Custom Search

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Saint Paul RICO Update/ The court has spoken.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story. ( New here? To gain an understanding of this order, please read the RICO law suits to the right of the screen under the "Scale of Justice".)


Blogger Bob said...

There maybe copy errors.

Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al.,
City of St. Paul, et al.,
Civil No. 04-2632 (JNE/SRN)
Sandra Harrilal, et al.,
Steve Magner, et al.,
Civil No. 05-461 (JNE/SRN)
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al.,
Steve Magner, et al.,
Civil No. 05-1348 (JNE/SRN)
Matthew A. Engel, 11282 86th Avenue North, Maple Grove, MN 55369, for Plaintiffs
Gallagher, et al.; John R. Shoemaker, Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.L.L.C., 7701 France Ave.
South, Suite 200, Edina, MN 55435, for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et al., and Harrilal, et al.
Louise Toscano Seeba, Assistant City Attorney, 750 City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West
Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102, for Defendants
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 15
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiffs’
Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 157 in Civ. No. 04-2632, Doc. No.
134 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 128 in Civ. No. 05-1348); Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. No. 161 in Civ. No. 04-2632, Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No.
132 in Civ. No. 05-1348); and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motions (Doc. No. 167 in
Civ. No. 04-2632, Doc. No. 144 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-1348).
The matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of
Minnesota Local Rule 72.1(a). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion to
amend the pretrial schedule, denies the motion for sanctions, and denies the motion to strike.
In these three related actions, several owners of rental properties within the city of St.
Paul (“Plaintiffs”) generally allege that the City of St. Paul (“City”) and various municipal
officials (“Defendants”) illegally discriminated against them with respect to enforcing building
codes regarding Plaintiffs’ properties, which are allegedly occupied primarily by “protectedclass”
Plaintiffs initially moved for sanctions against Defendants on June 20, 2007, asserting
that Defendants had destroyed Truth-In-Sale-of-Housing (“TISH”) reports pursuant to a routine
document destruction policy well after litigation had commenced, destroyed all emails prior to
December 2005, failed to produce St. Paul Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) documents, and
failed to produce various other documents that Plaintiffs obtained from an anonymous source.
Some of these documents were destroyed pursuant to the City’s document retention policy
because Defendants failed to initiate a litigation hold to ensure the preservation of potentially
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 2 of 15
relevant documents. The City disclaimed possession of other requested documents.
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice on November 13, 2007. Although
the Court agreed that Defendants should have initiated a litigation hold when these cases were
filed, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not shown any prejudice resulting from the loss of
evidence. The Court explained that a party moving for sanctions due to the destruction of
evidence must demonstrate that the material would have contained pertinent evidence, but
Plaintiffs offered no proof in the form of testimony or other documentary evidence of the content
of the destroyed material. Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendants had destroyed
or withheld documents and electronic information willfully or with an inauspicious motive. The
Court therefore permitted Plaintiffs to renew their motion for sanctions if and when they
discovered evidence of prejudice due to the destruction or non-production of responsive
documents. Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s order, which was affirmed by the District Court on
January 3, 2008.
Since the Court’s order, the parties have engaged in extensive discovery. Plaintiffs
served additional discovery requests on Defendants, and Defendants responded. Defendants also
conducted additional searches for documents and electronic information. Defendants’ counsel
arranged a meeting with Plaintiffs’ counsel and a PHA representative, and counsel for Plaintiffs
and Defendants met and conferred regarding PHA-related documents and a protective order.
Because the City did not have the technical ability to restore emails from disaster recovery tapes,
Defendants retained a data recovery firm, Kroll OnTrack (“Kroll”), to recover the emails, which
were then produced to Plaintiffs. When Plaintiffs complained that the emails were not
electronically searchable, Defendants showed them how to search the electronic emails.
Defendants also provided a list of TISH reports and included the evaluators’ names, addresses,
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 3 of 15
and phone numbers, so that Plaintiffs could obtain any reports not retained by Defendants from
the evaluators personally.
Despite these additional measures, Plaintiffs remain unsatisfied with Defendants’
discovery production and practices and have renewed their motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs have
also moved to amend the pretrial schedule to allow them to file supplemental expert reports
related to the additional discovery. Defendants ask the Court to strike both of Plaintiffs’ motions
on procedural grounds.
A. Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the pretrial schedule because
Plaintiffs did not file a memorandum of law in conjunction with the motion, which was filed on
February 11, 2008. Plaintiffs ultimately filed their supporting memorandum on March 31, 2008,
fourteen days before the hearing. Defendants also move to strike Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for
sanctions because Plaintiffs did not file a supporting memorandum, either timely or untimely.
The Court denies the motion to strike, finding it preferable to resolve Plaintiffs’ motions
on the merits. Plaintiffs are advised, however, that when filing a renewed motion, the proper
practice is to file a new memorandum of law. This is especially true in the situation at present
where much has developed since the original motion, as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ four affidavits
totaling more than a hundred pages and by the hundreds of pages of additional exhibits.
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Schedule
Plaintiffs move to amend the pretrial schedule to permit them to supplement the opinion
of their liability expert, Don Hedquist, on the basis of having received discovery relevant to his
opinion after the deadline for submission of expert reports in 2006. The Court grants the motion.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 4 of 15
Substantial discovery has taken place since the deadline for submission of expert reports, which
constitutes good cause for amending the pretrial schedule.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are allowed until June 1, 2008, to file supplemental expert reports.
Defendants are allowed until July 1, 2008, to supplement their expert reports. The parties are
cautioned that any supplementation must pertain to discovery occurring after August 2007.
Dispositive motions must be served, filed, and scheduled by August 1, 2008. This case will be
considered ready for trial on January 2, 2009.
C. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiffs seek myriad sanctions, including the entry of judgment against Defendants,
“pursuant to the Court’s inherent power and pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” (Pls.’ Joint Renewed Mot. Sanctions at 1.) Plaintiffs base their motion on four
alleged discovery deficiencies: (1) Defendants’ non-disclosure of documents related to the PHA
since the Court’s order of November 13, 2007; (2) the continuing non-disclosure of TISH
reports; (3) Defendants’ non-disclosure of various documents that Plaintiff obtained from an
anonymous source; and (4) Defendants’ failure to disclose the deletion of emails and electronic
information related to Andy Dawkins, Susan Kimberly, and other City employees.
Although the Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions,
Plaintiffs’ failure to submit a memorandum of law in support of their renewed motion bears
further comment. The renewed motion is comprehensive and complex, and the Court has parsed
through hundreds of pages of affidavits and exhibits essentially unguided by any argument.
When a party seeks such drastic sanctions as Plaintiffs seek here, that party should present solid
and thorough arguments in support. Although Plaintiffs have sporadically alluded to their
memorandum in support of their first motion, this memorandum does not address any of the
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 5 of 15
events occurring since the Court’s order of November 13, 2007, and is therefore of little use.
“The power of the court to impose sanctions for discovery arises from two distinct
authorities.” E*Trade Sec. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 230 F.R.D. 582, 586 (D. Minn. 2005). If
a party fails to comply with a court order or fails to serve responses to discovery requests, the
court may sanction the party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b), (d). A court may also sanction a party based on its inherent power “to fashion an
appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Stevenson v. Union Pac.
R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739, 745 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,
44-45 (1991)).
Sanctions for improper document destruction may not be imposed until “the moving
party can demonstrate that they have suffered prejudice as a result of the spoliation.” E*Trade
Sec. LLC, 230 F.R.D. at 592. Accord Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 748 (“There must be a finding of
prejudice to the opposing party before imposing a sanction for destruction of evidence.”); Keefer
v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating that showing of
prejudice is required for sanction of dismissal). To establish prejudice, a movant must generally
be able to show the contents of the documents at issue, that is, the substance of the evidence to
which they were improperly denied access. See LEXIS-NEXIS v. Beer, 41 F. Supp. 2d 950, 955
(D. Minn. 1999) (noting that a movant must show that destroyed material “would have contained
evidence pertinent to the present litigation”). As one court has ruled, the movant “must establish
a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence rather than a fertile imagination, that access
to the [destroyed material] would have produced evidence favorable to his cause.” Gates Rubber
Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., 167 F.R.D. 90, 104 (D. Colo. 1996), quoted in LEXIS-NEXIS, 41 F.
Supp. 2d at 955. Moreover, the destroyed evidence must be “substantially different in character
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 6 of 15
from that of the preserved information.” LEXIS-NEXIS, 41 F. Supp. 2d at 955 (refusing to
“presume that the overwritten computer data . . . contained information any more sensitive, or
evidence any more damning, that what [movant] expected to find in the first place”). In some
situations, the nature of the documents themselves coupled with the extent and circumstances of
their destruction might support an inference of prejudice. See E*Trade, 230 F.R.D. at 592
(noting that “the substantial and complete nature of the destruction of the evidence contained in
the recorded telephone conversations and hard drives . . . . justifies a finding of prejudice”); see
also Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 748 (concluding that finding of prejudice is warranted “by the nature
of the evidence destroyed . . . the very fact that it is the only recording of conversations . . .
contemporaneous with the accident”).
Additionally, “[a] spoliation-of-evidence sanction requires ‘a finding of intentional
destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth.’” Greyhound Lines v. Wade, 485 F.3d
1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 746). Because direct evidence of
intent is rare, “a district court has substantial leeway to determine intent through consideration of
circumstantial evidence, witness credibility, motives of the witnesses in a particular case, and
other factors.” Morris v. Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 902 (8th Cir. 2004), quoted in
Greyhound Lines, 485 F.3d at 1035.
1. Documents Related to the PHA
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to produce documents concerning the City’s
relationship with the PHA such as cooperative agreements, police service agreements, and
documents related to PHA rental properties. Although Plaintiffs concede they received this
information from Defendants and the PHA itself in January and February 2008, they
nevertheless claim to have been prejudiced because they did not receive the information until
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 7 of 15
shortly before the dispositive motion deadline. The Court acknowledges that Defendants may
have been slightly prejudiced by the timing of the disclosure, but any such prejudice has been
remedied by the postponement of the summary judgment hearing and the extension of the
remaining pretrial deadlines.
Plaintiffs cite several instances in which they located responsive, PHA-related documents
