
19 anything else, John.
20 MR. SHOEMAKER: Portia?
21 MR. KAYSER: I would make a
22 suggestion for the court reporter's convenience
23 to --
24 MR. SHOEMAKER: Sit over here.
25 Yeah, I mentioned that before.
1 (Off the record discussion.)
2
3 EXAMINATION
4 BY MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS:
5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. de Stefano. My name is
6 Portia Hampton-Flowers. I introduced myself to
7 you earlier this afternoon.
8 In your earlier testimony you
9 indicated that you spoke with Mr. Shoemaker
10 prior to your deposition, is that correct?
11 A. Yes, years ago.
12 Q. When would that have been?
13 A. I think 2004.
14 Q. Was that with regard to the current lawsuit
15 that you're being deposed on?
16 A. I wouldn't know. It was regarding Robert King
17 that's involved.
18 Q. Have you had any other conversations with
19 Mr. Shoemaker outside of the today's deposition
20 regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit?
21 A. I don't think I have.
22 Q. I understand that you received some written
23 documentation from Mr. Shoemaker prior to your
24 deposition today?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You have been shown seven exhibits today. Do
2 you have those in front of you?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Other than the seven exhibits that you have in
5 front of you what other documentation did you
6 receive from Mr. Shoemaker regarding the matter
7 that you're here being deposed on?
8 A. Boy, you might want to ask him. I did receive
9 I think these documents, I don't know. I got,
10 well, I did get additional stuff, there was
11 like emails from the City and stuff like that.
12 I'm sure he can provide you a copy.
13 Q. Were the documents that you received, other
14 than Deposition Exhibits 1 through 7, involving
15 the property at 321 Bates Avenue?
16 A. They were.
17 Q. Did they involve any other properties beyond
18 that?
19 A. I don't know, I don't think they did.
20 Q. When did you receive those documents from Mr.
21 Shoemaker?
22 A. I wish I would have brought it, I don't
23 remember. He addressed it to another attorney
24 in our office who's related to me.
25 Q. Did they come at the time that you received
1 your subpoena?
2 A. Before.
3 Q. Did you have a conversation with him about
4 those documents other than rescheduling your
5 deposition today?
6 A. I haven't had a conversation with Mr.
7 Shoemaker since 2004, an oral one.
8 Q. Have you had written correspondence with him
9 other than your receipt of the documentation
10 and subpoena that he forwarded to you?
11 A. No.
12 Q. During your deposition today you talked about
13 five examples or instances where you were
14 concerned over enforcement actions regarding
15 some of your clients. Is that an accurate
16 description of the examples that you provided
17 today?
18 A. To the best of my memory. I mean this stuff
19 happened a long time ago I think you have to
20 understand so --
21 Q. Of those five examples that you referenced
22 today I understood that you identified one as
23 involving a duplex, is that accurate?
24 A. There could be more than -- I mean I don't
25 remember the sizes of all the places.
1 Q. Do you remember the names of the property
2 owners for those properties?
3 A. I don't think so. I'm sorry, just a lot of
4 cases so --
5 Q. So for none of the five properties that you
6 talked about today that were subsequent to the
7 321 Bates Avenue incident you don't remember
8 the names of the property owners?
9 A. No.
10 Q. What about the tenants that were involved?
11 A. I remember some of their names.
12 Q. The first instance that you described that
13 involved a multi-unit dwelling, is that
14 correct?
15 A. I don't know what the first instance was, if
16 you could let me know the facts maybe I can
17 remember.
18 Q. Do you know the name, excuse me, the address of
19 the property?
20 A. What address?
21 Q. For the first instance that you described?
22 A. I don't remember what the first incident was.
23 Q. Okay. You indicated that there were complaints
24 about African-Americans and an inspector said,
25 "Let's call Pat Fish"?
1 A. Okay, I don't remember the address on that.
2 Q. It involved a greasy stove as you described?
3 A. It did.
4 Q. You don't recall the address for that property?
5 A. No.
6 Q. What about the property owner?
7 A. It was an Asian name, that's all I remember.
8 Q. The name of the tenant?
9 A. I do remember that. It might be
10 attorney-client privilege. I do remember the
11 name of the tenant.
12 Q. You indicated in your testimony that there were
13 other violations in addition to the greasy
14 stove?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So there were code violations on that property
17 that you recall?
18 A. Alleged.
19 Q. Did you go out and view that property?
20 A. No.
21 Q. So you don't know if the alleged violations
22 existed?
23 A. I had someone take pictures.
24 Q. Of the alleged violations?
25 A. I believe so, yeah.
1 Q. Where are those pictures today?
2 A. They might be at court or in the file.
3 Q. Is there any way you can identify the file that
4 we would look in to find these photographs?
5 A. That would raise attorney-client privilege. We
6 can try.
