Custom Search

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Audio Update/ Fair housing lawsuits against the City of Saint Paul

LINK TO AUDIO OF HEARING HERE

New here? To learn more about these lawsuits, there is links to the right of the screen under the "Scales of Justice"

120 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

I wasn't able to attend the hearing today. I had a household emergency. "Frozen pipes".

I did listen to the hearing right here at the town hall, after I downloaded it from the federal court site.

WOW!

If this court comes back with a decision unfavorable to the city, I suspect the city will settle out of court. Nobody is punished, and changes in policy may not occur.

I am praying this goes on to a jury trial.

4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think your city is cooked good Chuck.

5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an excellent discussion of city thinking that has gone over the line. Well worth listening to.

Thank you.

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

let me get this right. showmaker said "hey guys we have no evidence but we should be paid for that lack of evidence because we say so".

you guys are a bunch of suckers.

5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real show begins when the defendants com in, caught red handed with their pants down clothed in shame.

8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you guys are a bunch of suckers"

You're right. WE were suckers to believe the legal system. The only change to this city will come by force. By the governor sending the national guard if we're lucky, and by poplular uprising if we are not. I don't know if I much care which.

8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"let me get this right. showmaker said "hey guys we have no evidence but we should be paid for that lack of evidence because we say so".

Yuo that's right! When defnedants destroy the evidence the other side usually gets a pay day. Nothin new there. That's why the sanctions rules exist so either party is not benifeting from destroying stuff rather than turning it over. Only question now is how mcuh $$?

9:28 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Plaintiffs attorney Shoemaker said in closing;

I ask in the brief that the court direct that a judge outside the district basically handle the trial and further matters. I know that's not done probably in many years but this is a highly political politicized case involves public corruption and I think the court should take it serious.

My response;
I too pray the court takes this issue seriously and so does hundreds if not thousands of other citizens in this area who are informed of these travesties.

WE HAVE LOST FAITH IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT! If given a choice I'd live next to a crack dealer versus a "dirty" politician/city employee.

10:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The crack dealer is a better person than the politicians.

1:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds to me like the court is on the landlords side and not the city. I hope St. Paul gets the snot beat out of them in this deal.

6:18 AM  
Anonymous Bill Culen said...

It is really hard to guess what a court will do. It often appears they tip their hand during the hearing by the questions they ask and statements they make. But I am unsure if judges ask questions to confirm their views or give the party they disagree with one more chance to persuade them.

It seemed clear to me these judges were asking questions which appeared to favor the plaintiffs. The judge who gave St. Paul the summary judgment appeared to lean away from the plaintiffs.

There were a few things that stand out to me:

1) One of the judges said this is a very important case and offered Shoemaker as much time as he needed to explain.
2) Seibus (sp?) stated that the plaintiffs must show the impact on a protected class due to the cities policies and one of the judges made it very clear this court has not adopted that standard. he proceeded to almost lecture Seibus on the standard this court has adopted.
3) I don't remember any discussion of the issues other than disparate impact and St. Paul's failure to produce documentation. I am no attorney.... But, that seems wise to me. It seems those are the two easiest to prove violations. There was a VERY interesting exchange between Seibus and one of the judges regarding St. Paul's compliance with Federal fair housing reporting. Seibus claimed all reporting has been done while Plaintiffs reported they have never received the reports after years of requesting it. That cannot look good to the court. Either St. Paul lied to the court or they withheld information from the plaintiffs. Lose/lose for St. Paul.

I think these judges understand the case; I don't think the previous judge did. "It is a very important case."

I suspect we will not know for a few months.

7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The crack dealer is a better person than the politicians.

1:25 AM

You can get rid of a crack dealer, send him to jail. try getting rid of a dirty politician.

8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have courage Bill Cullen posting your name here. Kudos!

8:33 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I have heard from 2 citizens claiming the link to the audio isn't working. It works!

Must be a random glitch, all I can tell you is keep trying.

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was ta the hearing yesterday and I agree with Bill. I also noted the tone of voice from the panel of Judges and that tone did not favor the city position. I notice a creepy silence from Eric and Chuck. Maybe there's nothing left for them to spin. That must hurt!

12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hard to tell what the Court will do. It is very difficult to get a lower court ruling overturned without compelling issues such as some legal irregularity or compelling new evidence.

Since it seems some evidence is missing. An analysis of impediments and others (emails) would've helped the Plantiffs case, but it looks like the records are "missing".

It occurs to me that the City arguing whether code enforcement or any of its ancillary policy are policies of the City is silly though and that seems to be a weak argument. I think a Judge sees through that.

My experience is that when Judges are agressive toward counsel on the opposition, they usually rule in favor of them...weird, but it's just an observation in my very limited exposure.

Just another observation; It seems that race is used here to support the disparity in impact, which is a good legal strategy as it applies to protected classes and it has lots of law to back it up. Just my opinion here, but it should be clear that the law would protect anyone from overly agressive code enforcement and what turns into ownership change and eventually gentrification.

It should be also be clear that regardless of race, religion or economic class property owners should be treated equally. But then it seems there have always been different rules for different people.

The City's counsel says that after all the discovery, the Plantiff's have NO EVIDENCE, because it couldn't be found...well if it was destroyed intentionally, that would be difficult to do and I think the Court needs to consider this carefully. It would help if the Plantiff attorney had a "smoking gun" on intentional document destruction.

Maybe the "smoking gun" would be that some certain kinds of City documents related to housing/property/code were kept while these were not. Or that a gap in document destruction exists...I'm sure the lawyers looked at that though.

Very interesting.

Marty Owings
http://mncapitolnews.com

1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The City's counsel says that after all the discovery, the Plantiff's have NO EVIDENCE, because it couldn't be found"

Duh!!!!!!!That's what they always say. What else would one expect the side wanting Summary Judgement to say? They certainly are not going to tell the court about all the evidence the other side has because that would defeat the motion they seek to have granted.

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is interesting the first lawyer says Dawkins policy is "repair or force sale" but then the lawyer keeps refering to it only, "force sale." And, again Dawkins policy is "change behavior or eviction" and then the lawyer calls it an eviction policy.

