Hurry, Hurry, Get Your Watchdog News!
Link HERE for the latest Watchdog News! Scroll down to page 4.
posted by Bob at Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Custom Search
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Top 'Empty' Cities (rental and housing vacancies)
- MEMORANDUM ON THE GRAND JURY
- Prison violence and the budget deficit
- Report documents mortgage discrimination in Twin C...
- Proposed St. Paul budget cuts 'devastating,' mayor...
- Saint Paul/ Investor's say to hell with Saint Paul.
- Birthday Reminder!
- Test case shows city's tough stance on fixer-upper...
- Detective Jane?
- St. Paul ordinance seeks to educate rookie landlor...
23 Comments:
It kinda sounds like these guys didn't follow the court proceedings or the facts and evidence to closely.
So who wants to bet that this does or does not go to trial?
I remember last month that Bob published the appeal to the Judge citing everything that was wrong with her ruling, but not a mention of it anywhere in the watchdog article. I wonder where they got thier information from?
The Fair Housing lawsuits are headed for the 8th circuit court. Fact is, setting all legal proceedings aside, this case will NEVER be over until the plaintiffs and all of us who feel offended by the city's actions are vindicated. The vindication may come in many forms.
11:27 I got $100.00 to your favorite charity that it doesn't go to trial.
The problem with the case is that it is a disjointed collection of random incidents that the only fact they have in common was that there were housing code violations that were never taken through their proper legal channels to dispute in state court.
So, what a Federal Court judge has to rule on is that the plaintiffs allege that their is a conspiracy yet there isn't even one incident where a state court determined that the city had even erred let alone did anything with malaise.
So, somehow with no evidence, no facts nothing ever shown where anyone did anything wrong. The Federal Court is suppose to start a Fair Housing case or a RICO case or something for some point other than to cost the City money.
It just isn't going to happen.
Bob, posted that last appeal and again the entire point of the appeal is the lawyers arguing that because they have no evidence that anything ever happened it means that there must be a conspiracy to hide evidence, since they have never found any.
Read the judge's ruling again. She spells out in great detail how there isn't a Federal Fair housing case there and the plaintiffs themselves have given up on RICO.
There is no there, there...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
As a contributing reporter for the Watchdog newspaper, I'm puzzled how people would think the newspaper is unsympathetic to the lawsuit filed by Frank Steinhauser and two other landlords or thinks it is "washed up". Of course, we all want the landlords to prevail against the city of St. Paul. I suspect there is an element of Minneapolis vs. St. Paul antagonism here - certainly unintended from the standpoint of the Minneapolis people.
The article in question was written pseudonymously by a David Jungbro. I do not know for sure who this is but, based on my suspicions, think the writer's agenda was to question the integrity of the court, and not only with respect to the Steinhauser case. Th stain of public corruption extends beyond St. Paul city government.
Property owners are a beleaguered species in the Twin Cities. We need to stick together to have any chance of surviving. Two years ago, the landlord group founded by Charlie Disney in 1994 was reorganized and renamed Metro Property Rights Action Committee so as to include property owners from St. Paul and from the suburbs.
Tonight, this group will meet at the Martin Luther King neighborhood center in south Minneapolis (4055 Nicollet Avenue) between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m. I suspect the case of a particular St. Paul landlord will be among the topics of discussion. You're all welcome to attend. It will be an informal meeting. Unfortunately, Jim Swartwood, the Watchdog publisher, won't be there. It's his girl friend's birthday and they're celebrating. But the rest of us can get together and have a good time.
Well Chuck by next November I suspect you can write that $100 check to Saint Mathews Church. :-)
Nice to see you posting Bill.
Do you have me covered Bob?
Will you send the check to Saint Matt's if the court of appeals dismisses or rules in the City's favor?
I just went back on the site here and again looked at the basis for the appeal. I have no doubt this is over.
The judge spells out in great detail in her order how each part of the case is dismissed and that the plaintiff's witnesses proved the cities defence better than it did the plaintiffs' case.
Again, for the plaintiffs to win or even get this thing to trial, you would have to buy the notion that communities of color don't just end up in houses in disrepair, but that they desire houses in disrepair and for the City to require landlords to repair property is to infringe upon communities of colors right to rent properties out of compliance with the code.
Because without that assumption, there is nothing left of the Fair Housing Case.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs showed that the city was concerned about unequal treatment and took pains to mediate those concerns.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs showed that in each instance there were code violations on their properties.
And, the lawyers don't even look to be trying to get the RICO part back together that is so dead.
Anyway, Saint Matt's could use your $100 Bob.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Thank God that someone has the integrity and guts to take this issue to the city bastards.
I've got you covered Chuck.
Maybe you need to learn to be a little more objective Chuck. Obviously you want your buddies at the city to win so you just read the court order as written and assume everything said is true. That's where your problem starts.
As far as the Watchdog goes, well......they never seem to get anything all the way right so I wouldn't put a lot of stock in anything they say.
Some time ago Bob put up the paperwork for the Motion the landlords filed to give the Judge a chance to change her mind because of the mistakes she made. We all read it here. In looking back through it all, the Judge bases her opinion (if you can call it that) by just saying the plaintiff said things they never said. She also falsely asserts that the palintiffs never made arguments that they clearly had not only made, but made the arguments many times over. The landlords also spelled out many different facts that the city never even bother to contest.