on Defendants’ website and from other sources. While it is true that Defendants did not produce
the documents, Plaintiffs concede that they now have the materials. Plaintiffs have not shown
any remaining prejudice caused by the delay in receiving this information, nor have they shown
any intent on the part of Defendants to withhold or destroy these documents.
Plaintiffs next claim that Defendants failed to produce several documents attached to
contracts for supplemental police services. Plaintiffs’ counsel concedes, however, that “[t]he
budget narrative and PHA dwelling leases were attached to each contract.” (Shoemaker Aff.
¶ 32.) For the 2006 contract for supplemental police services, Plaintiffs fault Defendants for
failing to provide documents referenced in the contract such as quarterly progress reports, calls
for service reports, public incident reports, arrest reports, and warrant applications. During a
meet-and-confer on this issue, Defendants’ counsel agreed to “triple and quadruple check” for
such documents. (Shoemaker Aff. Ex. 22.) This statement indicates that Defendants searched
for such documents several times and were attempting to comply with Plaintiffs’ demands. The
record also verifies Defendants’ claim that they were “unable” to provide all of the PHA-related
documents sought by Plaintiffs because some of the records were no longer in Defendants’
possession. (Id. Ex. 1.)
Utterly absent from Plaintiffs’ affidavits and exhibits is a showing that they were
prejudiced by the non-disclosure of PHA-related documents. Rather, counsel worked together to
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 8 of 15
obtain the documents from an alternative source, the PHA itself. At Defendants’ counsel’s
initiative, counsel for all parties contacted the PHA in December 2007 regarding the production
of documents that Defendants were unable to produce. Plaintiffs subsequently served a
subpoena on the PHA on January 14, 2008, and the PHA produced responsive documents in
February and March 2008. Although Plaintiffs characterize Defendants’ inability to produce the
PHA-related documents as intentional, the Court is satisfied that Defendants did not have certain
documents and produced what they had. It is not reasonable to infer that Defendants must have
been withholding documents merely because Plaintiffs were able to obtain those documents from
the PHA.
On several occasions in early 2008, Plaintiffs identified additional, specific documents
related to the PHA and asked Defendants to produce them. Defendants almost invariably
responded or produced the documents within days of the requests. For example, in January
2008, Plaintiffs asked for documents supporting City Council minutes, and one day after the
parties held a meet-and-confer, Defendants produced the documents. Defendants also provided
various police reports referred to in the supplemental police services contracts in February 2008
after Plaintiffs specifically requested those documents.
To conclude, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they suffered prejudice from
spoliation or the non-disclosure of PHA-related documents. Plaintiffs also have not shown that
Defendants intentionally destroyed documents in an attempt to suppress the truth.
2. TISH Reports
On December 6, 2007, Defendants produced a list of all TISH reports done on properties
in St. Paul between January 1, 2001 and January 31, 2003. As Defendants had previously and
repeatedly told Plaintiffs, the actual reports had been destroyed pursuant to the City’s three-year
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 9 of 15
document retention policy. Defendants also reminded Plaintiffs that they had not even asked for
the reports until 2007, approximately two years after they first learned of the reports, and that the
City had produced all of the reports in its possession to Plaintiffs at that time.
The list of TISH reports shows that forty-five TISH evaluators prepared reports during
the relevant time. Defendants began preparing to depose the evaluators and obtain the missing
reports. As the Court previously ordered, the City was to bear the cost of the subpoenas.
However, Defendants never subpoenaed the TISH evaluators. Such a failure to pursue discovery
is incongruent with Defendants’ claim of prejudice.
In January 2006, Plaintiffs discovered a report authored by Connie Sandberg, which
evaluated TISH reports from 2005, but which Defendants had not produced. In a letter to
Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiffs asked for all documents related to this evaluation. Defendants’
counsel replied that Ms. Sandberg did not have any responsive information and indicated she had
already explained this to Plaintiffs, but she asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide the relevant
emails to aid her in another search for the documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to provide the
emails, however, because of his “concern” over the City’s “tactics.” (Shoemaker Aff. ¶ 66.)
Defendants nevertheless conducted another search for these particular TISH documents and
produced a number of documents to Plaintiffs in February 2008. The Court finds no malfeasance
by Defendants or prejudice to Plaintiffs with respect to the Sandberg report and related
documents. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ own conduct was less than helpful when Defendants sought
their assistance so that Defendants could provide Plaintiffs with the information they wanted.
In sum, Plaintiffs simply have not shown that the destruction of or failure to produce the
TISH reports has prejudiced them, nor have they shown that Defendants intentionally destroyed
or withheld those reports. Further, Defendants gave sufficient information to Plaintiffs to enable
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 10 of 15
them to obtain the missing TISH reports directly from the evaluators, but Plaintiffs did not
attempt to acquire those reports even though Defendants would have borne the cost.
3. Documents Obtained from the Anonymous Source
Plaintiffs received fifty-eight documents from an anonymous source, which they assert
were in Defendants’ possession at one time but which Defendants failed to produce. Assuming
that Defendants had the documents at some point in the past, Plaintiffs nevertheless fail to
demonstrate prejudice from the nondisclosure by Defendants.
Plaintiffs claim they were prevented from using the documents in depositions and as
grounds for additional interrogatories and document requests. Plaintiffs do not explain,
however, how they would have used the documents in depositions or how the documents would
have predicated additional discovery requests. In addition, Plaintiffs received the anonymous
source documents more than a year ago, while discovery was ongoing, yet they did not notice
any depositions or submit interrogatories or document requests relative to the documents.
Furthermore, many of the documents were in fact produced by Defendants and used in
depositions. Given the fragmented and prolonged nature of discovery in this case, it is not
surprising that such overlaps were unnoticed. Plaintiffs also contend they were prejudiced by
incurring fees and costs to document Defendants’ behavior and in bringing this motion for
sanctions. However, this argument is meritorious only if Defendants prevail on the motion for
sanctions, which they do not.
Not only have Plaintiffs failed to establish prejudice, but there is no basis to conclude that
Defendants destroyed any of the anonymous source documents or refused to produce them in an
attempt to gain an advantage in this litigation.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 11 of 15
1 Mr. Dawkins’ last date of employment with the City was December 21, 2005.
4. Emails from the Accounts of Andy Dawkins, Susan Kimberly, and
Other City Employees
Plaintiffs raise several issues with respect to the production of emails. They first
complain that they initially did not receive emails from City employee Susan Kimberly’s
account. Defendants explain, as they have repeatedly explained to Plaintiffs, that Ms.
Kimberly’s entire email account was deleted on April 20, 2006, four months after she left her
employment with the City. Consequently, her emails were not on the disaster recovery tapes
restored by Kroll. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not shown that Ms. Kimberly’s emails would
have been significant or even relevant. They did not even identify Ms. Kimberly as an
individual from whom they wanted emails until June 6, 2007, more than a year after the account
was deleted. Plaintiffs did not take Ms. Kimberly’s deposition. Even if Defendants had placed a
litigation hold on emails, Ms. Kimberly’s emails would not have been included because she is
not a Defendant and was not an employee of NHPI, the Mayor’s Office, or the City Council.
With respect to City Council President Kathy Lantry’s emails, Plaintiffs received onehalf
of the emails on December 10, 2007, and the other half on January 9, 2008. Plaintiffs
question why they did not receive all the emails on the December date. The obvious answer is
that Kroll produced the emails in batches when they recovered them, and Defendants had
nothing to do with the timing of Kroll’s process. Plaintiffs are also skeptical of the small size of
Ms. Lantry’s account as compared to the accounts of other council members. They similarly
question the size of Mr. Dawkins’ email account, even though Mr. Dawkins explained that he
rarely used email as a form of communication during his employment with the City.1 Plaintiffs
urge the Court to presume nefarious conduct on the part of the City due to the small size of the
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 12 of 15
recovered email accounts. Such a presumption is unsupportable, however, because Plaintiffs’
position is based on nothing more than speculation.
On February 22, 2008, Defendants’ counsel provided a batch of redacted emails to
Plaintiffs. Significantly, Plaintiffs already possessed these emails in unredacted form. Plaintiffs
now accuse Defendants of delaying the production in order to interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to
timely file its motion for sanctions. It is difficult to fathom how Plaintiffs could have been
prejudiced by the production of less evidence than they already had, and the Court rejects this
Plaintiffs next complain that Defendants produced very few emails from the years
preceding 2005. Other than the reasons already discussed, Defendants offer an additional
reason: because Plaintiffs’ counsel had explicitly limited the discovery request to emails from
December 2005 onward, in a letter dated June 6, 2007.
With respect to the email issue in general, Plaintiffs allege that they “were prejudiced by
Defendants’ delayed production of emails and failure to produce emails from relevant time
periods.” (Engel Aff. ¶ 26.) To demonstrate prejudice, Plaintiffs cite passages from other emails
that were produced and repeatedly assert “that many more emails of this character would have
been available to Plaintiffs for their claims.” (Engel Aff. ¶ 29(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i),
(j)(iv), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (s), (t), (u).) This recitation of evidence and conclusory
assertion constitute no more than mere speculation that the destroyed or withheld material would
have contained evidence favorable to Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not shown
that the destroyed or withheld evidence was significantly different from the information
Plaintiffs already possess. Finally, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Defendants
intentionally destroyed or withheld documents in an attempt to suppress the truth.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 13 of 15
5. Conclusion
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate
prejudice resulting from destroyed or non-disclosed documents. It is of no small significance
that Plaintiffs have now received, if not from Defendants than from some other source, nearly all
of the documents and information they requested. Plaintiffs have offered only speculation as to
what the unavailable documents might have contained, and Plaintiffs have failed to show that
Defendants destroyed or withheld evidence to gain an advantage in litigation.
There is no question that Defendants’ discovery production in these cases was far from
ideal. Clearly, Defendants should have put a litigation hold in place. However, there is no cause
to punish Defendants or deter them from like conduct in the future. Any harm to Plaintiffs has
been adequately remedied by the actual production of information, the postponement of the
summary judgment hearing, and the extension of time to file supplemental expert reports.
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ renewed motion for sanctions.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 157 in Civ.
No. 04-2632, Doc. No. 134 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 128 in Civ. No. 05-
1348) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Plaintiffs shall serve their supplemental expert reports by June 1, 2008;
b. Defendants shall serve their supplemental expert reports by July 1, 2008;
c. Dispositive motions shall be served, filed, and scheduled by August 1,
2008; and
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 14 of 15
d. This case shall be ready for trial on January 2, 2009.
2. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 161 in Civ. No. 04-2632,
Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 132 in Civ. No. 05-1348) is
3. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motions (Doc. No. 167 in Civ. No. 04-
2632, Doc. No. 144 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-1348) is
Dated: April 23, 2008
s/ Susan Richard Nelson
United States Magistrate Judge

