Custom Search

Monday, March 29, 2010

Watchdog News/ Federal Fair Housing and the Twin Cities

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

posted by Bob at Monday, March 29, 2010

12 Comments:

Anonymous Watchdog News said...

As reported previously, LeRoy Smithrud is involved in several actions against the City Council of St. Paul (“the City”). A number of readers have indicated an interest in how those matters are proceeding.

Here is the most recent update.
Smithrud has two kinds of actions that are currently pending before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. One type involves a “petition
for cert”. The other involves a “direct appeal” of a dismissal by the Ramsey County District Court for “lack of jurisdiction” over Smithrudʼs separate lawsuit that he filed against the City.

Before Filing Suit in his appearances before Marcia
Moermond and the City Council, Smithrud had claimed that he was being retaliated against for
his efforts to report public corruption, because he was a disabled person himself, and because he was trying to protect the supplies of affordable
safe older housing stock for people who are in dire need of such safe, affordable housing as the City itself has repeatedly declared.

Despite neither of his Agate or Montana properties ever being VACANT, the City of St. Paul had falsely declared both of them VACANT and refused to correct that posting despite actual notice and proof that neither one was ever vacant. Both tenants were evicted, the City refused to let Smithrud get rid of the false VACANT postings, and then the City demanded heightened code enforcement without ever going inside either of the properties to conduct any actual inspections.

The {never completed} inspections were used by the City to try to force Smithrud into completing heightened code compliance
repairs, far beyond what the State
Building Code would allow to be required, and far beyond what Smithrud could pay.
Smithrud lost on his claims before both Moermond and the City Council. The Council
voted to demolish both the Agate and Montana

9:50 AM  
Anonymous story continued said...

properties without ever conducting any inside code enforcement inspection and despite having driven out a blind tenant and another tenant who was trying to buy the Montana property from Smithrud, who is seriously disabled.
Smithrud then sued the City under
Federal Fair Housing and the State Building
Code.

The Lawsuit and the Direct Appeal
After Smithrud filed his Summons and Complaint against the City under Federal Fair Housing laws and the State Building Code, the City Attorney for St. Paul filed written papers declaring that no Ramsey County District Court [Judge Mott] could handle the case because the Ramsey County District Court lacked “jurisdiction”.

The City Attorney claimed that the only remedy Smithrud had was to file a petition for
cert.

9:52 AM  
Anonymous story continued said...

Despite Smithrudʼs protestations to the contrary, Judge Mott bought the City Attorneyʼs arguments hook, line and sinker and dismissed
the lawsuit.

Smithrud timely filed his notice of appeal and copies of Federal Fair Housing law, namely
42 USCA § 3613 and 3617.

To get an idea for yourself whether or not Smithrudʼs claims could and should have been heard by Judge Mott, take a look at 42
USCA § 3613 on Google or another search engine.

Even though a pro se plaintiff is not required to plead the exact legal theories he or she is proceeding under, nor is any plaintiff, Smithrud cited exactly as Smithrud had argued and urged upon the Ramsey County District
Court, that the major part of his claims arose under Federal Fair Housing law and the State
Building Code.

§ 3613 of Federal Fair Housing reads:
Ҥ 3613. Enforcement by private
persons.
* Civil action
(1)(A) An aggrieved person may
commence a civil action in an
appropriate United States district
court or state court not later than 2 years after the occurrence or the termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice…”.

9:55 AM  
Anonymous story conclusion said...

The central issue on appeal will be
whether or not Judge Mottʼs Ramsey County State Court erred in refusing to let Smithrudʼs
actual lawsuit proceed in a State court, exactly as those of us who have read § 3613 believe it
reads, and instead forced Smithrud falsely into cert.

You can decide for yourself what you think § 3613 says. Then we can watch together to see how the Minnesota Court of Appeals
reads § 3613, just as Congress intended, that Mott should have taken jurisdiction.

The State Building Code Claims

Smithrudʼs other claims against the City arise under the Minnesota State Building Code.

Unknown by many tenants and landlords, is that the State Building Code was passed by the Legislature years ago to accomplish
two major objectives:

* To protect tenants and landlords
and Cities by setting certain specific minimum standards as to health,safety, use and habitability for all grandfathered
older housing stock.

* To make sure that no City that
adopts the State Building Code can
impose any different sets of code
enforcement standards, either higher or lower, so that the State can meet its goal of keeping housing affordable as well as safe.

In Smithrudʼs case, the City arguably is trying to have its cake and eat it too. The City has sought and taken, and spent millions of dollars of Federal Fair Housing monies, but as Smithrud has uncovered and claimed, the City has intentionally
violated the State Building Code again and again.

Since a Minnesota Supreme Court case dating back to 1975, City of Minnetonka v. Mark Z. Jones Investments, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that no City can alter any portion of the State Building Code.

