Custom Search

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Saint Paul RICO UPDATE/ PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT - AMENDED

Part 1. pages 1 thru 3 of 78 pages. Scroll up for part 2 pages 4 thru 35.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

33 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

New here? To bring yourself up to speed on this issue please read the RICO lawsuits against the City of Saint Paul. There is a link on the front page to the right of the screen. Scroll down until you see the "Scales of Justice".

The plaintiffs opposition to summary judgement is 78 pages in length. I will post it in sections over several days under new topic post.

There is over 2000 exhibits. SO, we have a lot to discuss.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT - AMENDED
City of St. Paul, et. al.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 78
2
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs will show the Court that summary judgment as requested by Defendants is improper as there are genuine issues of material fact present in every claim presented in the Complaint.
Prior the Court considering Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs request that the Court consider the facts and issues raised by Plaintiffs in their spoliation motions, and once again consider Plaintiffs’ renewed request that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to destruction of relevant evidence related to defenses raised by Defendants including immunities, and to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs’ submit that there is now even more evidence before the Court of Defendants’ non-disclosures and/or destruction of evidence relevant to claims and defenses herein, including Defendants’ failures to disclose federally mandated “analysis of impediments” (AI) to affordable housing related to Defendants’ affirmative duty to further fair housing (AFFH). In over four years of discovery herein, Defendants have failed to produce, and Plaintiffs have been unable to discover, any evidence that Defendants ever conducted an AI for disclosure to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the public related to whether the “protected class” was adversely impacted by the City’s application of its “heightened code enforcement standard” and illegal policy of removing “grandfathering rights” under the Minnesota State Building Code through “Code Compliance” inspections and certifications applied to older inner-city housing stock disproportionate occupied by “protected class” members. This issue is not to be taken lightly, as falsification of AFFH certifications in return for hundreds of
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 2 of 78
3
millions of dollars in federal funding and spoliation of documents related thereto through destruction of internal documents, including e-data and e-mail communications, have serious implications. Defendants spoliation of written communications, including e-mails and other e-data for the years prior to 2005, has left Plaintiffs, HUD and the public without the key evidence HUD required the City to maintain related to the Defendants’ Fair Housing certifications and obligations. HUD regulations require the City to conduct a full and fair analysis of impediments to fair housing in the City, to identify those impediments, including those based on the City’s legislative code, rules, procedures and practices related to fair housing and “protected classes,” its illegal demands to the private market landlords in the City to meet expensive “code compliance” inspections and its creation of other barriers to fair housing. The City’s illegal “Code Compliance” requirements subverting grandfathering protections for older buildings in violation of the State Building Code, brings into question whether the City falsified its certifications to HUD through material non-disclosures.
INTRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS
Plaintiffs are or were landlords providing housing primarily to low-income, “protected class” tenants in the City and at various times housing under the Federal Section 8 funded program. Plaintiffs owned and managed older rental properties located in the inner-city neighborhoods where older housing stock was common, where poverty was persistent, and where people of color had a critical need for safe and decent affordable housing. See generally Affs. of Plaintiffs attached as Exs. 70-79 to 2nd Engel Aff., and Exs. 140-144 to 2nd ShoemakerAff.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 3 of 78

8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy, where is all the money coming from to pay these attorneys Frank ?

9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I told ya so Repke. Ricomen had the goods all the time. They just set up the city and gave them the chance to destroy it and not produce it and the city takes the worm. Looks like it's not really about every little piece of paper the city can't produce huh buddy? The should be interesting. DOn't be stingy Bob, give the rest of it....we're hungry.

9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, who is coming up with this crap? Is this the best that they have? This is a RICO case for god sakes the City has asked to have the case dismissed and for summary judgment against these guys and if the introduction is what they are going to be showing in the motion this is a bigger joke than anything I have seen so far.

I have not seen the rest of this but what they spell out in the intro is that now the issue isn't RICO it is did the City violate the fair housing act buy not doing an analysis of the impact of closing down the worst houses in the City?

That is so sad and so far out of the rehlm of what any judge is going to see as serious you have to be kidding me.

If there isn't some statistacall analysis coming from the plaintiffs that the city got wealthier and whiter because of these "criminal activities" violating that fair housing act this lawyer has just showed himself to be the worst kind of a shisester because he is stealing money from these plaintiffs.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've been a bad boy Chuck and now the ricomen are going to have give you a spanking.