So, the City's policy is repair and improve behavior and the plaintiffs lawyer makes it force sale and eviction... because they have no intention to repair their property and they don't care about their residents behavior.

The second lawyer argues absolutely nothing at all. He is suggesting that some how a potential violation of Morris/Sax means that there must be disparit impact. He is so freaking vague that judges are trying to guess what he is saying and then he is getting to the, we have no evidence, so whatever paper we don't have must be the evidence we don't have. And, again it is the majical emails between unknown and unknown saying unknown to unknown that must prove our case.

...and the questions that they are asking the City's lawyer is for clarification and for verification of any potential arguements and she handled all of them.

One of the points she makes is that plaintiffs have to actually show that more minorities were effected than whites... and they never even attempt to document that, yet they claim it. Its an accusation but there is no evidence.

...and then in rebuttel the lawyer says with authority that he knows that there must be emails that was deleted where the city discussed changing its policy about enforcement... there is nothing in the world that suggests that exist but he says so, so there must be.

Again, on this spoiliation issue, you have to have some sliver of evidence before you can claim that the missing paper is evidence. There is a difference between reems of paper and evidence.

You have nothing kids...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing left to spin Chuck? Your city is screwed and now they're gonna pay.

11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you are in for one hell of an education Chuck. They don't have to prove jack, that's for the jury.

12:23 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Chuck (or Eric, or whoever),

A couple of questions:

a) Why did most code enforcement actions take place in neighborhoods with a high concentration of African Americans?
b) Do you believe housing outside of the mostly african american communities do not have code violations?
c) St. Paul proclaims they use code enforcement on properties with "occupant behavior problems." Precisely what behavior problems does St. Paul believe warrents code enforcement actions?
d) are you aware that plaintiffs only need to show disparate impact occurred to shift the burden of proof to the defendant?

I don't know if the plaintiffs won this last round, but I think it is clear they deserve a trial.

Bill Cullen.

9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winning anything is not the point at this stage Bill. I think the question at hand is not wether anyone one either side can prove their case. The million dollar question is should plaintiffs be able to go to court and present their facts to the jury and would reasonable people listen to those facts and be able to decide one way or another.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

I was there and see and hear everything. The landlord got a fair deal this time. The judge
refer to early ruler that did.

You all need to look up that case.
The city lawyer had 20 minns. to talked. She only took 12 minns.,
did refer to docs and that case.

The judge asked her. You no cide
that caes. And Asked her if she know about?

That tells me that they will change way fo thinking.

Or overruler themself.


I see that the landlords will get everythings that they want.

It will cost the city alot money.
This is the being. More lawsuite
more money to pay out.

mitch b. what you think about the hearing??

Mr. Mayor what are you going to do NOW? You need to change you fire inspection now.

I know of ten landlords going to
state court to challenge the city fire inspection. Morris vs. Sax.

Just more problems for the city.

12:56 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

From the Charleston Housing lawsuit-

To establish a prima facie, Fair Housing Act, disparate impact claim under Oti
Kaga, Inc. v. South Dakota Housing Dev. Auth., 342 F.3d 871, 883 (8th Cir. 2003),
the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the objected-to action results in, or can be
predicted to result in, a disparate impact upon a protected class compared to a
relevant population as a whole. Id. (stating that plaintiffs “must show a facially
neutral policy has a significant adverse impact on members of a protected minority
group”). The Tenants made this showing. The Housing Authority argues on appeal
that the Tenants’ disparate impact claims fail because they did not offer evidence of
purposeful discrimination and did not demonstrate that similarly situated nonmembers
of the class were subject to disparate treatment. The Tenants, however, did
not allege disparate treatment, they alleged disparate impact. Under United States v.
City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1184 (8th Cir. 1974), the Tenants “need prove no
more than that the conduct of the defendant actually or predictably results in
discrimination; in other words, that it has a discriminatory effect.”

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last sentence seems to say it all. Good luck St. Paul and Chuck!

4:28 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

DON HEDQUIST
Building Inspection Service

EXPERT REPORT

Frank Steinhauser, Mark Meysembourg and Kelly Brisson vs. Randy Kelly, et al
Case No. 04-2632, United States District Court, Minnesota
I. Introduction
This preliminary expert report is prepared on behalf of Frank Steinhauser, Mark
Meysemhourg and Kelly Brisson (plaintiffs). My opinions are based upon my independent review of the documents indicated in Appendix A, my inspections of
Plaintiffs' 21 properties, visual inspection of properties of Plaintiffs' neighbors, review of
photographs of homes in the City owned by St. Paul Public Housing Agency, City officials and City employees and others and my professional experience.

My opinions contained in this report are preliminary as discovery in this case is ongoing and additional documents, depositions, photographs, inspections, and information may have an impact on my opinions. I reserve the right to revise or expand these opinions before trial.

II. Summary of opinions
During 2002 to 2005, Defendants applied a preferential code enforcement standard to the
St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PI-IA) rental properties and the neighbors of Plaintiffs
rental properties, while at the same time Defendants applied a strict standard to the
properties of Plaintiffs and other lower income landlords including the landlords in the
Harrilal and Gallagher cases.

4:32 PM  
Anonymous DON HEDQUIST continued said...

