Custom Search

Thursday, November 30, 2006


An anonymous poster left this comment under another topic. I felt it was worthy of a title since it sums up the anguish felt by many at the hands of Code Enforcement.

A "vendetta" against the city?

People have had their lives destroyed, been pushed into bankruptcy and out of their homes and onto the streets, children's college funds gone, home schooled children now forced to go to public school because the parent has to now get a job to make up the extra income, people accused falsely with criminal charges, city officials trying to profit from getting control of people's homes, retirements evaporated into thin air, and a guilty, dirty, slimy government that hasn't even made a phony attempt of an investigation and you think that some people have a "vendetta" against the city?

I find that very hard to believe!

City Code Enforcement Destroys Elderly Womans Life

Please click onto the title of this post for a link to the Betty Speaker Story.


Hi All,

I was sitting here reflecting on what has been going on at the blog the last 2 days, then I received the following from an anonymous poster. Please everyone, think about the following comments. Who ever posted these comments thank you!

Hi Bob, this is only my humble opinion but things were really hot and going somewhere when posts were being made about people like Alice, Nancy, Kelly Brisson and on and on. Some of the posts here lately have been, I'm sure, intended to kick it to the side and interupt with some really childish attitudes. I'll admit when I see someone saying "you slum landlords need to get out with your tenants so we can have some peace" really irks me too, but what response was this person hoping for? Then we spend the next 2 days back and forth. Words have power. Let's use them to our advantage and put the pressure on the one's that really need it. When you do your invites to the masses out there, you need to be prepared to be putting out an overload of information of what has, is and will be continuing as city procedure. You can do it by posting stories about the above and others, with all the disaster the city has left in it's path, postings won't be running out any time soon. All it takes is one posting referring to someone like E----- to then have them coming screaming in here and biting everyone in the A-----. I know that some with a lot at stake will read everything here as I expect all the code inspectors along with city council members do. Heck, if I did something illegal, I'd be scared too. I'd also want to know who knows what and how much worse it's going to get. So, let's let them know!

Posted by Anonymous to ademocracy at 11/30/2006 04:46:51 PM

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Foreclosures Rising at Alarming Rate!

Please click onto the title of this post for a link to a Tribune story on foreclosures.


Please click onto the title of this post for a link to an update on the Diva Lounge.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Gangs in St. Paul

Hi All,

Please click onto the title of this post for a story related to gang activity at Harding High school.

These boys need mentoring or some will become repeat offenders the rest of their lives and it will cost all of us more money and suffering in the long term.

Mentoring could change the face of corrections as we know it.

Fact is folks when you have a problem you address the source of the problem. The SOURCE is bad PARENTING. We have to turn these boys around. The only way to do that is to give them the tools emotionally to become productive citizens.

Mentoring programs will save us money! And over the long term ease the stress on our over populated prison system.

Right now prisoners in the Ramsey county jail are sleeping on the floor. Our prisons and jails are bursting at the seams. People get sentenced in court and they have to wait for an opening in jail to serve their time.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Violence Doesn't Take A break On Thanks Giving


Saint Paul Police Department

367 Grove Street Saint Paul, MN 55101

Officer Paul Schnell

Chief’s Assistant for Media Relations

651-266-5735 - Office

John M.Harrington

651-755-9990 - Cellular


November 23, 2006

Early Morning Thanksgiving Day Homicide

At about 4:15 this morning, Saint Paul police were called to the 700 block of Selby Av. on a stabbing. A 36 year old Saint Paul man was found dead at the scene. A 34 year old Saint Paul man was taken into custody and has admitted to the stabbing.

The victim had gone to the apartment of a friend and had broken the door to gain access. A fight ensued and the victim began to flee. He was chased down a hallway and was stabbed.

The names of the suspect and victim have not yet been released pending notifications.

Charges will be forwarded to the Ramsey County Attorney on Monday

Saint Paul Police Department - Committed to Excellence, Ethics, Empathy & Education

Alot to Be Thankful For. Happy Thanks Giving

Hi All,

I look back to last December when I was first compelled to join the fight over civil rights in Saint Paul, and I think, what a wild ride it's been!

Sometimes it appears as if we have accomplished nothing, and then I look at the bigger picture and we have gained a lot ground!

I wish we didn't have to wait until the next elections to see the fruits of our labor, but that is evidently the case.

The entrenched bureaucrats don't get it. They are stuck in their arrogance. THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY GET IT and they will make their opinions heard in 2007 at the voting booths. Folks that is why a few have chosen to fight us so vigorously. We're giving it to them in the you know what and they feel it.

The current crime strategy of removing the homes and places troubled people frequent has proven to be a total failure and has only caused a divide between the Citizens and the people who have been charged with the duty to protect and serve us.


Wednesday, November 22, 2006

St. Paul Police Are Disparate For Help!

Hi All,

I just seen a news clip on Ch. 5. The police are asking the City Counsel for funding for additional officers.

The Officer who addressed the Counsel stated "We are willing to die for the citizens of this City". "What are you willing to do for us"?

My opinion these guys want to do their job, and I don't think they need code enforcement to do it for them if we give them the tools.

I actually think some have figured out that removing buildings doesn't end crime. It only spreads it around.

Pioneer Press Story on Diva Protest by Tim Nelson

Hi Folks,

Please click onto the title of this post to get a link to the story.

Shooting In Frogtown

Hi All,

I was watching the news tonight and I see another young man was shoot multiple times when he came to a traffic stop in Frogtown. He fled the scene of the shooting and crashed his car into a sign. He got out of the car and staggered to a gas station on Thomas and Dale.A passenger in the car was not hurt.

A neighbor was interviewed and he stated that Frogtown was really bad and people are killing each other. He was concerned when it would stop.

Well brother, I got news for ya. Crime is not going to stabilize because we have no effective crime strategy. The current strategy is to get rid of the buildings these troubled people hang out at or reside in. Spreading crime from one place to another.

I wonder what building will get the blame for the latest shooting. The gas station the victim sought help at? The home in which the perpetrator lives. Just blame Divas lounge. The bar is already getting flak over the latest shooting that happened outside, the shooter wasn't even a patron of the bar. A few extra blocks from the bar shouldn't matter.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Metro Property Rights T.V. Show is Coming to Saint Paul!

Hi All,

Big announcement! I will be putting together a T.V show under the Metro Property Rights title very soon here in St. Paul.:-) Sorry I will not be a host! There are those better suited for that work. The first show hopefully will be the coverage of the Diva Protest.

Saint Paul Issues and Forums has Censored Me!

Hi All,

I was censored from Saint Paul Issues and Forums because I responded at the Feedback forum there to the following statement Eric Mitchell made in a email to me.

Eric's Statement- Bob we're in the same weight class and apparent strength, anytime. Pick a street or a gym. You won't because like I said, everybody is a tough guy on the Internet. You were informed that if you use that language in my presence, you'll regret it. You will.

Bob- for months the property rights advocates have been getting one threat after another from these Saint Paul Issues and Forum members that are entrenched in City beaurcracy. I finally had enough!

So I took Eric up on his offer and announced it at the Feedback Forum of SPIF since he took his non sense to SPIF. :-) It was great folks like shitting my pants at a City counsel meeting. :-)

I will not be going back to Saint Paul Issues and Forums. It's not a place of democracy. It's a place of hopeful indoctrination. Instead I will build my blog through invitations to citizens of Saint Paul. Currently the blog is getting traffic from all over the world and I would like to see more readers from the Metro area.

Bill Dahns Home

Hi All,

Bill asked me to post this.

Please click onto the title of this story to get Bills Web site

Bill Dahn --
My home has brought out the worst in people, and I blew the Whistle on RAP and Dale Anderson.
Dale ran RAP in 95 till he lost his job, I and Jim Kane investigated him.
We from that he had 5 jobs at " RAP " as Director Ramsey Action Program, WRAP,
Head Start, Fare Share Food Shelf ----- "paying $52,000 each job" !
5 jobs at $52,000 -- equals -- $260,000 Per Year at a NON - PROFIT 1997.
Bill Clinton was making $200,000 a year Full Time 24/7.
He was coving up about my house, and we all see why now - 200,000 homes in MN. with this BAD Insulation.
Mayor Norm Coleman was in Charge of the Money Flow in St.Paul from Washington DC. Federal DOE aka Department of Energy.
In 1997 - the White House called the Department of Energy in Washington, and told them to FIX my insulation problem.
Joe Konrad of the DOE called and left the massage on my phone -- Hello this is Joe Konrad from the Department of Energy in Washington DC. a The White House Called and said to fix Your insulation problem -- then he left his phone # 202-58?-????
But, I have all these phone message yet, so does Leslie Davis and many others.
It was the Democrat that cover up about RAP.
The Book Always Cheat, By Leslie Davis.
Jim Schieblel lost his job at RAP, HE also ran it in the 1970,s
He refused to work with me on this, I sent a well written letter that Leslie typed up for me.

Remember that CODE ENFORCEMENT Did Not Enforce the SEWER GASES coming in my home threw then Furnace -- Cold Air Return, The Toilet sewer pipe it.
RAP'S People cut the bean under the bathroom floor, that in turn broke the toilet sack off at the floor. --- under >> "homestead"
This house cost the TAX PAYER'S Dearly, for all it cost to fight me over the last 11 yrs.

Read this site and pass it along. CND: Chemical Sensitivities smells of perfumes and
other smells just kick my ass.
Bill Dahn


Enough IS Enough !