11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like this Seeba attorney gave them a damn good f'ing! That looks like the end, they're oughta here and back to normal. What next Bob?

11:56 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I don't see it as a total loss.

from the order-

d. This case shall be ready for trial on January 2, 2009

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wrong answer but at least hopeful.
Expect summary judgment to be filed
by the city by the August 1
Probably within the next month or so.
Sanctions wouldnt have done anything to change the meat of the case except that if plaintiffs prevailed, sanctions wouldnt look good to a jury.
Seeba didnt do a damn thing.
Reading the order, looks like it was 50/50 anyways.
Hard to prove that the discovery delays were intentionally the part of the city even though they appeared to stall .
Summary Judgement is just around the corner and I predict we wont have a trial.

12:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you not see it as a total lose Bob? All we've heard about for what seems like "forever" on this blog is these landlords and their nto getting every single piece of paper,etc and now it appears this city attorney who was so out gunned by the landlords took these little devils by the horns and give em a taste of their own medicine. There won't be a trial cause the next time she'll finish them off!

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Landlords take it in the hinder! HA HA LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! That'll teach you to mess with big government.

12:45 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Swartwoods paper is out and he's calling the city attorney a liar.

1:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I was the plaintiffs, I would file a cross motion for summary judgement when the city files, making THEM come forward with exculpatory evidence that their actions were at ALL TIMES proper and legal.
The city will file on grounds that their immune and plaintiffs fail to state a claim.
Summary judgement can be filed at any time prior to the pretrial order setting deadlines for filinf dispositive and non dispositive motions.
If the defendants win their summary judgement, it means plaintiffs will appeal.
If plaintiffs can withstand defendants summary judgement or the city cannot withstand plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgement, we will have a trial as scheduled.
Either way, this case will end up in the appeals court as either side will not stand to lose in the lower courts.
Expect the trial date to be moved ahead into next spring if a trial occurs if the appeals takes its full alloted time.

7:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt there will ever be a settlement in this case. The city has screwed these guys around so much, I would imagine normal human emmotions on the landlords part would make them want to force a trial so all can see just how dirty and slimy the city really is. I'm saving my vacation for this trial!

8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like Seeba at her worst was enough to beat the landlords attorneys.Engel and Shoemaker-HA!Crackerjack attorneys that are probably running their clients through the shit cycle of their washing machine.The city distroys emails and they can't get anywhaere with the courts.

HA HA Slumlords!

City Employee

8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, this was the only thing I was concerned about that the judge might be so hostile to the City as to give some sanction for them not being able to read the plaintiffs minds (why didn't you save emails that we didn't ask for...).

I think the key in the law was:
“must establish a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence rather than a fertile imagination, that access to the [destroyed material] would have produced evidence favorable to his cause.” Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., 167 F.R.D. 90, 104 (D. Colo. 1996)

As I have been saying the entire time the landlords case rests on the notion that in their imagination there is a conspiracy and that failing to find any evidence means that the conspiracy must be larger than we thought and contained in any sliver of paper we don't have.

They have no evidence and the judge has the case law that says a paranoid imagination is not enough evidence to award a sanction.


Chuck Repke

9:38 AM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

So many of you laughed at me for trusting in Chucks judgement of this case. Bill Cullen boarded a sinking ship. LOL

All of you should have screened your tenants and maintained your property!

10:00 AM  
Blogger Sharon 4Anderson said...

Unless the Fed. Rules have changed, the Magistrate Susan Richard Nelson has limited Authority

Nelson's "Order" is likened to Marcia Moermond's "Orders"

Remember county attorney Susan Gaertner, aka xxx father of her hildren aka Wodele, clerked for 8th cir.

Its never over Thanks for posting

The Lawyers for the Landlords, must expidete Federal Rules, Constitutional Issues, RICO charges, techinally mandating separate case's

Next step to file with clerk to question the Magistrate's conflicts,errors,omissions, to be ruled on immediately by Judge Erickson, then and only then can a "Summary Judgment"
Hopefully lots more to come
The Landlords should set up a Legal Defense Fund

10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city employee might be eating some crow before this is done and over. I attended that court hearing, and from what I heard from both sides, this Judges order shocks me. Was she even in the same courtroom?

The court makes the following statement:

"The Court denies the motion to strike, finding it preferable to resolve Plaintiffs’ motions
on the merits."

then goes on talking and she doesn't even have the plaintiffs and defendants straight! The Judge doesn't even know who's who in this hearing. She has the plaintiffs and defendants mixed up!!!What's most outrageous is that the Judge as much as tells the city to do it again with respect to the destruction of evidence! Unbelieveable.

10:04 AM  
Anonymous watchdog news said...

click above for more on this case

10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chapter I. Code of Conduct for United States Judges



Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4. A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice
Canon 5. A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties
Canon 6. A Judge Should Regularly File Reports of Compensation Received for Law-Related and Extra-Judicial Activities
Canon 7. A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
Compliance with the Code of Conduct


10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Due to the Facts that Magistrate Susan R. Nelson partner
Nelson joined the Minneapolis-based law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. in 1984 and became a partner in 1988

Its well known the City of St. Paul has hired many law interns from RKMC, WHEN AND IF DID NELSON DISOLVE HER PARTNERSHIP IN RKMC?

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intgrity? This judge doesn't even know who the palintiffs and defendants are in the case. I wonder if the judge even prepared for the hearing?

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where's Eric and Chuck. I can't imagine them not being here and rubbing it in our face!

10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I knew it. I knew that if you didn't get what you want you would go after the judge, not the facts presented. Ever think you had a shitty case to begin with?

Go back and read my posts from a year ago and I said it appears that whenever you (landlords) didn't get your way, you branded that step of the process corrupt. I predicted you would kick the judge around, less than two weeks after you praised her ("she was looking at Seeba in a state of disbelief").

Chuck has explained to no end how a conspiracy charge is a tough thing to prove and the evidence we keep seeing here was a conclusion based on abstract deductions instead of a sum based on facts.

I suggested before going to court, you may have a case on INDIVIDUAL actions of corruption at best, but you'll be hard pressed to prove a conspiracy. After going to court, I could see some pretty sloppy actions on the part of city and reserved comment on the case until some kind of outcome from that hearing.

After reading the above, its tie to drop the RICO charge. If your accusations against individual city employees is true, file a charge and let it play out. This dream of breaking the coffers of the city because you believe they targeted you because of your clientèle is over.

There is nothing behind it and now the FEDERAL court has decided that the city is not conspiring by ridding itself of incriminating emails.

I do feel for some of the people I saw there at court(especially that very attractive woman in the front row), and hope that there is some remedy for those who were screwed over but, listen the RICO windfall is over.

Chuck, you called it.


10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This goes far beyond landlords. I'm disappointed the city's destruction of documents was approved.

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't get it do you Eric? This court has been bought and paid for just like the Ramsey County court. Doesn't that bother you?

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not over till it's over Eric!

12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of us consider these rulings to be bizarre in the face of all the evidence. And many people are starting to wonder if there isn't a conflict of interest.

Magistrate Nelsons husband.