During 2002 to 2005, Defendants applied a preferential code enforcement standard to the
properties owned by City officials and City employees and their neighbors while at the
same time Defendants applied a strict standard to the properties of Plaintiffs and other
lower income landlords including the landlords in the Harrilal and Gallagher cases.
The properties O\\11ed by the Plaintiffs, other lower income landlords, landlords in the
Harrilal and Gallagher cases, and the neighbors of Plaintiffs and these landlords, the
properties owned by the Public Housing Agency, and the properties owned by City
officials and employees and their neighbors, were similar because of the types of
structures and age of structures.
The properties owned by the Plaintiffs, other lower income landlords, landlords in the
Harrilal and Gallagher cases, and the neighbors of Plaintiffs and these landlords, the
properties owned by the Public Housing Agency, and the properties owned by City
officials and employees and their neighbors, are subject to the same housing maintenance
code and safety codes of the City and State of Minnesota.
The Defendants should have wliformly applied the codes across the City which would
have meant equal enforcement of the codes to the properties of the Plaintiffs and other
lower income landlords, landlords in the Harrilal and Gallagher cases, and their
neighbors, properties owned by City officials and employees and their neighbors and
properties owned by PI-IA. Such equal enforcement of the codes would have preserved
the City's housing stock and adequately meet the City'S health and safety concerns, while
at the same time have avoided the displacement of the lower income renters and the
financial burdens placed upon the Plaintiffs and other landlords.
The rental properties of Frank Steinhauser and Mark Meysembourg, including their
properties located at 910 6th St, 1024 Euclid, 118 Litchfield, 953 Wilson, and 970 Euclid,
were maintained within the average to above average condition for lower income rentals
and Kelly Brisson renovated his one rental unit to the satisfaction of the Section 8
inspector's requirements.
There arc multiple exterior code violations, excluding garbage and grass length code
violations, on the properties owned by the Public Housing Agency, on the properties
owned by City officials and employees and their neighbors, and on the properties of the
neighbors of the Plaintiffs, and these exterior code violations have existed for years.
Because of the strict standard applied by Defendants and other City inspectors to the
properties of Plaintiffs and other lower income landlords including the landlords in the
Harrilal and Gallagher cases, Plaintiffs and other related landlords revenues were cut and
their expenses increased dramatically, and they were forced to refinance their properties
and to sell their properties.
III. Analysis
During 2002 to 2005, Defendants applied a preferential code enforcement standard to the
St. Paul Public Housing Agency rental properties and the neighbors of Plaintiffs rental
properties, while at the same time Defendants applied a strict standard to the properties of

4:35 PM  
Anonymous Don Hedquist said...

Plaintiffs and other lower income landlords including the landlords in the Harrilal and
Gallagher cases. Based upon my review as indicated above and in Appendix A, the code
enforcement documents from Neighborhood Housing Property Improvement (NHPI),
Department of Fire Safety Services (Fire Safety), Office of License, Inspection and
Environmental Protection (LIEP) demonstrate that Defendants and other City officials
and code enforcement officials and employees have provided preferential code treatment
to the properties owned by the Public Housing Agency for as far back as the mid-1980s
through 2005.
The preferential code enforcement treatment has included failure by LIEP to enforce
required inspections on improvements to PI-lA, including roof, furnace and other repairs.
Many examples of this preferential treatment are found in LIEP files on PHA rental
properties. PHA contractors frequently failed to request inspections and inspectors
acknowledged the lack of inspections and that repairs were not approved but the files
were closed by the inspectors.
LIEP files demonstrate that for as far back as the 1980s, no PHA rental property has been
required to go through a code compliance certification process. The one property where
a Code Compliance Inspection had been completed on, 1743 Idaho Ave. E., went through
a code compliance in 1999 before PHA owned the property.
NHPI records on PI-lA rental properties reveal that NHPI and its predecessor have not
required any interior inspections of PHA single family and duplex rental homes and that
the City has allowed PHA to manage those rental properties without much over site. A survey conducted of PH A tenants and reported in April 2001 includes many complaints
by tenants of problems with PIIA on the interiors of PHA rental properties including a
need for better maintenance by PHA staff, that toilets did not flush, or flush well, leaky
pipes, buildings needed repair, more pest control was needed, sanitation and trash
problems as a source of rodents, basements with water problems, carpeting that needed
changing, heaters needed to work better as the house was drafty, better insulation was
needed, refrigerators needed replacing, remodeling of the interiors and exteriors of the
rental properties was desired, windows needed changing, and other complaints.
NHPI has failed to enforce the codes on the exteriors of PI· lA's rental properties as the
records reveal that out of about 369 PHA owned single family and duplex rental homes,
only a handful of those properties have been dted for exterior code deficiencies. Review
of photographs of PHA rental properties over the past years demonstrates that there arc
multiple code deficiencies at many of PH A's properties that are of the type that have
existed for years.
NIIPI records contained inspectors comments that PHA properties are "City o\\l1ed", that
PHA should be called to handle a complaint by either a tenant or complaining neighbor
and the recorqs show that inspectors hold the PHA tenants responsible for tenant
behavior problems, frequently usc verbal orders to PHA, and provide extra time to PHA
to take care of code issues like tcnant relatcd trash and vehicle code deficiencies.
City code records also demonstrate that the Defendants have failed to placard PHA
properties with vacant building orders when PHA properties have met one of the
definitions in City code for a vacant building, vacant and containing multiple code

4:37 PM  
Anonymous Don Hedquist said...

