Custom Search

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Saint Paul RICO UPDATE/ Plaintiffs file motion to supplement reports.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the motion.
New here? The RICO cases against the City of Saint Paul are linked to the right of the screen under the Scales of Justice.


Blogger Bob said...

There maybe copy errors.

Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
City of St. Paul, et. al.,
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 1 of 10
Sandra Harrilal, et al., and Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., through their undersigned
counsel, submit this Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the
Pretrial Scheduling Order to allow supplementation of expert reports.
On February 11, 2008, Plaintiffs filed and served their motion to amend the Scheduling
Order (see 05-CV-1348, ECF Doc. No. 128, for example) and served and filed their Notice of
Motion for a hearing date of April 4, 2008 (05-CV-1348, ECF Doc. No. 129). Subsequently,
Plaintiffs served and filed their Amended Notice of Motion for a hearing date of April 14,
2008 (05-CV-1348, ECF Doc. No. 131).
Plaintiffs are seeking permission for supplementation of the opinions of their liability
expert, Don Hedquist due to substantial discovery relevant to his opinions that took place
following the Court’s 2006 deadlines for submission of expert reports. Since the Court’s 2006
deadlines for disclosure of expert reports, forty-seven depositions were taken and hundreds of
thousands of pages of documents, including inspection reports and code related documents,
were discovered by Plaintiffs during multiple documents inspections of Defendants’ records.
(Shoemaker Aff. para. 3); (Engel Aff. paras. 6-9, 10-12). Each of the depositions of
Defendants, except former Mayor Kelly, were taken during the time period from November
2006 through March 2007. Additionally, depositions of non-defendant City inspectors and
most of Plaintiffs’ depositions were taken following the expiration of the Court’s 2006
deadlines for submission of expert reports. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 3).
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 2 of 10
During much of 2007, Plaintiffs continued to seek additional documentation from
Defendants that Defendants had failed to produce and continue to refuse to produce.
(Shoemaker Aff. para. 4). Certain documentation was only produced by Defendants after
much delay and long after the deadlines for service of expert reports. (Shoemaker Aff. para.
4). Plaintiffs refer the Court to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (05-CV-1348, ECF Doc. No.
73) and Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Sanctions (05-CV-1348, ECF Doc. No. 132) for the
history of the delays in discovery caused by Defendants.
Documentation produced by Defendants in 2007 included 5,000-6,000 inspection
records for each of the years 2004 through 2006 and many thousands of inspection reports for
2007, all generated by City licensed Truth in Sale of Housing (TISH) inspectors for properties
adjacent to Plaintiffs’ rental properties, rental properties owned by the St. Paul Public Housing
Agency (PHA) and other properties in the City. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 5). The TISH
inspection records for 2001 through 2003 had been destroyed by Defendants during this
litigation and that conduct is subject to Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. Id.
Recently, Defendants finally produced City generated studies concerning TISH
inspection records from 2005 that Plaintiffs believe are relevant to their claims and to Mr.
Hedquist’s opinions. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 6). Those City evaluations showed that 60% of
the homes in the City had serious code deficiencies. Id.
Plaintiffs attempted from 2004 to obtain from Defendants all the documentation
Defendants had in their possession concerning the City’s relationship with PHA. (Shoemaker
Aff. para. 7). During most of 2007, Plaintiffs repeatedly made follow-up requests to
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 3 of 10
Defendants to produce the City/PHA documents. Id. When Defendants continued to refuse to
produce the City/PHA documents, even in face of the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order,
Plaintiffs were forced to seek as many of the City’s documents from PHA. Id.
Recently, Plaintiffs discovered in PHA files a great deal of City documents never
produced to Plaintiffs. Id. These discovery materials are relevant to Mr. Hedquist’s opinions
and would support further opinions by Mr. Hedquist related to the code enforcement issues
presented herein. Id.
Last month, PHA produced certain City documents related to City code enforcement
staff comparisons of City codes against federally mandated minimum housing codes showing
that on most code issues, the City’s codes were more stringent – these documents had not
been produced by Defendants. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 8). Certain companion documents
produced by PHA indicate that the City and PHA (both recipients of hundreds of millions of
dollars of federal housing funds) knew that HUD would not approve the substitution of the
City’s more stringent codes for the federally mandated code because such substitution would
have an adverse affect on affordable housing in the City. These documents, and others not
yet produced, are relevant to Mr. Hedquist’s code enforcement opinions and to Defendants’
continued claims that all of the subject properties of Plaintiffs had code violations and
justified Defendants’ actions against Plaintiffs and other providers of low-income housing.
Plaintiffs also request that the Court set a reasonable deadline for supplementation of
expert opinions related to damages so that those experts’ opinions are supplemented prior to
trial with the latest available financial information related to the Plaintiffs’ damage claims.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 4 of 10
The court ordered deadlines for service of Plaintiffs’ expert reports were all well before
the time period in which the majority of the discovery was conducted in these consolidated
cases, including forty-seven depositions and document production. Expert reports in
Steinhauser, et al. were due on 4-30-06; in Harrilal et al. on 8-31-06; and in Gallagher et al. on
11-30-06 (Pretrial Scheduling Order, page 2, 05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 23). All
expert reports were timely served by Plaintiffs.
The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether good cause exists to amend
a scheduling order. Rainy Lake One Stop, Inc. v. Marigold Foods, Inc., 195 F.3d 430, 437
(8th Cir. 1999).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) provides a limited exception to the deadlines provided in Rule
