Custom Search

Friday, February 22, 2008

United States District Court/ Robert Campbell & Raven Property Management L.L.C. -vs- The City of Saint Paul

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the complaint.

133 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

*
**
***
Hi All,

There is copy errors.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of MINNESOTA
Robert McCampbell and Raven Property
Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability company, Plaintiffs
V.
City of Saint Paul,
a municipal corporation, Defendant.
TO: (Name and address of Defendant)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: ODlV tft0
JYLT/~
City of Saint Paul, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., 390 City Hall, St. Paul, MN 55102.
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)
John R. Shoemaker
Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.L.L.C.
Centennial Lakes Office Park
770 I. France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, MN 55435
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this
summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for
the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable
period oftime after service.
fIB 2 2 2008
DATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Robert McCampbell and Raven
Property Management, L.L.C.,
a Minnesota limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
vs.
City of Saint Paul, a
municipal corporation,
Defendant.
Court File No. _
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Robert McCampbell and Raven Property Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability company(hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"), hereby allege and state the following
Complaint against the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This civil action arises under the laws ofthe United States and the State of Minnesota. This
Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiffs herein are alleging standing under:
(I) Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.; and
(2) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983 (civil rights action).
The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613, 28 U.S.C. Section
1331 (federal questions), and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367, as Plaintiffs are alleging state claims arising from a common nucleus ofoperative facts
with Plaintiffs' federal claims.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive reliefagainst Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 .
Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Robert McCampbell ("Plaintiff') is a citizen of the United States and a Minnesota
resident residing in Dakota County.
2. Raven Property Management, L.L.C. is a Minnesota limited liability company that
owned and managed real estate in the City ofSt. Paul. PlaintiffMcCampbell was and continues to
be the sole owner of Raven Property Management, L.L.C.
3. Defendant City ofSaint Paul ("City") is a municipal corporation existing under, and
by virtue of, the laws ofthe State of Minnesota.
4. Between 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs were property owners in the low-income
rental business with properties located at 780 Jackson Street, 615/617 Case Avenue and 1015
York Avenue in the City ofSt. Paul.
5. Plaintiffs' tenants were almost exclusively low income African-Americans, and
other persons ofminority status, all ofwhom were individuals protected under antidiscrimination
laws, hereinafter referred to as "protected class tenants."
6. During 2001 through 2006, Plaintiffs provided affordable housing in St. Paul that
was in short supply in the City.
7. Plaintiffs' rental property located at 1015 York Avenue was a 17 unit building. In
2005,16 ofthe rental units were occupied by African-Americans and one rental unit was
occupied by a Native-American family.
8. Plaintiffs' tenants were typically highly transient resulting in high tenant turnover
2
for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' 1015 York property averaged one to two vacancies on a monthly basis.
9. It was common for Plaintiffs to have rental applications from people of color
moving into St. Paul from Chicago and Detroit and other cities. Plaintiffs' tenants were a good
source of referrals and many times they referred other family members, relatives and friends to
Plaintiffs for housing in St. Paul.
10. At times during the period of 2003 through 2005, Plaintiffs had all ofthe rental
units leased at their 1015 York property and Plaintiffs had to turn away potential tenants,
including African-Americans.
11. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, the St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA), the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), tenant advocate groups, and others involved in
housing policy issues, recognized that African-Americans faced significant barriers to affordable
housing in the City.
12. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in St. Paul due to
significant racial conflicts between white neighbors and African-American tenants.
13. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in the city due to
frequent misuse of the "complaint based code enforcement system" whereby certain complainants
were illegally targeting "people of color" for code enforcement operations designed to shut down
3
those minority occupied rental properties, or force the "protected class" tenants from those rental
properties. Certain of Defendant's officials and code enforcement officials and inspectors
pursued discriminatory code enforcement operations to placate racist constituents and to further
political agendas. Defendant failed to take action to stop these discriminatory practices.
14. During 2002 through 2006, certain City officials and employees made racists