deficiencies. NHPI records include inspectors comments that the units are vacant or
appear vacant and yet the file was closed and no referral was made of the property to the
vacant building staff for a code compliance.
Although PHA is one of the largest ifnot the largest landlord in the City, not one of
PHA's 414 to 430 scattered site rental homes has been condemned, according to NHPI
records for all condemnations in the City during 2002 to 2004. Additionally, not one of
PHA's properties has been placed on the Vacant Building lists published by the City.
In one example, a fire partially destroyed the interior of a PHA home, and the City failed
to require a code compliance inspection or certification, but simply allowed PI-IA to
repair the home under a category I level and then re-rented the property.
PI-IA rental properties have had serious safety and health isslles and code deficiencies
according to the City records I reviewed. This includes both the hi-rise and scattered site
single family and duplex units. In one case, mold problems have existed in the home
located at 1653 Ford Parkway with the full knowledge of PHA and the City but no
adverse action has been taken by Defendants to condemn the home, displace the tenants,
or penalize PI·IA. A second example of serious code problems in a scattered site rental
unit is found in the records where mold and flooding problems occurred. In third case, a
hi-rise unit was finally condemned for excessive combustibles and bug infestation but the
tenant was allowed to live in the unit for many months in those condemned conditions.
When that unit was condemned, the inspector did not condemn the entire structure and
thereby avoided displacing other tenants. A fourth example from the City code records
shows that even though a City employee reported that the PHA tenant was living in subhuman conditions, the inspector did not condemn the rental unit. Finally, even though
there are more examples, PHA has received repeated notices for failure to act on critical
health violations related to its food facilities for residents.
The Defendants have applied the preferential code enforcement standard to Plaintfiffs'
neighbors, City officials and City employees, including on their homesteaded and rental
properties, to the neighbors of City officials ,md employees, and to other property owners
in the City. I have reviewed an extensive collection of photographs taken during the
period of2003 through 2005 that depict multiple, serious code deficiencies at these
properties the conditions of which demonstrate that the deficiencies have existed for
years without attention or correction needed to address the concerns.
The properties owncd by the Plaintiffs, other lower income landlords, landlords in the
Harrilal and Gallagher cases, and the neighbors of Plaintiffs and these landlords, the
properties owned b)1 the Public Housing Agency, and the properties owned by City
otl1cials and employees and their neighbors, were similar bccause of the types of
structures and age of stmctures and all these properties arc subject to the same housing
maintenance code and safety codes of the City and State of Minnesota.
Contrary to the preferential code trcatmcnt given to PHA by Defendants, Plaintiffs and
other lower income landlords including the Harrilal and Gallagher plaintiffs have been
subject to strict standard of code enforcement on their lower income rental properties.

4:39 PM  
Anonymous Don Hedquist said...

Kelly Brisson:
The Defendants selectively targeted Mr. Brisson for strict code enforcement in that
neighboring properties had the similar exterior conditions as his property at 297 Burgess
St. In October, 2003, Defendants condemned Kelly Brisson's Section 8 rental property
located at 297 Burgess St. consisting of a duplex, with a Section 8 unit on the main level
and Mr. Brisson's personal living quarters were located on the second floor, upper level.
At the time of the condemnation, the City had just acknowledged that Mr. Brisson's
home was 95% complete with City ordered repairs and the main level Section 8 rental
unit was not the subject of Defend ants' condemnation order as the five items on the
condemnation order related to the upper unit and the five items arose from the police raid
activity, not Mr. Brisson's or his guests' direct actions. Mr. Brisson's rental unit had
been subject to a PHA Section 8 inspection early in the year and following his repairs to
meet the PHA requirements, the rental unit passed the Section 8 inspection requirements
for federal funding for the tenant. Defendants paid excessive attention to Mr. Brisson's
property considering the condition of neighboring properties, PHA properties, properties
of City ofl1cials and employees and other properties in the City and Mr. Brisson's
considerable work and effort in renovating the home.
Mr. Brisson completed the repairs and renovations to his Section 8 first floor rental unit
and made good efforts at completing the renovations to his private second floor dwelling
and the structure in general despite the Defendants' efforts to harass him with repeated
citations, correction orders and condemnation orders. The City sent Mr. Brisson a letter
in September 2003 informing him that his rental unit and personal living quarters could once again be rcoccupicd only to shortly thereafter again condemn the entire structure for
claimed condemnable conditions that existed only in one unit of the duplex. This
treatment is contrary to the City's treatment of PH A where one unit in a multi-unit rental
structure was condcmned as described above but not the entire building. Defendants'
actions in condemning the entire building effectively removed Mr. Brisson's ability to
continue owning the propel1y. Each time thc propcrty was condemned he could no
longer receive rental paymcnts but had his continued expenses on thc propcrty. He was
faced with the City's demands for a code compliance certification that, after spending
considerable sums on renovations from borrowed sources, he could not afford to pay for.
,
Mark Meysembourg:
The Defendants selcctively targeted Mr. Meysembourg for strict code enforcement even
though ncighboring properties had the similar exterior conditions as Mr. Meysembourg's
rental property located at 970 Euclid St. Mr. Meysembourg took photographs in the late
fall of2001 of his upper rental unit just before the tenants moved into the unit. These
pictures show that the propcrty had been renovated, had no problems and was in move-in
condition.
After Mr. Meysembourg was issued the corrcction ordcr in November 2002, he was
perfonning repairs to mect the orders and continued work on repairs through issuancc of
the sccond Correction Ordcr in January 2003. By the time thc Defendants condcmned his
rental property on February 3, 2003, he had completed most of the required repairs as his
photographs dcmonstrate. The Defendants condcmned his entire duplcx on the sole basis
ofa claimed lack ofa pressure rcIicfvalvc for the west boiler. In fact, from review of the

4:40 PM  
Anonymous Don Hedquist said...

receipts from S1. Paul Plumbing & Heating showing the installation of a "relief valve
boiler", multiple photographs taken of both boilers from various angles, and the code
compliance inspection report, Defendants' claim that there was no relief valve was false.
The other claimed code deficiencies listed in the condemnation order did not rise to the
level of a condemnable structure. Defendants thereafter required Mr. Meysembourg to
complete a code compliance certification on the duplex which required extensive
renovation of the duplex above the repairs Mr. Meysembourg had already completed. At
the time the City was requiring Mr. Meysembourg to obtain a code compliance in order
to re-rent the property, the Defendants were not making similar demands of PHA on its
rental properties. Defendants misrepresented to Mr. Meysembourg that the City would
perfonn an "as built" code compliance when in fact there is no such thing.
Frank Steinhauser:
The Defendants selectively targeted Mr. Steinhauser for strict code enforcement in that
neighboring properties had the similar exterior conditions as his properties at 910 6th S1.
E., 1024 Euclid St., 953 Wilson Ave. and 118 Litchfield St. in the City.
Steinhauser's rental properties were well maintained based upon my review of the
documents, photographs and statements of witnesses listed in Appendix A. The
Defendants targeted Mr. Steinhauser's rental properties at 910 6th St. E. on October 18,
2002, with orders and subsequently with condemnation on October 23, 2002 and his
property at 1024 Euclid S1. with a condemnation order on October 28, 2002, claiming
that there was rodent infestation in the rental dwellings when in fact there were no such
conditions as evidenced by the third party pest control inspection on 1024 Euclid S1. that revealed no infestation of rodents. Also, Defendants claimed that 1024 Eulcid St. had no
heat which was false as a third party contractor confimled that the heating system was
properly operating with the thermostat turned on.
Regarding Steinhauser's 910 6th St. E. rental property, a similar claim of rodent
infestation was made by Defendants. The conditions of the adjacent property appeared to
have caused a possible rodent problem. The claimed rodent infestation did not rise to the
level of "severe rodent infestation" as required by the NHPI Rules in existence in 2002.
Inspector Martin made the same false claim of rodent infestation on both of these rental
properties.
Based upon the evidence I have reviewed including the photographs and physical
evidence including broken facet handles and smoke detectors (sec Appendix A), the
tenants caused code violations cited by the inspector on 1024 Euclid St. at the time of the
condemnation. Also, on 910 6th St. E., the upper toilet problem was caused by a small
hair spray can dropped into the toilet. City inspectors were not consistently issuing
orders to PHA but they would issue orders to PHA tenants; I found no instances were the
City inspectors issued orders to Plaintiffs' tenants.
As part of the condenmations, Defendants demanded and Steinhauser accepted a code
compliance of his two properties and Defendants misrepresented to Mr. Steinhauser that
the City would perform an "as built" code compliance when in fact there is no such thing.