Tom Nelson has been selected by Minnesota lawyers for several years as one of Minnesota’s leading attorneys in the areas of commercial litigation,professional liability, construction and real estate matters. He has always been active in professional and community affairs. He is presently Chairman of the Hennepin County Bar Association Bar Memorial Committee, serving as its liaison to the Board of Directors of the Hennepin County Bar Association; and he is also serving on the Hennepin County Bar Foundation Golf Tournament Committee. He recently (2008) served on the Merit Selection Panel for Minnesota’s next United States Magistrate Judge, upon his appointment by United States District Court Chief Judge James Rosenbaum. He presently serves on the Board of Directors of the Landmark Center in St. Paul (one of Minnesota’s most significant historic buildings and the location for many years of Minnesota’s United States District Court), and was recently recognized for his leadership in connection with the Federal Bar Association’s 2007 conference on the 150th Anniversary of the infamous Dred Scott decision (a case with significant Minnesota connections). He is on the Board of Directors of Norway House, and is a member of the Norwegian-American Chamber of Commerce. He has been admitted to the Douglas K. Amdahl Inn of Court. He also serves as a commissioner on the City of Bloomington Charter Commission.
In terms of practice areas, Tom’s legal career started out (and somewhat continues) in the realm of Door Law (meaning, whatever comes in the door). Along the way, Tom has handled some interesting matters, including representing one company in a lawsuit brought by Alice the Cat; and then later representing two Cairn Terriers names Gus and Loki in their claim against the neighborhood Pit Bull. He has represented a federally imprisoned, espionage-related defendant in extended habeas corpus proceedings, and effected the arrest of an ocean-going merchant vessel in the New Haven harbor pursuant to applicable maritime law. He has represented Ringling Brothers/Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows in commercial, contract and municipal regulatory matters. And his First Amendment work has included trials and disputes involving alleged AIDS-related, and (alleged) mob-related, defamation claims against newspapers; opinion-related defamation claims against public officials; and medical quackery defamation-related claims against what was known as the American Quack Association.
contact information
(612) 335-1457
(612) 335-1657 Fax
150 South Fifth Street
Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
practice areas
Construction Law
More traditionally (perhaps), Tom has handled commercial litigation (i.e., lawsuits about money) involving, among other things, mechanical heart valve contract supply disputes, sales representative contractual commissions, shareholder disputes, investor/broker claims, computer technology and equipment, condemnation and adverse possession, and real estate development option agreements (e.g., D.R. Horton v. Radintz, Minnesota Court of Appeals: 11/22/08). He has also defended products ranging from trucks to table saws, and from exploding electrical switch gear and natural gas pipelines to saline-filled breast implants. Toms long-term work with the design professional and construction communities has included defending claims involving allegedly sinking buildings as well as allegedly sagging high school gymnasium roof trusses. His employment-related work has included a wide range of non-compete and duty-of-loyalty litigation. His insurance, reinsurance and risk management work has included broker and agent liability, coverage disputes, non-compete litigation, policy and coverage negotiation (including MGA and MGU liability), space satellite reinsurance brokerage, reinsurance treaty interpretation, and civil investigative demands. He is a member of ARIAS-US. His corporate work has ranged from brewery-related lease negotiations, to the creation (and then sale) of a highly sophisticated, engineering-related, invention-based emerging corporation, to advising businesses on doing business with Native American tribes, to law firm divorces and break-ups. In the financial enterprise world, he has served as lead defense counsel in credit cardholder class action litigation, and also as counsel with respect to lender liability claims, bankruptcy and work-out matters, and credit card fraud investigation. Along the way, he has drafted and negotiated a wide range of commercial contracts and corporate governing documents, and consults regularly on company ownership arrangements and ownership transition.
Prior to practicing law, Tom was a founder, teacher and administrator of an innovative public high school in New Haven called High School in the Community — a school still working successfully and creatively to educate the students of New Haven. During that time, he also served on the faculty and advisory board of the Cloverdale Project, a residential summer educational program for high school students in the foothills of the Nevada desert. After law school, he clerked for two terms (1977 and 1978) for Judge Thomas J. Meskill of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting in New York City. Tom began his legal career with the Connecticut law firm of Tyler Cooper, and returned to Minnesota in 1983.
Professional and civic Activities
• Immediate Past Chairman, History Committee, U.S. District Court (Minnesota)
• Past member, Board of Directors, Federal Bar Association
• Past member, Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Committee, upon the appointment of then Chief Judge Paul Magnuson of the U.S. District Court (Minnesota)
thomas f. nelson
(612) 335-1457
• Past member, Board of Directors, St. Olaf College Alumni Association
• Past member, Board of Directors, The Playwrights’ Center
• Past member, Board of Directors, The Izaak Walton League (Bush Lake)
• Past co-chair, St. Olaf College “Liberal Arts and the Law” Conferences
• Past member, Arts Midwest Task Force on Freedom of Expression
• Past member, Minneapolis Arts Commission
• Past member, Bloomington Parks, Arts and Recreation Commission
• Past member, Bloomington City Council’s Bush Lake Advisory Committee; and also the Bloomington City Council’s Task Force on Public Facilities (leading to the approval, design, construction and completion of Bloomington’s new City Hall, Police Station and Public Works Facility).
• Member, Minneapolis Club (serving on the House or Facility Committee); Minnesota Valley Golf Club
• Member, West Immanuel Lutheran Church, Star Prairie, Wisconsin, and Mindekirken, the Norwegian Lutheran Church of Minneapolis
J.D., University of Connecticut School of Law, 1977
Law Review, Administrative Editor
M.A.R., Yale University, 1971
B.A., St. Olaf College, 1969
Phi Beta Kappa
• State of Minnesota
• State of Connecticut
thomas f. nelson
(612) 335-1457
A Professional Association
law offices in minneapolis • mankato • st. cloud • washington, d.c. • a member of the terralex® network

About Landmark Center
Minnesota Landmarks Board Member List
Minnesota Landmarks is the programming and managing agent for
Landmark Center, a building devoted to providing free, or at low cost,
public programming in the arts and culture.
Scott Knudson,
Briggs and Morgan Chairman of the Board
Don Leier,
RSP Architects Vice-Chairman of the Board
Steve Proeschel,
Piper, Jaffray and Company Treasurer
Dr. David Lanegran,
Macalester College Assistant Treasurer
Kareen Ecklund,
Felhaber Larson Fenlon and Vogt
Jim Affolter,
Maureen Austinson,
LCVA President
Tom Boyd,
Winthrop and Weinstine
Commissioner Tony Bennett,
Ramsey County
John Czai,
UBS Financial Services, Inc.
Erin Dady,
City of St. Paul
Jill Harmon,
Schall Lyman and Carlson
Executive Search
David McDonell, formerly with
St. Paul Companies
Contact Information
Landmark Center
c/o Minnesota Landmarks
75 West Fifth Street, Suite
St. Paul, MN 55102
651.292.3225 events hotline
651.292.3272 fax
About Us Page 1 of 2 4/17/2008
Council Member Debbie
City of St. Paul
Tom Nelson,
Leonard, Street and Deinard
Commissioner Rafael Ortega,
Ramsey County
Kurt Schultz,
City of St. Paul
The Honorable Esther Tomljanovich Chair of the Building Events
Imogene Treichel Past Chairman of the Board
Helen Wagner,
Billie Young,
Hoa Young,
City of St. Paul
For any other questions, you can call our information line at
651/292-3225 or Blake at 651/292-3233, fax 651/292-3272
About Us Page 2 of 2

12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What conflict now?

ALL judges come from prestiges law firms and to a lesser extent the public dole as a prosecutor or public defender.

I'm trying to be cool and not start name calling or dropping words like stupid and ignorant so, stop making it too easy.

Conflict of interest would have been examined by the court prior to assignment. Accusing a county official off corruption (being bought off) is serious. Putting that shit out about the federal court system is crazy, pathetic and criminal.

Once again here we are. Everybody is corrupt except you.

Its you who don't get it. Let's go down this track-
You have any proof at all of the court being corrupt? Any?

Just because it didn't rule the way you wanted, doesn't mean squat. You sound like every person locked up in the pen complaining about the courts being corrupt.

Where's the proof?


1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A city that shreds inspection reports, destroys emails, will not turn over documents, violates court orders and is in violation of the courts order even on the day of the hearing, hides evidence, lies to the court, doesn't address any of the issues at the hearing and won't even answer the Judges direct questions, and the court basically tells them to keep doing it! It sounds corrupt to me, but in the interest of having an open mind, what the hell is it if it's not corruption? It's anything but fair and imaprtial and a two year old can spot it. If you were wronged by someone Eric and spent years fighting in court, is this kind of a ruling what you think would be OK for you? I hope not,

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Basically what the court said, was that the plaintiffs attorneys were lazy and did not file a memorandum in support of their new motion for sanctions but instead referred to the old memorandum in the previous motion.

The court said that even though what appeared to be delays and sloppyness on part of the defendants in complying with discovery requests, plaintiffs could not show how they were prejudiced since plaintiffs ultimately received the E-mails that were recoverable and other discovery.
The handing out of sanctions is two fold.
There must be some corrupt or evasive activity in addition to plaintiffs having to show they were prejudiced by the improper behavior on part of the defendants.
I see the plaintiffs meeting the first requirement ( corruption ) but not the second
( how plaintiffs were prejudiced ).
Next time plaintiffs attorneys better submit a memorandum in support of their motions !

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric you said it...this is a FEDERAL Magistrate that they are now adding into their paranoid conspiracy. Let's see Bill added unknown Federal employess opening imaginary funding sources in DC and now they are going after the bench here.

TIN FOIL rolls and rolls of TIN FOIL that's what you need to make sure the government isn't stealing your thoughts guys...

And what the F am I doing in the WET PUPPY for crying out loud are you kidding me? Who in the F is Chuck Repke that anyone would care what I though about Governor "Let them Die" Pawlenty. (The Blame Game in this month's WET PUPPY)

I did think it to be hugely funny that a magazine that is totally devoted to blaming the government for all of their problems would go after me for taking a shot at the Governor for not addiquately funding our roads and bridges. This paper does nothing but attack the government and here where the clear evidence that our lack of funding for roads and bridges has cost people their lives these guys defend "Killer" Pawlenty.

What had happened of course was on the night the bridge had collapsed I was forwarded copies of the bridge report that went on and on about the defects in the 35W bridge and that it was rated a 49 - 50 being the number that was needed to be brought to the attention of the Legislature. At the same time "Killer" was on camera claiming that the bridge had a "clean bill of health." Something that everyone now knows was a total lie.