comments to members of the minority community and to property owners providing housing to
members of that community, to the effect that those minorities were not welcomed in St. Paul
and should not be given housing.
15. Andy Dawkins, the director of Defendant's Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement department (NHPI) from 2002 through 2005, strongly suggested in 2005 to lowincome
landlords that the bottom tier of tenants should be eliminated from St. Paul.
16. Mr. Dawkins also told a low-income housing advocate with Project Hope that the
City did not want low-income tenants renting in St. Paul.
17. During 2002 through 2006, certain of Defendant's code enforcement inspectors
were condescending toward minority owners of "protected class" rental properties and towards
their minority tenants.
18. African-American have historically constituted the largest segment of the "poor"
in the City and this was true during 2001 through 2006, while Plaintiffs provided low-income
housing in St. Paul.
19. For decades, African-Americans have comprised the largest percentage oflowincome
tenants in the City and the highest percentage ofthose waiting for affordable housing in
the City.
4
20. City representatives have repeatedly discussed in public the claim that there is an
over concentration ofpoverty in certain areas of St. Paul.
21. City representatives have long recognized the racist tendencies of a significant
number of city residents towards African"Americans and other minorities.
22. PHA, the largest low-income landlord in the city, has acknowledged that due to
political pressure, PHA worked with City officials and influential neighborhood groups to select
the locations of all of the 400 scattered site homes PHA owns. These homes are occupied by
federally subsidized tenants, ~any ofwhom are minorities. Many ofPHA's tenants are members
of the "protected class" and about one-third have consistently been African-Americans.
23. During at least 2002 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that private owners oflow-income rental housing in St. Paul: provided the
majority of affordable housing for the "protected class" tenants in the City; had high maintenance
and repair costs due to ownership of older housing stock and tenant conduct related causes; were
housing a significantly higher percentage of "protected class" tenants than PHA; were in need of
cooperative relationships with Defendant, its officials, employees and representatives and other
third parties in order to continue to provide critically needed affordable housing; and would be
adversely affected if Defendant raised the code enforcement standard applicable to privately
owned low-income rental properties.
24. Despite the barriers to providing affordable housing to those in need, Plaintiffs
worked hard at providing safe, decent and sanitary housing and had many thankful tenants.
25. Defendant, through its Police Department, recognized Plaintiffs for their efforts to
5
properly manage their Case Avenue rental property thereby reducing adverse tenant and guest
behavior issues.
26. Plaintiffs employed a full-time caretaker for management of the 1015 York rental
property, including handling oftenant applications, interviewing and screening tenants,
maintenance and repair matters, and other matters involved in Plaintiffs' rental business.
27. Plaintiffs consistently rented to those individuals who held Se,ction 8 Housing
Choice Vouchers. Almost all of Plaintiffs' Section 8 tenants were African-Americans. Plaintiffs
had a monthly average ofthree rental units leased to Section 8 tenants in their 1015 York
property.
28. Plaintiffs' 1015 York building was inspected by Section 8 inspectors under
direction ofPHA. Section 8 inspectors conducted inspections of Plaintiffs' building utilizing the
federal Housing Quality Standards ("HQS"). Following each such inspection, Plaintiffs took the
necessary action to obtain certification of their rental units to receive federal funding in the form
ofrent subsidies.
29. Each of the three rental properties Plaintiffs owned in the City were multi-unit
buildings subject to the City's "certificate of occupancy" ("C of 0") code enforcement inspection
system administered by the City's Fire Prevention Office ofthe Fire Department.
30. Under the "C of 0" inspection system, Plaintiffs' rental properties were inspected
by Fire Inspectors at least once every two years.
31. During the "C of 0" renewal process in 2004, the City revoked the "C of 0" of the
1015 York property. Following Plaintiffs' completion of repairs to the property, the City issued a
new "C of0" on the property.
6
32. During 2004 through 2005, each time City code officials issued orders related to the
property, Plaintiffs completed the necessary repairs to the subject units and to the building.
33. During 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs continued to experience a high degree ofwear and
tear to their rental properties and tenant and guest caused damage to their property. The high degree
ofwear and tear and intentional damage was similar to the wear and tear and damage experienced by
other providers of low-income rental units in the city, including PHA and Section 8 project based
landlords.
34. During 2004 and 2005, senior Fire Inspector Pat Fish made comments to Plaintiff
McCampbell on at least two occasions that, "I don't know why you rent to these people." Inspector
Fish was referring to Plaintiffs' African-American tenants. It was clear to PlaintiffMcCampbell that
Inspector Fish did not want him renting to low-income tenants ofhis race. Despite the racist remarks
by a senior City inspector, Plaintiff McCampbell confirmed that he would continue to provide his
tenants with affordable housing that was in critically short supply in the City.
35. During 2005, City officials placed Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a list of
alleged "problem properties" claiming certain "nuisance activity" was occurring at the property. City
officials threatened to revoke the "C of 0" for Plaintiffs' building. These same officials and
employees attempted to justify the targeting of Plaintiffs' rental property for heightened code
standards through their classification ofthe property in a derogatory manner. Inspector Fish was the
chairperson of Defendant's Problem Property Task Force during this time.
36. A "Problem Property" is defined by Defendant as a building where "both building
maintenance issues and nuisance behavior issues" exist. City officials have admitted that the actual
definition of what constitutes a "problem property" varies from one neighborhood to another
7
neighborhood in the city.
37. The City through its officials and employees, and with assistance from certain third
parties including block club and district council representatives, create periodic lists containing the
addresses ofprivately owned rental buildings considered to be "problem properties." These "problem
properties" are then subject to heightened code standards and increased code enforcement activities
by City inspection officials and employees, including repeated attempts to gain access to interiors of
rental properties, multiple inspections, "white glove" code standards, issuance of condemnations,
removal of grand fathering protections, demands for extensive and expensive renovations, all in a
concerted effort to raise the costs of low-income landlords and to force said landlords to sell their
properties.
38. After declaring Plaintiffs' property a "problem property," Plaintiffs experienced
repeated inspections oftheir 1015 York rental property designed to harass Plaintiffs and their tenants
and to encourage the tenants to leave their rental units, and to force a "change of ownership" in the
rental property to a new owner that would not rent to low-income African-Americans.
39. In December 2005 through January 2006, City code officials and employees cited
Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a number of occasions with claimed code violations.
40. On January 17,2006, Plaintiffs' building was condemned for a few items claimed to
be deficient. By early February 3, 2006, City code officials acknowledged in writing that Plaintiffs
had taken the necessary action for the City to remove the condemnation and City Officials and
employees thanked Plaintiffs for their cooperation.
41. During this same period, Defendant's officials and employees continued to illegally
target Plaintiffs and their tenants with confrontational and harassing code enforcement operations
8
designed to remove Plaintiffs' rental income while at the same time dramatically increasing their
costs and expenses.
42. After the repeated inspections where city officials and employees applied a "white
glove" code enforcement standard to Plaintiffs' property, city officials once again condemned
Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on February 24,2006. Plaintiffs again took corrective action to
address the code issues raised by Defendant and most of the claimed violations were corrected.
Nevertheless, Defendant continued the condemnation ofthe building.
43. However, due to the illegal targeting and code enforcement actions, Plaintiffs lost all
rental income to their 17 unit rental building. Without the rental income and facing significant costs,
Plaintiffs lost their rental business. Many ofPlaintiffs' tenants left their rental units during this time
due to Defendant's actions.
44. In the late 1990's, Defendant's officials and employees were informed by low-income
rental property owners that ifthe City raised the level ofthe code standards applicable to low-income
rental properties, the higher cost ofcomplying with the heightened standard would force the owners
from the market.
45. During approximately 1999 through 2001, Defendant created and applied a "Problem
Properties 2000" ("PP2000") initiative to address claimed code enforcement and occupant behavior
issues. PP2000's main emphasis was for City inspectors to work together with low-income landlords
to address the claimed problem properties. According to code inspectors working in the PP2000
program, the program was a success not only in reducing the complaints against problemproperties
but also in addressing the concerns of City officials, neighbors, tenants and landlords.
9
46. Sometime during 2001 or early 2002, Defendant's officials and employees eliminated
the PP2000 program and thereafter implemented a confrontational, heavy-handed approach to lowincome
landlords including claimed owners and tenants of"problem properties".
47. In March 2002 Defendant released a Chronic Problem Properties Report that detailed
the City's prior experience with "problem properties". The Report acknowledged that City policy,
custom and practice applied to "some" problem properties included a knowing and intentional lack of
published or documented standards for selectively targeting a property for increased code
enforcement as a "problem property".
48. The City's March 2002 Report reviewed how multiple city agencies, including fire,
police, housing, and animal control, could target enforcement to accomplish the goals of gaining
access to interiors ofhomes for inspections, so as to force ownership changes on landlords who did
not meet the admittedly undocumented standards.
49. The March 2002 Report made much to do about the excessive costs to the City from
the privately owned low-income rental properties the City described as "problem properties," due to
tenant behavior issues and code enforcement issues related to the physical condition of those
properties. However, in conducting its study and issuing its Report, City officials and employees
purposely failed to account for the significant costs the City had incurred and was continuing to incur
from the residential rental operations of the largest landlord in the low-income rental market, its
sister government agency, PHA.
50. The City's March 2002 Report surprisingly failed to even mention the existence ofthe
PHA, with its over 440 million dollar rental portfolio and 4400 rental units. PHA's rental portfolio
10
consisted of over 400 single family home scattered across the City, clustered duplexes, 16 hi-rise
rental buildings and four family developments consisting oftown homes.
5!. PHA and the City have long standing agreements and contracts between them
concerning a wide variety of concerns to both PHA and the City, including a special policing
contractual arrangement since 1991 whereby the City has provided and continues to provide a
platoon of police officers and liaison officers to police PHA's family developments, and an
additional police officer to live in each ofPHA sixteen hi-rises.
52. The City andPHAhave a long standing agreement that PHA is exempt from interior
inspections on PHA's 400 scattered site homes in the City. The City's policy, practice and custom is
to avoid demanding and performing any interior inspections in PHA single family homes spread
across the city. This cozy relationship between Defendant and PHA is also demonstrated by the
lower standard ofcode enforcement applied by Defendant to PHA's "C of0" rental properties than to
Plaintiffs' rental property and the rental properties ofother private owners oflow-income housing.
53. PHA and the City admit that all ofPHA properties must conform to all the same fire,
safety, minimum housing codes, and all other applicable codes that have applied to Plaintiffs'
property and the properties of all other private providers oflow-income rental housing.
54. PHA's public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair problems
similar in nature to privately owned rental housing stock including Plaintiffs' 1015 York property.
PHA administers its own maintenance, inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing
stock.
55. Many of PHA's rental properties are older properties and are considered by PHA
to be in need of major capital improvements. Historically, PHA has been under-funded for capital
11
repairs of its aging rental housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been
deferred to later years for additional federal funding.
56. Plaintiffs' property and those ofother targeted rental property owners have not been
afforded PHA's competitive advantage ofdeferral ofcapital improvements but instead private lowincome
rental property owners and their "protected class" tenants have suffered immediate and long
term adverse consequences from Defendant's discriminatory and illegal code enforcement
operations.
57. PHA's rental housing stock has similar health, safety, fire and housing code issues as
the rental properties that are owned by Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to "protected
class" members including those property owners providing critical housing under the Section 8
program.
58. PHAmanages the housing inspections ofSection 8 rental units. PHA claims that as
part ofits inspections "vacant [rental] units are prepared to high standards for each new resident" in
order to meet local codes and HUD's,standards. PHA conducts inspections ofSection 8 rental units
in the City at least armually. Even though Section 8 rental units pass federal standards, Defendant
frequently interferes with the tenant's housing and the landlord's property by conducting additional
harassing inspections and many times condemning these same units that had passed federal
inspections.
59. PHA's rental housing stock has historically been subjected to City code enforcement
but to a minimal degree compared to City code enforcement applied to Plaintiffs and similarly
situated private rental property owners.
60. Due to federal budget cuts, PHA has sold and is continuing to sell single family
12
homes from its scattered site portfolio. PHA claims that all of its rental properties conform to all
applicable codes. However, the Truth in Sale of Housing ("TISH") reports prepared by licensed
evaluators/inspectors using the City's code guidelines reveal that PHA's single family homes have
many "below minimum code" conditions and "hazardous" conditions in their rental homes.
61. City records show that PHA single family homes have experienced water intrusion
into basements ofits rental homes resulting in serious mold conditions. Other records demonstrate
that serious mold conditions have been created and allowed to continue inside PHA homes due to
tenant conduct.
62. Despite Defendant's knowledge of these conditions, Defendant has not taken any
action to require inspections ofthose particular homes, or to see if the serious code violations and
health concerns have been immediately addressed and corrected by PHA. Additionally, from the
1990s through 2006, Defendant did not demand interior inspections of PHA's 400 rental homes.
Defendant has not used these serious code violations in PHA homes to justify adverse actions against
PHA. Where similar circumstances are presented in privately owned rental units, Defendant have
immediately sought to punish the private landlords by condemnation ofthe properties in question,
requiring the tenants to leave the properties and requiring expensive renovations through full code
compliance certifications.
63. PHA properties are subject to the permit requirements of City codes. Whenever
repair, replacement and or renovation work is needed on a property, PHA is responsible for applying
for a City permit, paying the permit fees, and ensuring that the required interim and final permit safety
inspections are requested. Certified city building officials are designated to conduct the permit
- safety inspections on items such as furnace replacements, roofrepair and replacements, electrical
13
work and other work on properties in the city. The permit inspections are intended to ensure that the
particular repair, replacement or improvement was performed according to all the applicable
building, safety, fire, electrical, and other codes so that the occupants safety and the safety of
neighbors are ensured.
64. Defendant's permit records at the City's Office of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection ("LIEP") demonstrate that when it comes to permits issued by the City to
PHA for furnace replacements and roof replacements, City inspection officials have consistently
failed to conduct the mandatory permit inspection, either because PHA officials informed the
inspectors that PHA did not think the inspection was necessary, or because PHA's contractors
repeatedly failed to request said inspections from LIEP officials. City inspectors merely note the
request byPHAto forego the inspection, or note that no request was made for the inspection, and the
City inspectors fail to inspect said properties.
65. The result ofDefendant's failure to ensure that code required permit inspections are
completed and work approved, is that PHA tenants and PHA neighbors, are not afforded the
protections ofthe codes for their safety. City and PHA officials have known for many years ofthis
practice offailing to have permit inspections performed on PHA properties. This "blind eye" by the
City to PHA rental properties, seriously jeopardizes PHA tenants and neighbors while at the same
time the Defendant's targeting of Plaintiffs and other landlords jeopardizes their rental businesses
and disrupts the lives of their tenants.
66. Defendant City does not subject PHA's rental housing stock to harassing inspections
on the exteriors and interiors ofits rental properties, to condemnations ofits buildings that forcibly
evict its tenants from their homes, to placement ofPHA's rental properties on the "Vacant Building"
14
lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations
under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, or to many of the other
actions the City takes against the privately owned low-income rental owners.
67. Conversely, Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to "protected class"
members are subjected by Defendant's officials and employees to harassing inspections on the
exteriors and interiors of their rental properties, to condemnations of their buildings that forcibly
evict its tenants from their homes, to placement oftheir rental properties on the "Vacant Building"
lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations
under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, to many other actions that
create an environment in the city where these private landlords cannot operate low-income rental
businesses and leads to abandonment oflow-income rental properties in the city.
68. PHA's rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems, including those
that require frequent calls for City police protection, that are similar to the tenant and guest behavior
problems of Plaintiff's properties and those rental properties owned by other similarly situated
property owners in the City.
69. Nevertheless, Defendants have targeted the properties ofPlaintiffs and other property
owners who are in direct competition with PHA for the same low income, predominately minority
tenants, based upon claimed tenant behavior problems that also exist in PHA properties.
70. Defendant's officials and employees knew and intended that their selectively
aggressive code enforcement operations against the targeted low-income landlords, and their tenants,
would have a discriminatory impact upon members ofthe "protected class" living within the City and
upon the private property owners providing housing to said "protected class".
15
71. Said officials and employees also knew and intended that such enforcement would
directly contradict the affirmations by Defendant to HUD, the purported purposes of the federal
housing funds received by the City and the affordable housing policies of the federal government.
72. Defendant's discriminatory housing policy, custom and practice as set forth herein
had a discriminatory impact on the protected class, and those providing housing to same, including
Plaintiffs, and the policy, custom and practice has continued since at least 2002 in the City.
73. Defendant's discriminatory housing practices as set forth herein, including but not
limited to, illegal condenmation of Plaintiffs' rental property and those of other low-income
landlords, interfered with the ability of"protected class" tenants' to maintain housing, locate housing,
locate replacement housing and interfered with those tenants' employment, all to the tenants
detriment.
74. As a direct result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant's officials and employees,
Plaintiffs and other low-income landlords were forced to incur significant unnecessary expenses
which placed a heavy fmancial burden on said landlords and forced them to close their rental units,
sell their rental properties or lose their rental properties, thereby decreasing the available rental units
for "protected class" members in the City.
75. As a result ofthis wrongful conduct, Defendant also obtained, under color oflaw or
official right, an increase in inspection, permit, excessive consumption, and other related City fees
from Plaintiffs and other low~income landlords.
76. As a direct result ofthe discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions directed
against Plaintiffs, they lost tenants and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities,
mortgage payments and other expenses of the subject property, lost their investment in the rental
16
property, incurred significant other expenses, and were forced to surrender the property to the
banking institution that held the mortgage on the property. Plaintiffs incurred other damages as a
result ofthe discriminatory actions of Defendant.
77. Other private owners of low-income rental properties providing critically needed
affordable housing to "protected class" members during the period of 2002 through 2006 were
subjected to similar discriminatory code enforcement and other illegal conduct as Plaintiffs were
subjected to by Defendant and its officials and employees, and these private owners were not offered
the same benefits and preferences that Defendant provided to PHA. Many ofthese private landlords
like Plaintiffs suffered great damage including loss oftheir rental properties as a direct result ofthe
discriminatory policies and illegal conduct ofDefendant and its officials and employees. The tenants
ofthese landlords also suffered a great deal due to the discriminatory policies of Defendant.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1968 AND AMENDMENTS
(FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT)
42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3601 ET SEQ., 3613 AND 3617
78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 77 as set forth
above.
79. Commencing in about 2002, Defendant, through its officials and employees including
inspectors from Defendant's Fire Department, commenced and thereafter continued a discriminatory
policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct that selectively targeted the low-income
rental properties owned by Plaintiffs and other St. Paul landlords, who were aiding, encouraging and
associating with individuals with protected rights to housing under Title VIII, Federal Fair Housing
Act and Amendments, including African-Americans, other Black Americans, Hispanic Americans,
17
Asian Americans, American Indians, individuals with disabilities ("protected class"), all living
within the City of St. Paul.
80. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct
did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with these low-income landlords including Plaintiffs, on
account of their having aided, associated with or encouraged their "protected class" tenants in
exercise ofthese tenants' rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.
81. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice had, and continues to have,
the approval of the City Council, the Mayor, and many ofthe City's other officials and employees.
This discriminatory policy, custom and practice of discriminatory code enforcement conduct has
been and continues to be encouraged and aided by certain influential members of district councils
and block clubs and other individuals with political power in the City.
82. Defendant's officials, employees, representatives and agents instituted a campaign to
interfere with and impair the ability oflow-income landlords including Plaintiffs to provide housing
for low and moderate income members of the African-American community and other "protected
class" members in the city.
83. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct
was intentional and malicious in Defendant's efforts to rid the City of "protected class" members,
and Plaintiffs and other owners who were assisting these individuals by providing them with lowincome
housing that was in critically short supply in the City.
84. Officials and employees of Defendant City, including certain inspectors from the
City's Fire Prevention Office, intended that Defendant's policy would have a discriminatory impact
18
upon members of the African-American community and other "protected class" citizens and on
Plaintiffs and others providing housing services to those "protected class" members.
85. Said Defendant's code enforcement operations had a discriminatory impact upon
members of the "protected class" living within the City of St. Paul, and upon Plaintiffs and other
property owners providing housing services to "protected class" members.
86. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice included providing special
treatment for Defendant's sister government agency, PHA, that was not provided to the owners of
privately owned low-income housing and their tenants, including Plaintiffs and their tenants.
87. Said illegal conduct resulted in actual damages to low-income landlords including to
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result ofsaid discriminatory policies, customs and
practices, including damages to Plaintiffs' business and property interests, including loss ofincome,
profits and investments, physical disruption ofrental and repair activities, forced payments, forced
sale ofrental property, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees. Plaintiffs seeks
all their compensatory damages against Defendant.
88. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its provisions
and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
89. Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
90. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofinterference and retaliatory
conduct continues presently in the City.
19
91. Plaintiffs seek pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 pennanent injunctive relief to
prohibit Defendant, and its officials, employees and representatives from continuing its wrongful
conduct, as Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as described
above, has existed for an extended period of time and presently continues within the City.
COUNT II
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981
92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 91 as set forth
above.
93. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially
discriminatory intent, has denied Plaintiffs on account ofrace, the same right to make and enforce
contracts, and to have the full and equal benefit ofall laws or proceedings for the security ofpersons
and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, ajl in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42
U.S.C. Section 1981.
94. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially
discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs' contracts, and right to make and enforce contracts
with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs' right to enjoyment ofall benefits, privileges, tenns, and
conditions of Plaintiffs' contractual relationships with their non-white tenants.
95. As a direct result ofsaid the wrongful conduct ofDefendant's officials, employees,
representatives and agents, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the fonn ofeconomic loss, including
out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs, and
damages for deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks
20
damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir
costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from Defendant.
96. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir compensatory damages against Defendant.
COUNT III
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 96 as set forth
above.
98. Defendant City official, employees, representatives and agents, have denied Plaintiffs,
an their African-American and other protected class tenants, on account ofrace, the same rights as
are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property,
all in violation ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
99. Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as more
fully described above, impaired Plaintiffs' property rights and those oftheir tenants.
100. As a direct result of said Defendant's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and
investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs and damages for deprivation of civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks damages for anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from
Defendant.
101. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
21
102. Plaintiffs also seeks a permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant through its
officials, employee, representatives and agents from continuing Defendant's pattern ofdiscriminatory
code enforcement as described above.
COUNT IV
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 102 as set forth
above.
104. Certain officials and employees ofDefendant City, all in their official capacities, did
wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs and their tenants ofrights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe
United States, including the right to be free from taking oftheir property without compensation, the
right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the laws, and the right to pursue an
occupation, business or profession free from governmental deprivation or undue interference, or
government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments
and rights established by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
105. Certain ofDefendant City's officials were all in their official capacities following an
unconstitutional City policy, custom and practice ofdiscriminatory code enforcement at the time of
said deprivation of rights, all as fully described above.
106. The policy, custom and practice described above proximately caused the injury
to Plaintiffs.
107. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs' damages as a result ofthe policy, custom
and practice set forth herein.
22
108. Certain officials, employees, representatives and agents of Defendant City acted
under color of state law, intentionally and maliciously subjected to harm the Plaintiffs in their
occupation, business and/or profession to deprivation of their rights and undue interference on
account of Plaintiffs' tenants being African-American and other "protected class" members.
109. The intentional and malicious conduct ofDefendant's officials and employees was a
violation ofPlaintiffs' rights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, including the
right to be free from taking ofproperty without compensation, the right to due process, the right to
equal protection of the laws, the right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from
deprivation or undue interference, or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth,
Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments and rights established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,
1982 and 1983.
110. As a direct result of said Defendant's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form ofeconomic loss and deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights.
111. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Defendant.
STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT V
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
112. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 111 as set
forth above.
113. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between Plaintiffs and their
respective tenants for lease ofprivate housing in the City of Saint Paul.
114. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs' leases with its tenants.
115. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
23
116. Defendant intentionally procured breach of the contracts through illegal and
malicious condemnations of Plaintiffs' rental property and orders for tenants to vacate said rental
property and through other intentional wrongful conduct, all as more fully described above.
117. Defendant intentional interference with Plaintiffs' contracts was without any
justification.
118. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendant's tortuous interference with
Plaintiffs' contracts, as Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and have lost profits,
incurred costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs due to the malicious conduct of Defendants'
officials and employees.
119. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
COUNT VI
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
120. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 119 as set forth
above.
121. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had a rental business in the
City. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
122. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from their
rental business and rental relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
123. Defendant, through its officials and employees, engaged in wrongful conduct, as more
fully described above, that wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs' reasonable business expectation and
which had an adverse effect on Plaintiffs' rental business.
24
124. Defendant's wrongful interference was without justification and was maliciously
intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental relationships and reasonable
business expectation.
125. Said Defendant's wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of, or
harm to, Plaintiffs' rental business and business expectancy and the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.
126. Without Defendant's wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.
127. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendant's wrongful
interference with Plaintiffs' rental business; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and
profits, have been forced to sell their rental property, had increased tax burdens, incurred costs, fees
and expenses in needless repairs all due to Defendants' wrongful conduct.
128. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1. Ajudgment pursuant to Count I ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
2. Ajudgment pursuant to Count II ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
3. A judgment pursuant to Count III ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
4. Ajudgment pursuant to Count IV ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
5. Ajudgment pursuant to Count V ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
6. Ajudgment pursuant to Count VI ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
7. Ajudgment for Plaintiffs' compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this matter
on all Counts herein.
8. A judgment for Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees, costs and disbursements
25
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.
9. A pennanent injunction restraining Defendant and its officials, employees,
representatives and agents, from further violations as set forth herein.
10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the
premises.
11. For trial byjury on .all issues so triable.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: p...-()..'J...~
ey Lie. #161561)
Lie. # 178226)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26