How can you even begin to think it over. When the other side doesn't contest something , then it's to be taken as true. I also have never seen or read anywhere about how the landlords gave up on the rico claim. Where was it other than the judge just saying it.
I think you are going to lose a $100.00 Chuck. Keep reading the Watchdog.
10:39 actually, everything that the judge said I had been saying here for months when I read the plaintiffs motions.
The insane thing about the plaintiffs fair housing case is the lack of motive to all of the evil that they assign to the City.
Somehow the City is trying to wipe out all of the people of color in the City by wiping out the worse 1/2 percent of housing. Its an interesting thought, but with 40% of the City being of color you would have to be a lot more agressive than shutting down a few hundred houses a year.
So, how can this be a fair housing case? The landlords are white the renters are of many colors and the only thing that the landlords have in common is that they either will not or can not repair their properties. So, like I have said to be a fair housing case you would have to believe that people of color want houses with code issues and they would rather not live in repaired property.
The case is a joke.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I read the article in the watchdog and it was hard to comprehend it. The story jumped all over the place without making any sense on anything. What are they smoking over there?. I finally gave up!
And that's why you've been the joke for all this time. Do you not read anything? The Judge is full of shit. Just because she says something doesn't make it so. Especially when the other said says they did say what the Judge says they didn't and then goes on to show all the places they said it. Whenever the small guy sues a big company or a rich person or the Government, the courts never take their side, that's why cases like this always go to appeal and get turned around.
As far as the landlords refusing to fix property, your off the mark. One of the things the landlords are suing over is that the city has inspectors that are willing to lie about violations that don't exist so the city can have an advantage litigation wise to persue their agenda of illegal and predatory code enforcement. You know what's going on Repke and everyone knows it. Just cause you cite the Judge's ramblings or some quack newpaper doesn't make what your saying correct.
12:17 - every landlord when they were deposed admitted that there were violations on their property. Now, they may have felt they were unfairly signalled out or that the violation wasn't significant, but they admit that this or that at that moment wasn't up to code.
And, even if it was the case that an inspector made up something, Federal Court isn't where that would be heard. Where that kind of a complaint should have gone is from the City Council to the state court of appeals, but nobody ever...ever tried to say that there was nothing wrong with their property. Now, they did do silly things like say, the report says broken windows, when it is one window, or broken cabinets, when it was one cabinet... that is just stupid! Judges understand that form letters are form letters...
So, go through all of the transcripts and find me which one of the plaintiffs said there was nothing wrong with their property and the City made the whole thing up. It doesn't exist.
That is what the judge basically says as she dismisses all of the charges of the plaintiffs. They say the City makes up things and then their evidence is there were twenty things the City said was wrong with my property but really there were only seventeen... big deal! That isn't anything, it isn't fraud or falsify a report, its nothing. Your property is still in violation and you admit to it.
The two main charges of the plaintiffs are one RICO and two violation of Fair Housing.
The RICO charge boils down to that the City treats PHA different than private landlords. The conspiracy they accuse the City of is allowing PHA more slack on violations. The City's defence is that the Federal Fair Housing Act forces them to give PHA a break and allow them to do the repairs on their time table.
The Fair Housing charge by the plaintiffs is basically that the City should take no action to enforce the code on their properties to promote low income housing.
The City's defence is that they give these property owners reasonable time, they give them extensions and they still don't get the property repaired. But for the inspections, the work would never get done and the City has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the community.
The judge agreed with the City that the plaintiffs weren't able to show one property of PHA's that wasn't ultimately repaired and they didn't show one property of theirs that was written up with nothing wrong.
There is no case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Big deal Chuck, so there were code violations.....so what? There's code violations on every single rental property in the city every day of the week. It's a part of the business. What's not part of the business is a city with an illegal agenda using fabricated repairs to drag peopel through a court system that they rigged in advance to coerce the landlord into illegal code compliances and thus raise the cost of rental housing so they can get rid of a certain class of people. The judge can say whatever she wants, but there is a case and the appeals court will turn it around and the city is going to pay in the end whenveer that comes. Kiss your $100.00 good bye.
10:21 - but that is the point. There is no evidence of an "illegal agenda" other than in the minds of those who are brought in on violations. Not one scrap of paper, not one email in 2.5 million emails that suggests an agenda to do anything other than to respond to community complaints about the conditions of certain properties.
So, when you accept that this "agenda" is made up by the plaintiffs and after 4 years they have no evidence of it and you accept that the properties in question had violations (because you can find violations everywhere) then what you have is the same code compliance process that every other city in the nation has.
There is no case. The appeal is baseless. Read the judges ruling and tell me where she erred because that is what the lawyers are suppose to do...and again they site nothing other than in their minds it must be a conspiracy.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Some attornies did cite where the judge made an error Chuck and Bob had it on here. They even showed the judge where she made an error. Judges cannot just say you never said something when you can show the many places where you did say it and show it. That's crazy!
12:12, why hasn't Bob posted the judges order reaffirming her decision?
He did a while back. You were probably busy getting raw sewage dumped on your head from some landlord and couldn't read it.
Some of the contributers to this blog suck Thune's municiple sewage pipes every day.
Amanda: The files are out there, We redownloaded Summary Judgment on www.scribd.com
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9234161/Summary-Judgement-Order
This stuff takes time We all WIN if the Landlords WIN
The Mooseheads truth in code compliance.
Post a Comment
<< Home