Chuck Repke

2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judicial Watch v. FBI Litigations for the average person it's burdonsome, Thanks that the Landlords for Public Policy, educating the public, Sample Winning Brief
No. 07-5158
, Circuit Judge: Pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act, appellant Judicial Watch obtained two court
orders directing the government to release by specified dates
videotapes relevant to the tragic events of September 11,
2001. After receiving the tapes, Judicial Watch moved for
attorneys’ fees. The government argued, and the district court
agreed, that the organization was ineligible for an award of
fees because it had failed to “substantially prevail[]” as FOIA
requires. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E). Because we have thrice
held that court orders like the ones at issue here render
plaintiffs prevailing parties for purposes of FOIA’s attorney
fee provision, we reverse.

3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you see the post st 1:44 Chuck? Does that sound like a fair court to you or corruption? How about the piece Bob posted about the husband of this judge? While he's playing on a committee that's stacked to the hilt with high level city officials his wife is hearing litigation cases regarding the same city and making rulings that seem to go completely against the wieght of evidence and fact. Wouldn't you start to wonder?
Does this even come close to sounding like the judge is trying to "avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities."

Chuck you and your buddies want to attck people who speak out against a city that crushes people and destroys their lives for minor code violations and yet your OK with corrupt judges incapable of making fair and hinest rulings. I feel sorry for you.

Chuck I think you should take the tin foil off of your head and let in some honest thoughts. You'll be happier.

4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This sounds like the city attorney knew the outcome before she even walked into court.

Having worked as a caddy at Town and Country, many of these court cases are settled on the golf course, not in the courtroom.

4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shoemaker is just taking your money you fools.

City Employee

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Something doesn't pass the smell test here to me. From what I've seen of government in the past, I'll believe the landlords. At least they have something to show other than lies.

5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how much it cost the plaintiffs to go after the sanctions not once but twice ?
Big payday for plaintiff attorneys.
I suppose the plaintiffs were told to believe
that the chances were 100% that the court would issue sanctions ?
Typical lawyer sell job.

5:46 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Here's a good case, Arthur Andersen llp v. United States no.04-368.

Destruction of documents !

6:10 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

That case is 374 F.3d 281.

6:12 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...


Type in destruction of documents when you get to the cite.

Jeff Matiatos

6:20 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Ignore the giessee .

6:21 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats not enough to challange for cause .
Plaintiffs attorneys have wasted enough money and time.

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:42 there has been no evidence of anything that has anything to do with a RICO suit.

The judge that you are all now dissing has made the City spend a fortune recreating emails that by law it was required to delete. She has ruled in favor of gathering anything and everything - unrelated piece of paper or communication that the plaintiffs have asked for.

What the Plaintiffs asked for was a judgement against the City because they haven't been able to find any evidence against the City. They in effect said, we can't find anything so that must mean they are hiding it so award us money for them not giving it.

What the judge ruled is that the law says that you at least have to have some thread of evidence that your crazy story is true for the court to assume there is more evidence missing. You have to have something, some little piece of evidence that would show someone being a part of this act you are accusing them of...

You got nothing.

There was no evidence in any communication or testimony that suggested anyone conspired with anyone else and there is no evidence that anyone benefitted by any hardship that occured to the plaintiffs. So, if there is anything else missing the assumptionn is that it too is nothing.


Chuck Repke

9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like what the judge ruled is that it is OK for the city to kick the shit out if anyone they please (including peoples' families) and that it is OK as long as the city destroys the evidence.

That is what the city's supporters are crowing about.

9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And that is just exactly what they should be crowing about because they support the city. The city of St. Paul stands for nothing. They violate people's civil rights on a daily basis and cover it up with more corruption and lies. These guys are city supporters, what do you expect them to crow about.

Oh and by the way Chuck.....the law does not require the city to get rid of things, it requires them to preserve those things the minute they are served with qa lawsuit.

10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...
then type:

destruction of documents.

Start at page 15 of the transcript.

Think I got it this time.

Jeff Matiatos

12:10 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

slumlords slumlords slumlords.

your first mistake-

you didn't screen your tenants and repair your properties.

your second mistake-

was thinking you had a case against the city. slumlords are a cancer to cities. your daily work consist of bringing down the livability of our city and cities across America.

your third mistake-

was hiring attorneys who lead you to believe you have a case. lol, they took you for a ride all the way to the bank.

nice blog bob. the truth does prevail here.


ps. when are you going to post the city's summary judgement bob. i read it. it would be good for a few laughs.

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:52 AM said, "you didn't screen your tenants and repair your properties."

The laws are NOT in favor of the landlord. I managed properties in St. Paul for years and we did screen tenants. When a tenant became a problem they had the law on their side. The city and police told us not to be discriminatory, but when you have a tenant trash a unit and then get NO help from the city or police it is hard to stay in business.

What the city needs is, 1. citizen oversight of the DSI and Fire Department inspection units and 2. Fair enforcement of the codes.

There are some inspectors that I just won't work with. If they show up, I won't deal with them because they have an unrealistic view of the codes, are vindictive because I have made complaints of their past behavior.

Chuck knows that the code inspection system is not perfect. We have been talking about these issues for over three years now. With all of these complaints, the city has taken NO steps towards changing the way they do business. They have defended their employees, but have not listened to what the people are saying. There is a major communication disconnect between the needs of the citizens and the wants of a few city council members.

The sad thing is the city leaders do not see what they are doing, but it is having a great impact on the poor.

Another City Employee

10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do the city and police have to do with forcing compliance with landlord issues with tenants other than the enforcement of codes and crime ?
The first line of defence is the landlord who has powers under the lease he has the power to create and enforce .
Maybe you landlords should put everyone on a month to month lease because its the yearly leases that keep you obligated and gets you into trouble.
You landlords know what the tenant base is is St.Paul so stop bitching
about the types of tenants.

11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read a lot of pros and a lot of cons. God help the city should these cases ever get to a jury.

12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


That might be a good start. What they really need to go is get rid of the misfits and also deadwood in the inspections department - and there's a lot of it. Then get some leadership that takes their jobs seriously and people seriously.

2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What do the city and police have to do with forcing compliance with landlord issues with tenants other than the enforcement of codes and crime?"

This statement shows the ignorance of people. The city and Police don't enforce the codes and crime. They expect the landlords to do it.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lot of the findings are pretty straight-forward and simply reflect the court didn't agree with the plaintiffs' arguments. That's why hearings like this are held and there's no real criticism of the plaintiffs attorneys there.

But there are two findings by the court that should cause the plaintiffs to question the competence of their attorneys:

Plaintiffs are advised, however, that when filing a renewed motion, the proper practice is to file a new memorandum of law. This is especially true in the situation at present where much has developed since the original motion, as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ four affidavits totaling more than a hundred pages and by the hundreds of pages of additional exhibits.

Plaintiffs’ failure to submit a memorandum of law in support of their renewed motion bears further comment. The renewed motion is comprehensive and complex, and the Court has parsed through hundreds of pages of affidavits and exhibits essentially unguided by any argument. When a party seeks such drastic sanctions as Plaintiffs seek here, that party should present solid and thorough arguments in support. Although Plaintiffs have sporadically alluded to their memorandum in support of their first motion, this memorandum does not address any of the events occurring since the Court’s order of November 13, 2007, and is therefore of little use.
(emphasis added)

While a Federal Magistrate will often disagree with the merits of the argument, it's somewhat rare for a Federal Magistrate to be so openly critical of the attorneys failure to follow procedural expectations when representing their clients.

Messrs Engel and Shoemaker should be embarrassed and the plaintiffs should be having some bracing conversations with their attorneys.

3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think again 2:42, you are probabaly one of those landlords who shouldnt even be one.
If you are, you want to blame the cops and city hall for your inability to manage property and tenants.
Your an ass.

3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Next time RICOMEN, tell your attorneys that you dont pay for motions that dont work !!!!!

3:51 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

Folks, this case is far from over..

The rumour in the grape vine is, the plaintiffs and their TOP NOTCH attorneys will go all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.

So we are looking in the very least up to another 2 years of this story right here at A Democracy.

I personally have seen enough evidence that I am SICKENED by the behavior of some of our city officials. I can't wait to be present in court when these morally stricken city officials take the stand.

And after the trial, and the plaintiffs win, I among many others will be demanding these city officials involved in this case be arrested and charged with crimes.


6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The motions did haveoundation. Once a court asks for a litigation hold then it should be followed.

There has been a game of hide and seek being played by the city.

If you think for one minute this is not going on, you are sadly mistaken.

I have seen some of the stuff the city pulls and I am only a very small landlord. I have some very good friends who work in the DIS office on Whitebear Avenue. The stories they tell and the stuff that goes on in that office is really something one could write a book on.

There was a plan to get rid of slumlords in St. Paul, and some in DSI with approval from higher up took the plan a little farther. Andy Dawkins and company did treat some members of the public very differently than others. Pulling COs and classifying them an Vacany 2 buildings just to screw with them.

Nancy's house on the Eastside was one example. The police frustrated at not being able to shut down a particular house that is selling drugs, used code enforcement to go after them. They look at it if they can't get them they will use another means. To me this is a misuse of city resources.

7:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not only a mis-use of city resources, it's a violation of civil rights. It's common knowlege throughout the city that the city targets landlords because of behavior issues. Kathy Lantry tells people it's the only tool they have. Repke says the

"law" says the city is supposed to get rid of records after 3 years when he's really talking about the governments "record rentention policy" where they state they will only keep things for 3 years. What Chuck doesn't tell you is that the U.S. Supreme Court says "record retention policies" are nothing more than a policy to get rid of records that can be used against you later on, either civily or criminaly. The city is playing dirty and the longer they keep it up the more guilty they're going to look to a jury, and they WILL be seeing a jury from what I've read here in the last few months. Summary Judgement is not going to happen for the city, they will go to trial. So for all the "arm chair second guessers" here that like to predict the future, why don't you tell us what you think the jury is going to think when they hear these facts coming out. Don't forget to factor in that most people don't like or trust the government, they're infuriated by little things such as "e-mail and records destruction," they hate politicians and they love seeing the little guy kick the shit out of the bigger guy. I think St. Paul has a probelm they should've settled years ago! Now they can' the jury is going to setlle it. Maybe they'll try to buy off the jury too. Maybe they won't be able to. So lets hear it.....if I was on the jury I would.........

