Saint Paul Racketeering Law Suit #3 Victims, Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s on the 643 Watson Property
Racketeering and Illegal Code Enforcement Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s on the 643 Watson Property
92. Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC purchased 643 Watson in January 2003. Dadder’s proceeded with the rehabilitation of the property by obtaining a building permit and posting a performance deposit on March 2 1, 2003. Dadder’s filed a Vacant Building Registration Form on May 13, 2003, and informed James Seeger, Code Compliance Inspector, via letterdated September 23, 2003, that Dadder’s had completed their repairs. Dadder’s spent approximately rehabilitating 643 Watson, including a new roof, new cedar siding,trash removal, new sheetrock, new paint, new electrical, new fixtures, new doors, new cabinets, new appliances and refinished hardwood floors, there by completing all tasks itemized in the prior owner’s inspection report from 2001.
93. On October 23, 2003, a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration for 643 Watson was issued to Thomas J. Gallagher by Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement Programs Supervisor. Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGLDocument l-l Filed 0710612005 Page 23 of 57On January 21, 2004, Gallagher was sent and paid for a Rental Registration Renewal for 643 Watson.
94. In April 2004, Gallagher discovered that employees of the city were contacting his tenants informing them of the City’s interest in suing Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s for housing tenants in a condemned building. On April 9, 2004, a Correction Notice was issued by Defendant Magner for illegal occupancy of a Registered Vacant Building (after the city issued and collected funds for a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October 23, 2003) and for lack of proper ground cover and for the removal of all concrete ruble,brush, wood, piles of dirt or rubble. The April 9, 2004, Correction Notice was prepared by Magner and was attached as Exhibit to the Verified Tenant Remedies Action (“TRA Complaint.
95. On or about April Dawkins directed the commencement of a TRA suit on Dadder’s rental property located at 643 Watson. Dawkins was assisted by Magner and AttorneyDolan. In the Verified Tenant Remedies Action Complaint dated April 29, 2004, Dawkins verified that the allegations of the Complaint were true and accurate. Dawkins claimed in Paragraph No.6 that the code violations had not yet been remedied. This was false as the entire property had been renovated and the 2001 inspection report completed before the City commenced the TRA action. Gallagher was informed that although the property had been completely renovated, it would not be removed from the condemned and vacant housing list because the prior owner did not pull permits for the work done before Dadder’s purchased the building. Gallagher was forced to incur expenses to tear down and rebuild already new sheetrock, and to incur expenses on city permits and city inspections for work done by theprior owner of the building. 23Case Document l-lFiled Page 24 of 5796.
The tenant in the lower level of 643 Watson did not joint the TRA, and the tenant in the upper unit repeatedly informed Mr. Gallagher, and informed counsel at the hearing, that she did not want to join the action, nor did she want to be removed from her newly remodeled rental unit. Dadder’s was forced to retain an attorney to protect their interests in Ramsey County District Court during the period of April 2004 through May 2004.
97. In connection with the alleged violations at 643 Watson, a prior Correction Notice dated November was issued to Collins for illegal occupancy of a building (again, after the issuance of a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October 23, followed by a citation dated December 17, 2003 and a warrant for his arrest. Part of the settlement of the TRA was a fine, removal of warrant and an Agreement to Suspend Prosecution against Collins.
98. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by Magner,Dawkins and the City directed against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, they lost revenue and rental income and incurred expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other expenses.
92. Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC purchased 643 Watson in January 2003. Dadder’s proceeded with the rehabilitation of the property by obtaining a building permit and posting a performance deposit on March 2 1, 2003. Dadder’s filed a Vacant Building Registration Form on May 13, 2003, and informed James Seeger, Code Compliance Inspector, via letterdated September 23, 2003, that Dadder’s had completed their repairs. Dadder’s spent approximately rehabilitating 643 Watson, including a new roof, new cedar siding,trash removal, new sheetrock, new paint, new electrical, new fixtures, new doors, new cabinets, new appliances and refinished hardwood floors, there by completing all tasks itemized in the prior owner’s inspection report from 2001.