4:43 PM  
Anonymous Don Hedquist conclusion said...

Because of the strict standard applied by Defendants and other City inspectors to the
properties of Plaintiffs and other lower income landlords including the landlords in the
Harrilal and Gallagher cases, Plaintiffs and other related landlords revenues were cut by
condemnations which required the removal of their tenants and therefore the rental
income. As a result of the targeting by Defendants, Plaintiffs business expenses
increased dramatically, and they were forced to refinance their properties and to sell their
properties.
The Defendants should have unifonnly applied the codes across the City which would
have meant equal enforcement of the codes to the properties of the Plaintiffs and other
lower income landlords, landlords in the Harrilal and Gallagher cases, and their
neighbors, properties owned by City officials and employees and their neighbors and
properties owned by PHA. Such equal enforcement of the codes would have preserved
the City's housing stock and adequately met the health and safety concems of the public
and the City, while at the same time the equal enforcement of the codes would have
avoided the displacement of the lower income renters and the financial burdens placed
upon the Plaintiffs and other landlords.
IV. All data considered in fonnulating opinions
The data that I considered in forming my opinion expressed in tltis report are listed in
Appendix A to this report.
V. Exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for my opinions

4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW!!!! Hey Eric? How bout them there code violations at Steinhauser's palce?

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Shontay said...

eric was on east side district counsel back when this sh*t was hapenin.

ya think ya might get sepeonaed eric? ya can tell em this is what the voters wanted

7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, each one of the properties had violations and had the ability for the owners to repair the violations. Most if not all of them got repeated extentions. That isn't doing anything arbitrary.

As to Bill's claim of adverse treatment the purpose of the code is to protect the interest of the residents from exploitive owners and to make them repair their properties. Displacement occurs when the owners choose to not repair the properties.

The same on the Charlston issue. The owners offer no evidence, no data, no stats that African American owners nor African American tennents were targetted by the City. The claim it. They claim all sorts of insain things but they offer no data. No evidence nothing.

OK so I make this claim Bob Johnsone killed the Lindburg baby and Bill Cullen has been involved in a conspiracy to hide it.

My proof...

They haven't given me their emails between them. So, because I don't have it they must have done it. And if they do give me them, they didn't give me anywhere they discussed the kidnapping so they must be hiding them.

Case closed.

I want the Federal bench to arrest you guys at once or they must be in on it because they haven't put you in jail.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This trial is going to set St. Paul back 20 years. . .

. . . back to a time when most of the city employees took their job seriously, before the freaks took over. Back to a time when St. Paul was a quality city that cared about people.

7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you fraking nuts or what Repke? You don't have a clue what these lawsuits are about nor are you able to inteligently interpret the hearing before the appeals court. How the hell do you get your shoes tied in the morning?

9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The same on the Charlston issue. The owners offer no evidence, no data, no stats that African American owners nor African American tennents were targetted by the City. The claim it. They claim all sorts of insain things but they offer no data. No evidence nothing."

The same as the "Charlseton case?"

Ehat about the following part of the "Charlseton case" you fucking quack?

not allege disparate treatment, they alleged disparate impact. Under United States v.
City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1184 (8th Cir. 1974), the Tenants “need prove no
more than that the conduct of the defendant actually or predictably results in
discrimination; in other words, that it has a discriminatory effect.”

If your going to quote things then why not quote them in their correct context?

10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"need prove no
more than that the conduct of the defendant actually or predictably results in
discrimination; in other words, that it has a discriminatory effect.”

...and they proved it how?

They commissioned what study done by what agency to determine the impact of code enforcement? Oh yes the imaginary study. The one where you ask the other scum balls that didn't fix his rental if he thinks it may have had an impact on minorities.

Folks you don't have the NAACP saying that the City's efforts were having an adverse impact, you have a bunch of old fat white guys that live in the burbs that say african americans want to live in sub-standard housing. African americans are seeking out houses where the plumbing doesn't work...

It is F'ing insane.

You are admitting to substandard housing and suggesting that since most of your victims are minorities the court should find that the efforts to force you to repair them have an adverce impact on minorities.

It isn't going to happen.

And again, no study, no evidence, no case, no trial coming.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me they had an expert witness who testified that the properties were not substandard....testimony that was not disputed by the city ever. In the real world where the rest of us live Chuck.....when one side or another does not dispute the other sides expert report I think that means that the court is upposed to take it a fact. That would be fact as in evidence Chcuk. By the way, where does it say in the lawsuit or the recent court hearing that
"white guys that live in the burbs that say african americans want to live in sub-standard housing. African americans are seeking out houses where the plumbing doesn't work..."

Just wondering if I missed that part as I don't seem to remember it.

