Custom Search

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Saint Paul/ UPDATE Fair Housing Lawsuits

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM
BEFORE JUDGES WOLLMAN, BYE, MELLOY

09-1209 MN Thomas Gallagher, et al. v. Steve Magner, et al.

09-1528 MN Frank Steinhauser, et al. v. City of St. Paul, et al.

09-1579 MN Sandra Harribal, et al. v. Steve Magner, et al.

More on this at the COMMENT page.

116 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

I will be there! I encourage others to join us.

For those of you new to the town hall the fair housing lawsuit complaints are linked under the "Scales of Justice" on the front page of the town hall.

A personal invitation to this hearing goes out to the city council, the mayor, Chuck and Eric. :)


THE ADDRESS IS

316 North Robert Street
100 Federal Building
St. Paul, MN 55101

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm coming! I've been waiting for a long time to see these guys kick the city's ass.

12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

City boys gonna get their due!

3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plaintiffs wasted their money!

5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, there have been multiple hearings on this case already and I am losing track about what issue is before the court now. Can you elaborate on where we are now and what will be considered this time.

Thanks.

6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where they are is wether or not the Judge made the right decision in not allowing them to go to trial. More specfically as to if the city can destroy evidence and then go to court and get the case dismissed because the other side doesn't have the evidence that the city destroyed in the 1st place. I also thought I remembered something about the enforcing laws aginst those guys that were never on the books as a law and some malicious criminal prosecutions against them. That's a good start!

7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real trial of the city employees' character is already over and they will rot in hell.

At least they will get to go where it's warm.

7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More specfically as to if the city can destroy evidence and then go to court and get the case dismissed because the other side doesn't have the evidence that the city destroyed in the 1st place.


I can hardly pick myself up off the floor. lol

9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep laughing fool

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, those are the 8th District Appeal judges, so, they have pressed on to determine if the court errored when they dismissed the cases.

The best that can't happen to the plaintiffs here is a determination that the court errored in the dismissal and order a trial. The worst is that the appeal court agrees with the judge. If that happens its all over. I can't imagine the Supremes ever taking a dismissal issue, so when this is done you have a trial or it is all over.

The burden in an appeal is on the plaintiffs to show how the court made a mistake. They have to actually prove that there was evidence they have it and the court some how dismissed it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like your getting smarter Repke. Will we see you at the court hearing?

12:36 AM  
Anonymous Don Jueneman had it coming said...

The plaintiffs will probably lose here. Which means the next time, the good guys have to PROVE that the city's scumbags destroyed the evidence.

Do you know what the real shame is? The New York Police wasted a perfectly good toilet plunger reaming out Abner Louima's ass. It's too bad they couldn't jam it up Steve Magners. He deserves it.

8:00 AM  
Anonymous Shoemaker Law Firm said...

Shoemaker Fim Great Lawyers Read Qualifications

8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL... not to question one's qualifications for greatness, and as you all know, I am not a lawyer, but if the most significant case you can list on your resume is one that you are currently losing... it doesn't strike me as that you have a lot to brag about.

He lists this case on his resume.

This is what is making him a star.

He took a case to Federal Court with no evidence and has been chastised by the bench for the lack of any substance to the tonnage of paper.... and then had the case dismissed.

He has now successfully convinced his clients to pay him to go on with their futile effort.

At least he is a good salesman.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck (I could at least list one case I won) Repke

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These inspectors have one thing in their favor, Satan even has a restraining order against them so they don't have to worry about rotting in hell!~

9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He took a case to Federal Court with no evidence and has been chastised by the bench for the lack of any substance to the tonnage of paper.... and then had the case dismissed."

The Judge pulled a political stunt like so many of them do and you know it Chuck. I don't think the Appeals Court will see it the same way as they often do not.

"Lack of substance?" For a city to be prosecuting people under laws that do not exist sounds like some substance to me. As far as I know they admitted destroying emails and records and that may have been to their detriment. They rigged a court in their favor and they came after people with criminal shit as retaliation for suing them. That's just what I can remember off the top of my head. If an Appeals Court gives approval to this kind of behavior then we are all in trouble.

11:34 AM  
Anonymous Ein Brockovich said...

Repke: Great Lawyers do not have to brag, Are you Jealous or insecure with your Lawyer Girlfriend Gloria Bogen
Shoemaker Firm cannot be bought or sold out for their clients.
Hey Public Policy ie: Trust at least their is a public record.
Hey Erin Bockivich is still around wonder if she ever got a law degree?

http://www.brockovich.com/bio.htm

11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Attorney listed a lot of other things on his website Repke and that's what makes him a star. Unlike you at least he works for a living and doesn't hide behind some non profit BS. He works for a living.

11:41 AM  
Anonymous 8th Cir said...

Cite for 8th Circuit
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/index.html

11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They rigged a court in their favor and they came after people with criminal shit as retaliation for suing them. That's just what I can remember off the top of my head.

They who? The city, rigged a federal court? Are you so stupid and ignorant that you don't realize how monumental this would be? Historical and impossible.

Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States. Most of these judges are from Reagan and Bush.

This lawyer is not at the top of his game or was ever one of the best. Looking back on the top 100 attorneys over the last eleven years, his name is missing. He's a trial lawyer, nothing great, nothing scandalous.

However, our city attorney has been recently recognized as one of the best in the country.

However, his name does appear over and over connected with Ron Paul. That explains a lot.


Eric

12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was the country court that they rigged in advance of railroading all kinds of property owners through it. That's a fact clear as day. You have not been paying much attention here have you? But that is probably OK with you as the ends justifies the means with democrats.

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go get them Frankie. I'm so proud of you!

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You keep telling us what you believe to be the case. I keep asking you how. How did the city rig the federal court that threw this out and how did they rig the county courts?

Tell us how the judicial cannons were openly violated.

See, what you've done here is exactly what has happened in court. You all show up with a bunch of accusations and when given the opportunity to prove your accusations, you got nothing. You can't. So you throw out more accusations like- the city destroyed the pertinent information nine years before most of the accusations took place.

Walk through the steps of how this was rigged, and you'll have your answer.

You're still not understanding what the burden is here. You have to prove procedural error on the Judge's behalf. She dismissed you because you had no evidence. Even if you produce evidence (which is impossible)- its too late. The judge made the right call on the evidence (lack of) presented and the ruling will be upheld.

Unless you have some proof of the court being 'rigged'.

I've already wasted time listening in on the case in court. I'm done and soon it will be over and you all can complain about all the courts being rigged and the whole world being against you.


Eric

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what everyone is talking Eric. You also know we are right in our assertions. Just because we don't remember all the facts and do not want to take the time to research them again does not mean they do not exist. We all sat here day after day when this stuff was presented in the form of statements, depositions, and affadavids and a person would have to be blind to not see it. As to the court thing, I remember that it was in a deopsition that it came out that the city went to the court and set up their little scheme against property owners and then went back again with attornies and cops to instruct the judge as to what they wanted when they came to court. I would love to see you on the wrong side of a situation like this. You would be screaming the race card from here to China about how crooked things are but since it happened to someone else you do not give a rats ass about it.

3:57 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Don Jueneman had it coming said...

My response;

Nobody deserves to be murdered, and statements like this do not support our objectives.

5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How were the courts rigged?
How are the courts rigged?

No need to waste space insulting me, I'm not looking in my mailbox for Christmas cards from any of you. Just answer that question and you've moved this beyond people like Chuck and myself- and 99.9% of the rest of the world that's asking how did the city of St Paul rig the county, state and federal court systems. Or, you can STFU.