7 Q. You brought a TRA action on this?
8 A. On the stove, I think so. I believe I brought
9 an emergency tenant remedy action.
10 Q. The complaint that was referenced in your
11 description, what was the source of that
12 complaint?
13 A. The complaint that was referenced in my
14 description?
15 Q. You said there were complaints about
16 African-Americans. Was that a neighbor
17 complaint?
18 A. Which one are you talking about?
19 Q. The first one still, the greasy stove matter.
20 A. That was something my clerk told me she
21 overheard.
22 Q. Do you recall the second incident that you
23 described?
24 A. You'd have to refresh my memory, I don't recall
25 the order.
1 Q. You talked about a complaint about
2 African-Americans hanging out on a corner and
3 essentially there were no screens and there
4 were complaints of tall grass and toys in the
5 yard?
6 A. I recall that one now, yeah. Thank you.
7 Q. Do you recall the address of that property?
8 A. I don't.
9 Q. Do you recall the name of the property owners
10 for that property?
11 A. I don't.
12 Q. What about the tenants?
13 A. And I forget the tenant's name as well.
14 Q. Were there code violations on that property?
15 A. I believe there was an inspection report that
16 had alleged code violations.
17 Q. Did you view that property?
18 A. I had a clerk view it for me.
19 Q. Who is the clerk that you had view the
20 property?
21 A. This one?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Her name was Leni Tupper.
24 Q. Who was the clerk that you had view the prior
25 property you described?
1 A. The prior one? Boy, I might be guessing but
2 I'm thinking --
3 MR. KAYSER: Do you know?
4 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
5 MR. KAYSER: Why don't you spell the
6 name of the clerk you just --
7 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, T-u-p-p-e-r
8 is her last name and we call her Leni, L-e-n-i,
9 but I believe her name's Elaina.
10 BY MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS:
11 Q. As a result of your work on this matter, this
12 second one that you described, were there
13 repairs that were required to be made to the
14 property?
15 A. I don't think we brought any action or made any
16 repairs on that.
17 Q. And the prior one, the first one involving the
18 greasy stove?
19 A. I don't know if there were any repairs, it
20 settled.
21 Q. The third property that you described, do you
22 recall that one?
23 A. Now you're going to have to refresh my memory.
24 Q. You referred to this one as involving a duplex?
25 A. You'll have to help me.
1 Q. VIP was --
2 A. Oh, yes --
3 Q. -- the administrator?
4 A. -- I do remember that one now, yeah. Thank
5 you.
6 Q. Do you recall the address of that property?
7 A. I'm not going to remember addresses.
8 Q. How about the property owner?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Name of the tenant?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Who would that be?
13 A. Well, that one was filed, I guess it's public,
14 it's Wendl Roby.
15 Q. Can you spell the last name, please?
16 A. R-o-b-y.
17 Q. Do you know where the source of the complaint
18 for that property came from?
19 A. What do you mean the "source of the complaint"?
20 Q. The complaint that started the action?
21 A. The repair action? The complaints came from
22 the City.
23 Q. Are you aware of any neighbor complaints
24 regarding that property?
25 A. No.
1 Q. The fourth one you described was a property on
2 the east side of St. Paul. Do you recall that
3 one?
4 A. Is that the Burgundy Ridge one you're speaking
5 of?
6 Q. No.
7 A. I don't recall.
8 Q. Do you recall who the tenants would have been
9 at the property?
10 A. I don't know what property you're talking about
11 so I don't.
12 Q. It would have been the one that described. I
13 couldn't recite your testimony for you, sir.
14 A. I don't -- identify them by number, I don't
15 remember them by number, I remember them by
16 facts.
17 Q. You indicated that the matter settled.
18 A. Another one I don't remember.
19 Q. Do you know who the property owner was for the
20 Burgundy Ridge property?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What about the tenants that were involved?
23 A. There was a number of them so I don't remember
24 all of them I guess.
25 Q. Were there code violations on that property?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know Frank Steinhauser?
3 A. I think I do, I think that's Frank
4 (indicating).
5 MR. KAYSER: You either recognize
6 him or you don't.
7 THE WITNESS: I guess I don't.
8 BY MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS:
9 Q. Do you know if you've ever represented any
10 clients in actions against Frank Steinhauser as
11 a property owner?
12 A. Probably have.
13 MR. KAYSER: Do you know?
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know I guess.
15 BY MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS:
16 Q. What about Mark Meysembourg?
17 A. I may have. I bring a lot of actions so I --
18 Q. How about Kelly Brisson?
19 A. Kelly who?
20 Q. Brisson, B-r-i-s-s-o-n?
21 A. Sounds familiar but I don't know.
22 Q. You don't know him or you don't know if you
23 have ever represented tenants in actions
24 involving his property?