26(a)(2)(C), requiring that an expert witness supplement his or her report if he or she “learns
that in some material respect the information disclosed is incomplete or incorrect and if the
additional or corrective information has not been made known to the other parties during the
discovery process or in writing.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1). Rule 26 permits supplemental reports
only for the narrow purpose of correcting inaccuracies or adding information that was not
available at the time of the initial report. See Minebea Co. Ltd. v. Papst, 231 F.R.D. 3, 6
(D.D.C., 2005) (citing Keener v. United States, 181 F.R.D. at 640 (D.Mont. 1998) and Coles
v. Perry, 217 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C., 2003) (“Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) does not grant a license to
supplement a previously filed expert report because a party wants to, but instead imposes an
obligation to supplement the report when a party discovers the information it has disclosed is
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 5 of 10
incomplete or incorrect.”)).
Specifically, supplemental reports are permitted under Rule 26(e)(1) only in the
following situations: (1) upon court order; (2) when the party learns that the earlier
information is inaccurate or incomplete; or (3) when answers to discovery requests are
inaccurate or incomplete. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1).
The rule mandating supplementation of an expert’s report seeks to prevent surprise at
trial; the filing of a supplemental report that fully informs the recipient of the anticipated
testimony of the expert will accomplish that very purpose. See Talbert v. Chicago, 236
F.R.D. 415, 419-420 (N.D.Ill., 2006).
Rule 26(e) does not prohibit an expert from supplementing his disclosures based on
information thereafter received from the opposing party.” See Porter v. Hamilton
Beach/Proctor-Silex, Inc., 2003 WL 21946595 (W.D.Tenn., 2003) (defendant was untimely in
some of its discovery responses, and the court reasoned that “this information was no doubt
pertinent to [the] investigation).
Here, Mr. Hedquist’s original expert opinions are “incomplete” due to substantial
discovery materials produced following his submission of his reports in 2006. The additional
information that may be subject to supplementation of Mr. Hedquist’s opinions and further
opinions, has been made known to Defendants during the discovery process as Plaintiffs’
counsel have produced to Defendants’ counsel on a frequent basis during 2006 through March
2008, a copy of all documents scanned from the files of Defendant City and PHA.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs seek a ruling of the Court allowing Mr. Hedquist to supplement
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 6 of 10
his report, to modify his opinions and add opinions as he deems appropriate in light of the
additional discovery materials provided to him.
Statement Required by District of Minnesota Local Rule 16.3
District of Minnesota Local Rule 16.3 requires “a statement describing: (1) What
discovery remains to be completed; (2) What discovery has been completed; (3) Why all
discovery has not been completed; and (4) How long it will take to complete discovery.” D.
Minn. L.R. 16.3.
Discovery Remaining
Plaintiffs’ counsel will continue to conduct their review of the database consisting of
approximately 79 gigabytes of unredacted electronic information (e-data) for redaction by
Defendants’ counsel. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 9).
Defendants produced email data on December 10, 2007 and subsequently on January 9,
2008. Plaintiffs in their renewed motion for sanctions are seeking additional discovery related
to Defendants’ non-production and destruction of certain e-data; this may result in further
subpoenas, document requests, depositions and other discovery. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 9).
Discovery Completed
There have been 49 depositions of the parties, other City employees, PHA officials and
employees and certain third parties, and hundreds of thousands of documents exchanged
between the parties. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 10).
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 7 of 10
In addition, approximately 79 gigabytes of unredacted electronic information has been
produced by Defendants’ counsel, much of it for time periods from 2006 and 2007, outside
the main relevancy time periods of 1999 through 2005. Id.
Why Discovery Has Not Been Completed
The history surrounding the delays in the discovery process in these cases is discussed
in detail in Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Sanctions (05-CV-1348, ECF Doc. No. 73) and
Plaintiffs Joint Renewed Motion for Sanctions (05-CV-1348, ECF Doc. No. 132).
Length of Time to Complete Discovery
Plaintiffs request a reasonable amount of time for Plaintiffs’ liability expert to review
the discovery materials obtained since the 2006 expert report filing deadlines and the
discovery materials that may be produced as a result of Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for
sanctions. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 11).
Because most of the discovery in these cases was conducted after the expert reports
were due under the scheduling order in 2006, that information was not available at the time of
the initial reports, and Defendants’ responses to many of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests were
untimely and incomplete, Plaintiffs request the Court’s permission to file a supplemental
expert report of Don Hedquist in each of these cases.
Such an Order by the Court, will allow Mr. Hedquist to take into account all the
discovery materials produced since issuance of his reports in 2006, including 47 deposition
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 205 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 8 of 10
transcripts and other relevant documentation Plaintiffs have obtained from Defendants since
the 2006 deadlines.
The additional discovery materials produced in these cases since the 2006 deadlines are
relevant to the liability opinions of Mr. Hedquist that he submitted in his initial reports and
these discovery materials would lend further support to his stated opinions and as well as
support for additional opinions.
Plaintiffs request that the Court provide a reasonable period of time for Mr. Hedquist to
prepare any supplementation of his original reports.
Plaintiffs also request that the Court set a reasonable deadline for supplementation of
expert opinions related to damages so that those expert opinions are up to date prior to trial.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 31, 2008 By: s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al