Oh, I don't 'play' a race card. If I call it out, you can bet your chickenshit anonymous ass that it is as I called it, with proof.

Speaking of proof, tell us how the City of St Paul rigged the county, state and federal court system.


Eric

6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try reading Dakins Deposition and you'll know all you need to about it.

6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way....until you can educated with the real facts instead of spewing your BS here maybe you should be the to STFU

6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who'd believe you Eric? You're part of the "Machine" here locally. I wouldn't trust you for the time of day!

6:40 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

Any case of this magnitude is not won in the lower courts. A good example was Morris vs. Sax. which went to the Supreme Court. Also, the plaintiff's have plenty of evidence even though they lack that which was destroyed. The plaintiff's will win in the end and that's what counts.

6:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whole system is a very sensitive subject with me. As many of you know I have had my fair share of issues with the city of St. Paul. Yes much of it was brought on by my own poor choices in life...but, that does not justify the way the situation was handled by several of the officials that as a citizen we should be able to depend upon as being as law abiding themselves.

I refuse to allow myself to argue this issue with Mr. Repke because he can not see outside of the box. I can more then see outside of the box due to hands on experience. I would never wish some of my experiences with a selected few of the city officials on anyone. The treatment, pressure, and threats were not professional and fit the misconduct statue of an official very well, proving it is another thing. Its my word against the world basically...and with my past my word is nothing.

The good news is I am alive, have all my children back, drug-free for almost 6 years, received my bachelors degree with honors in criminal justice and plan on continuing my education by attending St. Cloud U of M this upcoming fall, I have a good business going doing property management in the mean time and an example of great of public relations is the call I received last week from the Anoka County Sheriffs Dept as a courtesy call to compliment the work I have done with the apartments and the residents. It felt really good to not only hear positive feedback to know they respect me even with my past.

Knowing what I know from my own experience with some of the St.Paul officials, I pray they at least get reprimanded and are required to face the consequences for their actions like the average citizen would.I do know that there is too much mishandling of cases not only within the city of St. Paul but many cities, my ultimate goal in life would be to become educated enough to make a difference. My case through CPS was a great example of abuse and lies of someone that should be trusted, I was fortunate enough to have collected my evidence so when I approached the court of appeals I was able to overturn the case go back to the district court ultimately winning my case leaving the CPS worker to be investigated and take early retirement. I could not fight both the city and CPS and my children were my priority!

I hope somehow the truth prevails and some of these officials are held accountable for their actions.

Sorry for the long post!
Nancy O.

7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric I am not calling anyone out but through my studies and from speaking with several professors that either are or were in law enforcement I have learned that it is not uncommon for law enforcement officers to work together with the three main areas of the justice system and their subsystems to get their favorable outcome of a situation. I had questioned that a lot during my studies due to my own personal experience which I did not disclose to my professors so I felt the answers I would be receiving would be very honest ones. I do not want to get in-depth on a blog over the situation but I find the information to be very disturbing in a system that is suppose to guarantee the accused their right under our constitution. It is very hard to dispute your case when officials have worked together and have selected the outcome for you in advance as an additional consequence for not doing as they requested or ordered.

I know with your profession Eric you have seen the same... I just have a very difficult time understanding how some officials can continue to get away with this form of misconduct.

Nancy O.

7:36 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

It has been a while since I read the details of the case so my memory is fuzzy. But I still struggle with the dismissal just on the fact that St. Paul clearly destroyed evidence – I am speaking of the emails. If the federal court is willing to dismiss a case due to lack of evidence when it is clear the defendant destroyed evidence, they are setting a very dangerous precedent. We should all want people who destroy evidence to be held accountable at least for that action!

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When inspectors think they are above the law, and force their agendas on people with arrogance and impunity, it's got to stop, for everyone's good.

Like many people, I have been abusively treated by the city staff. I think it costs the city in a lot more and bigger ways than they could possibly imagine.

Like many people, I've had to move on due to financial restrictions, as I'm sure the inspectors and city council members expect. But it still costs and people will never forget.

Thank you Frank, Bob and the rest of the wonderful people who stand up to it.

8:08 PM  
Anonymous Amanda said...

But I still struggle with the dismissal just on the fact that St. Paul clearly destroyed evidence – I am speaking of the emails.

Nothing was destroyed intentional Bill. Our city, all city's, purge files on a schedule. I believe Saint Paul purges the city's files every 3 years.

9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, what the judge said on the evidence issue is that the Supreme court has ruled in the past that for a court to determine that evidence has been destroyed, you have to have some other evidence...

So, if these guys had even one email that suggested there was some kind a criminal conspiracy, then the missing emails could potentially be "destroying evidence," but they have no evidence, no emails, no letters, no witnesses to a criminal conspiracy. So, the courts have ruled in the past in other cases that you can not declare that because we have no evidence all of the missing stuff must be the evidence we weren't able to find.

So, there is no destruction of evidence if you don't have at least one other piece of evidence.

That isn't going to go anywhere.

Remember they have tons of paper and not one thing that the judge found to be evidence of what they were accusing the City of.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ya haven't paid attention too much have ya Chuckie? There's tons of evidence and the emails do not have to contain evidence. The only definition they have to meet is of having a limited use value to the other side which they would have had. On top of that, the email was asked for in the lanldords discovery request. Are you people freaking nuts or what that you think a city or any defendant can fall back on some bogus document retention policy to do an end run around the rules of discovery in a lawsuit? The city had a clear duty to preserve them and they did not. They also had a clear duty to notify the other side that they were going to destroy them and give the other side an opportunity to look at them. They didn't do that either and in the end they are probably going to pay for it dearly. Plus I haven't even begun on the inspection reports they destroyed after requests were made to give them up. People like you and Eric seem to just have no knowedge.....even a bisic knowledge of how the court system and rules of discovery work, or how they are supposed to work in and honest and fair court.

10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:13 - well then the judges don't get it either... what happened was that the emails were asked for and a shit load of other stuff the court process dragged on until the judge ruled that the city had to produce them. The City then produced 4 years worth and the court said they had to go back and produce 4 years prior to when the stuff was requested. The court said that eventhough the City didn't think the judge would allow the insane amount of data requested that the city should have saved all of it anyway. The City then had to hire someone to recreate the info off of the city's hard drive like the cops do... and it cost the city a ton and they got tons and tons of emails but not every email.

What the judge says that for the missing emails to be considered destroyed evidence you have to have found some other evidence. There has been nothing shown by the plaintiffs that shows anyone conspiring to do anything. No RICO at all, no Fair housing violations at all... Everyone one of the plaintiffs admit to code violations and everyone had the ability to take their case through the state system and did not.

There is no Federal Crime in not storing data... there just isn't... and the courts have ruled in the past that you can not say that I have no evidence but if I had the one box that I have never seen then I would have the evidence I need to win the case.

Can you show me the email, or letter or testimony where anyone discussed anything that could remotely considered RICO?

It doesn't exist and that is why the case is dead.

It doesn't matter that your side asked for enough stuff that ultimately the city doesn't have all of it. You first have to actually have some real evidence that the crime occured to win on any distruction of evidence issue.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Chuck,

I have always struggled with – what appears to me – as a wet noodle approach to this lawsuit. It ranges from conspiracies to rogue employees to RICO to discrimination. You, Eric and others have pointed out multiple times how the allegations conflict with one another and seem to always ask which crime did the city commit? Fair questions, I think.