93. On October 23, 2003, a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration for 643 Watson was issued to Thomas J. Gallagher by Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement Programs Supervisor. Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGLDocument l-l Filed 0710612005 Page 23 of 57On January 21, 2004, Gallagher was sent and paid for a Rental Registration Renewal for 643 Watson.
94. In April 2004, Gallagher discovered that employees of the city were contacting his tenants informing them of the City’s interest in suing Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s for housing tenants in a condemned building. On April 9, 2004, a Correction Notice was issued by Defendant Magner for illegal occupancy of a Registered Vacant Building (after the city issued and collected funds for a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October 23, 2003) and for lack of proper ground cover and for the removal of all concrete ruble,brush, wood, piles of dirt or rubble. The April 9, 2004, Correction Notice was prepared by Magner and was attached as Exhibit to the Verified Tenant Remedies Action (“TRA Complaint.
95. On or about April Dawkins directed the commencement of a TRA suit on Dadder’s rental property located at 643 Watson. Dawkins was assisted by Magner and AttorneyDolan. In the Verified Tenant Remedies Action Complaint dated April 29, 2004, Dawkins verified that the allegations of the Complaint were true and accurate. Dawkins claimed in Paragraph No.6 that the code violations had not yet been remedied. This was false as the entire property had been renovated and the 2001 inspection report completed before the City commenced the TRA action. Gallagher was informed that although the property had been completely renovated, it would not be removed from the condemned and vacant housing list because the prior owner did not pull permits for the work done before Dadder’s purchased the building. Gallagher was forced to incur expenses to tear down and rebuild already new sheetrock, and to incur expenses on city permits and city inspections for work done by theprior owner of the building. 23Case Document l-lFiled Page 24 of 5796.
The tenant in the lower level of 643 Watson did not joint the TRA, and the tenant in the upper unit repeatedly informed Mr. Gallagher, and informed counsel at the hearing, that she did not want to join the action, nor did she want to be removed from her newly remodeled rental unit. Dadder’s was forced to retain an attorney to protect their interests in Ramsey County District Court during the period of April 2004 through May 2004.
97. In connection with the alleged violations at 643 Watson, a prior Correction Notice dated November was issued to Collins for illegal occupancy of a building (again, after the issuance of a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October 23, followed by a citation dated December 17, 2003 and a warrant for his arrest. Part of the settlement of the TRA was a fine, removal of warrant and an Agreement to Suspend Prosecution against Collins.
98. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by Magner,Dawkins and the City directed against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, they lost revenue and rental income and incurred expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other expenses.
posted by Bob at Tuesday, December 05, 2006
19 Comments:
Slumlords, give it up. You have wasted your money! Your not getting a dime. I hear the depositions aren't going so well for the plaintiffs.
Our city is better off sharing the cost of the poor with surrounding communities.
Someone going fishing?
City, City, give it up for I know what I know, right is still right and some are in for a fight. For some may have a bark worse than their bite. About depositions what's your position? Are you scared, self-acclaimed, maybe a little ashamed. You stomp and you roar like a beast from hell but don't expect us to ever tell. With that said I expect you're seeing red, well who really cares for your defense is dead.
3:32 these property owners in the last lawsuit I know personally.These guys came from nothing and were home grown from the W.7th area.They worked their butts off and provided great housing and improved many neighborhoods in St.Paul.Its very sad to see you catagorize them as slumlords.Now I can see the ideology of your type of thinking.
I for one hope to see all these 3 lawsuits prevail and we have you landlords to thank who stood up to this CITY and blazed a trail for all who follow.You will help this city learn a hard lesson on what they can and can't do.Keep up the fight!!
Ann G
I wonder if the City is budgeting for the pay off of these suits.
I know another one of the landlords in one of the other lawsuits and there is one thing for sure I know about this guy: he does not start a fight he cannot finish. I am thrilled to follow this. It is long overdue.
Some day the end of this will arrive and will be interesting to see which side it is that doesn't want to have the jury hear their side of the story. I know where I am betting my money!