10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard the money to pay for the attorneys are coming straight out of the city coffers when ricomen win. Should be interesting how the city council explains it to the taxpayers when they could have settled it years ago......but then someone's ego got in the way.

10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Win???

Can you read? They are trying at the last minute to say that the issue is a violation of the fair housing act by not having done a study before they did code enforsement...

OH yup, that sounds like a winner.

Its a joke.

Wait a minute maybe it is a joke Bob is posting a fake motion and he is going to post the real stuff later.

Sad.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah Chuck!!!.....WIN!!!....as in there is no more more money for the non profits like you cause the city is flat ass broke.

Read the sheet man, it sounds like the city violated Fair Housing to me. They took millions of dollars under false pretenses. That sounds like fraud to me. Maybe you call it something else, but us common folks know a scam when we see it.

10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:46 No you boob, what they are trying to say is that somehow there MIGHT have been an impact on fair housing if the city was intending to wipe out a significant number of housing units and if there MIGHT have been an impact then the City should have done a study and since they didn't do a study they MIGHT be in violation of the fair housing act.

So...?

That is no link to anything even if all of the mights were true it has nothing to do with the activities they did in support of public housing or affordable housing that any monies were spent on.

Sorry to get the motion dismissed they just need to show some evidence that they actually have some kind of a case. Some evidence of a conspiracy so that the judge doesn't grant the motion.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke there's so many conspiracies running around I have to have tin foil on my head to keep them all form getting in! You sure have a different way of uderstanding things you read.

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you and Eric have been warned rico isn't the only thing the city should be worried about and now that the cat is out of the bag your talking about this and that------DEFEND IT BIG GUY!!Your hud money is about dried up big shot-------go ahead Bob.Post the rest so Chuck knows his balls are B-B-QUED!



Tim Ciani

1:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are some good inspectors at Dawkins old department.....and then there are some others who are going to be having some problems in the near future as a result of these lawsuits.

6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK Timmy lets see what you have. But, what the intro says you have is a supposition that the City should have done an impact statement before it beefed up code enforcement. There belief is that somehow the judge is going to determine that it is his job to pretend he is the Director of HUD.

Oh, I am sure he sees that as his job...

What is in front of the judge now is a motion to dismiss the case by the City and what these guys are saying is...duh, judge, forget everything we said the case was going to be about and all of those wild things we said were going on and try the case anyway on the basis that the city, maybe, should have done an impact survey before it increased code enforcement...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's just Chuck now. Eric must be busy with the Democrat National Convention.

9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Chuck you are wrong.This is one page of 80.Hold your horses big shot.

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck what do you know?You thought these cases were thrown out.Bob how long before the bread and butter of the case so we can shut this clown up?

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like a hail mary from the plaintiffs.
I am betting their wide receiver will drop the pass !!!!!!!!!!!

10:13 AM  
Anonymous CriminalInterference Fair Housing 42USC3631 said...

Answer to Chuck Repke Federal Criminal Law

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/3631fin.html
Section 3631 of Title 42 makes it unlawful for an individual to use force or threaten to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, any person's housing rights because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights

10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes 10:36 and if anyone did that they should go to prison.

But, trying to get slumlords to clean up their act and to quit abusing the poor and minorities is an entire diferent matter.

As we have seen in Saint paul there are some of these guys who don't care if their tennents go up in flames.

And 9:23 I said I hope there is more, and I suggested the kinds of things I expected to see... like evidence of a conspiracy... but I was kind of thrown for a loop that they were going to pretend they were the head of HUD and claim the judge should keep the case open because the city didn't do a study on the adverse effects of increased housing code enforsement.

I mean it has to be a joke because at the time all of this was going on Kelly was doing his 5,000 new housing uints and ask any landlord out there the number of open rental units was the highest it had been in 20 years.

How can anyone with a straight face say that renters were being adversely effected by the units that were trashed and not repaired being shut down when every apartment building in Saint Paul had 15-20% vacants?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name one Chuck. Which one of these guys doesn't care if their tenants go up in flames. You eluded to the fact bebfore that these guys don't take care of their porperty. Tell us which one. That shouldn't be so hard for you should it?

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck would have us beleive that landlords woulf benefit from renting to slum tenants.