I don’t know what drives St. Paul’s actions, so I cannot talk about the cities goals. But, the implementation is rather clear:

St. Paul did target landlords using “problem properties lists”, but could never say how one got on the list or off it. It seemed to have a horrible political tone to it. The city even had a stated policy of “forced sale.” Whoa!

St. Paul did use tenant behavior as justification for targeted, stepped up code enforcement – which has a racist tone to it. And St. Paul had more sweeps and aggressive code enforcement in neighborhoods that are predominately poor and black. This seems to have a clear disparate impact to it.

There is evidence the city gives special treatment to those well connected to the elected officials. I have witnessed cases where I could not stop a building from being demolished, but other, also private investors, could. That is incredibly powerful! Imagine the negotiations one could have… “Sell me the building or the city will bulldoze it….”

Some of this is ripe for abuse. But turning it into a court case is hard work and, as you point out, requires evidence.

I find it incredibly frustrating that a government agency – whom we should hold to a higher standard than the private sector -- has intentionally destroyed information. I don’t care if the agency is controlled by the DFL or GOP, allowing them to destroy information solely so they cannot be publicly scrutinized is a big problem. We should all be upset.

Bill Cullen.

11:17 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Someone help me here... I recall some of the council members have almost no e-mails for years... Is that right?

That isn't losing a few emails and producing most. That is an intent to obstruct.

Is my memory wrong? Anyone have the exact number of e-mails?

11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke your as dumb as the day is long although I suspect you're not really that dumb. You're just as devious and evil as the city. You know damn well what you're talking about is bull Shit. From what I remember seeing in the archives here is that the city only produced emails and inspection records from 2005 foreward. They were sued in 2004 and in the year 2004 they were told by attornies to produce emails for some years previous to the 2004 request. They dragged it on to 2007 and then revealed that they had destroyed them and fell back on your lame excuse that they were just following their normal policy of document keeping. It wasn't right then, it's not right now and never will be and no appeals court anywhere is going to say so and create precedent for everyone that gets sued to start doing it. What the hell's a matter with you? How about you Eric? You proudly boast about your being a Human Rights Commissioner right? How about if a case came before you and the other side destroyed all communications and other records for the period of time in question? Even though they had asked for by the opposing Attornies? Do you think we're so stupid here that you'd just go along with that because the guy destroying the records just came up with some bogus excuse that they had a policy? You're both nuts! I'm suprised either one of you can figure out how to get through the day and I haven't even touched on the fact that the city didn't have the authority to require these stupid code compliances. Get it Dumb bells? There was no law but the city invented one and went after people with it with the full cooperation of the crooked court they went to to get approval before they did it. Since niether of you obviously did so well in school, here's a tip for you. In America when the government goes after people and prosecutes them with bogus laws that don't exist and rigged court that's a civil rights violation. It's criminal and it's a Federal issue and they have every right to go to Federal Court.

1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Cullen said,
There is evidence the city gives special treatment to those well connected to the elected officials.

The link below is a code enforcement officer caught getting special treatment

http://ademocracy.blogspot.com/2008/07/michaels-bar-1179-e-7th-st-is-there.html

This link is a story of City councilman Dave Thune receiving special treatment.

http://ademocracy.blogspot.com/2006/12/blogger-that-rocked-city-tim-ciani.html

Bobby's archives are difficult to research, however, I was able to "ferret trinkets of gold" with very little effort. The magistrate is either a idiot or bias.

6:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy O.
Eric I am not calling anyone out but through my studies and from speaking with several professors that either are or were in law enforcement I have learned that it is not uncommon for law enforcement officers to work together with the three main areas of the justice system and their subsystems to get their favorable outcome of a situation.

You're right. We see it every week on Law and Order. Cops work with the prosecutors and attorneys but not the judges. Swiftee had one piece of advice out of the foul misguided mouth of his that was golden: The cops are not your friends. Their job is to see their arrest through. They work with those who are trying to put you in jail or fine you.

Nancy, I tend to fight with people on here because I think most of them who are uneducated in government or politics tend to buy into the conspiratorial side of things easily and believe it as strong as they believe in anything. So when folks like me come around and question the beliefs, they rally this 'kill the messenger' fervor. They make the Salem Witch Trials look sane.

I have never defended corrupt individuals. I can honestly say that I have been harder on elected officials and public employees who are found to be corrupt than I am on your run of the mill criminal. Its the whole public service thing. If you can't serve the public well, there are plenty of private sector jobs for you.

I've been clear that I absolutely believe there are some questionable characters who work for the city. As there are in any big organization and its the responsibility of that organization to handle their problems. I'm sure there are some in DSI, as there have been discovered in the police department, fire department, parks and rec and public works. Oh, and on this A-Democracy board.

Where we have our disagreement is that this is conspiracy city wide and multiple administrations. It doesn't add up to logic.

So, the main question is how. How did the city manage to corrupt the courts at the county, state and federal level?

Those are historic charges that go beyond a corrupt group in a department. No other major city in the history of our country has had that power. The courts have always been there at some level to right the wrongs from the little city halls up to the White House. Now, some of you are trying to say that the city of St Paul has undue influence over those courts.

I don't buy it.


Eric

10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Who'd believe you Eric? You're part of the "Machine" here locally. I wouldn't trust you for the time of day!
6:40 PM


There is a machine here?
Most of the city jobs are civil service jobs- that's the political machine killer.

Its a waste fo time taking you on but, how am I part of the machine? I don't work for or in St Paul or profit off of the city.

Eric

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Cullen:
St. Paul did use tenant behavior as justification for targeted, stepped up code enforcement – which has a racist tone to it. And St. Paul had more sweeps and aggressive code enforcement in neighborhoods that are predominately poor and black. This seems to have a clear disparate impact to it.

Ding. Ding. Ding.
That's a fact. One that I have questioned the city about- on record, as well as several community organizations. To be honest, I'm not comfortable with it. Reality is, its the poorer neighborhoods with the housing problems and some external crime issues. That's not racist.

It would be racist to leave it at that and if you have evidence that that's the only criteria in the target, then you do have a discrimination case. A very good one.

However, what we discover is that each one of these landlords have multiple violations on property that they rent to the poor and minorities. We see that some of these landlords willingly rent subpar units because they were able to do it in the past or someone down the street did- though its against ordinance. We see that these properties with multiple violations and questionable fitness for human habitation are routinely rented to poor and minority renters.

That's not kosher.


Eric

10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We see that these properties with multiple violations and questionable fitness for human habitation are routinely rented to poor and minority renters.

That's not kosher.


Eric

Eric would have these poor and minority renters homes coded to the max. After the renovations the home is no longer affordable housing.

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about you Eric? You proudly boast about your being a Human Rights Commissioner right? How about if a case came before you and the other side destroyed all communications and other records for the period of time in question? Even though they had asked for by the opposing Attornies? Do you think we're so stupid here that you'd just go along with that because the guy destroying the records just came up with some bogus excuse that they had a policy?

First it was the Civil Rights Commission.

Next, if evidence is destroyed after it was acknowledged there will be a hearing or case or filing for a case then, yes, somebody's ass is going to be in a sling getting whacked.

However, if the purging of evidence happened as part of a broader policy on retention procedures, then you look elsewhere for evidence. Which is what happened here.

Usually, if there is criminal activity, there are other pieces of evidence and history left around.