Bob, Preaches Individual Responsibility and looks right over the behavior that got you people where your at.
If you had kept up your rental properties you wouldn't of ever had a problem. It is really that simple.
You should have took that money you got selling what was left of your investments and took up a different trade. Instead you ignore personal responsibility, blame others, waste your money on a lawsuit to the point your broke ass and wishfully dreaming of some pay off that will never come because your wrong!
By saying the landlords are wrong, you are saying that it is right for the government to lie and condemn for repairs that do not exist, fabricate evidence, create fictional plaintiffs to bring civil lawsuits against innocent people, go after the people they don't agree with by launching false criminal charges, enter private property without warants, use coersive and intimidating tactics, and then try and cover it up on top of it. If that's what the majority of people in St. Paul think, we are in a lot of trouble my friend. I haven't heard anyone say they don't want to fix their property. If there are code violations, the government has a right to take action to see that those violations are taken care of. The problem a lot of people have is that the city violated people's constitutional rights doing it, and destroyed lives and businesses in the process, not to mention the mistrust in all government that they have created in many people.
It's all the same opponent responding. If I may point out spelling here; yes spelling such as, "your" instead of "you're". Get the picture, here it is: someone who is scared and wants to cause damage, somewhere, anywhere. The thing is that this blog isn't the courts, so it's pretty pathetic when you look at it.
7:22- I haven't overlooked anything.
What are you hiding? What are you scared of?
After a seemingly detailed articulation of what the City of St. Paul has done to people, for this fool to see the only thing worthy of discussion as a single word that is not spelled correctly is the really pathetic thing that stands out to me. What rock are you living under buddy? Is this the kind of government you want to be in charge? Are these the rules you want your children and grandchildren to live under?
Does anyone know of any city official scared to be deposed?If there is nothing to hide then why not be deposed?So 7:22 and 9:18 if you don't know whats going on, on the inside maybe its best to be quiet.The best thing about being annonymous is the fact we all can't see the egg on your face in the end.The fact you come here and voice concern is concern enough.
So if anyone scared to be asked a couple questions I ask one question,"WHAT ARE YOU SCARED OF?" Do ya get what I'm saying?
They are scared becasue the end is near and they know it. For the first time ever they are going to have to say something with fact and substance, and then be held to it, not respond with one liners and sound bites. The thought of that is sheer terror to any politician, and we don't have just "any" politicians here in St. Paul. Ours are unique. All this time they have thought they are above the law, and now they are going to find out different.....with a little help of course!
These guys in the third lawsuit can be called anything but I am proud to say I know them.They are standing up for justice to be served and the rights of all property owners.Its not easy to do what they are doing but thats whats made them unique and a great asset to this City.These guys won't quit until justice for all is restored.
If voting could change things it would also be illegal!
Nancy (formerly of St.Paul)
I have no knowledge of the lawsuits that have been filed against the City of St Paul, however, I find a few things very interesting. On occasion, I find myself reading the different blog sites and government type web sites and I find the tone to be very similar on all of them. It seems as though people who don't agree with the "mass" on these sites, get attacked. Maybe not directly, however, you can get the feel for the direction the respondents are going. I remember the days when being in city government was an honest, stand up position-- This is a thing of the past. Now the job discription should include how low can individuals get, and lets see whose eye's the wool can be pulled over. If you are not connected in the "political circles", you are in trouble.
Well then Mike you should also know that some are not too happy at all that this blog is not only anonymous but also does not censor.
They don't like the anonymous part because that takes away their tools to be able to come and retaliate against you when they want to put you in your place. Isn't it pathetic with how serious a lot of these alegations are that the response is intimidation and people feeling a need to point out spelling errors! It goes hand in hand with their lack of tolerance fro anything that is not 100 % supportive of their misguided ways and policies. This issue is far bigger than just a bunch of landlords suing the city, it's about a city that thinks they are above the law and to them the ends justify the means mentality is what governs the day.
Post a Comment
<< Home