9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Same old shit, just another victim. Like it has been said over and over, there are just too many people all saying the same thing for these accusations to not be true.

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is great. Maybe now the city folks will realize that they need to act responsibly.

5:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#4 of ??
Looks like the City of St Paul better hire more attorney's!
I will be willing to bet this will not be the last case filed against the defendents........
If these allegations are true, there will be many more landlords soon filing similar suits!

6:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, this nothing. Wait until monday. A new motion will file on on monday to make the city of St.Paul to try to settle the lawsuits.

In the motion there is proof of wrong doing by city offficals and others.

to all people that think the city can do no wrong. You will pay for
all city wrong doings.

There will be people fleeing the city. Because they will not want to pay for city officals wrong doing.

There will be crimial investigate
and person(s) will be going to jail.

Hud is doing investigate all the lawsuits now. Maybe federal chargs
will be file to. It look the like
the party is over the city officals
and some employees.

Well, chuck time is coming for all your friends. Are you going to vist them in jail.

Maybe the papers and other news people will report on final.

St.Paul will be ghost town with months. No bank loan for people to buy homes and more vacants.

Leslie K. Lucht

7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its great to see another complaint filed! Its a shame the hundreds of others like myself could not afford to do the same, but we can still testify as witnesses to the misconduct of these city officials. To some it is allegations until proven to me it has been proven already because I was a victim of these practices the city has been conducting.

I feel it will be pretty hard for any judge to say these complaints are not based on facts when there is evidence to support them along with witnesse tesitmony. It will be just a matter of time I am sure before many other victims file suit as well. Especially once these plantiffs prevail then there will be attorneys everywhere looking for people that have been subjected to these unlawful acts by some of St.Paul's officials/employees.

8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've heard through the grape vine that mondays going to be filled with fireworks.More evidence comming your way CHUCKIE CHEESE.

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, the plaintiff in this case is BLACK. There will be more minority plaintiffs to come.

8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what braindead city attorney they'll give this one too?I think the one working on the first 3 has her hands full.

8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St. Paul sued on housing enforcement

An Eagan property manager alleges city leaders are trying to keep out poor tenants. An official says that's not happening.