The Dahn Of A New Era

Bill Dahn
Bill Dahn, Video with Jessie, 1998
Bill Dahn, Homestead Rip Off
Bill Dahn, 9/11 - Memorial for Bill Dahn's loss His Home


Hi All,

The protest was a success. The turn out was real positive. Unfortunately at the last minute the protest was moved to St. Benards office entrance.

There were several media outlets present. At the top of the list was the Watchdog News Paper, Metro Property Rights Action Committee T.V. show, and other media venues.

Deb Johnson the owner of Divas is alleging racketeering by the City of Saint Paul in an attempt to deprive her of the ownership of the Bar.

I'm really busy and don't have time to comment further. I will comment when we hear from other local media.

Thanks to all who came!



Hi All,

Evidently there is a new City ordinance. WWB (Walking while Black) yes folks it is a crime to walk the streets here in Highland if you are black.

Within the last 3 weeks my son and his friends have been stopped, detained and questioned by police before being released 3 different occasions.The last time my son asked why they were being detained he was told "routine check". Very sad.

I want anyone reading this to put yourself in my sons and his friends position. How would you like being publicly humiliated like you done wrong as passerbyers see you being frisked and detained in the back seat of a squad car.

I feel like I am living in GERMANY in the 40's. Harrington, get these dogs off my sons back. He is St. Pauls Youngest Black Business Man!

Monday, November 20, 2006


Hi All,

I also posted this at "Saint Paul Issues and Forums', you can find their link below my profile to the right of the screen.

Divas has security. Divas has refused to serve unruly customers. Divas has
cooperated with the City in trying to keep an orderly house. The shooting was
outside the bar. The shooter wasn't a patron of the bar. Divas does not run ads
looking for troubled customers. No business wants trouble from hoodlums, and
the CITY!<(if you get trouble from hoodlums, the City isn't far behind to
attack your business too)! They want the neighbors to believe the business is
the problem not their inability to address social ills. Last I heard the police
were charged with the duty to "Protect and Serve".

The security companies in this City are thriving. All this responsibility of
policing being shrugged off on the average citizen. And demonizing hard working
business men and women as if they share in the responsibility of the socials
ills that fall upon their door step.

How is the average citizen to bare the burden of the bad parenting of others?
Instead of taking responsibility of social ills, the City and police have
discovered away to relieve the heat of public perceptions of their short
comings to deter crime. BLAME OTHERS!

There are people who would like others to believe this is just whining and
the Property Rights Advocates are just whiners. Folks we have over a long
period of time tried resolving issues with the City. The arrogance is
appalling. Protest and blunt dialog has been a last resort. We are looking
for bold leadership!


Hi All,

The Watchdog News in conjunction with the Metro Property Rights Action Committee has organized a protest at DIVAS on Tuesday at 1:00 P.M.

Please come, and bring a friend.

See you at the protest,


Sunday, November 19, 2006

Alice Krengal Emails Sharon Anderson With Her Concerns!

For new readers to the the blog, Alice Krengal has been made homeless by the courts over disorderly conduct due to excessive drinking at her home. Whats happening to Alice just isn't right. There must be a common sense solution to this issue.

Subject: Re:latest from alice, the jailbird
Date: 11/18/2006 5:23:51 P.M. Central Standard Time
Reply To:
Sent on:

Sent from the Internet (Details)

dear sharon, thanks for your emails. i don't get to check them everyday. the computers at passport don't allow us to check them. i was told that they were sick of viruses, so cancelled all email privileges on healtheast computers. i talked to my lawyer on friday afternoon. no word from the judge yet. she believes that i have been telling her the truth all along. she said they have the right to reject a client and would have if they hadn't believed in me. she said that what the city is doing "isn't fair". she also talks about "the next step" if we lose. if we win, she will not drop out, but will look for co-counsel so we can sue the city. it's the only way we can stop future harassment. i read the watchdog articles you sent. thanks. they are harrowing. i don't know about thanksgiving. i find myself really down at times. i think i would be better off going to the salvation army and celebrating with the friends that i have met here.they know my situation and have been sympathetic. no one has "given me hell". i get teased a lot, but that's because i take it well and get a genuine laugh about it. years ago a friend told me, "you only tease the people you care about." if i went to the sirloin room, i feel that too many people will bring my predicament up, and it would be very hard for me. most of the time i try to put it out of my mind. whenever i think about my cats, it's hard not to cry.,my life was all in order before this happened. on a good note, they brought the ping pong table out at passport. i was REALLY good at that in my teens and early twenties, but played little up till age 35. from 35 till 3 weeks ago, i never picked up a paddle. i feaqred i might have to learn all over again, but everything was there. serves i didn't even know i had. it all came back as if it were yesterday---and better. i play moire aggreassively than i did before. one asian gentleman picked me to play with him, WOW WHAT A COMPLIMENT. passport closes from 2pm wed. until monday. bummer. i also help several people with there paperwork for welfare and ssi. that really makes me feel good and takes my mind off myself. we are under a pall at dorothy day. one 39 year old woman drowned in a bathtub from mixing alcohol with vicodan. she was so unique and vibrant--drunk all the time but pleasantly so. i have less desire to drink here than i did at home. twice in 11 weeks and counting. please pass on this letter by email and verbally to all who are interested. thank you for your support. i told my lawyer that staying at dorothy day is getting old. it's not living, just existing. my health is still good. we hAve new mats (in short supply) when i get one, i'm able to sleep thru the night with less pain that wakes me up. love, alice

Friday, November 17, 2006

City Attorney Choi Wants Divas Bar Closed Until a Plan is Developed to End Violence.

Please click onto the title of this post for the latest update on Divas.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Helgen Misguiding Public to Gain Votes at The Expense of Innocent People.

Hi All,

I reprinted this from SPIF. You can find a link to "Saint Paul Issues and Forums" to the right of the screen below my profile.

Posted 16 Nov 2006 16:58 by Michael Mischke

The citizens of St. Paul sleep safer tonight. The City Council has
unanimously approved stiffer penalties for licensed businesses where
someone is seriously injured or killed in the course of committing a
crime on or near the premises. The stiffer sanctions were introduced
by City Council member Lee Helgen, whose Ward 5 includes Diva’s
Overtime Lounge, 1141 Rice St. Diva’s was the scene of a fatal
shooting in July and another shooting on November 11 when a man was
seriously injured outside the club.

Under the newly adopted penalties, all licensed businesses in the city
—including bars and restaurants, gas stations and convenience stores—
will have their licenses suspended and be forced to close for 30 days
after an incident that results in death or serious injury. After a
second incident, the licenses will be suspended and the businesses
will be forced to close for 60 days. After a third incident, the
licenses will be revoked and the businesses will be forced to close
for good.

I guess in St. Paul it’s “three-strikes-and- you’re-out” even when
you weren’t the one wielding the bloody bat.

The stiffer penalties passed by the City Council had the support of
Mayor Chris Coleman and Police Chief John Harrington. The Minnesota
Licensed Beverage Association and the St. Paul Hospitality
Association, two trade groups whose members you might assume would
have an opinion on the matter, took no position, and no one testified
against the ordinance at a public hearing.

Helgen introduced the ordinance after the City Council voted 4-2 in
October to reduce the recommended penalties imposed on Arnellia’s
nightclub, 1183 University Ave. City licensing staff and the City
Attorney’s Office had suggested that Arnellia’s licenses be suspended
for 60 days in response to a fatal shooting that occurred there in
February 2004. But the council reduced the penalties to a $1,500 fine
and a 10-day suspension, then waived everything but $500 of the fine
if there are no similar incidents at Arnellia’s in the next six months.

Although he acknowledged the steps that Arnellia’s has taken to
improve security since the shooting, Helgen said that reducing the
penalties “sent the wrong message.”

The right message that the City Council apparently wants to send now
is that licensed businesses in St. Paul and the law-abiding people
they employ should suffer more severe consequences for the illegal
actions of those who happen to patronize those establishments.

That ought to drop St. Paul a few notches below the 81st most
dangerous city in the nation, don’t you think?

Michael Mischke
Summit Hill

Tribunes story on Divas.

Please click onto the title of this topic for the Tribunes story on Divas.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

WCCO's Information on the Diva Story

Please click onto the title of this topic to read the story by Sue Turner

1st shooting at Divas. News Video

Please click onto the title of this post for a video concerning Divas.


Please click onto the title of this post to get a link to another Pioneer Press story concerning this subject. You won't believe it!