10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:44 Read his "expert oppinion" it is nothing but a rambling bunch of assumptions based on what he was told to be the case.

How do you despute brilliant fact based comments like this:

The Defendants should have unifonnly applied the codes across the City which would
have meant equal enforcement of the codes to the properties of the Plaintiffs and other
lower income landlords, landlords in the Harrilal and Gallagher cases, and their
neighbors, properties owned by City officials and employees and their neighbors and
properties owned by PHA. Such equal enforcement of the codes would have preserved
the City's housing stock and adequately met the health and safety concems of the public
and the City, while at the same time the equal enforcement of the codes would have
avoided the displacement of the lower income renters and the financial burdens placed
upon the Plaintiffs and other landlords.

-snip-

Meaningless crap. What he is saying is that we need 10 thousand more inspectors and if you can't inspect every house in the City on the same day with the same level of enforcement then you are being unfair to whoever there was enforcement on... meanless crap.

Not any kind of a study of adverse impact. Nothing but a long whine about how mean the inspecters were to these guys that had violations and could have appealed the violations on in state court if they felt they were unfairly treated.

This goes against the notion that code inspection is bad, just that code inpection against my client is bad.

Again no evidence of anything.

And, have the cops picked up Bob and Bill for that Lindburg case yet?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The end is near Repke. The cops will be rounding up some of these inspectors when it's all over. Civil rights violations are a crime Chcuk........a Federal crime.

12:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again no evidence of anything.
And, have the cops picked up Bob and Bill for that Lindburg case yet?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke 11:20 PM

Destroying evidence is a crime Chuck, and so is ignoring a crime in action by city officials.
You and your big lard Democratic buddies at E-d will see how real people point corruption that will sick.
This case scares the piss out of you and Chris Coleman, a ongoing action on the low rent landlords.
You think you can clean out the low income people in St.Paul, so upper class can take this town.
Go back to the west side where you started and clean it up.
You can't blame Bob and Bill for speaking out on unfair code enforcement, blame city hall.

Hate crime against the city, they hate to lose.

6:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, thanks for the offline invite to comeback. You got a lot a fools speculating on the unproven accusations of poverty pimps and slick mediocre attorneys. I'm not going to argue law with people who can even frame a simple debate.

We've been through this, the plaintiffs never presented their evidence or, disputed the FACT that their property was in violation. End of story.

Bob and Bill questions:
a) Why did most code enforcement actions take place in neighborhoods with a high concentration of African Americans?
I haven't seen that to be true. It's concentrated in areas where there are sub-par rentals. According to Frank's own testimony, many of his clients were white, and his properties that were not consistent violators had black tenants.

b) Do you believe housing outside of the mostly african american communities do not have code violations?
First, there are NO African American neighborhoods in St Paul, maybe two with a higher concentration of African Americans but none where they constitute a majority. None. So, your question doesn't sense.

Your question is set up to say code enforcement is impossible because there are violation everywhere. Well, there is crime everywhere too, should we just give up on policing?


c) St. Paul proclaims they use code enforcement on properties with "occupant behavior problems." Precisely what behavior problems does St. Paul believe warrents code enforcement actions?
Multiple crime calls to a property consistently over a long period of time dealing with multiple tenants. Or, a major drug, prostitution or terrorist discover at that property.

d) are you aware that plaintiffs only need to show disparate impact occurred to shift the burden of proof to the defendant?
No, I'm not. Because its not that simple. First and foremost is the property- was it in violation of code? Yes. The landlords are not trying to say it wasn't. They are saying many other properties were in violation and they were chosen because of the race of their clientele. Theirs is a sleazy, despicable argument.

After four years, I have found that MOST landlords who rent to minorities in St Paul are NOT part of this suit and do NOT have multiple violations. The vast majority. This is a tiny group of landlords representing some of the worst kept property in city that they thought was fit enough for poor minorities.

Disgusting.




Eric

9:47 AM  
Anonymous Bud LIghtning said...

I dont think this lawsuit has a chance in hell, but that doesn't mean that the plaintiffs arent right.

"The one where you ask the other scum balls that didn't fix his rental if he thinks it may have had an impact on minorities."

Repke continues with this fiction that "if code enforcement comes after you, you must be guilty". I have seen this in this site over and over, Repke. "landlords are scum". Like they are presumed scum until proven guilty. Bullshit. If a neighbor has a grudge with you and good political connections, code enforcement WILL find a problem. And if they find a problem it has become policy to make sure that the "repairs" will completely break the property owner, and the changes may or may probably not be part of the actual state building code.

I dont know if this is part of the suit, but it should be.

"This is a tiny group of landlords representing some of the worst kept property in city that they thought was fit enough for poor minorities."

Eric, I don't know you, but the race baiting make me think you're not very smart.

"worst kept properties"? That is quite a generalization. And I know its not true. I've seen some of the properties that code enforcement attacked, including the 14 Jessamin property. "Worst kept?" Hell, that place was just fine.

I moved out of Saint Paul because I came to hate the government worse than I hated the burbs. I am glad I did. You are welcome to the hellhole you have created. My taxes are spent responsibly, my streets are driveable, and my city deals with people like citizens to which it is accountable, rather than serfs and slaves who need to be shown who's boss.

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well glad to see you back Eric. I just stopped by to check the Police radio to see what law abiding citizens were getting their property siezed by St. Paul's finest and what a suprize......here you are and just as stupid as ever with your reality challenged arguments and responses. If you can't figure out the simple stuff Eric I am wondering how you ever have managed to get throguh life.

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bud,
I was answering questions put forth by Bill Cullen and Bob Johnson. Pay attention asshat.
I said 'some of the worst' not 'all' or 'the worst'. Don't let facts get in the way of your toothless rant.
Damn straight we can point to and name other properties that are as bad. Pick up the phone and call code enforcement. That's how it works.

Testimony (from the plaintiffs) show that these landlords have violation after violation after violation. None of them disputed that they had been properly cited- as a matter of court record, they admit that they were properly cited. They argument is that they are being singled out because of the race of their clients. Which brings us to your 'race baiting' attack on me.