By DAN BROWNING, Star Tribune

Last update: February 22, 2008 - 9:07 PM
An Eagan man and his property management company filed a federal lawsuit Friday alleging that St. Paul city officials have systematically violated fair housing laws by trying to reduce the number of low-income rental units, which has had a disproportionate impact on African-Americans and other minorities.

Robert McCampbell, 52, accused certain city officials of having a political agenda to reduce the number of poor tenants in the city, most of whom are minorities.

McCampbell charged in his 26-page lawsuit that city officials have used the building code enforcement system to illegally shut down apartments with minority tenants or to force the tenants to move out.

The suit alleges that Andy Dawkins, head of the city's Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement Department from 2002 through 2005, made remarks that the "bottom tier of tenants should be eliminated from St. Paul." Other city officials have raised concerns about the concentration of poverty in St. Paul, the suit says.
After the complaint was related to him by a reporter, Dawkins said Friday that it apparently rehashes allegations made in previous lawsuits filed several years ago. "One of the things we tried to do was to hold landlords responsible for keeping properties up to code," he said. "I'm very confident that the city of St. Paul could only have liability if they treated tenants different because of their race, and that just didn't happen."

According to McCampbell, senior Fire Inspector Pat Fish, who headed the city's Problem Property Task Force, told him on at least two occasions in 2004 and 2005, "I don't know why you rent to these people." McCampbell said it was clear to him that Fish did not want him renting to low-income minority tenants.

Fish could not be reached Friday. St. Paul City Attorney John Choi had little to say, because the lawsuit was filed late in the day. "We will review it and respond accordingly," he said.

The lawsuit contrasts the way the city handled code violations at McCampbell's three apartment buildings with the way it allegedly handled similar issues in buildings owned by the St. Paul Public Housing Agency.

McCampbell owns Raven Property Management. The company owned properties at 780 Jackson St., 615-617 Case Av. and 1015 York Av., a 17-unit building. The lawsuit focuses mostly on repeated building inspections and condemnation orders on the York Avenue property that allegedly drove up costs, drove out tenants and eventually broke the business.

By contrast, the suit says, the Public Housing Agency (PHA) residences are "exempt from interior inspections" and are subject to minimal code enforcement. The suit alleges that the city's license and inspection office has consistently failed to conduct permit inspections on PHA homes, jeopardizing the tenants and their neighbors. Yet it alleges that the city targets private landlords who rent to similar tenants, "jeopardizing their rental businesses and disrupting the lives of their tenants."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for a variety of civil rights violations and state violations of contract and business interference.

Staff writer Chris Havens contributed to this report. Dan Browning • 612-673-4493

10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't wait to hear Repke twist this one around!

10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't it Dawkins who represents Diva's Bar just argueing that the city targets property and business owners based on there racial clietele?



Sid

10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well isn't this sweet....from what Bob has posted, it appears the city went out and targeted this guy so bad he loses his property. I checked on the who owns the property now, and guess who? The City of St Paul now owns it! This looks like racketeering to me Chuck.

10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Seeba would do a fine job HANDLING this case. She already knows what to expect from this crowd. And besides she has done a good job showing this is a bunch of HOG WASH.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

I know many of you were wondering if this case would materialize, it was sometime ago I announced it was coming.

I feel like Nostradamus! I bet I can predict the future here today.

Folk's, I see another federal lawsuit coming in the near future!

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Trinh Thi Ngo said...

Give it up Choi.. Instruct the city council and Mayor to do what is right and stop the illegal code enforcement actions.

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seeba couldn't defend a case in small claims court.She's out of her league.BIG TIME!

Isn't it funny when the news gets big Repke vanishes.Repke it gets kinda hard to keep defending criminals.


Paul

11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And criminals they are. If I were a certain few inspectors involved in these lawsuits I would be spending some money to get some opinions from a private attorney. From what I've seen here, it's pretty obvious that the city has no clue about what they are doing and how much the ohter side is burying them in evidence.....evidence that is going to send some to jail. Civil rights violations are a federal crime.

12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I never thought I'd say it but the city better be careful.4 lawsuits can be vary costly and people usaully don't throw money at these things if they don't have some evidence.



George

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First we read about "Super Lawyers" circling the city like buzzards, and now there are lawsuits charged by people with the name of "Raven!" I live in St Paul and am concerned, Is this a joke?

12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL!!!!!!....I love it. Buzzards and Ravens swooping in to feast on the garbage in St Paul. They'll be feasting for a long time I am afraid.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funny part will be when all the rats start jumping ship once they realize they have been locked into a situation they cannot lie their way out of. They'll be getting private attorneys and trying to make deals right and left to save their own dirty asses.

2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawkins say it isn't so , but just a few months ago he ws saying the city was after Divas because of the black patrons. How can you have it both ways?

5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info Bob. I got your website from an email that's floating around among landlords. My wife and I are going to refinance the last rental we have left and go see this Attorney about what our rights are. These bastards did the same thing to us! I can't even comprehend this. The same damn thing, only a little worse than what htis gentleman says.

RC

5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe they treated the landlords different because of the race of their tenants, and that's the same thing. Dawkins seems to screw up everything he gets involved in.

6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing. I think these plaintiffs have a case and I worry about how this will stop. The city intentionally used code enforcement to go after occupants and owners whose “behavior” the city (and their friends) did not like. This has discrimination written all over it and thousands of property owners and tenants have a claim.

I am surprised the city hasn’t changed their ways and tried to settle this suit. I understand the city’s argument -- they have a right/obligation to manage housing safety. If one accepts that premise, it seems to me the city also has an obligation to be reasonable, objective and follow due process. The city seems to knowingly trample these principles.
I don’t understand how anyone can justify that.

With a fall trial, 2008 could be very interesting. It is unclear to me why some people think this trial could bankrupt the city. That would require a staggering award by the court.

Bill Cullen.

6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact is landlords were part of the wheel in housing in St.Paul.These liberal democrats say they believe in round table discussions and bringing all parts to they table-They left the landlords out and didn't include them in on any due process.Mr.Bostrum and Ms.Lantry you always ask about the homeowners and how they feel.Have you ever once asked or even cared what landlords were feeling?You didn't give a damn about us and wanted to squash us like bugs.We were providing a great service to many people in the city that couldn't afford a house like you.

You under estimated us.You deserve all you get St.Paul for electing these officials into office.There will be sad days for St.Paul to come.



Paul

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

FYI, I pulled the vacant building list from the City of St. Paul and it was 36 pages long. It had a total of 1625 vacant homes on it as of February 1, 2008.

I know for a fact that this number is higher as several properties are not listed or are going to me listed shortly. The projection for vacant buildings to top 2,000 is late March to mid April.

The three oldest vacant properties on the list are from 1990, 1132 Central Ave, 1997, 1054 Central Ave, 1999, 1956 Feronia Ave.

Also there is talk down at city hall as to what to do with these properties. Chuck said here in past posts that the removal of a house is not property, just trash as he calls it and only the land is worth anything. Tell that to my banker when they appraised my home for refinancing. There has been a discussion to turn several areas of vacant homes into public housing, possible managed by non-profits.

Looks like Chuck is going to be in business for a long time. His defense of the city policy that has lead to the discrimination of a protected class seems to be playing into his own profession.

Just my opinion and not those of my former or present employers.

Fly on the wall down at city hall.

7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Bill.....from what I have heard from different people, there are well over a hundred businesses that were lost by these owners. Stop and think about it. One hundred income poducing assetts people owned were sytematicaly destroyed by the city and their owners run out of town on a rail. Given the fact tht most people don't like government on a good day, I can't imagine the jury awards being anything but "staggering!"

9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Same old BS as the other suits. The allogation is that somehow the City wants to kick out all of the poor people out of the City except for the fact at the same time they are trying to house all of the poor people in PHA.

The attack on Pat Fish is a new one and particularly distressing. Pat is a wonderful woman and doesn't deserve that kind of shit.

If you read the complaint. The plaintif in the suit blames the problems in the building on the tennents that he rented to and then accuses Fish of racism by saying he shouldn't rent to someone that has trashed his building.

Having read all of the suits this one appears to be the sloppiest of the ones put together and I don't believe it is the same lawyers. This one tries to go in both directions at the same time. Its pretty lame.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

Does PHA house the most difficult families? They have a long application and do a very thorough back ground check. I do not recall a single struggling family that moved out of one of my buildings and into PHA.

The only tenants I did lose to PHA were the good tenants. The ones with a solid, reliable income and received a great rental reference from me. I honestly grew to believe that PHA was my biggest competitor and biggest threat. They only left me with the tougher families!

From my perspective, PHA took my good tenants, leaving me with the tougher families. Then the city sent out code enforcement. I am not sure the contradiction is as big as you perceive.

Bill Cullen.

12:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This one tries to go both directions at the same time." This should not be a suprise to you Chuck, that is exactly what Attorneys do isn't it?

1:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PHA is getting sued very soon for
attempting to evict tenants who oppose policies that dont even exists.

PHA had been fabricating stories that certain tenants were threatening PHA employees and having unauthorized guests living with them and when the tenants attempted to file grievances, they were denied and the PHA did this to prevent the PHA from having to produce pretended witnesses they claimed could substanciate the alleged violations.

JAM

2:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CORRECTION, PHA had been falsley accusing certain tenant(s of threatening PHA employees and having unauthorized guests.

Thes pretended and fabricated allegations are serious lease violations for which the PHA must evict.

JAM

2:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke,

When are you and Thune going to tell everyone what you had in store for the nice people of the West 7th community a few years back. Come on Repke, lets spill the beans, shall we?
How is your condo developtment going on the corner of Maryland/White Bear Ave? Looks like a Ghost town-- Now was this money well spent Repke?

6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat Fish is a racist pig! Repke, maybe she is a very sweet woman to you. She is about your age, maybe she wants to steal you away from Gloria. Try being anything other than a white person and deal with her. She thinks people of color should be still sitting at the back of the bus and drinking out of our own drinking fountain!

6:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke,

Who are you to say Pat Fish doesn't deserve that kind of shit. Pat Fish is an "old" school racist. She says subtle things that appear harmless, however she is filled with racist thoughts!

Have you talked with her lately Repke? She is losing it, she sounds dumber than a box of rocks.

6:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,
Theres many documents with Pat Fish's finger prints on them.More proof folks Chuck doesn't know what he's doing or saying.Fish is one of the only fire inspectors that Kelly and Dawkins could corrupt and bring on there side to target multi housing units.The fire department has some sort of honesty.Pat Fish is and was a pawn and the proof will come out shortly.Just sit back and watch Chuckie.


I just love this Chuck guy.He just doesn't quit.But in the end Chuck you will look very bad my friend.

Chuck spin all you want but 4 lawsuits should wake one of these brain dead city council memebers up.


Tim Ciani

8:18 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All

I don't know Pat Fish personally, however, I do know of a personal side of her I felt was very empathetic.