Monday, November 13, 2006

Bill Dahn," The Persistant Activist"

Bill Dahn asked me to post this-

Can Hatch do his job ?
Did Hatch do his Job ?
No, He is covering up for a conspiracy in the 1998 Minnesota's Governors Race.
The Democratic Party helped cover up a conspiracy and bribe by, Jesse Ventura, Dean Barkley, Doug Friedline, Mavis Huddle.
Jesse Ventura and his people conspired before July 17, 1998 to have Bill Dahn, to do a last minuet political party change to Republican.
Doug Friedline talked to Bill Dahn on July 17, 1998 about Jesse Ventura and Dean Barkley wanting to come over on Sunday - July 19, 1998 to talk to me "Bill Dahn" and my running partner James Kane.
So Doug Friedline arranged a meeting, and on schedule Jesse and Dean Barkley shows up at Bill Dahn's home at 256 W. Morton St. in St.Paul,Minnesota on July 19 1998.
Bill Dahn had to run for office to stop the threats against him about the bad insulation, that was installed free by Ramsey Action Program Inc. aka RAP.
The BAD Insulation had a high content of "formaldehyde" on it.
In 1997 Sandy Pappas sent out a real nice Native American girl from her office staff, her name was Ann Cook -- " Thunder Hawk".
After awhile Sandy told Ann Cook to just stop helping Bill Dahn with his problems with his home.
Ann Cook "Quit" working for Sandy Pappas and worked with Bill Dahn and then moved in Bill's home at 256 W. Morton St. in St.Paul,MN.
Ann and Bill Dahn had the "Insulation" tested at --- Then called Twin City Testing, it tested at
1.51 PPM's Formaldehyde level.
State of Minnesota's Health Department guild line for Formaldehyde in only .10 PPM's !
This BAD insulation was bought out of Canada, where it was outlawed for having to high of
Formaldehyde Level.
The start of the big cover up about this BAD insulation that RAP installed, in some 200,000
other homes here in Minnesota.
The DFL people were in charge of the money that flows threw the Energy Program, The money starts in Washington DC. at Department of Energy.
in 1997 -- The DOE out of Washington DC. called and left a message on Dahn's answering machine.
Joe Konrade Energy Technology Programs Specialist form the U.S. Department of Energy called and left message, that the White House contacted them and said to get my Insulation problem fixed.
So a direct order from the White House became covered up threw under handed people that ran Ramsey Action Program aka RAP at the time.
RAP's Director Dale Anderson and Paul Vielaber the Weatherization Program Manager, said for 3 years that there was nothing wrong with the home at 256 W. Morton St. own by Bill Dahn.
Bill Dahn was a Disabled Native American with Epilepsy, the Epilepsy was triggered by a
chemical sensitivities to smells. CND:-MCS: Chemical Sensitivities

These people in Minnesota's State Government at the time thought if they would ignore Bill Dahn, he might just go away.
The people in our state government was dumb-mer then most of them LOOK, Dahn was a person that remembered what his mother said to Bill and his two brothers.

and she also told them
Enough IS Enough !

The "Proof" is in the pudding, here is a video filmed by Dean Barkley on July 19,1998 at Bill Dahn's home at 256 W. Morton St.
Bill Dahn, Video with Jessie Ventura, 1998-The Bribe
So over the years of lying by RAP and Northern State Power Co. aka NSP aka
The Excel Company, over the Bad work on Dahn's "home".
A bad furnace donated by NSP Co. put in Dahn's home was proven to be faulty and unsafe.
NSP bought out a furnace company that went bankrupt, and donated the furnaces to
Ramsey Action Program --- for a TAX CREDIT .
So about Mike Hatch, HE did not do his job !
He as The Attorney General, His Job was to "Protect" the citizens from any harm from a unsavory company.
Even if the company get their money from the, Federal Government ----------------------
Department of Energy aka DOE out of Washington DC.


Please click onto the title of this post for a Pioneer press story concerning violence on the street outside DIVAS BAR.

The plans to give bar owners a "3 strike and your out of business" policy is just another attempt at making innocent people responsible for those who commit crime.

I am convinced that the people in power currently grew up in a home where all the siblings were punished when one sibling broke a rule. What happened to individual responsibility?

Sunday, November 12, 2006

St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Sandra Harrilal

257. Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen participated in similar discriminatorv and
7 3.illegal action directed at St. Paul landlord Sandra Harrilal at her duplex rental propertv
located at 704 East Lawson (“704 Lawson”) in the Citv. Ms. Harrilal is a single Black
mother of two, is employed as a school teacher and has rented to African Americans at her
? ,’
rental properties.
258. Ms. Harrilal purchased the 704 Lawson rental property in April 2003, and
registered her home address with the Citv under its Rental Registration propram.
259. In February 2004, Ms. Harrilal discovered that Communitv Stabilization
Proiect (‘CSP”) was contacting her tenants with flvers informinp them of the C&v’s
interest in condemning her 704 Lawson rental proper@. Ms. Harrilal then contacted Rav
Hessler, the prior owner of the rental proper&, and obtained Citv code enforcement
documentation dated December 16,2002, and Februarv 13.2003, alone with a COPY of Mr.
Hessler’s cancelled check for the repair work and a receipt for a new hot water heater.
260. Ms. Harrilal contacted Defendant Martin and was informed that the Citv
was suinp Ms. Harrilal with a TRA over claimed code deficiencies on her 704 Lawson
rentalbropertv. Defendant Martin informed Ms. Harrilal that Martin had mailed a
Correction Notice to her in September 2003. At no time prior to that call had Ms. Harrilal
been provided with notice of the Citv’s code enforcement actions on 704 Lawson or the
City’s lawsuit avainst her.
261. Defendants Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Manner and other Citv officials and
74.employees unknown at this time, participated in a fraudulent scheme of no notice and
delaved notice to Ms. Harrilal of Citv code enforcement documents and court papers in
order to benefit themselves to Ms. Harrilal’s deteriment. The illepal actions against Ms.
Harrilal as described herein were accomplished to’ further the racketeeride activitv of
Defendants Dawkins. Maener, Martin, Koehnen, Kelly and others.
262. Ms. Harrilal subsequentlv learned that the Correction Notice Martin had
referred to was dated September 15,2003, and was actuallv addressed to 704 Lawson not
Ms. Harrilal’s home address listed in the Citv’s Rental Registration program. Ms. Harrilal
also did not receive a COPY of the TRA Summons at her home address. However, in the
Complaint. Defendant Dawkins referred to Ms. Harrilal’s Rental ReFistration address.
263. The September 15.2003, Correction Notice on Ms. Harrilal’s 704 Lawson
rental propertv was prepared bv Defendant Martin. This Notice was attached as Exhibit
#l to the Verified Tenant Remedies Action (“TRA”) Complaint prepared and sworn to bv
Defendant Dawkins. The Correction Notice listed 12 items that Defendant Martin claimed
were code deficiencies. Defendant Dawkins claimed in Parapraph No. 6 that the code
violations had not vet been remedied. This was false as items numbers 10 and 12. had been
remedied: the hot water heater had been replaced and the illepal locks had been replaced
before the Citv’s commenced the TRA action against Ms. Harrilal.
264. Ms. Harrilal’s tenants did not ioin in the Defendant Citv’s TRA aRainst her.
7 5.Nevertheless, Defendant Citv, Martin and Dawkins continued the TRA and Ms. Harrilal
was forced to retain an attornev. Douelass E. Turner, to protect her interests in Ramsey
Countv District Court durinp the period of February 2004 through Julv 2Od4. In the TRA,
the Citv attempted to present code violations that Defendants Dawkins and Martin claimed
existed in an emptv rental unit of 704 Lawson: the Ramsev Countv District Court ruled
that the Citv was limited bv the Minnesota TRA statute to presenting code violations in
occupied rental units.
265. During the pendencv of the TRA, Defendants Dawkins and Martin continued
their fraudulent scheme of delaved notice to Ms. Harrilal in an attempt to preiudice her
and penalize her. Followinp a Mav 27.2004, inspection of 704 Lawson, Martin prepared
an additional Correction Notice dated June 1,2004. In this Notice Martin provided
Harrilal until June 14,2004. to correct the alleged deficiencies. The envelope that enclosed
the June 1.2004, Correction Notice is postmarked “June 15.2004.” Martin intentionallv
delaved mailing this Notice to Ms. Harrilal for two weeks after the date of the Notice in
order to preludice Ms. Harrilal in the TRA action that was pendinp in State Court.
266. Defendant Dawkins directed the fraudulent notice scheme apainst Ms.
Harrilal. Dawkins prepared a letter notice to Ms. Harrilal dated June 1.2004. notifying
her that his department (NHPD had conducted an inspection of her rental property at 704
Lawson on Mav 27.2004, and found that she was not compliant with a previous order to that propertv. Dawkins stated that Ms. Harrilal was beinp billed $50.00 for the cost
of the inspection in accordance with St. Paul Ledslative Code Section 34.08.4 for excessive
consumption of Citv services. Dawkins stated that Ms. Harrilal’s propertv was scheduled
for a reinspection on June 14.2004, and warned her that if she did not have the violations
corrected by that date. she would be billed an additional $75.00 for additional City
reinspection costs. Dawkins fraudulentlv delaved mailing his June 1,2004, excessive
consumption notice to Ms. Harrilal for over two weeks. The postmark on the envelope
enclosinp Dawkins’ notice is dated June 16.2004.
267. Because of the discriminatory and illepal actions apainst Ms. Harrilal by
Defendants, including Defendants Citv, Martin and Dawkins, Ms. Harrilal has lost tenants
and rental income to pav for maintenance and repairs, utilities, morteaEe payments and
other expenses of the subject property, she has lost her investment in the 704 Lawson rental
propertv, and she is now forced to sell her two rental properties in the Citv.
268. On AuEust 252004, Ms. Harrilal delivered her Notice of Claim to the Citv of
St, Paul alleeine, amon other claims, that Defendants had illePallv discriminated against
her as a landlord providinp housine services to “protected class“ members, had abused
process. had retaliated apainst her, and had continued their racketeerinp activitv against
her and others in the Citv.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Leroy Miller