9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One can appreciate that the plaintiffs are justified and deserving of any evidence and discovery thats out there, but its starting to appear that plaintiffs
case is not forming the way they had hoped. Don't the plaintiffs attorneys know what the claims are that they need a so called expert to read E-mails and tell the attorneys what there is left if anything ? As far as I can see, the plaintiffs attorneys are milking this and I wonder if this Mr.Hedquist can offer anything other than an opion which would herdly be persuasive to a jury let alone a Judge.

Good luck.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder when the City is going to wise up and start thinking settlement, rather than to let all this evidence become public. The more people find out about this, the more lawsuits there will be. GET out your checkbook St. Paul and try to save the taxpayers from bankrupting the City.

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hell, they just raised our taxes, but don't think the money is going for public services, its going to be used to defend these lawsuits.
You better hunker down because I see no end in sight.
Plaintiffs better start a legal fund raiser because the citys legal cofers just go replenished
thanks to increased taxes.

1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with 12:52, I don't see where there would be problem with their expert witness commenting on the paper work that was found in discovery, but its just going to be an opinion of what the data meant.

If you read that through what Plaintiffs are suggesting is that because the section 8 evaluators don't do as extensive of an inspection as the city code inspectors do that somehow enforcing the code violates federal housing standards... that's pretty weird.

Also, they want this guy to comment on the fact that the TISH reports on almost all properties in Saint Paul show some code violations and that the City getting a copy of a TISH didn't stimulate them to do a code enforsement action on all of those properties.

It is interesting. The arguements of the attornies is not unlike the arguements here. The TISH reports are a great example.

The City requires them to be done so that a new buyer gets an outside opinion of how a piece of property looks. The City does not pay for the report, contract out the person who does the report, or stand behind the report or even have anyone read the report. All the City does is license the person who does them and ask for a copy to be sent to them to protect the seller, since it is requiring them to make them, it gets a copy so that the seller can say, yes I did do it.