Eric

11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric would have these poor and minority renters homes coded to the max. After the renovations the home is no longer affordable housing.

10:47 AM


Fallacy. I don't condone coding to the 'max'. I support minimum standards. Minimum standards that still allow the housing to be affordable for lower income families.

It's not a max, its a minimum I seek. At minimum, you shouldn't have to live in sub-human conditions and if you think its OK just because they are poor, then you should not be in the residential rental business.


Eric

11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bill Cullen said,
There is evidence the city gives special treatment to those well connected to the elected officials."

Hell what about Counciman Thune's house? Remember the photos from a long time ago and the newspaper story. The place should have been torn down.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"However, what we discover is that each one of these landlords have multiple violations on property that they rent to the poor and minorities."

SO WHAT? Your point would be what again? Every house in the city has some violations. What you fail to understand is that the city went in there and lied about more serious violation that didn't exist so they could condemn the place thus using that as a springboard to require their illegal code compliance scam. That's a fact and they admitted it and you're a fool.

12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's try the notion of what "evidence" is. If you have a thousand emails between Council member Harris and his wife talking about what he is going to bring home for dinner over the last ten years he has been on the council that isn't "evidence" in a bank robbery case. So, if when they recreated all of these emails off of the city hard drive and they have thousands of them, if 6 emails from Pat to his wife were not retrievable that does not mean those were the emails where they were discussing robbing a bank.

What you miss Bill and others that think that the court should find that the city destroyed evidence is that the courts say you have to have evidence of your case before the court will believe that some document that was destroyed is evidence.

What you have is thousands of emails from every council member, the mayor, Magner and on and on and on and in all of them not one email where someone said something about conspiring to put someone out of business to the advantage of someone else.... no RICO. So, the court says before the court will believe that something is missing is evidence you have to have evidence that something has occurred.

Folks, you have to have a Federal crime for the Federal court to do anything to the City. The two things that the city has been charged with is RICO (conspiring to take something from someone to financially benefit someone else) and violations of Federal Fair Housing (treating people of color differently or discriminating against them).

There has been nothing in anything that anyone has shown in the years that this blog has existed to say that anyone ever got anything of value from anyone's loss and nothing that would suggest that if some rouge employee stole something or threaten someone that it was ever approved by anyone else in the City... No RICO.

Bill brings up the notion of someone threaten someone should sell, the Nancy O situation. Other then Nancy there is noone in all of these thousands of cases that says that occurred to them. If Nancy's occurred as she suggests that is a bad thing, but if it is the only one, or even if there were one a year, it would not be a conspiracy with City involvement. Nancy's suggestion is that it was between one employee and a friend of his. Not even between two employees, and if there was a conspiracy after all of this time wouldn't we have other examples? No RICO.

On the Fair Housing case every piece of evidence has shown that the City has been trying to force landlords to fix buildings, to bring them up to code to the advantage of the residents. The City fights for the people in the units... the suits are from landlords that don't want to make the repairs. No FFH violations.

No evidence of any of those things... so any missing paper is not missing evidence, just missing paper.

...and yes Bill the one place they had few emails was the Ward 7 office. Plenty of emails from the rest of the wards but few from Kathy.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and as to the some people get breaks and others don't, that isn't a Federal crime, unless there is a discrimination pattern.

Every case where a condemnation occurs can be appealed to state court. That process exists to protect the land owner.

It is impossible to inspect every house in the city all on the same day. The insanity of the whiners on the list is they say, "how come you wrote my house up and not his?"

Because life is a bitch.

Because someone complained.

Been there, done that. I have been written up for stuff I thought was chicken shit too. So?

It isn't a Federal crime. You had the right to appeal.

You called in the complaints on Thune and the inspectors wrote him up and embarrassed him publicly. You got your pound of flesh from the one council member who has never signed off on a demo without giving the owner multiple extensions. You went after your best friend on the Council and proved that the system would bite him too. Brilliant.

Again, what is the Federal offence?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nancy's suggestion is that it was between one employee and a friend of his. Not even between two employees, and if there was a conspiracy after all of this time wouldn't we have other examples? No RICO.
"

Were there not many people who signed attements saying the same thing happened to them as what happened to Nancy?

How about the Deposition where the friend of your "certain employee" said he built a new house for the "certain employees" dad for a rediculously low price? Isn't this the same friend that seems to be a big buyer of these vacant properties? Smells fishy to me.

1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i remmeber the deal with Nancy very well and it was more than 1 employee. There was a Code inspector and a cop involved and then the friend of the code inspector shows up with a purchase agreement. There was also another buyer who was threatened by someone not to buy Nancy's house. And then lets not forget the Watchdog newspaper.. I seem to remember the contractor who tore the place down being over there loading building materials into his truck. And by the way, what about the garage? There was no order to tear down the garage , just the house. It was a new garage so why did they tear it down. Meanwhile the house next door looked like it was in a 3rd world country and it remained standing. If I am remembering right and Nancy can correct me if I am wrong but I thought the cop told the inspector to make it so she could never repair the house. He was mad cause Nancy wouldn't give him information about someone. This DOES NOT sound to me like the agenda is to get the house repaired.

2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Nancy's suggestion is that it was between one employee and a friend of his."

It was not a suggestion it was an accusation. One that was backed up with a signed affidavit from Nancy and also signed affidavits from other people who do not know each other who were making the same accusation.

2:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you fail to understand is that the city went in there and lied about more serious violation that didn't exist so they could condemn the place thus using that as a springboard to require their illegal code compliance scam. That's a fact and they admitted it and you're a fool.

So, the conspiracy you propose is that the city approached all of these properties and DID find some violations but LIED about the bigger violation? Over and over? Again, no proof of the lie, just the word of mouth of a landlord who worked hard to do nothing?

You also called it 'illegal' and a 'scam'. Its ordinances passed by the elected lawmakers and upheld by the courts- its legal.

You support people who take government checks and hard earned hourly wage paychecks from tenants to house them in sub par units. That's a scam.


Who's the fool again?


Eric

2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I almost forgot, please show us all where the city admitted to trumping up violations as you clearly state.

Seems to me, if that happened the judge would have the evidence she needed, that was missing from the millions of emails.

Eric

2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"
You also called it 'illegal' and a 'scam'. Its ordinances passed by the elected lawmakers and upheld by the courts- its legal. "

Sorry Eric but there was never any law that allowed the city to require code compliances. All they were legally allowed to enforce was the city chapter 34 code on housing. Again that's a fact and your rantings are just more bull shit. Stop embarrassing yourslef.

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:48 Said: "Sorry Eric but there was never any law that allowed the city to require code compliances. All they were legally allowed to enforce was the city chapter 34 code on housing. Again that's a fact"

Do you even realize how insane that statement is? Of course the City's ordinances are allowed to be enforced. All cities have policing power of the ordinances that they write and cities of the first class are asigned to enforce the state fire and building code by agreement with the state.

Again those are just the facts..

If what you were saying was true district court would through out all of the cases against home owners....

...and again NOT A FEDERAL CASE...

No RICO. No FFH actions..

INSANE...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the point Chuck.....the city never had an ordinance that allowed them to require a "code compliance." They didn't pass it and put it into law until after the landlords sued them. They should have just stuck with thier chapter 34 housing code but instead they thought they would take a walk on the wild side and look at what it got them. Looks to me like they took that walk with the wrong people.