67.235. Martin and Dawkins also participated in similar discriminatory action directed at
St. Paul landlord Leroy Miller at his rental property located at 12 Oakley Avenue in the City in
an attempt to further their discriminatory attack on members of the “protected class” living
within the City of St. Paul and those landlords renting to them.
236. On March 8,2002, Miller purchased a duplex rental property located at Oakley
Avenue. This duplex was Miller’s first rental property.
237. On or about April 10,2002, housing code enforcement inspectors
conducted an inspection of Miller’s rental property and noted deficiencies in the state of repair of
his property including that the roof needed to be repaired.
23 8. On May 2 1,2002, a building permit was issued by the City for roof repair on
Miller’s duplex. The new roof was completed July 30,2002 by American Building Contractors.
239. During 2002 and most of 2003, the main floor rental unit was rented by Miller
to an Hispanic woman and the upstairs unit to two Caucasian college students. The college
student renters left the upstairs unit at the end of August 2003. Miller had an agreement with an
African-American male for rental of the upstairs unit to him after August 3 1,2003.
240. On or about May 16,2003, Dawkins and an Assistant City Attorney prepared,
and subsequently filed, an action for the City in Ramsey County District Court against Miller’s
duplex; this discriminatory lawsuit was against the prior owners of Miller’s property, which
included Muhannah Kakish.
6 8.241. As part of the City’s court filings, Dawkins signed a sworn, verified Complaint
for relief wherein he,claimed supervision of inspections and inspectors within the Department
Housing. The Complaint, Verification and City inspection records were mailed by Dawkins to
Kakish and a prior owner of the property. ‘,
242. In Dawkins’ Verification and the City’s court papers, Dawkins made false
representations as to facts presented to the court and parties. Dawkins falsely stated in Paragraph
No. 5 that the violations listed in the City’s April 10,2002, written Correction Notice regarding
the property, “remained unabated as verified by an inspection done by Saint Paul Property Code
Enforcenient”. Paragraph No. 3 stated that the “Main roof [was] in need of repair or
replacement.” This sworn statement by Dawkins was completely false as the 12 Oakley roof had
been completely replaced under City permit on July 30,2002, over nine months before Dawkins
was preparing his sworn statement to the court.
243. The false claim by Dawkins that Miller’s building needed roof repair was the
most serious claimed deficiency regarding Miller’s building and a necessary component in order
for Dawkins to maliciously file his discriminatory court action against Miller’s property.
Dawkins attached to his verified Complaint a letter dated April 10,2002, from his department
listing the roof as needing repair. This letter was over one year old.
244. Dawkins and his office served the Summons and Complaint with attachments
and Verification for the City’s discriminatory court action against Kakish and Miller’s 12 Oakley
6 by mail to Kakish at 12 Oakley Avenue where Miller received it. At that time, Kakish
was Miller’s property manager. After it was pointed out to the City Attorney that Kakish and the
other Defendant were no longer owners of the property, the City dismissed the court action on
June 19,2003. .
245. Thereafter, Martin claimed in a July 10,2003, written Correction Notice sent
through the mail to Miller addressed to his 1491 3ti Street East, St. Paul residence, that she
inspected his 12 Oakley rental property on July 9,2003 and made the following determination:
“The roof is deteriorated, defective, or in a state of disrepair.” Martin demanded that Miller,
“Repair or replace the roof covering to a sound, tight and water impervious condition” and
informed him that a “Permit may be required.” The statement in the written Correction Notice
by Martin that the roof was in disrepair was deliberately false as the roof had been completely
replaced, and Martin’s statement was maliciously made for the purpose of interfering with
Miller’s rental property business and his protected class tenants or potential tenants.
246. Martin listed in the Correction Notice of July 10,2003, additional claimed
violations at Mill’er’s 12 Oakley property that were deliberately false including false claims that :
refuse, garbage and junk were improperly stored by Miller or accumulated on his property and
that vehicles were not properly licensed, operable or on an improved surface.
247. Following Martin’s July 9,2003, inspection of Miller’s property and issuance of
her Correction Notice, Dawkins once again prepared a Verified Complaint against Miller’s 12
7 0.Oakley rental property this time naming Miller as the correct owner and filed the court papers,
Dawkins once again falsely swore under oath that the roof on Miller’s building was in state of
disrepair. During this court action, Attorney Dolan, a member of the PPU, represented the City
against Miller. The Complaint, Verification, and City mspection records were mailed by said
Defendants and Dolan to Miller.
248. The Verified Complaint by Dawkins and Dolan in this second court action stated
that an inspection of Miller’s property had been conducted on July 9,2003, and that multiple
code violations were found. The Verified Complaint once again deliberately, and maliciously,
falsely stated that the roof was deteriorated: The Complaint also falsely stated additional code
violations: refuse and garbage were improperly stored or accumulated on his property; vehicles
were not properly licensed, operable or were abandoned; lack of proper ground cover in the yard.
Dawlcins provided a sworn Verification that the code violations listed in the Complaint had not
been remedied. This was once again a deliberately false statement and was made for the purpose
of damaging Miller’s interests in the property and to interfere with tenant rights.
249. On or about August 13,2003, Miller appeared in court with his property
manager, Kakish. During this court appearance, Kakish and Miller had conversations with Dolan
and Martin. Miller assured the court and Dolan and Martin that he was attempting to complete
all necessary repairs and informed them that he needed to keep the building rented in order to
have funds to make repairs. In fact, Miller had made substantial investment into renovation of
71.the property of which said Defendants had actual knowledge.
250. During this court meeting, Dolan and Martin asked Miller to agree to allow the
City to conduct a “code comnliance” inspection of the. 12 Oakley rental property.. Dolan’and
Martin assured Miller and Kakish that they wanted to continue to keep tenants in the rental
property in order for repairs to be made. Dolan and Martin also made mention of the short
housing supply in the City and made assurances that Miller and Kakish would be able to continue
to rent the rental property during rehabilitation.
25 1. Neither Miller nor Kakish had experience with code compliance inspections
before and they did not know at that time that in order for a code compliance inspection to be
conducted by LIEP, Miller’s rental property would either have to be condemned or vacant. At
the time, Miller’s property was not condemned or vacant. Based upon the assurances of Dolan
and Martin fraudulently made to coerce and induce Miller and Kakish to settle, Miller and
Kakish agreed to the code compliance inspection. Miller was ordered to reappear in court
September 4,2003.
252. Kakish and Miller attempted to file for a code compliance inspection at the LIEP”
office but LIEP would not approve such an inspection without a condemnation or a vacant.
building. On August 21,2003, Miller obtained a building permit for remodel work at 12 Oakley
that included the items listed by the City in its court action, including removal of the back porch,
rebuilding the back stairs and moving the prefab stairs into place at the front door.
7 2.253. On or about August 21,2003, without Miller or Kakish’s knowledge or consent,
Martin gained entry to the inside of the 12 Oakley rental property and conducted an interior
inspection of the upper and the lower units. Martin made an illegal entry and search of the main
floor apartment unit occupied by Miller’s Hispanic tenant without the consent of Miller or the
tenant and without an administrative warrant or existence.of an emergency.
254. After this illegal entry and search of Miller’s building, Dawkins and Martin
prepared and mailed to Miller and the occupants of the rental unit a written Notice of
Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated August 25,2003. This discriminatory action by
Dawkins and Martin shut down Miller’s rental building and forced his Hispanic tenant from her
home and prohibited Miller from renting to the African-American tenant ready to occupy the
upstairs rental unit.
255. During a code compliance inspection that occurred after the condemnation,
City inspectors from the LIEP office stated to Miller that they did not feel that the conditions at
Miller’s building warranted that the building be condemned by Martin.
256. Because of the discriminatory condemnation and order to vacate, Miller lost
tenants and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities, mortgage payments and
other expenses of the subject property, lost his investment in the home, and is now forced to sell
his home.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Steve Johnson