So, the City argues that to them the reports are only to help home owners and it doesn't keep the copies for any length of time. It argued that the plaintiff should go get copies from the people who wrote them and not even ask the City for them in discovery. The City says they are meaningless.

So, the plaintiffs after all of that are saying the City when they get the TISH should read them and send an inspector to check on violations and that since they don't they were picking on the landlords by inspecting their property.

Get it? Something that the City has already said they don't read, don't stand behind is now going to be evidence that the City treated those properties diferently.

The case is no case...


Chuck Repke

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Chuck, I haven't engaged you personally on this issue of the RICO mens claims, I have alot of experience in civil litigation as a self learned seasoned pro-se litigant with many hours in District Court and in the filing of pleadings.

I have studied this immunity issue and their is obviously signifigant
merit to the RICO mens suit.

The city could have disposed of their action years ago on summary judgment but they have not been able to.

Can you tell me why ?

I dont think you can but you could try.

The Minnesota Statute on Racketeering is premised on the Federal Statutes and if what the RICO man are alleging can withstand summary judgment, the city would appeal until they cannot no more and will be forced to cut their losses and make a deal.

The depositions and other evidence
already in the handa of the plaintiffs appears to implicate Magner and others in a civil conspiracy tort at a minimum.

I would say that orders from the mayor to Dawkins, then to code enforcement officials to selectivly target certain landlords is a civil conspiracy at least,as well as indiscriminate enforcement of laws and is probably a RICO action.

In my opinion, you are more incorrect in you analysis of the RICO actions than you are right because you refuse to accept that the people you advocate for can do no wrong.

Jeff Matiatos

3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Jeff, for it to be Federal RICO someone has to benefit from the action that hurt someone else.

The plaintiffs arguement is somehow PHA, a sperate agency not run by the City, benefitted by these selected landlords not being able to rent their properties.

It is pretty insane.

To this point all they have shown is that all of the employees in the City have the potential of talking to each other (that is a conspiracy?); That when a problem gets a lot of complaints the various offices try to communicate with each other (that is a conspiracy?); and that after 4 or 5 YEARS of getting extentions and extentions that finally the City as a group says, enough is enough and quits giving extentions and then at that point the land owner can appeal to the courts, who agree with the City (and so they too must be a part of the conspiracy).

But there is still nothing that says how anyone benefits. PHA having a longer waiting list is some kind of a freaking benefit that all of these City employees would join into a conspiracy to have happen? Even with that as the premiss if everyone was trying to make life easier for PHA don't you think someone would have said it out loud in the last eight years or in an email? There is no evidence that anyone wanted to do what is the heart and sole of their case.

It is a huge waste of City money and that is the entire point of the case.


Chuck Repke

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Based upon what I read here, and that includes Bobs posting of the actual complaints in the courts, the crux of the claims are directed at City Officials, who as the RICO men say, conspired to ruin their buisness through selective enforcement of certain landlords and cause them financial ruin.

If someone selectivly targeted your property to fulfill a hidden agenda other than the routine enforcement of city laws, then yes, I see something seriousley wrong with that.

The RICO mens damages ( correct me if I am wrong ) are that the selective enforcement causing the plaintiffs financil ruin due to
code enforcements discriminatory enforcement of citations that were unjust, compared to PHA not getting the same scrutiny is evidence of the overall scheme to
break the landlords.

I still am not sure how the PHA gains financially but it did ruin the landlords as it was intended to do as I read it.

Jeff Matiatos

3:51 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

I would like to add this Chuck.

You ask how the city would benifit from the tortious crimminal conduct
alleged ?

An example is this, Say you were my neighbor and for whatever reason, say something as simple as that I didnt like you affiliation with the DFL, I wanted to get you out of my neighborhood so I burned your house down and I did.

I have acomplished my objective at least for the moment.

Say I got caught doing it because there were witnesses, or that I e-mailed the city that I burned Chucks house down with no explanation, only I know why I did it.

I was brought into court and found guilty based on the E-Mails admitting that I did it.

I was convicted and I didnt even say a word.

I benifited by getting you out of the neighborhood, right ?

Even if only for a short time .

The authoritys that convicted me didnt have to present a motive in court to convict me.

They had my e-mail confession to the city.