12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:39 there is a STATE building code that the City has had the power to enforce since at least 1975 if not longer. The City has since it was founded had the ability to police properties for anything that they view as a health violation...and property owners have the right to appeal in state court. These don't require special ordinances. They are part of a City's charter when formed by the state of Minnesota.

Even if all you said were true... none of that would be a Federal Case. They would be STATE issues. You have two issues in Federal Court - RICO and Fair Housing.

The only thing ever alleged that even resembles RICO is that Magner encouraged Nancy to sell to someone that he had a relationship with, and she did not sell to him. She sold it to someone else who after 3 more years of fooling around and numerous extensions never got the building brought up to code. ...and then of course there is the missing sheet of plywood. If you think that Mayor Kelly was in a conspiracy with Steve Magner to allow a piece of plywood to be stolen...well, then, there is no hope for you.

The main thrust of the RICO case was the idea that somehow the city was going after private landlords to benefit the PHA... which is not a city entity, has a huge waiting list and would cost the City tons in property taxes if it owned all of the rental property. That insanity did eventually go away.

There is no RICO.

As to the FFH issues there has been nothing in anything that was discovered or shown to the court as "evidence" that the City was trying to make it harder for people of color to own rental property or to rent rental property. The City in every case was shown to have tried to make landlords repair property and to keep communities safe.

It is never against the FHA to require property to be kept up to code as long as there is one code that is the same for rental as ownership, and as long as the enforcement of the code is for the betterment of the residents living in the buildings. The fact that the City participates in TRA's and encourages tenants to organize in problem buildings shows that the City's interests are in protecting tenants.

Sorry, no Fair Housing case...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is it in the interest of the tenant to require such burdensome repairs that the new cost of renting the building after the repairs makes the property not affordable for people?

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see Chuck and Eric are working overtime on this one. . . . . But isn't verbology a lot like garbology?

4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there is no RICO Act here Chuck, you and Eric are sure wasting your time,
you two are trying to convince us otherwise.
Why is that?
Are these two men on the take along with St.Paul City Government.
Are you.

11:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again:

1. How did the city 'rig' the courts?

2. Who forces the landlord to raise the rent for making standard repairs? The same person that told them to rent a non-livable unit to the poor or minorities (their own greed).

3. In five years, and millions of documents, why haven't these guys been able to submit one iota of proof behind their claim?

4. Do any of you know that this upcoming hearing has nothing to do with any of your previous claims? You dolts have to prove that the court erred in procedures.

You can't even explain the case on here or cite one line of proof behind the claims. You say all of your proof is tied up in some missing emails though, it was a forensic technician who retrieved the emails, even most of the erased or purged ones. Yet, no evidence. Not one scrap of paper, voice mail, written report.

You got nothing close to RICO or any federal violations.

What do you have?

Weak insults for those who question the sanity of this.

Lots of accusations based on nothing.

A demonstrated level of ignorance of your own government that should be alarming, yet the gall to not only explain complex legal proceedings but, profess to know the motive and malice behind individuals they've never met or laid eyes on.

The proof for the case has never been brought out anywhere. Court or here.


Its a massive joke.


Eric

12:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there is no RICO Act here Chuck, you and Eric are sure wasting your time,
you two are trying to convince us otherwise.
Why is that?
Are these two men on the take along with St.Paul City Government.
Are you.
11:30 PM


There is no RICO, that was established in last court hearing.

I'm here being entertained. Funny to watch you all scramble when your accusations are challenged.

How is the city on the take? That doesn't make sense?

I don't work for the city. I don't work in the city. I don't work or contract with anyone who is working with or for the city.

If you are aware of how we get on the take, let me know. Sounds like a good deal.


Eric

12:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There were lots of documents out of those millions to prove their claims Chuck. You'll see! Just keep spinning. You will have a lot of crow to eat at the end.

1:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

³Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.²

Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.

6:51 AM  
Anonymous CEO Nacchio said...

Chuck sure is writing alot of False and misleading info.
Repeat the lies often enough , you believe the Lies.

The RICO law suit may get a Grand Jury Look at the CEO of Qwest Joe Nacchio Click here: JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal judge denies new trial for ex-Qwest CEO Nacchio

Insider Trading AntiTrust Has Has the MN Courts used a form of Case Fixing by insider "Court File" against the public, primiarily non_licensed_lawyers, City St. Paul via "Ordinance" are GUILTY of "Insider Ordinance Case Fixing"

creating yet again Heinous Antitrust in these City Ordinances
creating criminals of the Public without Probable Case

7:19 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

How many times can we debate the same thing? Isn't this the 4th or 5th time?

Eric: "each one of these landlords have multiple violations on property that they rent to the poor and minorities."

As we have said many times, every property will fail St. Paul housing code. So why does St. Paul focus on neighborhoods and houses for minorities?

Because it isn't about code violations -- that is a tool to harass. Andy Dawkins repeatedly said that a problem property is one with BOTH code violations AND occupant behavior problems. So, the real reason for the focus on areas with a high concentration of people of color is because the tenant behavior is believed to be a problem.

I don't know about you, but a nebulous "occupant behavior" sounds sorta racist.

I am still amazed anyone would defend destroying evidence after a court case has been filed. A "document retention policy" is a bad reason. That same failed argument is part of what wiped Andersen Consulting off this planet. Click on my name above to read the Andersen Consulting CEO making basically the same argument. Good luck with that one....

I don't know if the plaintiffs have the evidence or the legal presentation to win in a court of law. But, it is clear to me their arguments have merit.

Bill Cullen.

8:37 PM  
Anonymous Bill Dahn said...

Bill Cullen. 8:37 PM
I don't know if the plaintiffs have the evidence or the legal presentation to win in a court of law. But, it is clear to me their arguments have merit.

Bill Cullem comment is right on.
Anytime any branch of the Government conceals the truth or destroy's evidence they are breaking the standards that people fought for after we parted from England.
Now we just as will give this county to China or Russia, our county is not a free nation anymore.
These local dictator run America and every city within.
Bill Dahn

5:37 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I don't know if the plaintiffs have the evidence or the legal presentation to win in a court of law. But, it is clear to me their arguments have merit.

Bill Cullen

My response;
I agree Bill. However, it is not uncommon for criminals to discover they are under investigation and destroy evidence which makes it impossible to prosecute them. Dirty politics has dominated these fair housing lawsuits so far.

On the other hand I have known of cases where citizens have been convicted of murder solely on circumstantial evidence. There sure is a lot of circumstantial evidence in these fair housing lawsuits.

I have been a proponent of educating the public on housing issue's and the disparities between landlord and tenants rights. I have had some support from many of you although it hasn't been enough to effect an election or educate property investors in masses which would enable us to seek change.

I have been watching the lower rung of private rental property disappear from the market in Saint Paul taking away a viable opportunity for those who are trying to climb the economic ladder.

I am astounded at the lack of support from property investors to seek change. I talk to investor frequently and most have no idea there is fair housing lawsuits against the city. That is how effective we have been at getting the word out to gain support.

It is possible these lawsuits will eventually be settle out of court. IF so, it will be business as usual in the city of Saint Paul and you investors can watch the final demise of a good part of your business in the city.

We have determined people supporting our objectives. Maybe someday investors who haven't put their money where their mouth is will do so. Then change will come through the voices heard at the polling booths.

8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had to repost your comment Eric. I was editing my comment when you responded to it. Bob

So, the real reason for the focus on areas with a high concentration of people of color is because the tenant behavior is believed to be a problem.
I don't know about you, but a nebulous "occupant behavior" sounds sorta racist.