2 19. City Code Enforcement Officer, Dick Lippert, under supervision of Dawkins and
6 2.Kelly and working with other City Code officials and employees, also participated in furthering
the discriminatory code enforcement action directed at members of the “protected class” by
targeting Steve Johnson, another St. Paul landlord providing housing to those individuals. About
ninety (90) percent of Johnson’s tenants are members’of the protected class. Johnson receives
many tenant referrals from Project Hope.
220. Commencing on January 30,2003, and continuing to present, housing inspectors
and officials, including Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Dick Lippert and Mike Kalis, and Attorney
D&n, have harassed Johnson on his rental properties in an effort to shut down Johnson’s rental
business. Said Defendants’ illegal, discriminatory and malicious actions have forced Johnson to
sell off many of his rental properties that he was renting to members of the protected class.
221. Even though Johnson’s rental properties had no abnormal history of code
violations during his ownership prior to 2003, commencing in early 2003, most of his rental
properties in St. Paul were discriminationly targeted by said Defendants for code inspections.
Thereafter, Defendants repeatedly harassed Johnson by selectively enforcing the City housing
code in a very strict and, most times, petty manner, while at the same time Defendants looked the
other way on serious housing code violations at adjacent properties not owned by Johnson.
222. On January 30,2003, City Code Enforcement Officer, Mike Kahs, supervised
by Dawkins, commenced the illegal harassment against Johnson by posting a “Vacant Building”
sign on his occupied property located at 469 Whitall Street. The property was in fact occupied
6 Johnson’s son as his home. Kalis ignored the obvious occupancy of the home. Because of
the Vacant Building posting and order prohibiting occupancy of the home, Johnson’s son was
forced to leave his home in the middle of winter.
i 223. Following Johnsons’ successful appeal of the illegal vacant building posting on
469 Whitall, on February 10,2003, the City rescinded the “Vacant Building” status after the
City’s Nuisance Building Unit reinspected the home.. Within a few days, Martin retaliated
against Johnson by conducting an exterior inspection of the Johnson home at 469 Whitall and
thereafter issuing and mailing to Johnson and the occupant a Correction Notice dated February
10,2003. Martin informed Johnson that she would reinspect on February 24,2003, and that the
Code “deficiencies” must be corrected by that time or a criminal summons may be issued.
224. Before the February 24,2003, reinspection deadline, Martin made a second
inspection of the Johnson home on February 19,2003, and then prepared and mailed to Johnson
and the occupant a Revised Correction Notice dated February 2 1,2003, that noted additional
“deficiencies” to be corrected by the original February 24,2003, deadline.
225. About one month later, Lippert and Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson
and the occupant a “Notice of Condemnation As Unfit For Human Habitation And Order To
Vacate” dated March 3 1,2003, wherein they deliberately and maliciously condemned Johnson’s
469 Whitall home for no valid reason. Although the Notice was dated March 3 1,2003, it
ordered that Johnson’s home was to be vacated by March 28,2003, three days earlier. Lippert
6 4.and Dawkins also demanded a full code comnliance before Johnson could reoccupy the home,
226. The written Notice of Condemnation dated March 3 1,2003, on Johnson’s
home, was based solely on three joists on the porch being slightly cracked. Johnson already
knew of this problem and he had previously discussed the repair with other City inspectors who
informed him that it was a minor repair that only required “crutching” of the three slightly
cracked joists. Based solely upon this minor problem on the porch of the home, the
condemnation and order to vacate the property issued by Lippert and Dawkins prohibited
Johnson’s son from re-occupying his home.
227. Lippert, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen, and other inspectors from Defendant
City, continued to retaliate against Johnson by condemning another of his rental properties
located in St. Paul that he had just purchased in December 2002. This property was located at
941 Cypress. Johnson leased the home to a tenant he received from Project Hope who was
disabled, confined to a wheel-chair and receiving Social Security Disability Income assistance.
228. In February 2003, Dawkins’ Housing Department commenced harassment
against Johnson’s 941 Cypress property and its tenant by repeatedly citing the disabled tenant
with Vehicle Abatement Orders and Summary Abatement Orders, and by issuing a criminal
misdemeanor housing code citation to the tenant.
229. Said Defendants were able to condemn Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property on
March 13,2003, after a questionable warrant and police “drug raid” into the disabled tenant’s
6 5.home. On information and belief, no charges were ever filed against the disabled tenant.
Inspector Lippert and Dawkins promptly condemned Johnson’s building at the end of the “drug
raid” forcing the disabled tenant from his home.
230. The raid at Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental home for alleged drugs; the arrest of the
disabled tenant, the subsequent failure to charge the tenant and the issuance of a condemnation of
the home as a result of the raid, was similar to Brisson’s experience in October 2003.
231. As part of the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress property, Lippert and
Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated
March 13,2003. The sole basis for the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property
was listed as “excessive storage of combustible materials “throughout” the home. Lippert and
Dawkins falsely and maliciously stated the condition of the home. The tenant was simply
repairing his snowblower in his kitchen. Instead of allowing the tenant to remove his
snowblower and gas can from his kitchen, Lippert and Dawkins took the most drastic action in
condemning the property and prohibiting anyone from living in the home. This illegal and
malicious action by Dawkins and Lippert and the Housing Department caused injury to
Johnson’s tenant and to Johnson’s rental business and property.
232. Martin prepared and mailed to Johnson a written Correction Notices on Johnson’s
rental properties wherein she made malicious false statements about claimed code violations;
many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by Martin to Johnson were false and
6 6.calculated to make Johnson’s properties look bad.
233. For example, Johnson received in the mail from Inspector Martin a Correction
Notice dated January 16,2004, regarding his rental property located at 606 Edmund Avenue, St.
Paul, that listed 12 items as being in violation of City code. Five claimed code violations related
to a toilet seat,’ cabinets, carpet, roof and sanitation that were listed by Inspector Martin were
deliberately false and those conditions did not in fact exist. These deliberately false allegations
were malicious, in that Martin and Koehnen had personally been present, witnessed and
inspected this exact property at 606 Edmund in June 2003, when Martin and Koehnen, with no
prior notice, came to the property uninvited. At that time, Johnson was almost completed with
an extensive renovation of the home which included the items specifically listed by Martin and
Koehnen, and more. Martin and Koehnen personally toured the premises, including the interior
of the building, and expressed amazement of the quality of the materials and workmanship and
time and effort being expended by Johnson on renovation of the building.
234. As a direct result of the constant discrimination treatment that Johnson received
from Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen, as well as from other inspectors from the City as identified
above, Johnson was thereafter forced to sell nineteen (19) of his rental properties totaling twenty
four (24) rental units in the City of St. Paul. Of these nineteen (19) rental properties, sixteen
(16) properties had tenants who were members of the “protected class”. Said Defendants’
discriminatory actions against Johnson and his tenants continues at present.

St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, "Discriminatory Act"

218. In January 2004, St. Paul landlord, Steve Mark was ordered by a City housing
inspector to remove one of the three Hispanic tenants from a rental unit that was identical in
layout and square footage to a companion rental unit in the same building that housed three
Caucasian tenants. The City inspector’s discriminatory order only applied to the Hispanics
renting from Mr. Mark.

Bob- Hi All,

Some of you may remember this is the Landlord who was documented on channel 5 news last year claiming selective code enforcement against his East side rental unit.

The video of the channel 5 news coverage made it look as if Mr. Mark had trash in his rental units yard when in fact it was a neighbor next door who was never written up for the violation.The original violation against Mr. Mark concerned a broken car window on one of his tenants vehicles.

Following this issue for over a year I see bias in the local media. A reluctance to tell the truth.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Kenneth Krahn

208. Kenneth Krahn, a St. Paul landlord, learned what it was like to be on the receiving
end of Defendants’ aggressive code enforcement program. Krahn has worked with Project Hope
for many years assisting less fortunate people to find permanent housing within the .City.
209. A City housing inspector informed Krahn in the Summer of 2002 that the City
wanted to review his tenant screening process to determine who he was renting to. The inspector
stated that the City did not want him renting to people assisted by Project Hope, as they were
“bottom of the barrel” and not desirable. “We don’t want you renting to them,” the inspector
said, referring to Project Hope clients. These or similar statements were repeated again by the
same inspector in the Summer of 2003.
210. On or about June 13,2003, Krahn learned that the City’s code inspectors
had arrived at his rental duplex unit at 263 LaPond after a complaint from certain single family
home owners that rats were coming from his property. Martin and Koehnen were involved in
the inspection of Krahn’s duplex. Krahn’s tenants refused to make complaints against him as
they had not been having problems with rats.
211. Upon Krahn’s investigation, his apartment manager and Krahn learned that there
were rats all around the neighborhood and that the actual source of the rats was not Krahn’s
duplex but rather the City’s sewer system and that the rats had been coming out of the sewer that
the City had opened for repair just down the street from Krahn’s duplex.
6 0.212. Dawkins called Krahn and told him that Dawkins was thinking about taking
Krahn to court over the rat problem in Krahn’s duplex. Dawkins told Krahn that because of the
rat infestation, the building would be condemned and that Krahn would be responsible for
putting all of his tenants into a hotel. Dawkins then asked Krahn if he wanted to be present if the
matter went to court. Krahn replied, “Yes”. Dawkins asked Krahn if he wanted to go to court on
the issue, to which Krahn replied, “No”. Dawkins then added, “As of right now, nothing is set,
but I have to talk to the inspectors because they are the one’s pushing for it to go to court.”
Dawkins told Krahn that the law did not require the City to notify him of the City’s court action
against Krahn on the property, but that the law only required that the City attempt to notify the
2 13. Following this phone conversation, Krahn contacted his attorney and informed
him of the facts. Krahn later determined that at the time he had talked to Dawkins, Dawkins had
already scheduled a tenant remedies action hearing against Krahn in Court.
214. The City subsequently dismissed the tenant’s remedy action against Krahn.
215. Krahn has stated that Community Stabilization Project (“CSP”) worked together
with the City inspectors and Dawkins in an effort to illegally condemn Krahn’s duplex. On the
morning of the court hearing, CSP personnel came over to the duplex in four cars and attempted
once again to convince Krahn’s tenants to move out and join the City’s court action against
Krahn over the rats. Krahn has stated that personnel from CSP were pushing the whole thing,
61.telling the tenants that they could get Krahn to put them up in a hotel if they joined the case.
2 16. Even though Krahn’s tenants refused to bring court claims against Krahn,
nevertheless Dawkins with the assistance of Attorney Dolan, named Krahn’s tenants as party
plaintiffs in the TRA filed in court. The failure of the City and CSP to obtain the approval of
Krahn’s tenants to join the TRA lawsuit against Krahn is confirmed in a June 18,2003, letter to
the tenants from a private attorney assisting CSP. Krahn concluded from this letter that at no
time did his tenants consent to be added to the City’s malicious suit against him and yet the City
and CSP added Krahn’s tenants’ names to the pleadings.
217. Around the time ofthe action by the City and CSP against Krahn’s duplex,
CSP personnel went door to door on three other properties Krahn owned attempting to get
Krahn’s tenants in those apartments to go against him through court actions, promising tenants
that CSP could get them lots of money from Krahn. There were no complaints against these
buildings at the time.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Mr. Bee Vue