Chuck,your a buisness man so tell me how a landlord stays in buisness by renting to slum tenants ?

Just how, other than not paying rent and busting up the place does a good / smart landlord get driven out of buisness ?

Unless of course you got government
driving you out because it sees dollar signs in fees,abatement fines, certificate fees, inspection fees, court costs, magor renovations that are not justified, and retaliatory measures aimed at driving out landlords who rent to the poor because they have no other place to go.

Maybe these undesireables so the city calls them should move over by you.

12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the oldest trick in the world for citys to do. They do it all the time and gut sued for it all the time and lose all the time. They find some back door way to get rid of the poor people who they classify as troublemakers or some other derrogatory term adn code enforcement has seemed to be the favorite tool around the country to use. This situation is nothing new or unique and I predict St. Paul will wind up like all the others before who have tried this tactic. The only thing I wonder about is how may more lawusits is it going to take before "they get it?"

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:39 - with all of these sue happy people I am going to name one? Buy a clue...

12:49 - Here's the deal on how so many of these have made slum lording work. You buy a property with little or nothing down as an LLC (this was very easy in the easy financing days). You then rent the property out. If you are realy good at being a slum lord you rent it out for cash so that there is no trail for the IRS. You spend nothing to keep it up. Your only cost is the taxes and small mortgage payments. When the City comes after you, you let the property go back to the bank.

Its pretty simple.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So thats how it works right Chuck ?

How many slum lords as you would say, can you name that have been busted doing this.

Why don't you join the IRS and bring conspiracy chages against them.

Seems like you have a double standard in wanting to blame the RICO guys when you can't prove or show that these slumlords as you describe are ripping off the IRS.

Prove it Chuck !

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ever wonder how Chuck knows so much about ripping off the IRS ?

1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or maybe they rent it out for cash because the lower income people don't have checking accounts and it's the only way they have to pay. That segement of society does EVRYTHING IN CASH Chuck, but what the hell .....as long as it fits your spin just go ahead and distort it so it looks like landlords are tax cheats. With all this cash flying around amidst these renters burning in their buildings there's still a paper trail for the IRS Chuck. The rent credit form they get at the end of the year (that they ALL are demanding before they are even due) gets filed with the state, so your paper trail theory is jsut another one of your cons to make people think the situation is soemthing different than what it really is. You also make it seem like there's a lot of money in rental housing. There isn't. The only money to be made is keeping the place in good shape so it appreciates and the owner makes the money at the end when they sell it. For being a realtor Chuck you'r really not very bright about these things.

1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the favorite tactic of the city. Ever notice that these city people can't ever have a conversation about landlords without first prefacing it with some negative BS about the landlord? They do that to make people not like the landlord and in turn that gives the speaker more credibiltiy when they should have no credibility.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have read this piece in its entirety as I know someone in the lawsuits. There's more to come that I think will suprise you Chuck. You can downplay it and dismiss it all you want, but this looks like a "road map" to me for all the people in the city who have had trouble with the city on these same issues to just go pick up a copy of the evidence at the courthouse and start their own lawsuit against the city.

2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also read all of it and can't believe Dawkins was rigging the courts with Judge Mott.I can't believe my eyes.Just think if landlords met with Judge to find an eviction judge that would be hard on tenants to hear their cases.That would add up to corrupt and so does this.This is terrible!



Jim

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Henry said...

FYI Even if you rent for cash, you must claim it as income. You have to provide the tenant with a Certificate of rent paid at the end of the year which they file to get a refund from the state. You would be a fool to try to cheat the IRS, the penalties wouldn't be worth it.

3:51 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

Hey Bob, why don't you post pages 70 - 73 where it addresses the RICO part of the claim. That ought to shut up chuck ! Or are you just going to build up to it?

4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love this stuff someone asks me a question of how being a slumlord works and then I am suppose to prove that these particular guys are slumlords.

Now of course the bigger laugh is to suggest that all of the folks at the bottom of the economic ladder file for tax refunds... oh you children did all just get off of the turnip truck didn't you?

Please Bob, print the rest of the stuff I'm dying to see what it is or someone send a link.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, we have seen the "rigging the courts" stuff before.

Educating the bench as to the public's concerns about problem properties is not rigging the court.

Judges have taken training about dommestic abuse and all sorts of other issues that come in front of them.

Wild accusations are not facts.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

7:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home