25 A. No, I don't know to both the questions.
1 Q. What about Thomas Gallagher, do you know him?
2 A. I don't know him.
3 Q. Do you know if you've ever represented tenants
4 in actions involving Mr. Gallagher's property?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. How about Joseph Collins?
7 A. I believe I've had an action against him.
8 Q. You've represented a tenant in an action
9 against property owned by Joseph Collins?
10 A. I guess I should say I don't know because maybe
11 it resolved before an action, so I guess I
12 don't know.
13 Q. The name sounds familiar to you?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. Have you ever represented tenants in actions
16 against properties owned by Dadders Estates,
17 Dadders Enterprises or Dadders Holdings?
18 A. Again sounds familiar but I don't know.
19 Q. How about Troy Allison?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. You don't know him or you don't know if you've
22 represented clients involving actions against
23 his properties?
24 A. I say "I don't know" to both those questions.
25 Q. Jeff Kubitschek, do you know him?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know Sara Kubitschek?
3 A. I don't think so, no.
4 Q. Do you know if you've represented tenants in
5 actions involving properties owned by either of
6 those individuals?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Have you heard the name Sara Harrilal before?
9 A. I think someone mentioned that, maybe she's a
10 person in this claim.
11 Q. Have you ever represented tenants in actions
12 involving property owned by Sara Harrilal?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. How about Steve Johnson?
15 A. That sounds pretty familiar, sounds familiar
16 but it's a common name so I guess I don't know.
17 Q. You don't know if you've represented tenants in
18 actions involving his property?
19 A. I don't know if I have.
20 Q. How about Market Group and Properties?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. And how about Bee Vue?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You know Bee Vue?
25 A. Yeah, I know who he is, yeah.
1 Q. How do you know Bee Vue?
2 A. I think I defended a case against one of his
3 tenants. I've had Bee Vue in court.
4 Q. Do you recall which property that would have
5 been?
6 A. No, I'm sorry.
7 Q. How about Lamena Vue?
8 A. I don't know her.
9 Q. Of the names that I've just listed for you and
10 asked if you know if you've represented tenants
11 in those, involving properties owned by those
12 individuals, do you know whether or not those
13 are responsible landowners?
14 MR. SHOEMAKER: Objection,
15 foundation and form.
16 MR. KAYSER: I think we're hitting
17 the outer limits. He's not an expert, you
18 haven't served him up as an expert, in addition
19 to which is compound many times.
20 BY MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS:
21 Q. Do you understand the question, Mr. de Stefano?
22 A. Maybe you should break it down one by one.
23 MR. SHOEMAKER: Same objection.
24 Counsel, give me a continuing objection on this
25 line of inquiry, I'd appreciate it.
1 MR. KAYSER: Well, we're getting
2 pretty far afield, Counsel, there has to be a
3 basis for your asking --
4 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: I will ask him
5 the question and you can make the objection.
6 MR. KAYSER: All right. I'll do
7 that.
8 BY MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS:
9 Q. Mr. de Stefano, how would you define a
10 responsible landowner from your experience in
11 landlord or housing issues?
12 A. One that keeps their property up and doesn't
13 take advantage of people.
14 Q. With that criteria in mind do you know of the
15 land name -- excuse me, let me strike that.
16 When you bring actions against
17 landlords on behalf of your clients you
18 typically find that you're dealing with
19 responsible landowners?
20 MR. SHOEMAKER: Same objection,
21 foundation, form, and calling for -- Perry, go
22 ahead, Perry.
23 THE WITNESS: Well, sometimes they
24 make repairs, sometimes they don't, so it
25 depends.
1 BY MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS:
2 Q. And typically your actions are brought when the
3 repairs are not made?
4 A. Yes, all the time.
5 MS. HAMPTON-FLOWERS: That's all the
6 questions I have. Thank you very much.
7 MR. SHOEMAKER: No follow-up.
8 MR. KAYSER: We will read and sign.
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you, Perry.
10 (Whereupon, the deposition was
concluded at 3:19 p.m.)
I love this!!!!
About ten thousand times on this blog you guys are bitching about SMRLS and that you can't believe them and they are rotten...but this time you believe them... I get it.
I have read this thing over and again don't have a clue why you would think it was worth anything. To sum it up it boils down to... He had a client that was a caretaker on a 4 plex, the City wrote up notices on it, the city sent the notices to the owner, the lawyer for the caretaker says the notices should have come to the caretaker, the lawyer is upset that the neighbors think the caretaker was using drugs, the lawyer knows he didn't use drugs because he asked him, when the lawyer was there some things weren't wrong that they said were wrong so that must mean that they were never wrong, not fixed and because of all of that the neighbors must be racist.
Makes perfect sense.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Post a Comment
<< Home