Citv of St. Paul Policy and Practice of Discriminator-v Code Enforcement
201. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and/or pm&e as.set forth above, has existed in the City since at least March 2002, and continues in the City at the
present time.
202. As an example, City Council member Jay Benanav and Mayor Kelly were guest
’ speakers at a St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords meeting held on October 23,2003.
During this meeting with many St. Paul landlords, a question and answer period took place.
Council member Benanav, in response to a question from the audience, stated that when it comes
to housing code enforcement, “I don’t think any amount of aggressiveness is too aggressive.”
203. At this same meeting, a member of the-audience asked Defendant Kelly, “Why are
you coming into places when the tenant doesn’t want you there and citing minor things and just
condemning the buildings. I don’t think that is fair and what happens if I don’t let you into my
house?” In a loud and threatening voice, Defendant Mayor Kelly said, “You will comply.”
During this statement, Defendant Kelly used very aggressive body language including pointing
his finger at the landlord asking the question.
204. Other examples exist of this continuing discriminatory policy, custom and/or
practice in he City. Mr. Bee Vue, who came to the United States from Laos in 1979, has lived in
Minnesota since 1979. In 1996, Vue entered the real estate investment business in St. Paul. He
and his wife currently own 24 rental properties in St. Paul and rent seventy (70) percent of their
units to people of color. A member of the City’s PPU, Attorney Dolan, informed Mr. Vue
during a court proceeding that, “Personally, I don’t think you people deserve to be in this
5” This statement made by Dolan was overheard by other landlords. Vue and others were
shocked by this statement made by a member of the City’s PPU.
205. Vues’ rental properties have also been consistently targeted during 2002
through present by Defendants, while adjacent rental and other properties with serious problems, ’
or properties with the same conditions as Vues’ buildings, are not targeted by Defendants for
code enforcement.
206. Since 2002, Mr. Vue has also been lied to by a City fire department inspector
assigned to his rental properties, and consistently treated in a very condescending manner by the
inspector during his contacts with the inspector. The inspector has told at least one other City
inspector to “just give Vue a condemnation notice” when the building had passed inspection and
only needed some minor repair.
207. In early 2003, Vue and his wife, were subject to a lawsuit commenced against
them by Dawkins on behalf of Defendant City for code enforcement. Vues’ tenant had caused
sanitation problems in Vues’ property for which Dawkins and his code enforcement officers
v&ted to hold the Vues responsible. After the suit was started, the Vues had a meeting with
Dawkins at which time they explained that the tenant was the cause of the sanitation problem.
Vues then asked Dawkins to dismiss the lawsuit. Dawkins stated that he and his department had
quotas which required that the City prosecute tenant remedy actions against landlords in the City
in order to obtain foundation grant money. Thereafter, the Vue’s were forced to agree to a full
59.current code compliance on the subject property