7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hang em and hang em high for all to see.

8:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, why dont you post the citys summary judgment motion or are you to afraid to post it at the risk of scaring away the few supporters you have for the slumlords ?

10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Record retention or Data privacy that is the question?

What you are currently saying is that the City should keep every scrap of paper that it ever writes about everyone forever.

There are just as many people screeming that the government keeps to much information on us and that they want the government to burn anything that it ever wrote about them.

How long should the City hold on to information on you that it shares among other City employees? How long should "those people" be able to look at your records?

The State says three years. After three years you get your privacy back and the City should be dumping the old crap. If you want the City to keep notes on you longer call your legislator because the City just follows the law.

As to what happened in this case, what happened was that the City kept deleting information until something was actually asked for. What the plaintiffs have contended is that the City should have stopped deleting everything because they were being sued. Of course the City is always in some kind of a law suit so that would mean they should never delete anything. The court up to this point has ruled with the plaintiffs saying that the City had to do what it could to find that information.

But in this one the court finally is saying that the plaintiffs are asking for money because of the City not having information that the plaintiffs didn't ask for until 2007 that was deleted in 2005 and that everything possible has been done to get whatever information the plaintiff wants and that the plaintiffs HAVE NO EVIDENCE that there is any reason to believe that any information missing has any value.

Again this is a RICO suit... a conspiracy to hurt someone to help someone else. To have won this issue the plaintiffs would have had to have shown some piece of paper or email or something where someone was involved in a conspiracy. Something... anything... some evidence of conspiracy. So that they could suggest that there was more evidence that they weren't given.


Chuck Repke

10:53 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Chuck, part of what plaintiffs were seeking were e-mails between city employees communicating about a scheme to run the landlords out via code enforcement.

They already have e-mails to that effect.

They also have depositions from particular city employees that shed light and more or less confirm what the plaintiffs are alleging in the lawsuits.

Please go to : and type in

"destruction of documents" and click the case argument and start at page 15 about records retention

This was the Enron case about a corporate cover up through by destruction of documents.

Jeff Matiatos

11:20 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

10:30 said,

Bob, why dont you post the city's summary judgment motion or are you to afraid to post it at the risk of scaring away the few supporters you have for the slumlords ?

10:30 PM

my response- You say "few" supporters! The city must have just beamed you in from some far away planet.

There is property rights and civil rights groups across this country reading this blog. One BIG organization who is very interested in the outcome of this case is Pacific Legal Foundation. You can find them linked on the front page to the right of the screen, scroll down to their banner. Many of you will remember the attorney from Pacific Legal Foundation who posted here stating they wanted a working relationship with our forum here. I correspond with many groups and individuals from home and across the country, and so do many others here.

I do not sit on my rear when I am not posting here. I have responsibilities to this cause. I am following up leads on stories. I read studies on housing, the homeless, real estate, crime and much more. I am leaving the "A Democracy electronic calling card" all over the United States every oppurtunity I get. And thankfully many of you here are doing the same thing to increase participation here.

The integrity of this blog has gained sponsors from a civil rights activist group, a number of local business's who advertise here or donate and wish to be anonymous. When the time comes for publishing the A Democracy News Letter, we have the funds.

They all understand the precedence these morally bankrupt city official are setting here using code enforcement to address behavioral issues.

They ALL see this case as the road block needed to end the civil rights violations.

Like I said in the past, I do not understand these RICO laws very well, RICO or NOT, I do understand what has been going on with housing in Saint Paul. And a protected class of folks have had their civil rights violated over and over again. This is an UNDENIABLE FACT! And frankly every renter who is not given the oppurtunity to exercise their fourth amendment right and not allow an inspection is having their rights violated.

These ass wipes named in the suit have contributed to putting families on the street. INNOCENT folks women and children on the street. And very little has changed from the on set of these suits until now.

Code Enforcement and the morally bankrupt Dawkins and Kelly had a role in the demise of friends of mine over housing issues. I want retribution for ALL who have been damaged by this bunch.

Thinking about the demise of my friends Rita and Gary over these housing issues, Dawkins LIED about the President, using the president in a lie as the catapult to go after Rita and Gary I think I will compose a letter to the PRESIDENT and let him know about Dawkins lying his ass off. Did I ever tell you folks about the large wall portrait I have of President Bush and his wife, signed by the President and his wife with a personal message to me?:-) I know many of you who have been to my home are thinking, I seen it!One of my prized possessions. Value this picture more than my Town Car.

As for the city's summary judgement. I have it. I am sitting on it until I have the plaintiffs response to it. Someone posted it twice in the last few weeks. I deleted it both times.I won't put that garbage up without clarification from a credible source, "THE PLAINTIFFS" or as some of you call them the RICOMEN.

Believe me 10:30, you will see the city's summary judgement.. That is more than I can say for the defendants with their hide the ball, destroy evidence and stall tactics.

1:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Chuck:

You say:

"What you are currently saying is that the City should keep every scrap of paper that it ever writes about everyone forever."


Chuck says:

"The State says three years. After three years you get your privacy back and the City should be dumping the old crap."


Chuck says:

"As to what happened in this case, what happened was that the City kept deleting information until something was actually asked for."


Chuck says:

"The court up to this point has ruled with the plaintiffs saying that the City had to do what it could to find that information."


Chuck says:

"But in this one the court finally is saying that the plaintiffs are asking for money because of the City not having information that the plaintiffs didn't ask for until 2007 that was deleted in 2005 and that everything possible has been done to get whatever information the plaintiff wants and that the plaintiffs HAVE NO EVIDENCE that there is any reason to believe that any information missing has any value."


Chuck says:

"Again this is a RICO suit... a conspiracy to hurt someone to help someone else. To have won this issue the plaintiffs would have had to have shown some piece of paper or email or something where someone was involved in a conspiracy. Something... anything... some evidence of conspiracy. So that they could suggest that there was more evidence that they weren't given."


I don't believe your spinning Chuck. Your take on ths case just defies common sense and logic. If it gets to trial I don't think the jury is going to buy it either!

3:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People like Chuck and Eric are an interesting breed. They just make stuff up as they go. As long as the words they put together sound good and wins the debate, what the hell has truth or fact have to do with anything? I'm going to love the ending of this saga. The city made their bed and now they ran into some people that are going to make them lay in it!

9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck I read e mails that Bob has posted that support the plaintiffs.Where have you been?

Tim Ciani

12:09 PM  
Anonymous RAWR said...

April 27, 2008

Chief Judge James Rosenbaum
202 U. S. Courthouse
300 S. 4Th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Dear Chief Judge Rosenbaum,

I went to a hearing on April 14,2008. It was held in room 8E at 1:300 P.M.. The hearing was on Motion for Sanction. The Plaintiffs recognized for this function are Frank J Steinhauser III ,et al , Sandra Harrilal ,et al, Thomas J. Gallagher , et al . The Defendants for the city of Saint Paul, et al, Steve Magner , et al. Civil No.04-2633, Civil no. 05-1348,Civil No.05-1348.

The Lawyers were Matthew A. Engel and John Shoemaker for the Plaintiffs. And Louise Toscano Seeba , Assistant City Attorney, for the Defendants.

The United State Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson. There was about Twenty persons other than
The Plaintiffs in the hearing room.

I just do not understand the Magistrate Judge order. The Assistance City Attorney admitted that the city destroyed documents and emails. If I were to destroy the documents and email pertaining to the lawsuits the Judge would gives the offending side to redress it. This is worth of much importance to the offenders.

I also have other problems with the Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson, in which her husband is on the Minnesota Landmarks board. There are also three other people from the city of Saint Paul on the same board. Naming; Debbie Montgomery, Hoa Young, and Erin Dady. I feel that Susan Nelson should have not been involve in these cases.

Another problem is; why wasn’t a litigation held [in Saint Paul] for the account of all the documents and emails during the time when the lawsuit was filed? On that note, why not punish the city of Saint Paul? What about Freedom of Information Act?

Why does she turn over the exhibits from the Plaintiffs motions to HUD for the conditions of the PHA
Buildings and the way that the city does not inspect their buildings. And also, to the U.S. Attorney for
Anti-Discrimination Act and Violations of the Antitrust Laws. These are shown in the Plaintiffs motions with evidence.

And another thing is why does she keep pushing back the date of the trial. It has now been set for Jan 02, 2009. If the judge magistrate does not want to have trial, it would be more simple to just tell the plaintiffs that they do not have a case and to end all of this.

I feel that they ( the Plaintiffs) do have a case and that the magistrate is trying to help the city of Saint Paul out of their own mess.

In her order, she has problems with both who is the Plaintiffs and who are the Defendants. When reading her order, it comes off that what she is implying unfocused based of what was said and by whom. If she was upset with Plaintiffs lawyer for not putting a memorandum of law, she should make them redo their motions.

I suppose letting her get back to destroy any of the documents and emails gives her reason to feel that it is ok . In that case meaning, if she‘s doing, more will do it as well . And if it were to continue then we will no evidences of any wrong doing..

And in her closing of order, she tells the city attorney that she is doing a fine job in destroying evidences and especially keeping it up. If this is what our judges are doing, we need a new set of rules for judges and stop this outrageous nonsense. The judge should not be one sided, they need to keep to judgment and equality and be neutral in all court cases.