The RICO mens damages can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and their damages are presumed to flow from the kind of
claims we are talking about here.

Its about damages to the plaintiffs, not what someone else had to gain because the citys motives are irrelevant to a large extent.

Jeff Matiatos

4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think your going to be suprised Chuck. From what I have heard personally from one of these guys is that they have more than enough aces to prove their case. The city playing games with the discovery process just makes it worse.

4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would appear to me that the city has one set of stnadards for the landlords property and another set of standards for the city's property. Given the fact that almost everyone in the city knows that Kathy Lantry has somne type of vendetta going on concerning landlords, I'm suprised you don't recognize the unequal application of law aplied toward these plaintiffs Chuck. Maybe the benifet is just something as simple as political leaders getting re-elected year after year and keeping their jobs.

4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will say this, if their intent was to stay employed at the expence of landlords, than
what do you think they have planned for us every day citizens ?

All these council members are doing is extending their current places in Government by prolonging this suit till their terms are up and they can collect their pensions.

Then, they will hand this slop over to the next group who will settle out of court and not get scrutinized because it wasnt their administration.

Just like Bush is doing by passing the Iraq war off to the next president.

Bush knows its wrong but he can save face by blaming the failure on the democrats who will win election and get us out of this war for the most part.

5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is the cities choice whether to settle this matter with the RICO plaintiffs, not the attorney representing the city.It comes down to the city council or governing body making this choice and it is they who know will have to answer for why St.Paul citizens are going to pay out the ass.
Just take it all RICO men !!!!

You deserve it.

5:11 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me see if I got this right… HUD refused to comply with city codes. That tells me one of two things: 1) HUD operates sub-standard housing. 2) St. Paul’s housing standards are unreasonably high.

I have always struggled to understand the RICO portion of this case, but this is significant. St. Paul sets unreasonably high standards for the private market, but not for PHA – an organization they control.

Why set unreasonably high standards for the private market? Why didn’t PHA’s board (St. Paul city council) insist public housing comply with the higher standard?

Bill Cullen.

7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't agree with you 5:05. The council members are not going to "hand this slop" over to the next bunch. This council will be in office as long as they want to be with only 15% of the city showing up for elections. And on another point, this "slop" was handed over to them when a new adminstraion took over the city after Kelly left. They had the chance to settle these lawsuits then, which by the way was only one they have 4! In fact they had the chance to settle the matter before a lawsuit was even filed, but they refused to sit down and talk to the plaintiffs. Anyways, they could have settled it a long time time ago and just blamed it on Kelly and Dawkins. Kathy Lantry will not allow these lawsuits to be settled because it's personal for her. As long as she's at the wheel, the city will delay, appeal, destroy evidence or whatever else they have to do to delay the inevietable.....which is accept responsibility for their failed and illegal policies. Whoever is reelected in the future will do the same because that's the nature of politics.....none of them want to be responsible for anything but shifting the blame somewhere else and delaying and lying when they can't.

8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing is for certain. The crap flows downhill, and the inspectors are as far downhill as it gets.

I expect that when things get tight for the city's high muck-a-mucks, they will 'discover' improper behavior by the inspectors, and use them as scapegoats.

The inspectors are in the crosshairs of the plaintiffs legal actions, and they will also be blamed by the higher ups in the city. Not a good place to be. They should run, and not walk, to the plaintiffs attorneys and cut a deal for themselves now.

8:40 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:28 PM  
Anonymous 5:05 said...

8:07, 5:05 here letting you know that your comment trumps mine.
I agree with you.


10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK two points first Bill's and then Jeff's.

Bill PHA isn't avoiding the City code they have to comply like anyone else. What the land lords are arguing is since the section 8 inspections (that they do on you) aren't as stringent as the City code inspections that somehow that means the City is trying to not allow for low income housing. They are saying whatever standard that PHA does to inspect your appartment is as much as the City should be allowed to do.

They also say that since PHA isn't getting their buildings condemned it must mean that the City isn't inspecting them not that they are in good shape or get repaired. They offer no evidence other than that it must be true.

Jeff's points... Why are these selected landlords being targeted and who benefits?

The only thing these landlords have in common is property in bad repair.