It is the landlords who brought race into this to try and get money out of this suit. Its part of their suit, so the race of the tenants is relative here.

IF all of their tenants in these places were minorities AND, as already established these places were sub par(in violation), AND other properties owned by these landlords were not cited for violations, then yes, the question must be asked why they think its OK to provide subpar housing to poor minorities.

Their suit makes no sense, hence no evidence. All they have to prove is that they were singled out for something other than owning shitty property. They have not.

Bud, your smallness and ignorance is revealed. The burbs have much stronger code enforcement and you weren't a sissy about telling us where you live, I could show you. Its also, tougher to own rental property out there with many more hoops to jump through.

You all talk about how much you hate the city but, I've been looking through some interesting records lately and it appears some of the biggest slumlords have been very busy buying up very cheap property on the East side and sitting on it. They plan on doing exactly what they've done in the past - except, real soon, St Paul is going to take a lesson from the burbs and make owning rental property a responsibility like a restaurant or retail store.

10:20- a bunch o empty statements, like the Plaintiffs case. You got any quotes from me to back that up? Last I checked, you boys have been on the losing side for a few years now.

Happy Valentines Day you heartless bastards!


Eric

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your crazy Eric. Wisw up man....try joining the real world.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

eric has been very clear and even when you don't agree with him gives you a lot to digest. Much better than most of his detractors who call names.

Is he right about the reason of this case and the rulings so far? As far as I can see yes. So, try helping those of us who are slow or new to this what case the landlords have?

8:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If ya don't get it by now then I am afraid that you have no comprehension skills. You will have to wait and read about it in the newspapers or property tax statements.

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evidence
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I thought maybe if you read what the word evidence meant that maybe a little bit of thought might come to you all.

Evidence means something that proves something. It is not just random pieces of paper or random emails. In order for something to be evidence it has to prove something.

So, in order to convict the City of destroying evidence of a crime, you would have to show that a crime was committed. You with me? If there was a murder and you had a dead body and Bob collected the evidence and then threw it away, you would be able to say that Bob destroyed evidence. Someone was killed, Bob collected items from the scene and threw it away... making some sense?

Here is what you guys are doing. You say that the City was violating fair housing laws, you offer no evidence of that, no stats showing that, no disctimination paterns, no effort to target people of color and then you ask for every email of every council member and then when some of those can not be produced, then you claim that must be all of the missing information you need to show that you had a crime.

....did the cops pick up Bob and Bill for the Lindburg baby kidnapping yet or am I going to have to have the Federal Court arrested?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some emials were produced? There were non produced..just spam mail.

10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about this portion of your evidence definition Chuck?

3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses.


From what I have read in the depositions from other citizens in this case that feel they have been victimized from the code enforcement it appears they are willing to testify as witnesses for the plaintiffs, or are they excluded as witnesses because they are the ones the city were trying to rid itself from (Example: less desirable class of citizens to the city)?

7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is something in the higher courts called the slight evidence rule where the trifling quantity or a small amount of evidence is sufficient for a rational fact-finder to conclude the state failed.

Testimonial evidence is a persons testimony that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted such as evidence elicited from a witness. The plaintiffs seem to have several people offering testimonial evidence on their behalf that looks to be substantial enough to the point that a reasonable mind would accept it as being adequate to support a conclusion.

7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's the problem, there are almost no witnesses who are the 'victims'. just a bunch of guys complaining about being forced to fix up their apartments.

there is no written support from the NAACP, community churches or any group that has sued the city, accused the city or threatened the city over their discriminatory actions. Just a bunch of guys who are asking for money for the violations of others' rights, yet none of these others are present to testify, or signed letters or petitions of support.

Thousands and thousands of minorities renting and this groups of landlords can't find 12. game ovre man

8:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this about race or not?
Somebody answer that.

8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1. Several of the plaintiffs (landlords)with fair housing lawsuits against the city are black.

#2. There is minority tenants who have given sworn affidavits they were displaced by the city, and they had no problem their landlords.

#3. There is private home owners with the same stories. So this isn't just about rental properties.

The previous statements are based in fact.

9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1 Wrong. There was one who had a problem with code enforcement and refused to join the suit.

#2 True. As were any tenants regardless of race were affect by the wrongdoings of their landlords. When property is sold and the new landlords raise the rent, is it the city's responsibility to find housing for the tenants if they can't pay? No.

#3. True. All of them white.


As mentioned before it seems there is a problem with code enforcement and its delivery- not with race or some plot to rid the city of minorities.

9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:36 - the cases had two basic charges first RICO - that there was a conspiracy to do go after these landlords to benefit someone else. They never had someone who would benefit, nor any discussion between two people that would show any kind of conspiracy, so that has pretty much died.

Second is the Federal Fair Housing Act - the idea there is that the effect of enforcing the housing code is to reduce rental options to minorities. What the plaintiffs didn't do at all is even try to show statiscally that it occured. They claim that it happened but they offered nothing. You know, evidence.

So, when they then move to the third issue, that the City did not secure all imformation in every computer in the City from the moment the suit began, the court needs to know that the missing emails would have help in the charges above.

With me?

You need to have shown that there was a dead body before the court is going to bite on the notion that some evidence of that killing is in the missing emails.

It is not a crime to empty the trash. If there is no crime, there can't be missing evidence.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Leslie Lucht said...

chuck, eric,

You guys just do not understand
the courts. When the judge asked a question you do not anwers it.

You will lose. When has ruler on
the same motion before. It will not change it ruler. The rulers are in stone. That is the way it at the hearing last thursday.


Face it there will be a trial.


And aug guy is all ready against the city because of the bullshit and taxes. You need face the facts. Stop your bullshit.

Chuck that the same thing about ir.
dtop crying

7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I gree widh Les. He yasys ti betr n me.

8:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les, you're not one of those English-only guys are you?

You make no sense in both, content and presentation.