Pat Fish turned a blind eye to a homeless situation where people were living in storage units in the basement of the Griggs building. This went on for years until the recent renovation there.

A person could rent a storage unit or so called "music studio" cheap for around $100.00 to $350 a month. Almost ALL these so called music studios were homeless peoples shelter from the cold.

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These "brain dead" city council people will never wake up. They like to fight. Right Kathy? You see, Kathy Lantry has built her career out of bashing landlords. She has "tools" for dealing with the ones she and her racist constoituients don't like. Lantry will never allow the taxpayers to give them one nickle. she'll have this city fight these lawsuits all the way to the Supreme Court if they have to and it makes no difference if they are right or wrong.

8:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Say what you want about this guy but I know they haver done this to other landlords on our block. Now instead of landlords we can deal with, we have vacant buildings. You wouldn't believe some of the places the city has condemned. I looked at one of them and thought to myself if this isn't good enough, what is?

9:12 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Property owner sues St. Paul for 'discriminatory and illegal' housing code enforcement
BY EMILY GURNON
Pioneer Press
Article Last Updated: 02/23/2008 03:49:32 PM CST


An Eagan man who owned and managed low-income apartments in St. Paul has sued the city, alleging that officials subjected his buildings to "discriminatory and illegal" code enforcement actions designed to hurt his business and get poor black residents to move elsewhere.

In the suit filed in federal court in Minneapolis on Friday, Robert McCampbell, 52, and his company, Raven Property Management, outlined what he called a "confrontational, heavy-handed approach" to low-income landlords through its so-called "problem properties" code enforcement.

The city's actions drove McCampbell to lose money and tenants, and eventually forced him into foreclosure, he claimed.

In contrast, McCampbell alleged, the city had a "cozy" relationship with the St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA), subjecting it to a much lower standard of code enforcement.

The PHA runs about 4,200 federally subsidized units throughout St. Paul for low-income tenants.

Between 2001 and 2006, McCampbell owned apartment buildings at 780 Jackson St. in the Frogtown area, and 615/617 Case Ave. and 1015 York Ave., both in the Payne/Phalen neighborhood, according to the suit.

His tenants were almost exclusively low-income minority tenants, most of them African-American. Many came from other cities, such as Detroit and Chicago, and the tenants often referred other family members, the suit said.

From 2002 through 2006, McCampbell alleged:

• City officials and employees made racist comments to minorities and to property owners renting to them, "to the effect that those minorities were not welcomed in St. Paul and should not be given housing";

• Some of the city's code enforcement inspectors were condescending towards minority owners of low-income housing and their tenants;

• Some of the city's inspectors "pursued discriminatory code enforcement operations to placate racist constituents and to further political agendas";

• Repeated inspections at the York Avenue property were "designed to harass plaintiffs and their tenants," to encourage the tenants to leave, and to "force a change of ownership in the rental property to a new owner that would not rent to low-income African-Americans";

• Andy Dawkins, director of the city's Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement department (NHPI) from 2002 through 2005, "strongly suggested in 2005 to low-income landlords that the bottom tier of tenants should be eliminated from St. Paul."

In addition to Dawkins, McCampbell singled out senior fire inspector Pat Fish for criticism, alleging that Fish commented to him on at least two occasions that, "I don't know why you rent to these people," referring to the African-American tenants.

The city pursued its discriminatory activity towards low-income landlords while housing advocates as well as local and federal officials "recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in St. Paul."

Dawkins did not immediately return a call seeking comment on Saturday. Fish could not be reached.

St. Paul City Attorney John Choi said city officials would review the suit "and respond accordingly."

McCampbell cites federal housing and civil rights violations and violations of state business laws. The suit seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief to keep the city from "continuing its wrongful conduct."

Emily Gurnon can be reached at egurnon@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5522.

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. Some of you guys are brutal out here. I know many of the people you claim are racists and I simply do not agree. That makes it hard for me to accept any of your arguments.

I can believe that a flawed city policy geared to "respond" to consituents requests could ultimately be racist. But, Pat Fish, Andy Dawkins and Chuck Repke racist? Do you picture them with white, hooded robes? I know them and do not believe you.

Be more careful and factual. Then you convince others.

Interested reader.

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Trinh Thi Ngo said...

Seeba, advise the city council and mayor to stop the illegal code enforcement practices.

You are over whelmed now. The work is going to become more intensive as the law suits pile up.

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel sorry for Seeba that she has to represent such slime balls.

11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms. Seeba is a looker.

I think Ms. Seeba has a heart, but she is working for some real interesting people down at city hall and she doing what they tell her to do. Ms. Seeba not only has good looks, but she is also very smart.

Fly on the wall down at city hall

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think Repke is a racist, but the rest are. They just do it the Minnesopta nice way......real low key with a smile on their face. These poeple are no different than the white people in the south that looked the other way while they lynched black people from every tree they could find. No difference at all, and there are going to be plenty of facts to back it up.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe St. Paul's use of code enforcement to manage occupant behavior is wrong for many reasons. I also believe their actions caused a disparate impact on people of color. I also believe the city ought to take a hard look at what they are doing and change while they prepare for the consequences of these lawsuits.

But Pat Fish? Sorry, you lost me. I believe she is a dedicated public servant who has done a fantastic job balancing the demands of elected officials and the public. She isn't perfect -- nor am I -- but the comments out here are way over the top.

I agree with Chuck on his comments about Pat Fish. The rest of you are wrong.

Bill Cullen.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All we have to do is to remove the bottom tier of idiots and deadwood in city government. Then all these problems will disappear.

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blame the U.S.Government and all those politicians who want amnesty for illegal immigrants.

If any of you vote for a presidental candidate who is sympathetic towards illegals .

You can all be ground up into tar
like the rest of the illegals should and be used to fill the potholes of our fd up roads.


Harold s.

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,
Why dont you consider running topics that really matter instead of the same old St.Paul bullshit ?

Your blog is more to the tune of a comics page for !@#$%^&*().

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Cullen Pat Fish was used as a bulldog when the city decided to close a building down for behavior issues."Send Pat Fish out to write up the property."Bill theres many documents with in the city to support it.Be Careful.Shes very sly and understands what shes done.


Someone who knows.

2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you are wrong about Fish Bill, but perhaps some of us know her in a way that you do not. With your position in Sparl she wouldn't dare to pick on you, but she was different when she had no fear of butting heads with someone she percieved as having less credibility than you.

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This I found from the council records for april 19, 2006
45. Appeals of Michael Garner, Tiffany Hart, Martin Hall, Robert McCampbell, John Ray, Angela Tidwell, and Ishmeal Lorraine Wilson to a Deficiency List for property at 1015 York Avenue. Public hearing held, closed, and laid over to April 26

The following persons spoke in opposition: Southern Minnesota Legal Regional Service’s (SMRLS) attorney, Perry Stefano; Clint Blazer from Halverson Blazers; Ishmeal Wilson , 1015 York Street, #16; and Jessica Blackwell with the Community Stabilization Project.
The owner filed for foreclosure and SMRLS took operation from the owner; appointed an administrator, "Halverson and Blazer Group"; and have the financing in place to make the repairs. The courts did find that the building was habitable and SMRLS is trying to avoid tenants from being vacated. The City inspector is scheduled to come out on April 20, 2006. Halverson Blazers was appointed as the court administrator of the property on behalf of the TRA action and the bank asked that they remain through the foreclosure redemption period. People spoke that they are confident the city will pass this on inspection as the list of deficiencies will be completed. One of the tenants stated that he was one of the complainants and said they had a bad landlord, but all deficiencies are met at 95%. The Community Stabilization Project has been doing some advocacy in conjunction with SMRLS and said the building is habitable and life safety issues have been fixed. They see no need to displace tenants out of their homes when the owners are no longer in possession of the property.

...end...

So, folks the main case that this guy talks about is one where the tennants went and got help to not let him shut down the building and force him to make the repairs.

Sounds a lot different than what he is saying now. Sounds like the people living there thought that he wouldn't make the repairs and had to get help.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You try and discrdit people here Chuck when they go to court with mountains of evidence and supporting affidavits from their tenants and on the other hand you seem to give more credibility to tenants that go to court just because they think the guy will not fix the place. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

1:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck funny you talk about SMRLS.I believe SMRLS is who was telling the city that there code pratices were hurting the people of color.

Its also real funny how hard you dig to find evidence to discredit the landlords.

Do you have any information on the first 3 suits?Chuck thesesuits are here and the city better deal with them better then what your doing.If not, then better for the plaintiffs.


Sid

7:43 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Posted earlier-

This I found from the council records for april 19, 2006
45. Appeals of Michael Garner, Tiffany Hart, Martin Hall, Robert McCampbell, John Ray, Angela Tidwell, and Ishmeal Lorraine Wilson to a Deficiency List for property at 1015 York Avenue. Public hearing held, closed, and laid over to April 26

The following persons spoke in opposition: Southern Minnesota Legal Regional Service’s (SMRLS) attorney, Perry Stefano; Clint Blazer from Halverson Blazers; Ishmeal Wilson , 1015 York Street, #16; and Jessica Blackwell with the Community Stabilization Project.

I see some interesting names in opposition here.

First, Clint Blazer of Halverson Blazer Group.. Folks I know this guy personaly, you CAN'T trust him PERIOD. I challenge Clint to come here and debate me on this statement. Mr. Campbell, you may want to get in touch with me privately.

Second, The CSP.. I believe they will be hostile witnesses in these federal suits.

8:13 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Posted earlier by Chuck-

This I found from the council records for april 19, 2006
45. Appeals of Michael Garner, Tiffany Hart, Martin Hall, Robert McCampbell, John Ray, Angela Tidwell, and Ishmeal Lorraine Wilson to a Deficiency List for property at 1015 York Avenue. Public hearing held, closed, and laid over to April 26

The following persons spoke in opposition: Southern Minnesota Legal Regional Service’s (SMRLS) attorney, Perry Stefano; Clint Blazer from Halverson Blazers; Ishmeal Wilson , 1015 York Street, #16; and Jessica Blackwell with the Community Stabilization Project.

My response- I see some interesting names in opposition here.

First, Clint Blazer of Halverson Blazer Group.. Folks I know this guy personaly, you CAN'T trust him PERIOD. I challenge Clint to come here and debate me on this statement. Mr. Campbell, you may want to get in touch with me privately.

Second, The CSP.. I believe they will be hostile witnesses in these federal suits.

8:14 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I almost forgot, THANKS Chuck!

8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No digging for records I just Googled the address and the council record comes up. My point on that was that if the guy ended up with a TRF going on, then he had people living their that were paying the rent and were ticked off at him not doing repairs too.