No Bill.
See, in order to believe that, you must start with the position that concentrations of people of color equal bad tenant behavior. That's racist/classicist.

You know what else is racist/classicist? Thinking that people who live in these areas (like our favorite bigot, Froggy) don't deserve to be as safe as people who live on the other side of town.

You know what else is racist/classicist? Assuming that poor and minorities don't deserve roofs that don't leak, plumbing that works, hot water and heat just because they are poor. That's racist and classicist.

That's what we're talking about. Not some bad paint job or window shades that don't match. Real safety and health issues. I've taken Frank's testimony several times and highlighted his own admissions in court on the condition of his property with the plumbing, rats and garbage. Kelly Brisson is another who knew he couldn't afford to make the repairs and rented the unit anyway to man in a wheelchair.

Did these people deserve to live above squalor?

Obviously, the majority on here thinks yes. The city has higher standards and I support those. If you can't make money off decent units, then learn to run a bar or something else. The rental business is not for you.

Folk's if the plaintiffs lose this round in court, it will not be over!
-
It appears it will be unless you got some inside track to the world court over at the Hague.


Eric

9:11 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I said;
Folk's if the plaintiffs lose this round in court, it will not be over!
-
Eric said;
It appears it will be unless you got some inside track to the world court over at the Hague.


Eric

My response;
I really do not understand the federal court procedures, although I was told this could be taken to another level of the supreme court.

Eric, if these plaintiffs, citizens, and other property investors who are concerned about these issue haven't felt vindicated, maybe then they will give me and the Watchdog newspaper the money to tell their story to the public in a very big way. SO regardless, this maybe far from over.

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"
You know what else is racist/classicist? Assuming that poor and minorities don't deserve roofs that don't leak, plumbing that works, hot water and heat just because they are poor. That's racist and classicist."

Eric you are the only one who believes the above BS. You keep saying it and eberyone including your self knows it's not true.

I also know Steinhauser and he didn't have the conditions you speak of. Why don't you post the parts you have highlighted since your familiar with it so much. While you are at it also post the part where the inspector admitted that there were no rats in the apartment. Maybe you could also post the part about the Birsson where the city inspected the unit reight before he rented to the guy in the wheel chiar and said it was OK or perhaps you could talk about the Deposition of the poor wheelchair guy who said there was nothing wrong with his appartment.

There is no one living in squalor Eric and the only one who advocates for that is you because it makes your buddies at the city who hire you for election campaigns look like they did no wrong.

You are a liar and fulll of shit and everyone here knows it. Go peddle your Bullshit somewwhere else. You're worse than the image you portray of the landlords.

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's different Bob.
Sounds like a route I suggested early on. If you get the people behind you, you can win a number of ways. Winning elections and changing ordinances would be one way.

However, exposing this cause to a bigger audience will not fair well for the landlords. People just don't care for property owners who don't take care of their property. Some of these guys are the face of the problem many see in their neighborhoods. Code Enforcement is driven by calls and complaints.

If you really want to do something educational to the masses, let's talk about a real live town hall forum. A panel, three on each side, discussing the pros and cons of code enforcement. We'll invite the press and run it on the cable access channel.

I'm game if you are. We don't have to talk about details of this particular suit, as its still pending but, there are many case studies around town that we debate.

You and I can host it. Sorry Chuck, but you'll be one of the panelist for sure.

How about it?

Eric

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical Democrat......don't want to talk about the details. What are you going to talk about? Your constant state of denial about the truth?

9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:48
I don't run campaigns for city offices. I don't make money off the city. Kelly Brisson was sued by the wheelchair guy. The inspection showed the place needed work BEFORE it could be inhabited.

Bob has the whole record right on the blog. Go and read it for yourself. If I post it, then you'll say there's more to the story that he didn't talk about on the record in court. According to the records of the courts, Steinhauser is a slumlord and Brisson as well.

I'm only taking this from THEIR own testimony. You're trying to play semantics and nobody gives a shit about that. These two rented out units that were filthy, nasty and not in complete working condition. You landlords try to act like you were cited only for doorknobs not having locks and plastic over the windows instead of curtains.

Pffft!

Eric

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical Democrat......don't want to talk about the details. What are you going to talk about? Your constant state of denial about the truth?
9:58 AM


No dumbass. I just know peons like you are too stupid to realize that you could jeopardize your own case if your out blabbing about while its pending. That's why these landlords post here anonymously and have others write in with half-truths.

See, like a typical Democrat, I have to be sure that you are given a fair shake rather i agree with you or not.

You, like a typical ignoramous, must be protect from your own stupidity.

I can do this all day.


Eric

10:04 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said;
That's different Bob.
Sounds like a route I suggested early on. If you get the people behind you, you can win a number of ways. Winning elections and changing ordinances would be one way.

My response;
After 4 years I'm surprised you didn't know my position Eric. From the beginning privately and publicly I have suggested we take our fight to the public in a big way. I have personally put my money where my mouth is and attempted to educate the public anyway I could.

Eric said;
However, exposing this cause to a bigger audience will not fair well for the landlords.

My response;
Every time I have gone to a neighborhood meeting. (Including the meeting Lee Helgen invited us to) citizens were outraged upon hearing our story. We weren't jeered by citizens from the meeting as you once claimed would happen. The only ones jeering us were city officials attempting to drown out our voices.

Eric said;
People just don't care for property owners who don't take care of their property. Some of these guys are the face of the problem many see in their neighborhoods. Code Enforcement is driven by calls and complaints.

My response;
Most the complaints at issue were from folks who did not like their neighbors and had nothing to do with property up keep. 3 or more calls to the city and DSI goes ahead with Dawkins policy of "code to the max" to rid the neighborhood of the tenants who are being complained about.

What this issue is really about is the city's inability to deal with crime issues.

One hypothetical example- 15 year old Johnny is selling dope. He lives with his mom and other siblings who have nothing to do with Johnny's illegal activity. The neighbors complain of Johnny's suspicious activity and Johnny's families home gets a visit from code inspectors that result in the condemnation of their home. Now Johnny and his family are homeless and most often move down the block or to another part of the city where Johnny continues his illegal activity and the cycle of condemnation starts all over again. The city looks like a hero to citizens not once but several times for condemning Johnny and his family out of the neighborhood.

Public cable TV is a lame duck. However, I would like to explore an alternative venue for your suggestion. It's a great idea.

11:09 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

The example I gave above is a very small part of a very complex issue, but to add to the example Saint Paul is the only city in the U.S. that has a housing code inspector tag along on a raid. Is this to insure our suspected criminals in the city live in safe housing? NO, that is ludicrous, the intent is clear!

Our city is working to de-concentrate poverty within the inner city. That is good! But what isn't good is how they are going about it. It has lead to violations of civil rights of renters, private home owners, and property investors who rent to the poor. Unfortunately removing the lowest rung of rental properties as Andy Dawkins suggested has lead to gentrification of our neighborhoods too.

If you find this discussion interesting and would like to learn more I encourage you to read the RICO and fair housing lawsuits linked on the front page. Also, read the link I pasted below.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/winter_metropolitanpolicy_orfield.aspx

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Restructuring local government said...

My previous pasted link doesn't work. This one does. Link above

Bob

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Not In My Back Yard said...

Another interesting link above

The NIMBY REPORT

Bob

1:07 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Eric 9:11 said: “in order to believe that, you must start with the position that concentrations of people of color equal bad tenant behavior. That's racist/classicist.”