I am sending copies of this letter to my Senators and Rep to congress and in doing so I’m asking them to look into this matter.


Leslie K. Lucht

4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are right. I've never seen such dirty vicious jerks, and now a federal judge wants to look the other way. This one might go to the Supreme Court.

6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks to me like they have added the Federal court to the good ole boys club.

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the only real finding here is that the plaintiffs were unable to prove prejudice from the missing documents. It is very, very hard to prove that anyone is damaged by information that they have no access to. So, the threshold is very high, and I wonder how anyone ever meets it, but that is the threshold.

This does not say the plaintiffs have a good or bad case. That argument will be made at a likely summary judgment hearing. Everyone seems to be reading more into this ruling than I think they should. IMHO.

BTW, in a case where the plaintiff is alleging a large conspiracy, is it wise to accuse the judge of being a part of it? Think about it… If she is part of a conspiracy, she will tip against you no matter what. If she is not part of the conspiracy she is going to think you are off your rocker and sympathize with the defendant. You can only lose with the arguments you are making out here. If Les sent his letter, I predict it will do a lot of damage to this case. A LOT OF DAMAGE.

Bill Cullen.

9:07 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is very disturbing. This Judge doesn't know the difference between the Plaintiff and Defendant. She says the production of documents by the city was less than ideal, but then goes on to ecourage them to do the same in the future! I've never seen anything like this.

9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell them like it is Nancy.
She has more brains and guts then most people alive.

9:49 PM  
Anonymous L.L. said...

Eric, how about you and I make a
$500.00 bet that the plaintiffs withstand summary judgment ?
Bob can hold the dough.
I've got plenty of money. Lets just say $500.00 to me is like .50
to you. Lets go big shot !


9:55 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:33 PM Leslie K. Lucht

Asking for a fair hearing is like taking to a wall.
Most people don't know how unfair Judge Rosenbaum is, federal court judges are on the take also.
When will the people wake up and see the unjust judges that fill our courts, maybe never.

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Mice and To the Men.
Does Nancy have to show people how to do things?
We always have to apply that amazing vaseline.
Nancy, show these so called men that they are really the mice.

10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy says

"Only 3% of the population participated in the Revolutionary War. Do you think that 3% of the population can DECLARE OUR RIGHTS and actually FIGHT to preserve these right today?"

Yes that 3% can fight Nancy and they are fighting. We are in a Revoloutionary War now, people just are not fighting with guns and bullets, they're fighting in Court. Most people are cowards and prefer to suit on the sidelines so they don't get hurt or have to make any scarifices. Any names come to mind? It's always been the very small minority who have put forth the great ideas that have made us so great. There's also been people like Chuck and Eric who rtied to stand in the way. Hell when our founding fathers signed the paperwork they had to sneak into town and sign and get out quick because people wanted to kill them. Battles like these lawsuits are being fought all over the country and they are being won with huge judgements paid out because of the very same thing St. Paul is doing to people. I suspect the outcome of these suits will be no different, nor will the spinning from Chuck and Eric. They have an agenda like evryone else and it doesn't include your rights as much as theirs.

11:58 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't the women always clean up the mess while the men watch?

1:47 AM  
Anonymous Harold S. said...

Looks like Nancy knows her place.

Harold S.

7:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:58 You are correct battles like these are being fought all over the country funded by the rich land barons against the general citizenry. Mobile/Exxon has spent millions of dollars attacking the public right of eminent domain.

Land barons like these land lords have always asserted that those who have the wealth should make the rules and that the public should have no right to govern.

You correct it takes a lot of courage to stand up against the wealthy and powerful that can use their wealth to flood the court system with these kinds of law suits that mock the public's right to live in safe and secure neighborhoods and to not have their property values destroyed by the land speculators.

Because as Bob so often does here, the link is made between the unrelated cases to try and show a lack of compassion from the City while the City is actually trying to protect those abused by the land barons.


Chuck Repke

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill said: "It is very, very hard to prove that anyone is damaged by information that they have no access to. So, the threshold is very high, and I wonder how anyone ever meets it, but that is the threshold."

Actually Bill it isn't that hard and that is why I was concerned about this. The plaintiffs just needed anything in writing or in email or in deposition where somewhere there was some evidence to the notion that there was a conspiracy or that someone was benefitting from the misfortune of these land lords. That was all they had to show in order to win on the notion that more was being hidden by what was missing.

What the court said is that you have almost everything you asked for and you are giving the court no indication from what you have seen what would be in the missing information. To win all the plaintiffs needed was to show the court where in some email someone said... hey if we shut this guy down it will help PHA.... or even some concern about PHA not having a long enough waiting list from the Mayor... or some discussion about putting land lords out of business... something anything... the smallest piece of evidence that they have any kind of a case... and the court would have ruled that since something was found there may be more missing, but the plaintiffs case is we have found nothing so the information MUST be hidden somewhere else.


Chuck Repke

8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, I never hear you talking much about all the damaging depositions taken by the plaintiffs.
This is where the city loses.
When the case goes to the jury, those depositions can be read into court and the snake in the grass deponents will be exposed for their damaging deposition testimony
and how their lack of memory while being questioned about matters they should have recollection of, exposes the dirty rats for who they are and what they have done.

9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Land barons"?

If anyone doubts where the hearts and minds of socialists like Chucky and Bucky lie, one needs but to peruse a few of their dissertations on various subjects.

No matter the issue at hand, the committed socialist will always, somehow, connect the dots to the 'evils' of the capitalist system.

These scumbags retire each and every night to fevered dreams of the day when they can lead mobs of their fellow losers into the homes of those who've been successful. They will march in glory to stuff their sacks with the wealth they were so completely unprepared to earn for themselves.

Hence, a dispute between local owners of rental housing and an apparently corrupt city bureaucracy becomes 'land barons' against 'the people'.

It is no mystery why con men like Jim Freeman are feted like kings in St. Paul while 5 of the last 5 projects proposed by legitimate, well run developers have been put to the torch.

To do business in St. Paul today, one must be versed in the mummery of the left.

One must be prepared to make outrageous guarantee's to provide local union bosses a taste of profits.

One must be willing to entertain the notion that a $10 an hour widget assembler (or the feckless proprietor of a failing coffee shop and defunct 'art studio'), has as much right to dictate your plans as you do to present them.

One must be willing to extend 'consulting' jobs to corrupt elected officials and their dependents looking for another cow to milk should their tenure in public office be cut short.

Does anyone really wonder how an illiterate bufoon like Chuck Repke is able to sell his services as a lobbyist?

There will always be men and women willing to make a good faith attempt to do business with the likes of Bucky and Chucky; and some will inevitably be successful.

But if the business hating, leftist cabal running the capitol city were the status quo of this country, we'd all surely be just now wondering at the marvel of the light bulb.

10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swifty... It was are founding fathers that made the rules, I just follow them.

They were wise men who believed that we the people should be the ones that control the country. I know that bothers someone like you but, them's the brakes.

As to any developers that have been turned down in Saint Paul, when has that happened? Nobody has ever been denied what they could legally do. There has been from time to time developers who have desired to radically change the zoning code to allow them to do things they weren't otherwise were allowed to do that were turned down, or developers that wanted a dump truck of money that didn't get it. We have seen great whining when that occurs.

Swifty, I'm a capitalist. I just happen to believe in democracy.


Chuck Repke

11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thinking that something is in a missing email is really naive. The first rule any "good" lawyer will tell you is never put anything in email form. You don't know who will read it, how long it will be saved
and who will retain it. I doubt that if these city employees were conspiring they would have actually put anything in email form. After all Andy Dawkins is a lawyer and, while being a democrat, is still probably smart enough to know that.

Also, don't you think with all the people that have something against the city that if an email existed to support conspiracy that it would have been supplied to the plaintiffs?

If these people were really as corrupt as you say (and they very well might have been) do you really think they would have used city resources to discuss the conspiracy?


11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jonathan, take a look at the Enron case for example where the company auditor told its employees that per the companys document retention policy to destroy documents because it became apparent that the Government was coming down in the wake of the Enron scandle.

Doesnt it seem odd that Dawkins didnt have e-mails but the plaintiffs discovered that many other city employees had recievewd E-mails from him ?

Any lawyer is shrewed and sneaky enough to try somthing but unfortunatley he wasnt expecting a RICO suit either.

11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:52 - Still don't buy it. Where is the email from Dawkins then? No one seems to have any significant numbers.


11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke, I gave you too much credit.

You're really not much of socialist (capitalist? pfft.)'re an illiterate, opportunistic parasite clinging to the boil on another illiterate, opportunistic parasite's ass.

But given the outraged comment responses to the Pioneer Press stories regarding Bucky's last couple of crusades, and given the fact that he was re-elected by the scum of his teeth last time around, your time's just about up.

I'd suggest that instead of wasting your time presuming to lecture *me* about Democracy (you leftist piece of shit), you focus on riding the Bucky gravy train for all it's worth while you can.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said,"Mobile/Exxon has spent millions of dollars attacking the public right of eminent domain.

Ciani says,"Are you speaking of the site that sits vacant on west 7th?Know your facts Chuck.The reason Exxon didn't want to sell for the fact that they didn't want to get sued if they got sick due to the site.And by the way who let them put their tanks there?Yes our local government."

Chuck said,"You correct it takes a lot of courage to stand up against the wealthy and powerful that can use their wealth to flood the court system with these kinds of law suits that mock the public's right to live in safe and secure neighborhoods and to not have their property values destroyed by the land speculators."

Didn't you have a burned out car,smashed windows,peeling paint,missing screens and doorknobs Mr.Chuck.You and Thune shouldn't talk.Take a good look at yourself and the shit properties you live in.I atleast held the fire to you feet to clean up you f'ing dumps."