Sunday, November 05, 2006

St.Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Frank Steinhauser

Plaintiff Frank Steinhauser
164. At all times relevant herein, Steinhauser was the owner of 15 rental properties in
St. Paul, including those rental properties located at 910 6’ Street East, 1024 Euclid and 118
165. During 2002, a case worker with Project Hope worked with Steinhauser on more
than ten occasions in placing her homeless clients into Steinhauser’s rental properties in the City.
This case worker performed inspections of the rental units before placing her clients into the
units. Based upon her extensive experience with Steinhauser in 2002, she found Steinhauser’s
rental properties to be well maintained and that he was very responsive. She even placed her
own family members into Steinhauser’s rental units. 166. Prior to the fall of 2002, Steinhauser had always been responsive to inspections
and repair orders on his rental properties and generally his relationship with City inspectors had
been considered good.
167. Following the October 8,2002 meeting between Dawkins, Steinhauser and
Project Hope’s case worker, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen immediately commenced a course of
malicious retaliatory conduct directed at Steinhauser and Project Hope clients/tenants, in
coordination with other third parties working directly with Defendants, to intentionally shut
47.down Steinhauser’s rental business or ‘at least dramatically increase his rental business expenses
that would either force him to sell off his rental properties in the City or force him to no longer
rent to protected class, members. Said Defendants malicious conduct was intentionally directed
,/’ at eliminating rental units available to “bottom of the barrel, ” “undesirable” and “low income,”
protected class individuals Steinhauser was renting to in the City.
168. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen and other unknown City employees and third parties
were directly involved in the condemnation of Steinhauser’s properties located at 9 10 6* Street
East and at 1024 Euclid.
169. On or about October 17,2002, Martin and Koehnen commenced an inspection of
Steinhauser’s duplex property located at 910 6* Street East. At this time, the upper unit was not
inspected. Both tenants in Steinhauser’s duplex were African-American mothers with children.
The surrounding neighborhood was occupied by predominately white families in single family
170. Following this inspection, Martin prepared a Correction Notice dated October 18;
2002, and forwarded this Notice to Steinhauser and the occupant by mail.
171. Martin’s October 182002, Notice, contained intentionally false statemen&
including that there was evidence of rodent infestation in the building, that there were sanitation
issues, that the foundation was deteriorated, and that there was a lack of properly installed and
operable smoke detectors. Martin demanded that Steinhauser remove “rodent harborages” in the
4 8.yard, tuck-point and repair the foundation to prevent re-infestation, and provide functioning
smoke detectors by October 21,2002.
172. At the time of Martin’s inspection, the smoke detectors were properly installed in
both units of the duplex; the tenants had simply removed.the batteries. There were no “rodent
harbor-ages” or sanitation issues present at the property justifying Martin’s deliberately false
claims: However, the adjacent property had a large volume of trash (at least 20 cubic yards)
piled up in the backyard and this may have been the source of rodents in the area. Because of the
extensive trash on the adjacent property, Steinhauser had been baiting rats at his rental property
for two months prior to the inspection and Steinhauser’s efforts had been successful as evidenced
by the dead rat Martin and Koehnen observed on or about October 17,2002. The building’s
foundation did not need tuck-pointing and was not deteriorated. Steinhauser had determined that
his tenants had frequently not closed the outside door to the building and the rat may have
entered the building through the open door.
173. After the October 17,2002, inspection by Martin and Koehnen, Steinhauser
removed the dead rat from the basement, and worked on the other items listed in the October 18,
2002, Notice.
174. On or about October 22,2002, Martin and Koehnen reinspected the downstairs
unit at 910 6* Street East. Martin and Koehnen also went upstairs and knocked on the door of
the upstairs rental unit at 910 6* Street East and woke up the tenant, a mother of two minor
49.children also residing with her. When the tenant opened the door, she saw Martin and Koehnen.
Martin told the tenant that she and the officer had to come in to inspect her apartment because the
downstairs apartment ,was being condemned and that, “We are going to be condemning other
‘properties of Mr. Steinhauser’s.” Police Officer Koehnen was towering over the tenant about
two feet away from her. The tenant informed Martin and Koehnen that she did not want them in
her apartment, to which Martin replied that they had to come in and that was the reason for the
police officer being present. Martin stated that it would be for the tenant’s own good. Because
of the police presence, the tenant stood back and Martin and Koehnen entered her apartment.
175, During the inspection, Martin called Steinhauser a “slum lord” and said that
Steinhauser preys on poor people, African-Americans, and that Steinhauser does not repair his
rental properties. Martin encouraged the tenant to sue Steinhauser for all the money she had paid
to him in rent since she had moved into the apartment over a year earlier. The tenant informed
Martin and Koehnen that Steinhauser was a good landlord to her and that he performed repairs
when she asked and that Steinhauser had been at her building performing repairs for the last
176. Following this re-inspection, Defendants Dawkins and Martin prepared a written
Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated October 23,2002, and forwarded this written
Notice and Order to Steinhauser and the occupants of the both units through the mail.
177. In the October 23,2002, Notice, said Defendants listed 18 items as being in
5 0.violation of Code. Many of these statements of fact listed by said Defendants were outright false.
Moreover, Defendants maliciously and falsely stated, in deliberate inflammatory fashion, that the
conditions present at the property constituted “material endangerment” in that the property lacked
a “basic facility” and was “infested with rats”. Martin also deliberately and maliciousiy falsely ‘,
stated that the building’s foundation was in a state of disrepair, that there was a lack of light
fixtures, that there were plumbing leaks, that the units were lacking deadbolt locks, that the storm
doors were in disrepair and that the furnace needed attention.
178. Many of the other items listed by Dawkins and Martin had actually been corrected
by Steinhauser by the time of the October 22,2002, reinspection but Dawkins and Martin refused
to give Steinhauser credit for those efforts. The property next to Steinhauser’s property
continued to have a large volume of clearly visible trash.
179. Steinhauser and a case worker from Project Hope met with Martin and Koehnen
on October 23,2002 at the Housing Department office to discuss Steinhauser’s 910 6* Street
duplex. Martin and Koehnen started out the meeting by screaming at Steinhauser and the case
worker about the condemnable conditions of the building, presenting pictures of conditions they
stated demonstrated code violations at the property. Steinhauser pointed out to Martin and
Koehnen that some of the pictures actually showed code compliance of the building.
180. During this meeting, Koehnen, over 6’5” tall, screamed at Steinhauser and
the case worker while leaning over the table in a threatening and intimidating manner. The case
51.worker became scared of Koehnen as a result of his abusive, inappropriate and unprofessional
behavior. Steinhauser was shocked at the treatment he and the case worker were receiving.
Steinhauser left the meeting, as did the case worker a short time later, as they could no longer
stand the abusive treatment by Martin and Koehnen.
181. Following the meeting with Martin and Koehnen, Steinhauser and the Project
Hope case worker inspected the rental building Martin and Koehnen had just condemned. The
case worker reviewed the October 23,2002, Condemnation Notice while inspecting both the
upper and lower rental units in the building. The case worker concluded that most of the code
violations stated by Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen in the Condemnation Notice were false and
that the Notice had been written in such a manner that Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen made the
rental units sound very substandard when in fact the units were very habitable.
182. The upstairs tenant at 910 6’ Street East, has stated that what was done to her, her
family and to Steinhauser, was wrong and that, “The only thing the inspector could find was the
plugged toilet and yet they condemned the unit and forced me to leave my home.” She has stated
that Martin and Koehnen “were nitpicking things in the apartment - they created a big list of
problems out of nothing during their inspection.”
183. After the initial inspection of 910 6’ Street East on or about October 17,2002,
Steinhauser continued to work on the building and corrected many of the items that needed
improvement before the October 21,2002 deadline. When Martin and Koehnen returned for the
5 2.second inspection on or about October 22,2002, it became clear to the upstairs tenant that, with
their continued nitpicking, Martin and Koehnen were more interested in getting Steinhauser’s
building condemned than they were in helping her and her family.
184. As a result of the condemnation of Steinhauser’s rental property at 910 6* Street
East, the African-American tenant and her children were forced to leave their home. They were
happy there and did not want to leave. Her children were heartbroken. It was hard for her to find
another place to rent. She and her family had to live in more than 10 different places, staying
with friends, family or in shelters, until she could once again find a place of her own. She also
lost her job because of the forced eviction by Defendants.
185. After condemning Steinhauser’s 910 6* Street East duplex, Dawkins, Martin,
Koehnen, Dolan and others, filed on October 30,2002, a tenant remedies action by the City and
the lower unit tenant against Steinhauser in Ramsey County District Court. In Defendants’ court
action, Dawkins, Martin and Attorney Dolan and others made statements of fact to the Court,
verified as true by Dawkins, that in fact were false. These false statements were made by
Defendants and others in the court papers in an unlawful and malicious attempt to shut down
Steinhauser’s rental property and business or to increase his costs so as to interfere with his
ability to rent to protected class tinants.
186. Dawkins deliberately made false sworn statements in the court papers including
the Complaint and Verification, that Steinhauser had failed to comply with three previous
53.Correction Notices directed at the 910 6’ Street East property, and Dawkins, Martin and
Koehnen falsely stated that the property had a rat infestation, inadequate heat, broken toilets and
sinks, missing smoke, detectors and defective ceilings and walls. The Complaint, Verification
and attached City inspection records were mailed to Steinhauser.
187. As a result of the condemnation of his duplex and the lack of rental income from
the property, Steinhauser, in an attempt to gain City approval to once again rent his property,
agreed to a “code comnliance” inspection. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen and Attorney Dolan
represented to Steinhauser that the “code compliance” of the subject property would be “as
built”. Defendants coerced and fraudulently induced Steinhauser’s consent to the settlement
including the code compliance terms.
188. Subsequently, Martin and Dawkins and others forced Steinhauser to undergo a
full “code compliance” to current or modem code which required Steinhauser to make significant
unnecessary expenditures on his rental building. During the code compliance inspection by
LIEP, one of the inspectors informed Steinhauser, “The building is really not that bad . . . if you
have a plugged toilet, you fix the toilet - you don’t go get a code compliance.”
189. As a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory policy and conduct against
Steinhauser related to his 9 10 6* Street East duplex, as set forth herein, Steinhauser sustained
loss of rental income from two rental units at said property for an extended period of time, lost
profits and investments, and incurred substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, permit and
5 4.code compliance fees, other costs and expenses, and court costs and attorney’s fees.
190. Kelly, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen, with assistance from Attorney Dolan, made
multi-directional attacks against Steinhauser during October and November 2002. Said
Defendants, and others working in concert with them, coordinated their attacks against
Steinhauser’s 910 6* Street East rental duplex with City inspections at other properties owned by
Steinhauser during the same period, including an inspection and condemnation of a second rental
property located at 1024 Euclid. Once again, African-American tenants resided in this duplex.
191. On October 25,2002, as part of Defendants’ inspection of Steinhauser’s duplex
rental unit located at 1024 Euclid, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen once again maliciously created
false entries in City inspection records regarding this property. Thereafter, said Defendants
maliciously entered those false and fraudulent entries into a Notice of Condemnation dated
October 28,2002, that was mailed by Defendants to Steinhauser and the occupants.
192, Said Defendants used the false entries of code violations to immediately condemn
the 1024 Euclid building on the basis of existing emergency conditions and thereby force tenants
from their home.
193. One of the false entries deliberately and maliciously placed by Dawkins and
Martin in the October 28,2002, Notice, included Defendants’ assertion that 1024 Euclid was
subject to vermin infestation. Dawkins and Martin knew that their statements of fact concerning
rodent infestation related to Steinhauser’s properties at 910 6’h Street and 1024 Euclid were false
55.and that the Code and Rules required “serious infestation” for a condemnation.
194. When Defendants finally allowed Steinhauser access to his 1024 Euclid duplex to
conduct his own inspection, Steinhauser and his rodent exterminator determined‘that there was
‘no rodent infestation in the building and that there was no evidence that there had ever been any
rodents in the building. In fact, the exterminator noted that no rat droppings could be found.
195. Another false entry deliberately and maliciously placed by Martin and Dawkins in
the same Notice of Condemnation was their false assertion that the 1024 Euclid building was
without heat. This was falsely listed by Dawkins and Martin as constituting “material
endangerment,” in order to trigger the condemnation.
196. Dawkins and Martin knew that their statements of fact concerning the lack of heat
were false and they made these statements deliberately to maliciously damage Steinhauser. In
fact, the heat thermostat had simply been turned off by either the tenant or someone else and
there was nothing wrong with the heating systems that served both units at 1024 Euclid, as was
confirmed by a third party contractor.
197. As part of Defendants’ discriminatory scheme to deprive Steinhauser of
his property and contract rights related to his rental properties, including the 1024 Euclid rental
property, Defendants Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen and others, including Dolan, did again prepare,
serve, file and mail a court Complaint and attachments, including the Notice of Condemnation
described above, along with Dawkins’ sworn Verification certifying that Defendants assertions
56.were true, when in fact they were false.
198. As part of said Defendants’ illegal conduct and scheme, Defendants did attach to
those fraudulent court pleadings and Verification, false City inspection records regarding
Steinhauser’s 1024 Euclid property, as more fully set forth above, all for the discriminatory and
deliberate purpose of making malicious allegations that Steinhauser’s property was dangerously
deficient in safety and for the malicious purpose to coerce and fraudulently induce Steinhauser
into agreeing to a “code compliance” on 1024 Euclid.
199. As a direct result of said Defendants’ discriminatory policy, custom and practice,
and wrongful conduct describe herein, Steinhauser has been forced to sell thirteen of his rental
properties in the City since 2002, and he presently owns two duplexes in the City.
200. As a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory policy and conduct against
Steinhauser related to his 1024 Euclid rental property, as set forth herein, Steinhauser sustained
loss of rental income from two rental units at said property for an extended period of time, lost
profits and investments from condemnations, and forced sales, increased tax burdens, incurred
substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, permit and code compliance fees, and other costs
and expenses, including alternative housing costs for Steinhauser’s tenants that were forced from
their homes, and court costs and attorney’s fees.