The reason why this one interested me is that I was the real estate agent on the purchase of 615 Case two buyers later. It looks like this guy bought 615 Case in 2000 for $184,500 and sold it in 2001 (after the City was so mean to him) for $375,000. I was the agent for the buyers in 2005 when it was sold for $390,000. At that point it was vacant and on the MLS for $395,000 and the sellers were motivate by personal issues.

So, like I said when I first read this one, I don't think much of the suits but this one is not as clean as the earlier ones. On one of them you have someone that is a tennent advocate supporting the landlord on this one you have the tennants having to go to court to get him to make repairs and him making money off of the sale of his buildings.

So, like I said this one is pretty lame.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Same old systematic bullshit. Send in Pat Fish and friends with commando tactics and condemn a property. During all the caos confusion send in a group like the CSP to paint a picture of gloom and doom to the tenants. Promise them rent rebates and hotel stays. Dahh! do you think they'll sign against the landlord?

8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you can muddy the waters all you want addressing profits this guy might have made on previous real estate transactions. It still doesn't address the complaint's core issues of the city's strong arm code enforcement tactics on private landlords versus the double standard kid glove treatment of PHA properties.

8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in Public Housing and I have registered complaints with the
fire inspectors who also get called out to inspect PHA.

I lived in a PHA hi-rise and the ventilation ducts that connect apartments were caked with dust and
other particals a quarter inch thick.

After having complained, the PHA promptly began writing me up for bogus and trumptup serious lease infractions.

Its unclear whether the Fire inspector told the PHA to fix the
problem but the problem was never
fixed by PHA because I assume being forced to clean the whole duct systym would run into the thousands.

When PHA couldnt evict me on the bogus charges, they transfered me out of that building without proper notice.

Probably so I couldnt follow up on the ventilation problem.

Any one wants to be briefed further, I can give specifics about a whole lot of other PHA
corruption and recent and numerous court filings.

9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:57 and the point is????

That is what I don't get. There is this thing that somehow the City treats PHA different than private landlords and that means what???

What if they did? That would mean it would be less safe to live in PHA units and we could see a reason for residents of PHA to sue the City for not enforcing the code.

It doesn't mean that because the City allowed one building to be unsafe and occupied that it should have allowed all buildings to be unsafe and occupied.

That is the bottem line in all of the landlords suits. The have the god given right to house people in unsafe situations. The City does not have the right to protect the public health unless it can at the same time inspect all 100,000 properties in the city on the same day. Otherwise the inspections have to be unfair because they are inspecting this landlord and not the other.

Its BS and ultimately they all will fail. The City has the right to protect the public health. It clearly has the right to inspect all rental properties. Its just the way it is folks.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well the deadasses in city government are at it again. This suit does a service uncovering more of it.

What bothers me is why all the other city departments follow along like sheep - or in this case, like lemmings.

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

Chuck you said the city clearly has the right to inspect all rental properties.

Please show me where it is written that this right as you call it, is actually a right by the city.

The 2nd Amendment is a right.

Voting is a right?

I can’t find where it is written in our US Constitution that the inspection of rental property is a right, so if you can find it please inform this blog. I can see where the government needs a warrant to search your property, but I am having difficulty see where the city has a right to inspect all rental property. Where does this logic end. Next what will they want to Inspect?

Chuck is this inspection of rental property possibly an implied right by the city and not really a right?

Is it the right of the city to know what is best for us? So where does this line of reasoning stop, when everything is banned or regulated?

What St. Paul is doing is driving out people of a lower class. The city is taking away the voting rights of these people by driving them out of the city, just like the Democrats did with the poll taxes to keep black voters from voting in the South. How soon we forget don’t we Chuck. Shall we talk about the raciest policies of the Democrats in the South or should we focus on the continued raciest policies of the Democrats in St. Paul today?

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city of St. Paul also has the right to be brought to justice for their illegal behavior, and it appears there are people who are working on that.

What if the tenants don't want the city inspecting their apartments. This city has treated tenants like shit for far too long. The city does not have a right to single out a certain class of people and then send in govrnment agents under the guise of "saftey" to search their apartments for code violations or anything else. If the tenant wnts them there, that's another thing, but in some cases the tenant does not want the government in their home.

12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sue em. Sue em all. They're nothing but a bunch of crooks and liars.

12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would say check the preamble and the 10th amendment. Pretty simple folks insuring the public health would fit under that language "promote the general welfare." And the 10th amendment gives the power to the states to do what ever isn't mentioned in the constitution.

I know it is always so fun in dealing with you "property rights" guys, you think that all of the power should belong to those who have the money.

I gave you my answer now you find me where you think the constitution forbids it. Or for that matter where the constitution gives your property rights other than eminent domain. You are not the king of your land, it is still a part of the country and then the state, and then the county and then the city.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck the city can't violate civil liberties no matter what laws they want to pass.The city can't have less restrictive housing codes for PHA and Harder ones for private landlords offering the same service.Read up on antitrust and fair housing.You need the work.Tell Dave Hi!


Tim Ciani

1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck

A friend asked me to post this because she does not have computer service.

"I feel disenfranchised at being kicked out of St. Paul and unable to vote in St. Paul because the city shut down the apartment I was renting. You see Chuck it was not my behavior that caused the building to be shut down, but the behavior of others that brought attention to our building. The city did not like who the owner was renting to. The landlord thought he was doing the right thing and not discriminating on the on the people who he rented to based on their race. Now the city shut him down and I am now looking for a new place to live while I am staying with relatives in New Hope. I can’t vote in St. Paul the place I once lived in."

1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:15 that is just sad if it is truly from someone that is being hoodwinked by this stuff. The City doesn't care who anyone rents to only how well someone manages their properties.

If someone can't manage their property and they are letting it become blighted, the City will require them to bring it to code.

Tim - there is no evidence that there is any standard difference in code enforcement between PHA and private landlords. What poports to be evidence is nothing more than examples of how having a complaint based system will result in uneven enforcement. BUT, it doesn't mean that if the complaint was made that there wouldn't be the same level of enforsement.

We have seen it on my property. One of you jerks call a BS complaint on me and the inspector comes out and keeps looking until they find something.

You can not inspect every property in Saint Paul everyday and the basis of the unfairness is that. The owners claim is that because everyone didn't get inspected today, you can't inspect them.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck the one thing that I have to agree with you on your 9:23 post is that "You don't get it". Unfortunately neither do the folks down at city hall. It's this same arrogant we're above the law attitude that has put the city in this position to begin with. Hopefully you do "Get it" before too many more people have to suffer.

3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHUCK, WHAT MAKES YOU KNOW SO MUCH
ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THESE PEOPLES LAWSUITS ?

DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS ?

DO YOU KNOW THE TRIAL STRATAGEY ?

HAVE YOU SEEN THE DISCOVERY ?

HAVE YOU READ THE DEPOSITIONS ?

ARE YOU ON THE JURY OR SOMETHING ?

You are an articulate speaker and you seem to me like someone who knows alot about whats going on with this and that, but you really are not in as tune as you think about the validity of these peoples lawsuits .

WHERE WILL YOU BE WHEN THE VERDICTS COME IN ?????????????

Have a nice day Chuck.

Harold S.

4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The issue Chuck is not the dilapitated property or bringing it up to code as much as it is the behavior of the people living there and the city using the back door to circumvent everyone's rights in order to deal with those behaviors. These behavior related issues intertwined with code enforcement have been won against cites all over the country and St Paul is only going to be another number on the list when this thing comes to an end. There is proof Chuck, there's a mountaian of it and a line of witnesses a mile long that will testify to it including city workers.Your council buddies made a mistake trying to micro manage code enforcement and now their reputation is going to take the hit for it. Your on the losing side of this Chuck..........get used to it, it's only going to get worse.

6:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

There is going to be a lot of soul searching by peole who knew better, around the city.

"Why did I kiss up to that dipshit?"

Why didn't I just use integrity?"

But its going to be too late as they cart Lantry, and Magner and his croneyes off to prison.

"Why did I sell out everything I believe in for a petty raise or a position of importance?"

6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:28 said: "The issue Chuck is not the dilapitated property or bringing it up to code as much as it is the behavior of the people living there and the city using the back door to circumvent everyone's rights in order to deal with those behaviors. These behavior related issues intertwined with code enforcement"

This is the landlords arguement, "ts not my fault its the fault of the people I rent to."

They take no responsibility for their property and then when they are held accountable for it they want to blame someone else.

So, again why did these landlords get tough enforsement and others that rented to just as poor and just as colorful tennents not get the "mistreatment" that these guys did? THEY TOOK CARE OF THEIR PROPERTY!!!

The cases are going nowhere.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:13 PM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

Chuck, I told these guys to take care of their property and Bill Cullen suggested I was a simpleton for saying so.

Keep your property maintained and you won't lose it. Sounds simple to me! I guess this is why these guys don't get it.

Those of you here complaining should have taken care of your properties.

This about sums it up..

10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF WENCH AND YOUR OWN PROPERTY.

YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THESE LANDLORDS HAVE BEEN THROUGH.

YOUR JUST AS BLIND AS THIS CHUCK GUY.

ABOUT THESE LANDLORDS,THEIR ATTORNEYS KNOW A HELL OF ALOT MORE ABOUT WHAT THEIR CLIENTS HAVE BEEN THROUGH AND HAD TO PUT UP WITH .

I DONT KNOW WHO THE (__________) YOU ARE, BUT YOU SPEAK OF THESE LANDLORDS LIKE SOMEBODY DIED AND MADE YOU BOSS.

YOUR A BUTT SUCKER JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE SMELLY CHILI HOLES OVER THERE IN CITY HALL.


HAROLD S.

11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only way there is going to be any resolve is with citizen oversight of the DSI and Fire Department Inspection Unit.

There needs to be a citizen's review board just like the police department has.

Chuck can't object to this board of review for DSI and Fire now can he? This would be an avenue to hear citizen's complaints about unfair inspectors.

IADSI unit.

What I have read here and seen with my two eyes really makes me sick.

11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just tuned in and wonder why all the lawsuits and fuss.Did the city change its practices?Why are landlords crying foul and what was the problem with the old system.Something changed right?Chuck can you answer this?When did the city change its policy with housing and is it the right way?



Sue

P.S.Found this site from the pioneer press.

12:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes they did change their practices Sue. They started fabricating code violations serious enough to be able to condemn the property so they can move the tenants out of them. They do this bcause they do not know how to deal with the behavioral issues caused by some tenants and racist neighbors.

3:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda says,"Keep your property maintained and you won't lose it. Sounds simple to me! I guess this is why these guys don't get it."



Well Amanda I guess a lot of property owners including Chuck and Dave Thune can't even understand what the city means.If Chucks such an expert why did he have a burned out car in his yard for 6 months.Thats not being nice to the neighbors.And if Thune is such an expert why did his house look like it was ready to fall.Hey Bob should we post my photo bucket again?