Tim Ciani

2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city is not trying to protect these people Chuck that you would have us feel so sorry for Chuck. The city is perpetrating a fraud on these people making them think they are going to get some help and they too become a victim of the city by being out out into the street by the city agenda. Some smart lawyer should start a class action lawsuit against the city on behalf of the tenants too.

3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To win all the plaintiffs needed was to show the court where in some email someone said... hey if we shut this guy down it will help PHA.... or even some concern about PHA not having a long enough waiting list from the Mayor... or some discussion about putting land lords out of business... something anything... the smallest piece of evidence that they have any kind of a case... and the court would have ruled"

Did it ever occur to you Chuck that maybe they already have the stuff they say they're looking for and just using this to corner the city into a positiion they can't get out of at trial? That's what good attorneys do, they don't ask someone a question they don't already know the answer to and they don't ask for such specific materials unless they already know what's there. I doubt anyone would spend so much time and effort (not to mention money) on something they don't already know.

4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Johnathan

I think you're wrong with your assumptions. Do some reading here in the archives and look at some of the evdidence that's already been produced. You don't know what your talking about my friend.

4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're absoloutly right 4:02. Things are not always as they seem, especially in lawsuits!

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Google this :

374 f.3d 281

read 2,3,11-16.

Jeff Matiatos

11:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting read Jeff! I think the outcome for St Paul will the same as Anderson. No court anywhere is going to set a legal precedent that it's OK to start destroying documents and emails after your served with a lawsuit. Not gonna happen. Maybe this judge is an idiot, maybe she's bought and paid for, but the next one won't be. It may suprise Repke to know that a law named Sarbanes-Oxley was passed and requires Corporations to retain EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER that they ever generated.

12:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the supreme court decision Jeff and this is what the federal court in the RICO case was trying to say in part was that plaintiffs failed to submit a memorandum to guide the court on the standard for which the obstruction , document shredding and intent to obstruct .

The Enron case is perhalps a very good example of the standard of proof needed to get sanctions in the RICO case.
The question is, did the RICO attorneys follow this standard ?
Who knows, a memorandum of law sure would have helped.

7:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trying again... I think the point the judge was making was that she needed the plaintiffs attorney in a memorandum of law to paint the picture of how something they have found in the emails etc.. would lead to the believe that there was more somethings in the missing emails. Because we found this it means there might be more of this in the missing emails.

All the plaintiffs have said is because we have found no evidence it means that they are better at hiding it then we thought, and there must be millions of people involved in this conspiracy of our brains...


Chuck Repke

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, the fact that e-mails were missing is in itself destruction of evidence. A jury could
Did you read the governments case against Enrons auditor Andersen ?
Part of what plaintiffs attorneys need to do is show evidence that the defendants took evasive action ( deletion of e-mails )in anticipation of litigation which I am sure the city knew was

4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was just wondering about Andy Dawkins, who was at the center of the enforcement issue.

He always struck me as an ultraliberal New York lawyer, with questionable character.

Talking to an ultraliberal, they thought Dawkins betrayed his beliefs and let power go to his head.

What I'm wondering is if Dawkins is still highly regarded by the ultraliberals.

5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 4:22

The city of St Paul did not destroy the evidence in anticipations of ltigation, they did it after the litigation started!

8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thats even worse.

8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You could argue that flushing the toilet during the four years of depositions is the potential of destroying evidence if you follow your logic.

To determine that the believed to be missing emails were evidence the judge needed the plaintiffs to show that some kind of evidence had been found in some of the emails.

That was the only burden on the plaintiffs... show the court that they had found something in the emails that there might be more of in any of the missing emails. But there isn't anything in the emails where there is any suggestion of a conspiracy or any suggestion that the city was trying to assist PHA or anybody else by targeting any particular group of land lords.

You are destroying evidence if there is no evidence.


Chuck Repke

9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets see what logic the jury follows Chuck. Innocent people with nothing to hide do not destroy anything till after the lawsuit is over. Why would they do that? The city is certainly smart enough to iknow that the other side would use it against them, right? They had to destroy it Chuck, they couldn't take a chance on a hot potatoe like that getting out to the public.

10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:41 what was destroyed?

That is what the judge asked the plaintiffs. That is what was the plaintiffs job to answer.

A good answer would be we have these things and it must be more of it. A bad answer is yours and theirs... we have nothing so what ever we don't have must be the evidence we need.

The last thing they were asking for in 2007 was the emails of the head of the HRA in 2002. They didn't ask for it in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 - well its gone. Its not evidence it was deleted in 2005. How in the hell could the City know that they were going to ask for the emails from someone not involved in DSI?

Its not evidence its a joke. No jurry would feel any different. You can not keep everything forever and their is no law that says you need to, and the City isn't responsible to try and guess what someone is going to ask for years later. They say Dawkins should have more emails because we say so. The fact that no one shows any records of sending him emails doesn't count. They imagine it must be true, so it is obviouse that it is missing.


Chuck Repke

11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its time to get past the sanctions part of the case and plaintiffs wont appeal the courts decision not to grant sanctions.
Really, the not awarding of sanctions does little to affect the merits of the case.
The only problem I see is that you have to prove every single element to have a rico action.
That means you need the law and facts to support a claim.
It may be that the plaintiffs have met most if not all of it but really if your lacking in one element, you lose.
Was the motion for summary judgment already heard ?
Usually that is the first thing the court hears when the Government is a defendant.

11:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,..." - John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690

"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." - Henry David Thoreau, A Duty of Civil Disobedience [1849]

"When a man's conscience and the laws clash, it is his conscience that he must follow." - Henry David Thoreau

"It is a just person who disobeys an unjust law." - Plato (427-347 BC)

"Non-cooperation with injustice is a sacred duty." - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

"It is your moral duty and obligation to disobey an unjust law!" - Dr Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.- Suzy Platt, Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (Barnes & Noble, 1993), p. 201

7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just got a copy of Saint Paul PHA's annual report. One would think with the push in the RICO suit that the City was trying to put ALL of the private landlords out of business in order to assist PHA that PHA would be a huge operation. I mean don't you get the impression that like 1/2 (30,000 - 40,000) of the City's rental units would be owned by PHA.

So, here are the numbers for 2007:
Total PHA housing units 4249;
Total section 8 units 4103.

That means PHA itself is paying private landlords to house as many families with section 8 vouchers as it houses in its "empire" (given a 5% vacancy rate).

Sorry, case closed. There is no benefit to PHA from whatever action the City takes on any landlord or group of landlords. PHA isn't big enough to benefit and PHA pays the private sector to house as many people as it houses itself.

Its over.


Chuck Repke

8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its the discriminatory enforcement of code Chuck, your spinning again.

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:24 but to what ends?

That is the point of RICO:

1. someone has to be hurt
2. some group has to conspire to hurt them
3. they have to have done that to help someone else

That is RICO.

It isn't a federal case if it doesn't have those three elements.

So, a small group of landlords claim they were hurt by unfair code enforcement. I'll give you item one they think they were hurt. But after that you don't go anywhere. There is no evidence that there was a conspiracy or any sense that there was a group interested in hurting this group of landlords and there is no one who benefitted.



Chuck Repke

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indiscriminate enforcement of code is indiscriminate enforcement of law.
Its on the books and is illegal Chuck.
I have to split, but I will post the law later.


9:56 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

There Chuck, i am back and here is the law :

City of Minneapolis v. bushette 240 N.W.2d 500 at 502 (Minn 1976).

citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 6 S.CT. 1064 (1886).

Jeff Matiatos

10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1,775 vacant bldgs, growing every day, Where are these displaced familys going? PHA housing?Sec. 8
Vacant Building List 1,775
check the new code compliance report to see if FALSE
Story from Senior hOMOWNER . names deleted to protect the Homeowner, Hamline trailer had a fire, the insurance did not pay as the trailer was not in the mothers name.

The City St.Paul demanded over $2,500 to haul trailer out of property
got a company for $250.00 to haul it out
at the same time the city circulating the alley, knowing trailer hauled away

The city has become Vultures to steal property via code ordinances, Steal
in this case a burned trailer, to part it out, as the motor, shell tires, in good working order?
YOU BET THESE E-MAILS ARE RELEVANT TO PROVE A "pattern" of DSI employees MS609.43 Misconduct

10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff - now you are back to the non-issue that any complaint based enforsement is discriminary enforsement. The only thing the City has to prove to make that go away is to show that it responds to all complaints by sending out an inspector. Sooner or later it does.

And that isn't the RICO case that is in Federal Court. They can claim discriminary enforcement and take the case to district court any time they want.


Chuck Repke

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about the pages of other charges besides rico in that lawsuit Chuck. These guys are suing them for everything except being alive!

11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Chuck for making the point I've been trying to convey to the thick skulls over the last few months.

You've got dick when it comes to evidence of RICO. That's over.

There are two other charges on here:
1. The city has been discriminatory or practiced uneven enforcement.

That's a separate issue than RICO as it doesn't take proof of a conspiracy, just proof of differential treatment.

2. The city is 'stealing' property.

This is easy, you take them to court with the proof of the property being yours and proof it was taken by representatives of the city.

Again, RICO is dead as the St Paul Republican Party. I suspect number 2 above is a bunch a bull. However, there may be one or two of you that can prove number 1.

Problem is, most of the complainers are so scatter brained, they can't focus on one point. Or, they're too lazy to their homework and they hire attorneys who are willing to do whatever to keep the fees coming and your hopes of a windfall alive.


11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck and Eric,

Your comments are not in line with the FACTS that I see, and many other people see.

8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Except the people of Saint Paul, judge and eventually a jury. You know, the ones that count.


10:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home