Friday, November 03, 2006

St. Paul Racketeering lawsuit #1, Victim Mark Mevsembourg

Plaintiff Mark Mevsembourq
147. Dawkins, Martin, Magner and Koehnen were directly involved in discriminatory
code enforcement and subsequent condemnation of Meysembourg’s property located at 970
Euclid Street during the period of November 2002 through February 2003. Although numerous
other properties in the City had serious code violations, which Defendants’ ignored, Defendants
selectively targeted Meysembourg and his protected class tenants as part of their discriminatory
policy, custom and practice.
148. On or about November 15,2002, Martin and Koehnen, at the direction
of Kelly, Dawkins and Magner, conducted an interior inspection of Meysembourg’s 970 Euclid
41.rental property. Defendants did not have an administrative search warrant or the valid consent of
the tenants or Meysembourg. No emergency existed justifying said Defendants’ entry.
Meysembourg was @ provided notice of this inspection by Defendants.
149. During the inspection, Martin and Koehnen, with malicious intent, falsely stated
to the tenants that the “landlord knows about this inspection and it’s ok with him,” or words to
that effect. The tenants were also falsely told by Martin and Koehnen that they were performing
m %nmal inspection.” There is no annual inspection of duplexes required in the City.
150. As a result of this illegal entry and search, Martin and Koehnen prepared and
mailed to Meysembourg a Correction Notice dated November 152002, containing false claims
of code violations. This Correction Order was also mailed to both occupants of the duplex and to
interested parties living in Anchorage, Alaska. Claimed code violation item number 4 (lacking
deadbolt door locks) and item number 7 (leaking plumbing) were false and item number 12 (roof
is deteriorated, defective, or in a state of disrepair) was also false as the roof had been partially
replaced two years before and was not in need of ‘further repair.
151. Meysembourg tiled a legislative appeal detailing the claimed code violations
listed by Martin that were false. At the hearing, Meysembourg’s tenants testified on his behalf.
Police Officer Koehnen appeared at the hearing. Koehnen was initially in a seated position in the
hearing room but vvhen the first of Meysembourg’s tenants started to testify, Koehnen stood up
and stepped into the isle in direct line with the tenant, spread his feet, folded his arms and glared each tenant, all in an attempt to intimidate the tenant witnesses. Koehnen continued this
intimating conduct through the testimony of Meysembourg’s tenants. Meysembourg’s legislative
appeal was denied.
152. Thereafter, Martin obtained an administrative search warrant and on December
3 1,2002, conducted a second interior inspection of Meysembourg’s 970 Euclid rental property.
Once again, in a second Correction Notice mailed to Meysembourg dated January 2,2003,
Martin again listed the false items from the first Correction Order, including the lack of deadbolt
locks and she restated her false statement of the deteriorating roof. The January 2,203,
Correction Order was also mailed to both occupants of the duplex, and to interested parties in
Anchorage, Alaska.
153. Thereafter, Meysembourg tiled a formal complaint against the City claiming that
his rights had been violated.
154. On or about February 3,2003, Defendants Martin, Koehnen and Steve Magner,
Martin’s and Koehnen’s supervisor, conducted a third inspection of 970 Euclid without advance
notice to Meysembourg, and without a search warrant or.any other valid basis. Meysembourg
was working at the property when Martin, Koehnen and Magner arrived for the inspection.
Meysembourg did not provide his consent to this third search. During this third inspection,
Magner informed Meysembourg that there was a missing safety valve on one of the boilers in the
duplex. Meysembourg pointed out that Magner’s assertion was false as the boilers had been
43.serviced the previous year. After a shouting match ensued, said Defendants left.
155. The next day, Dawkins, Martin, Magner and Koehnen retaliated against
Meysembourg as Dawkins issued a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated February
‘3,2003 (listing Martin as the inspector) and mailed this Notice to one of the occupants of 970
Euclid Street and to interested parties in Anchorage, Alaska. Dawkins and Martin claimed in this
written Condemnation Notice that the west side boiler lacked a pressure relief value and as such
this condition constituted “material endangerment” justifying immediate condemnation of the
duplex. This was false and maliciously stated by said Defendants in order to justify the
retaliatory emergency condemnation by Dawkins and Martin of Meysembourg’s building, which
was intended by said Defendants to forcibly remove Meysembourg’s tenants, including his
protected class tenants, all causing damages to Meysembourg’s and his tenants. Dawkins and
Martin also falsely listed in the Notice that the “roof’ was “deteriorated” and the lack of deadbolt
156. Meysembourg again filed a legislative appeal. During this hearing, Meysembourg
presented evidence that the claim by Dawkins and Martin of the lack of a boiler safety relief
valve was false. The City’s hearing officer refused to look at Meysembourg’s evidence and once
again denied Meysembourg’s appeal.
157. On or about March 13,2003, Assistant City Attorney Dolan, a member of PPU,
prepared a written tenants remedies court Complaint against Meysembourg on behalf of
44.Defendant City. The Complaint included a fact statement that the duplex boiler “lacks a pressure
relief valve.” This false claimed violation was listed first in a,list of items that Martin, Dawkins
and Dollan claimed needed repair. Dawkins provided a sworn verification of the truth of this
Complaint, including the statement about the boiler. The ,Complaint, the sworn kerification and
the attached Correction Orders and Notice of Condemnation contained false statements of fact
made by Dawkins and Martin. The Complaint, sworn Verification and City inspection
documentation were mailed to Meysembourg and filed in Ramsey County District Court.
158. During the court proceeding, Martin and Magner, along with Attorney
Dolan, falsely and maliciously represented to Meysembourg that the “code compliance”
inspection they were demanding as a part of the settlement of the City’s action against
Meysembourg, was to be “as built,” and as such the building would not have to be completely
brought to current code. This false statement was made to fraudulently induce Meysembourg to
159. Meysembourg, who had never had one of his rental properties condemned before,
rklied on the false representation by Martin, Magner and Dolan to Meysembourg concerning the
“as built” code compliance. Defendants Dawkins, Martin, Magner, Koehnen and Attorney Dolar~
coerced and fraudulently induced Meysembourg to agree to settlement terms related to code
compliance that said Defendants had no intention of honoring.
160. The following week, during Meysembourg’s conversation with the City’s License,
45.Inspection and Environment Protection (“LIE,,‘) office, Meysembourg was informed that once
LIEP was involved, there was no such thing as “as built” code compliance, but rather LIEP only
conducted current “code compliance” inspections, which required all major systems in a rental
‘building to be brought up to current code requirements, thereby removing grand-fathering
protections of state law.
161. Thereafter, said Defendants required that Meysembourg bring his 970 Euclid
building up to current code, eliminating the grand-fathering protection for Meysembourg’s
building under previous building codes, and resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in extra
expense to Meysembourg, as well as loss of rental income from his duplex during the period of
condemnation, all to his financial detriment.
162. As part of LIEP’s full code compliance inspection process on Meysembourg’s
duplex, LIEP did not require repairs to the roof, the deadbolt locks remained on the doors as
before the November 15,2002, inspection, and the boilers’ pressure relief valves that were in
existence at all times during 2002 and 2003 were unmodified by the LIEP inspection process.
163. As a direct result of the discriminatory policy, custom and practice by Dawkins,
Martin, Magner, Koehnen, Dolan and others, as applied to Meysembourg and his tenants, as set
forth herein, Meysembourg has been forced to sell all of his rental properties in the City except
for two properties, and Meysembourg has incurred or will incur increased tax burdens, and has
lost rental income, profits and investments and incurred significant unnecessary expenses related his property, and incurred attorney’s fees, other fees, and costs in defense against said
Defendants’ discriminatory actions.

Alice Krengal Update

Reprinted from the Pioneer Press

Homeless homeowner jailed
Liquor violates terms of probation after conviction on nuisance charges
Pioneer Press

CRAIG BORCK, Pioneer Press
Alice Krengel stands in the spot where she sleeps on a mat on the floor in the Dorothy Day Center. Despite owning her own home in West St. Paul, Alice Krengel is homeless. Years of alchoholism and problem police calls to her house have exhausted the city's patience.
More photosAfter having exhausted the patience of relatives, friends, West St. Paul police and city officials, Alice Krengel is now starting to wear on a judge as well.

District Judge Rex D. Stacey on Thursday sentenced Krengel to 10 days in the Dakota County Jail when presented with evidence that Krengel violated the terms of her probation after two misdemeanor convictions for permitting a public nuisance.

Krengel pleaded guilty to permitting a public nuisance for incidents Nov. 14, 2004, and April 10, 2005. Both involved calls asking police to respond to heated arguments among unruly drunks in her home. City officials said many other similar incidents have taken place.

Krengel, 55, admits she is an alcoholic, and many people who know her suspect she has an undiagnosed mental illness.

City officials have gotten three court orders to remove Krengel from her home since 2000. The first two times the city argued that unsanitary conditions made the place uninhabitable. Most recently, city officials said her place had become a flophouse for drunks.

Police Sgt. John Hinderscheid testified that, in response to a June 29 complaint, he went to Krengel's home and found a bottle of vodka. Hinderscheid said Krengel appeared intoxicated and refused a breath test. Possession and consumption of alcohol violate the terms of her probation.

Krengel's case raises the thorny issue of how society should respond to a person who, besides being alcoholic, may also be mentally ill. She would be typical of many homeless people wandering the streets and staying in shelters, except for one fact: She owns her home in West St. Paul, where she is considered public nuisance No. 1.

District Judge Leslie Metzen is expected to rule soon on the city's request to bar Krengel from her Allen Avenue home for one year. Krengel was evicted in August on a temporary court order.

The city took action after dozens of police visits to Krengel's home, many in response to complaints about fights, public drunkenness and loud arguments. Her home had become "a revolving door" of shady tenants, one neighbor complained.

Nobody who knows Krengel thinks 10 days in jail will solve the problem.

At a brief hearing in which Krengel represented herself, City Attorney Kori Land started to ask the judge to order a chemical-dependency evaluation. But Stacey chose jail instead, saying Krengel's probation was over and he thought Krengel would just get in trouble again.

After the hearing, Land and Police Chief Manila "Bud" Shaver said they think Krengel also needs a psychological evaluation. "I think she needs some help," Shaver said. "She's affecting others and hurting herself."

Land and Shaver said jailers can request social service workers to evaluate Krengel.

Krengel's daughter, Angela Hall, of Burnsville, and sister, Diane Krengel Reinhardt, of Langdon, N.D., suspect Krengel is mentally ill and they want authorities to order inpatient chemical dependency treatment and a mental-health evaluation.

Even if Metzen orders Krengel out of her home for a year, Land acknowledged the remedy is a "band-aid" solution. When Krengel returns to her home, Land said, drunks and other troublemakers will likely return. For now, though, Land said, "Alice needs to fix Alice."

Krengel, who appeared in court wearing shorts, a T-shirt and a sweater, reacted with shock to the sentence. She said she planned to appeal and asked for less jail time. Stacey replied: "Just take it like a grown-up."

Brian Bonner can be reached at or 651-228-2173.