Can we all agree on the following truths:

1) A problem property, as defined by St. Paul, has BOTH code enforcement and occupant behavior problems.

2) Every property in St. Paul has code violations. Everyone.

3) Code Enforcement spends more time in neighborhoods with a high concentration of people of color.

The difference cannot be code violations – every house has them. The difference must be that code enforcement doesn’t like the behavior of people of color. Otherwise how can they possibly justify the disparate impact?

I am only pointing out what I believe are truths of St Paul’s actions; that is not racist/classicist. However, it is racist/classicist for St. Paul to DO this.

If you disagree, then you tell us... Why does St. Paul code enforcement focus on neighborhoods with mostly people of color? It CANNOT be code violations; all St. Paul houses have code violations.

Bill Cullen.

5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am only pointing out what I believe are truths of St Paul’s actions; that is not racist/classicist. However, it is racist/classicist for St. Paul to DO this"

It's also racist/classsist to do nothing about it when it is drawn to the attention of the city. There's been so many things pointed out to them and they did nothing. No investigation, no questions,no change of policy, not a freaking thing! Even when all the people signed affidavits concerning some inspectors trying to shake them down for their real estate they did nothing. Doing nothing when you be be doing something at least minimally means you know about it and you approve of it. Lots of luck winning this one. The city's actions were discriminatory, they had a disparate impact and they were intentional.

10:43 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A09-244
David J. T. Miller, Appellant, vs. Linda J. Lankow, et al., Respondents, DCI, Inc., Defendant, Donnelly Brothers, Respondent, Total Service Company, Respondent, and Linda J. Lankow, et al., third party plaintiffs, Respondents, vs. Burnet Realty, Inc. d/b/a Coldwell Banker Burnet, et al., third party defendants, Respondents.
Filed December 22, 2009
Affirmed; motion denied.
Stauber, Judge
Dissenting, Klaphake, Judge
Wright County District Court
File No. 86CV079479

S Y L L A B U S
To avoid sanctions for spoliation of evidence, a party must provide advance notice of any action that would lead to destruction of evidence and afford a reasonable amount of time from the date of the notice to inspect and preserve the evidence.

11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But Chuck will say it wasn't evidence because the landlords have not shown that. In Chucks world the guy getting sued gets to determine what is evidence and what is not before they turn it over to the other side.

8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's up Chuck? Cat got your tounge? Looks like your theory about the city destroying stuff doesn't quite meet with the approval of some Judges.

4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a new concept that Chuck and the city are working on Klepto-Inspections. It removes all uncertainty by turning inspeectors into gods.

7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My knees hurt so bad now from bowing down to Chris Coleman and his gang of thieves that run St.Paul.

7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

S Y L L A B U S
To avoid sanctions for spoliation of evidence, a party must provide advance notice of any action that would lead to destruction of evidence and afford a reasonable amount of time from the date of the notice to inspect and preserve the evidence.

11:25 PM

the plaintiffs did not request emails prior to the scheduled disposal.

10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you are a fucking liar! I know 2 of the landlords suing the city and I have seen the documents from 2004 that demanded the city turn them over. You are a liar.

4:32 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Plaintiffs Sanctioned for Failure to Produce Electronic Files in Hedge Fund Suit

"The court's opinion reinforces what it stated in the Zubulake case, that it is no longer an excuse to say 'Well, until I get a subpoena or a document request, I was destroying stuff in the ordinary course of business,'" Lauer said. "Counsel and the parties have an absolute obligation to take affirmative steps to ensure the litigation hold and the preservation of data is, in fact, maintained. You can't just pay lip service. It's cynical and insincere to hide behind ordinary document destruction programs."

7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Chuck does this mean your buddies at the city are cynical?

7:58 PM  
Blogger Sharon 4Anderson said...

Wish I could delete a typo post, However Where was the MN Attorney General when Constitutionality of Statutes were in litigation?

9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you are a fucking liar! I know 2 of the landlords suing the city and I have seen the documents from 2004 that demanded the city turn them over. You are a liar.
---------------------

Nothing from 2004 has been destroyed. Nothing at all. Its emails that go back few years. They hold on to them for a few years and then regularly purge them.

You got a copy or evidence number from the court on that document you saw? I bet you'll say no.

The judge said your side has not produced anything to indicate there are missing emails that hold some evidence of RICO, or any wrongdoing.

How can you argue with that except to say the judge is corrupt?

10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was on vacation for a week and didn't bring along my lap top...

As to the destruction of evidence, we have gone through this before. What the courts have said is that there is a burden on the accuser to show that there is the potential that missing paper/emails/documents are "evidence" before the courts will rule that the destroyer of "evidence" destroyed actual "evidence."

The difference between the Anderson case Bill sites and this case is that in the Anderson case what is being destroyed are purchase and sales documents, ledgers, real information. The court may not know if there was anything bad in there but it knows that the information was relevant and therefore "evidence."

What was destroyed by the city were emails that come in to and from all employees. These are dumped on a regular basis. It is not unlike throwing out mail that has been read. When I worked for the City and you sent me a letter, I would read it, if it was important I might call you or write you back but ultimately throw it away. Do you really think that the City should keep every piece of paper that is mailed to it?

As an aide to a council member, I must have gotten more than 100 emails a day. Most of it was garbage. I would delete them after I read them, but the City's hard drive would hold on to them for 4 years before they would be dumped.

What these guys are saying is that even though they have never seen one email, or one letter that ever suggested that there was ever a RICO case or a Fair Housing case, that the letters, I threw away or the emails that were deleted may have been "evidence" of that and therefore the plaintiff should get some money because the City threw out their trash.

Most of the emails that were "destroyed" by the hard drive dump were recreated at great expense to the City and there was NOTHING found in any of those emails. What the court says is that before they would ever give the plaintiff anything, it would first have to show some evidence somewhere and they have none.

In the Anderson case, there was a case without the missing paper and the paper would speak to the case. Get it? Here you have no case, so the court will not buy that you would have a case if you had the missing emails.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there's been several court decisions that disagree with your position Chuck and soon there will another one against the city that says the same thing.

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Rondo Group CCLawsuit said...

CHECK CIY AGENDA TODAY 20JAN10
TO SEE WHAT ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE BUSINESS ON UNIVERSITY AVE Black groups sue over Central Corridor - TwinCities.comJan 19, 2010 ... Black groups sue over Central Corridor ... African-American Rondo community filed a federal lawsuit in Minneapolis today accusing federal ... The lawsuit alleges the Metropolitan Council, which is planning to build the roughly $1 ... iPods and educational applications have Minnesota students giddy. ...
www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_14223716

5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RONDO GROUP
The plaintiffs contend that “the LRT project is designed to result in the displacement of the existing population along the Central Corridor through gentrification.”

10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is! St. Paul wants the African American class out of town and they have several different ways of getting to those ends.

2:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck
What does the laws say about destroying "evidence?
Bill Dahn

7:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, what evidence? It has not been shown there was any evidence in the emails.

10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill

As I have said it is a crime to destroy evidence. It is not a crime to empty your waste paper basket. It is not a crime to throw out your old newspaper and it is not a crime to delete a spam email.