Roughly half of the City's residents are rentals. You would have to be crazy to think that the City was trying to empty half of the residents in the City and there is no evidence to show that was occuring. In fact we have seen many examples here where the City came down hard on owner occupied units. So... we are still missing a motive.

So, the City wasn't out to get all landlords just these landlords. Why would that be, lets see what do they have in common. They have multiple code violations, they frequently get police calls, they get extention after extention and don't improve the conditions. Well it couldn't be any of those reasons because that would mean that the City was doing its job.


Chuck Repke

11:00 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck don't speak so soon.You haven't seen nothing when it comes to evidence.You say 1/2 the city is rental,right?How much is occuppied by low income?Thats the amount they wanted to put out of business.Not all,just low income high police call tenants.What about the innocent?That is why tish reports are so important.It shows a snapshot of all housing in Saint Paul at a given moment.WAKE UP!!

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Jeff matiatos said...

Chuck, you keep saying that the city needs a motive ?

They are holier than thou and dont need one. They believe that what they do is just a part of running the city to their liking no matter whos toes they step on.

As I explained to you before in my example, and dont worry, I dont smoke let alone play with matches so I wont be burning your house down but like I said, you can get caught redhanded commiting a crime and so long as you have a credible witness, a confession, or video, you have got your conviction.

They have St.Paul Officials conspiring to target selected landlords and thats all they need.

Unless you can point to a manual describing just how code enforcement should be conducting its inspections to the letter, the duties appear to be discriminatory as coming down from the mayor.

What does the mayor know about enforceing building codes ?

Not a dam thing, he has never been out to do it himself but then why is he giving Magner orders to Dawkins to tell Magner to run em out ?

If their was a manual on performing these inspections I dont see one.

The next headline Bob has posted talks about just how the code is enforced and by who.

Doesnt talk about a manual, just that certain people are delegated to those duties any dam way they choose.

Jeff Matiatos

12:23 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

What I meant to say that it was the mayor giving Dawkins orders to magner to enforce the code.

Jeff Matiatos

12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The elected public officials get to manage the City that is what you elect them to do. It is a part of their job to manage the people underneith them.

Kelly appoints Dawkins, Dawkins supervises Magner.

It is not a conspiracy to have an employee get instructions from their boss.

Do you realize how insane your arguements are?

The employers and manager are not allowed to instruct the employee or that is some kind of a conspiracy?



Chuck Repke

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Jeff matiatos said...

Chuck, I can accept what you are saying about Mayor Kelly, Dawkins, and Magner reporting up the chain, but that doesn't mean I agree with what appears to be orders that were handed down to Magner to enforce a discriminatory form of code compliance.

You simply cannot argue away this fact .

Whether or not these orders, and them being carried out is a matter for the courts to decide whether it constitutes a RICO action.

As I said before, us bloggers here only know a fraction of what the RICO attorneys have that have yet to be revealed.

There is alot more to this than just what occured from Mayor Kelly down the chain.

The case is probably more circumstancial than anything but the standard of proof is starting to come together and no one here can say either way what the court will do.

Expect either side to appeal until
right to the very end.

Jeff Matiatos.

9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff any of the "orders" are all in the form of telling the employee to no longer give any extentions. To quit allowing someone to violate the code and to force the case to the public hearing process with the City Council.

That is where this arguement from the plaintiffs falls apart. The consequence of any of the City's actions is to bring the case to the City Council public hearing and to DAY LIGHT.

The actions in this conspiracy all end at bringing the situation to light. Putting it on the City Council agenda allowing the issue to be appealed to district court.

How can there be a conspiracy to bring daylight?

Again there is no merrit to the case.


Chuck Repke

10:14 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

That fact that it is still in the courts says somthing doesnt it that there is merit considering that most Governmrnt entities have immunity, and in some cases depending what your rank is as a Government employee, you can escape even the most agregious types of conduct.

I understand the landlords have recourse through the administrative appeal of code issues, but that forum lacks juridiction to hear the kinds of claims plaintiffs are making and the appeal forum for code issues is no doughbt, influenced by the council and Mayors office which has an interest in the outcome.

Answer me this question.

Do you know what the requesites are that give rise to a RICO action ?

A summary Judgement would have resolved this issue by now and it hasnt for either side so the case goes on and until its over, their IS a case.

Jeff Matiatos

10:39 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home