Surely the City Attorney of St. Paul is aware of § 3613ʼs grant of jurisdiction to State courts. Surely the City Attorney of St. Paul is aware of both the 1975 Mark Z. Jones case and the most
recent case, City of Morris v. SAX Investments, which reaffirmed the 1975 ruling in Mark Z.
Jones

On Smithrudʼs direct appeal, we will find out how someone is supposed to read Federal Fair
Housing and the State Building Code.

By Paul Petrovich

10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on Bobby... this is the guy that owned 1369 Case. You remember him he was the one that TESTIFIED at the City council that he was being kicked into the street by the City issuing orders on that house and you bought it hook line and sinker. Totally denied that it was a rental, acted like he was just a babe in the woods being taken advantage of by the City.

Pull up the link to your old story and post it!

The lying sack of shit lives in Maple Grove and owns rentals all over the place.

Fair Housing my ass.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:04 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I don't recall the title of the story Chuck. Aren't you the guy who made the contradictory claims about Smithrud?

If you are the guy fill us in on the facts, because Smithrud is rallying support from property/civil rights activist. I suspect he has spoken with the FBI.

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy is a con man and Bob and Bill Cullen admitted it!

Its further proof that it doesn't matter what proof of credibility one has, if you come here and bitch, you automatically have a support system. Its also why you all can't get Chuck or I correct on anything.

Here's Bill Cullen's words:

"Hmm. This is frustrating. I have been misled and I did not verify the facts. Yes investors have rights, but this guy did not present himself as an investor. He was clear about being homeless if he loses this home. He was clear that he had 7 years left on the mortgage and would not be able to afford a home during that period if this home was knocked down.

I am not arguing the home should be knocked down, but I am angry that he misled us about living there.

Now that Chuck describes the house, I think I have noticed it (just to the West of the industrial buildings?). I think I might owe Chuck $100.

I agree Chuck; I was misled. That investor put on a heck of a performance.

Bill Cullen."

And now Bob Johnson's words once he actually investigated for himself:

"NOW, I have seen the house and in light of this con mans sob story to the city council, and the condition of the house, I wouldn't feel one bit sorry if this guy's house was demolished.

I will do my own feild work in the future.

Thanks Chuck.."

Here's the link to the A-Democracy archive:
http://ademocracy.blogspot.com/2008/05/saint-paul-senior-begs-gestapo-not-to.html

And, now this guy just waits and cons your official paper into a sympathetic story.

He, LeRoy Smithrud, is what gives landlords a bad name (slumlord). He causes people to rally around more strict code enforcement and quick demolition.

As a political professional, having a guy like this represent my group or allow him to speak in a public forum (like a newspaper), without response from one of the good guys is public opinion suicide.

I've said before that over 90% of the landlords for low to no income renters don't have problems with this city, this a guy that makes your problems worse.

In old days, the landlords would be there to testify against him.

But, he's complaining against the city and that's good enough for most of you, right?


Eric

1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Bob, I'm the guy who said that your benefactors hadn't even sent you the right photo's of the right house on that one.... and you are the guy that kept deleting your posts every time I would show you where you were wrong.

I can't believe that this guy has a case against the City. On the house on Ames he stood there in front of the Council and claimed that he was living in the house. NO Shit. A vacant building. While he was living in Maple Grove. He said it was his only house, that he was living there and that they would be kicking him out into the street.

You got to love it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Come now Chuck be honest. I was "editing" my comment and by coincidence you were responding to my statement as I was posting, deleting and editing the comment.

You know I have bad grammar and sometimes it takes me a couple rounds to get it right. :)

Smithrud probably was lying. I don't know. If he was lying he was trying to get out of paying outrageous fee's from code compliance orders.

Smithrud provides affordable housing and claims he was targeted by the city.

Thank you Eric and Chuck.

"We are on a truth seeking mission"

4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, they were giving him extensions and he wasn't doing any work on the property at all.

What is a damn shame is that the place ended up demo'ed. He should have fixed it.

Re-read the story Bob.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, they were giving him extensions and he wasn't doing any work on the property at all.

What is a damn shame is that the place ended up demo'ed. He should have fixed it.

Re-read the story Bob.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

It may look that way in two dimensions. I experienced some cunning dirty tricks by the inspectors behind the scenes.

7:44 PM  
Anonymous Google Leroy Smithrud said...

Yes Chuck It's me exposing Manatron
Have you got you Property Taxes yet? Neverthless the Subject is LeroySmithrud Google
HAPPY EASTER: BY THE GRACE OF GOD,GATES AND GOOGLE WE WILL PREVAIL

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Leroy+Smithrud+mn&btnG=Google+Search

1:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home