Try this Bill, what if today, I accuse you of shooting your mother. And, since I can't find the gun, you must have thrown it out and I demand that the cops charge you with destruction of evidence. You have recently taken out the trash haven't you? Yes...? Well therefore you must have thrown the gun out with the trash. Case closed. According to you guys that is that. I have accused you of a crime, I have offered no proof, you have admitted to taking out the trash, I claim that means that the evidence of the crime must be in the trash, I have no proof, but I expect the court to charge you with destruction of evidence.

Now the fact that no one shot your mother ought to be worth something don't you think? Shouldn't I at least have to show that your mom was shot before the cops arrest you for destroying evidence?

That is what we have here. The plaintiffs have no case, no evidence that a crime was committed, but because the City threw out the trash they want to court to believe they threw out the gun.

The courts will never buy it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill's head just exploded.

12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bill, what evidence? It has not been shown there was any evidence in the emails."

THEY DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED ANY EVIDENCE YOU FOOL.

1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"THEY DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED ANY EVIDENCE YOU FOOL."

Then the emails cannot be considered evidence no more than a pair of sock that are missing - you fool.

1:55 PM  
Anonymous Aychoeun Tea v. City St.Paul said...

Reponse to Repke: WedJan10 Council Agenda Item 46 Demo 263 Sherburne Owner Aychoeun Tea v. City St.Paul St.Paul is now charging 26 thous demo the building Item 46 on the Agenda 263 Sherburne Watch the Video
Click here: FindACase™ | Tea v. City of St. Paul Nancy another Appellate Case Demo 263 Sherburne

http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=2128 Item 46 When you have time NOw the City is charging $26 thous to demo Some one has to estopp the City St.Paul from these Bizzare"takings"

http://www.stpaul.gov/ can't drag and drop Video laid over to next week City Attorney Gerald Henderickson stated "We cannot sue ourselves"
Repke even THUNE is concerned asking the City Attorney to help TEA, The Citys Tax Base is Eroded with Empty Lots, If Magner is still driving Red Truck he sits outside like an Idiot at 697 Surrey. John Choi thinks he wants to be County Attorney with the MESS OF VACANT BUILDINGS NO WAY

3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharon this is what the court said: "While we can understand the position that Tea found herself in, she has no claim against the city, which followed the law to guarantee procedural due process to the property‟s known interested parties."

They aren't takings, they are abatements. The land is still there. The only thing that can be "taken" is real property. Nuisances are abated.

As to Thune's response, I have been telling you guys for years that he is the only vote you have on the City Council... the fact that he is a liberal on other issues and has taken smokes out of the bars ticks you all off so much that you don't notice that he is the one that actually votes to not demo properties on a regular basis.

But then again, nobody ever said this group paid much attention to facts...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Tea v. CitySt.Paul 27thousAssessment said...

Please take time to view the video
City Attorney Gerald Henderickson stated We cannot sue ourselves.
Another Heinous Example of the City Confiscating Property destroyng our Commerce but our Health as Well. Thank God the Landlords are suing for the Protection of the Public, Affiant is going after the Ineffective Assistance of Council of City Attorneys.......

3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Realy, listen to the tape. The woman either got screwed by the bank or by the realtor that didn't disclose information, or she failed to get someone to explain the situation to her.

In the hearing the council is trying to figure out a way to help her deal with the bank if the bank screwed her.

None of it was the City's fault.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:30 AM  
Anonymous Ron Guilfoile Risk Managment said...

Chuck without "taking" from the seriousness of the Landlords S&C now in the 8th Circuit, The Issues of Insurance, Title Insurance re: Tea v. City and the Condemnation of St.Paul Buildings without Quiet Titles, Full Disclosure's, Look at the demeanor of Bostrom, HOWEVER All Claims including the Landlords must also be put forth to the Citys RISK MANAGMENT Ron Guilfoile, triggering the Citys involvement with the League of MN Cities
IT AINT OVER TILL THE FAT LADY SINGS THIS FAT LADY IS GETTING SKINNY PS. INFORM MAGNER AND HIS RED TRUCK TO QUIT STALKING ME BY SITTING OUTSIDE, THE LANDLORDS WILL WIN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
The Citys RICO "Patteren" is coninuing to this day.
GOTTA GO AND STAND IN FOOD LINE
THE POOR ARE STANDING UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS...........TAKEN WITHOUT COMPENSATIONS.

7:30 AM  
Anonymous A_TeavCityA08-1686 said...

Chuck : St.Paul City Attorney John Choi and Virginia Palmer are Parasites:the use of Unpublished Opinions courts that do not take JURISDICTION does not set Precedant in the Tea v. City A08-1686 techinally published the use of RETIRED JUDGES to covertly harm,injure the public for their pecuniary gain INTOLERABLE
Tea also argues that this court should apply the Dahlberg factors in deciding to overturn the city.s decision to demolish the property. See Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22 (1965) (setting forth factors to be considered in determining whether the issuance of a temporary injunction can be sustained on appeal). This is not appropriate in this case. Tea originally sought an injunction in the district court. The district court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, as Tea.s proper recourse was through petition for writ of certiorari to this court. But the district court purportedly invoked its equitable powers to temporarily stay
PLEASE BE IT KNOWN TO TH READERS MS. TEA IS ASIAN CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH CITY ATTORNEYS MANULIPATING IE:VAMPIRES GERALD HENDERICKSON SUCKING THE BLOOD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WE THE PEOPLE MUST IMPLORE THE SILVER BULLET OF PUBLIC OUTRAGE TO ABATE THE SICKO CITY COUNCIL. EMPTY LOTS DO NOT PROVIDE A TAX BASE, LANTRY'S 10 YR PAYMENT OF 27 THOUSAND DOLLARS IS LARCENY.

7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharon...

The building was vacant. It sat vacant for a long time. A bank owned it. Repairs were ordered. They did nothing. Abatement orders were given they did nothing. The City told them they were coming to knock down the building.

They sold the building.

The City showed up to knock down the building.

She was in the building.

The City backed off and she took it to court to see if the City could legally knock down the building.

The court said yes.

The City knocked down the building.

Now the City is billing the property for the demo.

Lantry is trying to give her ten years to straighten it out and take the old owner to court before she has to pay.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Ed Lago W.St.PaulDemolitions said...

Chuck look what West St.Paul is now doing to Demo Buildings, techinally another loss of tax base

http://www.twincities.com/dakota/ci_14242543

These alleged nonprofits, senior high rises are complete FAILURES.

7:46 AM  
Anonymous VillageZumv.Mpls dueprocess said...

Chuck by getting the last word does not make it Constitutionally Right" All these Appellate "dueproces" Demo Bldgs must come back to haunt the Cities.
WITHOUT RESTRAINT:
CITY VIA DSI CODE VIOLATIONS WITHOUT DISCLOSURE'S OF OWNERS IS SIMILAR TO NANCY OSTERMANS FILE
THEN DEMO CHARGES AGAINST PROPERTY
THEN TAXED WITHOUT BUILDING ON WORTHLESS LAND IS HENIOUS ANTI-TRUST SO WHO IS GHOING TO PAY THE 27 THOUSAND, TEA WILL JUST LET IT GO, CITY WILL OWN EMPTY LOTS.WITH NO TAX BASE.
Nuisance-abatement procedures are subject to two overriding principles that serve to protect the rights of property owners: (1) abatement and removal should be exercised with caution, and (2) notice and the opportunity to be heard should be granted without restraint. Village of Zumbrota v. Johnson, 280 Minn. 390, 395-96, 161 N.W.2d 626, 630 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/minnesotastatecases/appunpub/0804/opa070518-0415.pdf

7:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home