7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:36 said..."If Chucks such an expert why did he have a burned out car in his yard for 6 months.Thats not being nice to the neighbors."

...it wasn't 6 months... more like 2 and 1/2. First it was a crime scene for the poor young woman that was a tennent of mine and had her car torched. And then she had to figure out how to pay off her car so that she could junk it. But, my ever on the vigilent list friends here, that send out the inspectors to my property every time a newspaper blows onto it, made sure that the poor young woman had the heat on her from day one. Even with you guys calling in on her right away, she still got the car moved before the City would have done it.

So, for the woman that asked what has changed in Saint Paul about inspections, here is a short answer....

About 1990 the City became more aggressive in abatements. With the city staff having video cameras to film the junk they were removing from problem properties the attitude a City Council changed. Prior to that it was he said she said and the Council often back off. Once they could see the work being done that changed. The City increased the number of inspectors and sent in the parks department to abate trashed properties.

A few years after that the Council started to respond to what it was hearing about the living conditions in drug houses. For a while they were sending inspectors along in police raids to write up the buildings as soon as they got in them.

In the late 90's City Council research wrote a paper on the worse problem properties in the city that revealed the connection between number of calls to police and condition of properties. That for some reason, people who regularly were having the police called on them tended to live in properties in the worse conditions. (An interesting side note was that the number one call on the properties was "domestics.")

Under Mayor Kelly and his staff there was an effort to become organized in the approach to problem properties. The "lists" idea starts to develop. Vacant building lists, problem properties lists, tracking multiple calls and assessing fines. Determining a "tipping point" if you will on once the property has been writen up so many times the public shouldn't have to put up with it.

That administration determined that if you were a habitual problem, they would habitually inspect you. That is the bottom line issue that the landlords are suing about. They feel that they were unfairly singled out. That they ended up on a list of problem properties and were then regularly inspected. That once the "dogs" were set on them they bit and wouldn't let go...

About 99.9% of the people in Saint Paul would say that was a good thing.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Citizen oversight is needed Chuck to get rid of 99% of the evil that is being done by some city inspectors.

Going away from the complaint based process to one of putting your name on the line when a complaint is made. If the complaint is false then the complainer would be questioned.

The immediate of discrimination by our city on the lowest class of our society needs to stop. We should be helping our brothers and sisters and not kicking them out into the street and out of the city.

Chuck I thought you were a Democrat? Ain’t the Democrats supposed party that helps the poor instead of kicking them into the street? Democrats are supposed to be helping the working guy, but what you are doing is hurting the little guy and taxing the working man to death.

The Democratic city council is responsible for being discriminatory against the poor of our city. Why the poor still vote for the Democrats when the Democrats kick them in the teeth is beyond me. I think it is called propaganda.

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sue,

I understand some of the roots of the enforcement issue started with the police FORCE unit, where it developed drastic measures to deal with drug houses. They would break into drug houses, making sure they did maximum damage. They found that this directly affected the owners, and often removed them.

Add to that mismanagement under Mayor Kelly. He handpicked Andy Dawkins who was the most unlikely person in the world to deal with properties (his own had major problems).

Somewhere along the line, the city eliminated its citizen oversight board (inspectors tend to look deeply into a very narrow range of things, and often don't have a good handle on the overall picture - look at the BTK killer, who was a code compliance inspector).

The FORCE unit mindset was applied to a number of other areas, including landlords. I believe the object is to force people out.

Code enforcement has always theoretically had massive power, but was not used that way(impossible to apply all codes).

Chuck and company like to report on how they wish things would be. The devil is in the details. The fanatical and uneven enforcement have led to suicides and other deaths, as well as broken finances. The landlords suits reflect a city that has serious problems.

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the way Chuck talks about how there are all kinds of calls to a property for Domestic situations and then in the next breath it had some how magically become the landlord who is the problem. How do you justify that Chuck? Is it the house or the people who are calling the Police?

11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said"...it wasn't 6 months... more like 2 and 1/2. First it was a crime scene for the poor young woman that was a tennent of mine and had her car torched."

Ciani says,"Chuck you should be more careful who you rent to.Is this lady bringing crime to the neighborhood?You also had another stalled out vehicle just of late.Are you a habitial offender?


Chuck says,"A few years after that the Council started to respond to what it was hearing about the living conditions in drug houses. For a while they were sending inspectors along in police raids to write up the buildings as soon as they got in them."


Ciani says,"I believe this would be a violation of ones fourth amendment rights.When a judge gives a warrent to raid its not to do code sweeps.I see a big problem here Chuck.


Chuck says,"That for some reason, people who regularly were having the police called on them tended to live in properties in the worse conditions. (An interesting side note was that the number one call on the properties was "domestics.")


Ciani says,"Chuck if this is why city uses a heavy hand is because of domestics its plain sick.How about the poor lady and the innocent kids?Lets take their housing away due to an abusive husband.Tenants can't be evicted due to domestic calls.You might want to check with your attorney and get a clue on law.



Chuck says,"In the late 90's City Council research wrote a paper on the worse problem properties in the city that revealed the connection between number of calls to police and condition of properties."

Ciani says,"So Chuck could you clear something up?If a landlord fixed everything would crime stop?Is the condition of the property causing crime?Or is it that the people causing crime are the ones causing the condition at the property?Or last,is it the landlord breaking things,causing domestics and selling drugs?

There is also a lot of crime at PHA.Does this mean that their units are in great disrepair?


Chuck I can see why you argue on behalf of the city.You are one of the biggest problems.You are addressing crime with code enforcement.Because if it were about code you and your Buddy Thune wouldn't have had to be reminded how to act when addressing just code.



Tim Ciani

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ciani makes a good point. If code enforcement was at the house once, I would presume all the violations had been fixed or they would not have OK's it when they came back. So now I think we can get to a point where the house is actually OK.....right Chuck? So how did it get ripped up again if the tenant or their friends are doing the damage? If we can agree that is is the tenant doing the damage, then why should the landlord be held responsible when he is nothing more than the victim of a crime.....that being damage to the property? I', interested in what your response will be Chuck

3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim - they were just asking me to explain how we got to this point... I don't make the laws, or policies, I just explain them...

The landlords as I said and as you can see from Tim's remarks and these last remarks are saying that it is because of the behavior problems that you are enforcing the code action. What they don't get is that the City couldn't be taking a code action if they just fixed the problem.

So we go around in this big circle. They then say, I didn't break the window the person I rent to broke it, and if the City says, "well then don't rent to them." Then Tim or the landlords says the City is being racist by telling me not to rent to the person I complained about who broke my window! Well then fix the window!!!! But, I didn't break the window, your being mean to me...

and so on and so on...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a vicious circle Chuck, but in the end your city buddies are going to take it in the hinder!

3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said,"The landlords as I said and as you can see from Tim's remarks and these last remarks are saying that it is because of the behavior problems that you are enforcing the code action. What they don't get is that the City couldn't be taking a code action if they just fixed the problem."


Ciani says,"Chuck then why do you bitch when inspectors come to your house,just fix the code issues.Chuck look at the vagueness of the city code and understand that every house and with aging housing stock in St.Paul could be written up for code issues.Its kinda like saying we'll just pull over cars that have rust and are old that speed.We'll leave the new cars that speed alone.One could say people who commit crime drive old cars.



And on another issue how come if you stay at a hotel and cause damage you can be held accountable criminally?But if you wreck the house that you live in oh well?

Chuck maybe the city should have sat down with the landlords and worked with them not against them they could have got more done.

Your presidential canidate(OBAMA) wants to sit down and talk with the dictator of Iran and the city won't even sit down with landlords.Are they really that bad?Chuck the citys code enforcemnet policy was a failure.They spread crime accross the city and should have contained it.Look at the west 7th area in the last 7-8 years.More crime huh Repke?Wonder where it came from.Maybe the eastside?Address criminals with cops and housing with code.When you use eachother not for their intended purpose you lose.HAVE A GREAT DAY REPKE!!


Tim Ciani

3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim said "Your presidential canidate(OBAMA) wants to sit down and talk with the dictator of Iran"

Sorry, I haven't drunk the Kool-aide I am not one of those great believers in magic...

I'm still for Hillary!

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMMENSTY FOR ILLEGALS CHUCK ?







HAROLD S.

4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck

Ciani says,"Chuck then why do you bitch when inspectors come to your house,just fix the code issues. Chuck look at the vagueness of the city code and understand that every house and with aging housing stock in St.Paul could be written up for code issues. It's kinda like saying we'll just pull over cars that have rust and are old that speed. We'll leave the new cars that speed alone.One could say people who commit crime drive old cars."

Very good point.

4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't bitch that the City comes out and sites me for that stuff. I bitch because it is one of you ass holes that keeps calling me in!!!

(Most recent one being someone saying, how would you like it if the inspector did a surprise walk through of your house and a week later an inspector shows up to check on "over crowding" in my duplex that 4 people live in. Good joke guys!)

On the car thing... it wasn't that long ago that all of the vehicles that were using leaded gas had to have a special inspection. Remember having to take your car out for an emitions check? And, yes it was more of a burden on the poor because they drove older beaters.

Duh!

Yes the goverment has the power to enforce the public health folks. And depending on where you are standing that won't always seem fair.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and Harold, I don't think Obama is here illegally...

chuck

4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'SNT HILLIARY FOR AMMNESTY ?




HAROLD S.

4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck say,"I don't bitch that the City comes out and sites me for that stuff. I bitch because it is one of you ass holes that keeps calling me in!!!"


Ciani says,"how would you like to be on a list that city officials create and get a spot check ever other week like some landlords I know.They didn't even get the luxury of having an asshole call in a complaint,they just had an inspector or some other city employee driving by for an inspection weekly.


Chuck and we all know the emissions test was a complete F up.It was stupid and didn't work.Kinda like the way NHPI does business.

Chuck we can go back and forth but I step on your toes so you can't spin anymore.I'm way to old and wise for yours and the citys games and can see right through them.



Tim Ciani

5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Ciani guy seems slicker then me.



George

5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean Chuck is the slickmister.

5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Photo Bucket" please!

Can we see it?

6:37 PM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

6:37, are you feeling mean spirited because Chuck is getting to the truth here. Post the bucket yourself mouse.

Most you guy's here are MICE!

Of "Men and Mice"!

Chuck, you are the city of Saint Paul's lion and you are eating these guys for lunch! :)

11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I SEE THE WENCH BUTT SUCKER IS BACK !




HAROLD S.

11:19 PM  
Anonymous Johnny said...

Don't count you're chickens before they hatch Amanda.

11:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like Tim Ciani.He's truthful.Tim Can you wow us again please?


Jenny

12:07 AM  
Anonymous Linda said...

What do you look like Tim?

1:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I Tim Ciani promise to inform the public to the best of my ability.I will not spin or report bogus facts to advance an agenda.I wake early and go to bed late looking under ever stone.I may not release all info I harvast but keep you informed on progress.I've had many dealings with the city inside and out.I know many city officials that have worked for the city and still do.They give me information due to the fact they are tired of all the misdealings.

I believe these suits to have merit and may become very costly to tax payers if the city doesn't buckle down.

Good morning and thanks for your time.


Tim Ciani

7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim

To this point all you have been able to do is that the City of Saint Paul doesn't have enough inspectors to write up all of the properties that have problems in one day.

When you have turned in Thune on violations and whoever it is that checks my house on a daily basis calls in the cars of my tennents when they stop running, the City dutifully comes out and writes us up too. The difference is that I don't end up infront of the Council because I fix the stuff in the time limits.

You continue to show that all there is in comman with the people in the suits is that they don't fix their properties.

Anything else that is in the suit that are attacks on City employees is basicly their showing their frustration in dealing with owners that won't repair their properties and blame everyone for their problems but themselves. So, yes at some point someone might say, look if they keep breaking your stuff evict them... that isn't discrimination. And yes at some point you have a manager (or the Mayor's office) saying no more breaks for that property, no more extentions... that isn't discrimination either.

At some point it is just determining that these guys will never keep up their property.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

7:46 AM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

Harold, are you Bill Dahns brother? Striking resemblance in character.

I think I know what Ciani looks like people. He is a greasy haired slumlord who lost everything because he wouldn't take care of his properties. He thumbed his nose at the housing inspections and was taken to the cleaners. Tim has delusions of being Batman, in reality he is the Joker.

Tim you are a shameful character who invades the privacy of our elected official. You should be put in jail.

8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

You have a point. Now would you please define how you see the word "TRUTH".

8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found this in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today.

I ike the part where City Attorney John Choi says he is disappointed in the court decision.
"We'll be considering next steps, which could involve further appeal," He went onto say that the system is broken and needs fixing.

Here is the article:

St. Paul / Court reverses city demolition order 'Nuisance property' owner not notified

By Emily Gurnon
egurnon@pioneerpress.com
Article Last Updated: 02/27/2008 01:18:00 AM CST

The St. Paul City Council was "arbitrary and capricious" when it voted to demolish a nuisance property within 15 days rather than giving the owner six months to make repairs, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.

City officials said their procedures were strained by the foreclosure crisis, which led to an increase in abandoned St. Paul properties.

The triplex at 719 Case Ave. in the Payne/Phalen neighborhood had been plagued by problems, from drug dealing to squatters to blight, neighbors have said.
But the city did not notify the mortgage company that owned the property about the city's abatement order before it scheduled meetings on demolition, owner DLJ Mortgage argued.

According to the ruling, this was the timeline of events related to the building:
-- September 2005: The city condemns the property; it sits vacant thereafter.
-- May 2006: DLJ Mortgage forecloses on the owner and buys the property.
-- June 2006: The city declares it a "nuisance" property.
-- Aug. 17, 2006: Deadline by which 19 conditions need to be fixed.
-- Aug. 18, 2006: DLJ Mortgage is notified there are problems.
The mortgage company argued the city failed to follow its own procedures regarding abatements.

"The city conceded at oral argument before this court that ... (the owner) should have received an abatement order and was entitled to the time specified in that order to take remedial action," Judge Gordon Shumaker wrote for a three-judge panel. "We agree."

City Attorney John Choi said officials are disappointed in the court decision.
"We'll be considering next steps, which could involve further appeal," he said.

He added: "To the extent that any notification problems existed, they were a result of an outdated ordinance that did not necessarily envision the rash of foreclosures the country has been experiencing. Since the foreclosure crisis has developed, which was while the litigation was pending, the City Council did take the subsequent remedial step of changing its notification procedure."

According to the ruling, the mortgage company cooperated with the city and explained it had lined up a local buyer who promised to rehab the building. The local buyer, whose name was not mentioned in the opinion, told the City Council he had a "long history of being a landlord in the city, very few police calls, very few evictions."

The city's Legislative Hearing Officer recommended the City Council give the parties 180 days to make needed fixes.

But at the Oct. 18, 2006, public hearing on the issue, Council Member Dan Bostrom spoke out.

He said he was "not convinced that anything is going to change overnight on this," according to the ruling. He wanted to make sure something happened "because this has just been unacceptable, what's been going on."

The council then voted unanimously to order the owner to demolish the property. The building has not been demolished, but it remains vacant.

On Tuesday, the court reversed the city's decision and sent the case back for review. Bostrom said Tuesday that he had not seen the ruling and hesitated to comment. But regarding the building, "I think to call it a problem property would have been an understatement," he said.

The attorney for the property owner did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Trinh Thi Ngo said...

Choi, give it up. You are destroying your career. The public defenders office won't even hire you after you lose all the tax payers money to law suits in Saint Paul. You are giving the citizens the impression you are a pirate defending your bounty.

You are a shameful impression of a city attorney.

8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am surprised these IDIOTS on the city council didn't demolish the building anyway. A court order means NOTHING to these arrogant morons as we seen in the 14 E.Jessimine proceedings.

8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda,

You feel Tim is a shameful character and that he invades the privacy of our elected official. You go further to state that he should be put in jail.

You may not like Tim's methods and I don't either, but just like the New Brighten City Council member who was caught in St. Paul with his pants down, elected officials need to be held accountable for their actions. They need to set the example for the public, not be the example.

Before they can expect the public to follow their laws, they must in their own private life comply with the same laws they are making. Being given special treatment by DSI and the Fire Department because of their position on the city council is wrong.

As for the privacy issue, when you are elected you do not have a private life. You are representing the public and you are on stage 24/7.

As to your contention Tim should be in jail, what he has done is legal. Showing the public what elected official's homes and rental properties look like is just reporting like the newspapers do.

8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:39 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

Folks, city attorney Choi had a car port that was being held up by a broken support post. A child could have bumped it riding a bicycle and the whole car port would have come down on him.

This much needed repair was reported to code enforcement. However, the repairs were not made.

I guess being the city attorney Choi is immune to any legal actions the rest of us would be held accountable to.

8:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda your statments are a great reflection on how you and your side view the world.Public officials are not untouchable.Dave Thune was shown to St.Paul what type a landlord and homeowner he is.Did you find the pictures disturbing Amanda?You speak of code enforcement being great.Whats so bad is his house looks like this and he sits on the council hearing cases and handing down punishment to homeowners with problems like his.Looks like a double standard.


Amanda should we put all the media in jail and anybody who reports on Sen.Craig.Right Amanda put people in jail with opposite views and people who report truth.Sounds a lot like Germany around here.

No, maybe we should put a couple of city officials in jail!



Tim Ciani

11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the cookie cutter formula the city uses.....throw em in jail. After the first federal lawsuits were filed the city came after the landlords filing those lawsuits with false criminal charges and tried to throw them in jail. Luckily the court saw through the citys BS and it never went anywhere, but this is an example of what these corrupt officials are capable of. Diagree with them or try to assert your rights and they want to jail you.....right Chuck?

12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't Adolph Kelly want to throw people in jail for code issues?They also put warrents out for peoples arrests when they didn't follow the code.What a great city.

1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That should be the citys motto.....if you move here and are without a criminal record, well then we will help you aquire one.

1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that the real problem with Dawkins is that he was inept and lost control. He might have also let the power go to his head. At any rate the city is now operating in a vacuum in this area.

5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:53 PM

I thought the new Motto for Minneapolis and St. Paul that R. T. Rybak and Chris Coleman announced a month ago was:

MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL, MORE TO LIFE

5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city just screws peole over because the can and the proof is in the latest newspaper article. Choi might appeal? Forget the fact that it's plain as day that they violated the guys right to due process, as long as they can appeal they do it regardless of what's right, ethical, moral or even within the law. Just keep pounding the guy into the ground until they get away with it. Shame on all of you.

9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its like the city attorneys office to act in such a manner as 9:19 said.

My personal many experiences with the St.Paul city attorneys office and the Ramsey County Attorneys office is that the both of them have either lied about having recieved documents that were in fact served upon them by the Sheriffs office and had to be compelled by the courts to answer service of such documents.

Its no wonder why the plaintiffs in the landlord suits take their claims to Federal Court.

Some of the Ramsey County Judges I have been before in my many suits against the city and county are corrupt, at least as far as I can tell in my cases.

I have been before a few Judges that have at least granted some of my motions and so forth, but when the motions to dismiss are brought by them, the courts always have ruled in their favor.

Most of the motions to dismiss were brought on claims of immunity.

I am curious to know why some of these landlord suits have been going on for years and they havent been dismissed on immunity grounds.

Could you answer this Chuck Repke ?



Jeff Matiatos.

10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll give you the answer that Chuck will not give you. The city hasn't gotten immunity because they're guilty as hell and everyone at the court knows it. So they do just what they have done in the DEMO case.....make up BS, try to stall, delete emails, shred documents, lie through their teeth....all the normal things that the losing side usually does.

11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, thats just the answer I thought I would get.

How true it is.



Jeff Matiatos

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't 'delete' emails. Or, can you?

Nothing has happened because the plaintiffs claim that more evidence is coming. This in effect keeps the cases open and the courts waiting.

Some kind of way, we're supposed to believe that the mayor is swaying control over judges and county attorneys.

You guys are nuts.

3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those of you who disbelieve what is being said are in for a rude awakening. Perhaps you will only change your mind when it happens to you or your friends, or maybe when you are paying the increased tax bill. Believe me, everything being said by the plaintiff's is true. I have seen a lot of evidence and it happened to me. I may even take a shot at a law suit myself and like Nancy L. I don't need a lawyer.

3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 3:20, I have filed many suits against St.Paul City government and I do very well when it comes to filing and understanding the law.

I will have you know that based on my experiences in court, the court clerks at the Ramsey County Courthouse cant be trusted when your a pro-se filer.

Dont look to the sheriffs office to serve your papers either.

Bob intends to post a headliner based upon one of my recent experiences with the Sheriffs office.


JAM.

p.s.

The Judges are worse !!!

(most of them).

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have news for all of you. There is proof beyond a doubt that St Paul city officials met with the court and rigged it. I know some people in the lawsuits and I have seen the evidence. The only reason they haven't let out what eveidence is because they don't want to give the city the chance to cover it up. You are all going to be very suprised.

12:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:26

I have my seat and am waiting for more of the fireworks display.

10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to dedicate some wonderful music to the city when
it crumbles and begs for mercy when the landlords finish them off !

Shot down in flames (AC/DC)

Highway to Hell (AC/DC)


Jeff Matiatos

11:01 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home