You're trying to say we don't understand yet, here we are, and you are still on the losing end of the decisions, so far. Is there some point where you tell yourself that everyone, except you, can't be wrong- it must be you? Let me know when you get there, until then I can predict everything you're going to say: the judge was corrupt, it was a miscarriage of justice to not accept the missing emails as evidence, the city lied, blah, blah blah.

Truth is, you got an attorney who found some fools with money and he's going to stretch this out as far as he can, gotta pay for that new Hog.

Oh, I'm also well aware of you and your friends who shit on St Paul currently buying up cheap property here to try and run this cycle all over again. The hope is if you win, then we have a weakened level code enforcement and you guys won't have to keep your property up to a minimum level for human habitat. You're just a bunch of buzzards.


Eric

9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

St Paul is just road kill waiting to happen. The chaos will come due to wrong decisions and inept leadership who are destroying this town.

You refer to buzzards - lets hope someone can find something of salvage value in New Detroit.

11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More nonsense.

Saint Paul is winning awards for its governing leadership and the bond houses still rate us as excellent when it comes to fiscal management.

That's why I know you are full of shiite.

Eric

8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All that is about to change my friend!

9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah right Eric. A city full of corruption in politics with an attitude that the ends justifies the means and a bunch of nitwits like you running around like their sock puppet singing their song while they bury their heads in the sand and think they are the most livable city in the country. You Democrats are all delusional.

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is going to get interesting fast. I think the case will go to trial on all counts of the lawsuit and then the various inspectors are going to get locked into their lies and cover ups and after the civil part is over the criminal probe will start. The best part of that is the inspectors are going to locked in through testimony to previous lies and now they will get to choose whether they want to get nailed for perjury in the civil or telling lies to a Federal Agent in the criminal. I can't wait.

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city has rebuilt their house on shifting sand, and now its getting ready to crumble.

4:32 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,
Black Jack lawsuit story here

6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i don't get it. what does blackjack have to do with the steinhauser case

7:01 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Olivia Shelltrack vs Black Jack

The city of Black Jack lost this case.

Listen to the audio of Olivia Shelltrack discussing the case here.

7:33 PM  
Anonymous Leslie Lucht said...

eric,

I have not purchased any Homes
since 1997. You think that I do not take of my houses. Any time you want check them call. Or Ask
the city council. I have built to
homes in frogtown. I work on homes all times.
I work afull time job besides.

I don suck on the tit of the city for my money. I know that you you.

Also I am Delgate for dfl. I have been one for a twenty yrs.

You call city council and the mayor office too.

I think that you are fuc----- asshole.

I used my kid college fund to fix up a home last year. Because of a fire inspector. To bring it up to current code.

I can not sell the home or give it away.

You just suck my tax money. You wast it to.

You just get it. When the appeal can back in landlord court. You kiss some more ass.

You are just like bunch ass in office. That want to kiss off a much of hard working people.

At The ford plant. They taxes and
work hard. While you collect taxprayer money. For you to work and talk shit all the time.

city is breaking the law with there fire inspecting and codes.

So, eric any time that you want to walk in my shoes. give me call.

7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob there is nothing in common between Black Jack and this case. In Black Jack the City creates a number of unrelated adults that is not realistic. The effect is to limit access to housing.

In this case everyone of the cases the intent of the City is to get properties repaired. There is no desire to have an impact on tenants other than to make sure they have safe housing.

These guys don't even offer any data that their rent rates were significantly lower for substandard unsafe housing than landlords who's properties passed inspections.

In Black Jack you have a fact that the City is limiting the tenants access. In this case the only fact you have is that everyone of these cases have violations and everyone of them had access to the court system to appeal...and their either didn't or lost in state court.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bob there is nothing in common between Black Jack and this case. In Black Jack the City creates a number of unrelated adults that is not realistic. The effect is to limit access to housing."

If you believe that there is nothing in common Chuck you are beyond help.

You and Eric want to make it about a bunch of landlords who you guys say do not want to repair rental properties but just because you say so does not make it so. What the cases are about is the city of St. Paul's illegal schemes and racketeering activity to limit and deny housing to a certain class of people under the guise of safety and code enforcement.

10:04 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

The Black Jack case I posted is not the lawsuit John Shoemaker was referring to in his brief. I will post that soon. I am attempting to make a point here.

The city of Black Jack has a lot in common with the city of Saint Paul. They are getting sued repeatedly because ignorant voters elected arrogant progressives into local politics. These folks do not care about your civil rights. Civil rights are merely obstacles to their agendas.

If you listened to the audio of Olivia Shelltrack you can be rest assured the plaintiffs and many others here in Saint Paul have the same opinion of local politics and housing ordinances.

10:13 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

This is a link to the Black Jack case John Shoemaker was referring to in his brief

Take notice of paragraph 36

11:15 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Les Lucht is a responsible landlord. He is involved in his community. Les has donated his time with me helping repair homes of citizens in trouble with code enforcement. Like me, he is a smart man with bad grammer. Don't under estimate him.

11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have had the occasion to meet Leslie and I agree with Bob. He doesn't talk as well as a lot of people, but he's a stand up guy. He says what he believes in and is not afraid to stand by it. Right or wrong you know where you stand with Les and that's a hell of a lot better quality than a lot of people who are so afraid of their shadows that they can't say anything without leaving open a back door to slip out of if the remarks are not taken well. Les also went over to a property on the east side where the city was picking on an aisan woman who had some minor problems. He worked for free to help her becuase she didn't know what to do or where to go. Give me a Les any day over a lot of these wishy washy nothings with a big mouth and no brain.

11:30 PM  
Anonymous ACLU said...

thank you for posting the Loving case Bob.

12:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

:“The City of Black Jack’s behavior was both pompous and unconstitutional,” said Brenda Jones, Executive Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “Black Jack’s attempt to criminalize people’s choice to live together as a family has earned international ridicule for Missouri.”

Kinda sounds like St. Paul doesn't it? They want to criminialize landlords for the behavior of the renters. Anyone is who thinks St. Paul's interest is in getting houses repaired is crazy. It's all about behavior and a city council agenda to exterminate that behavior by whatever means......the constitution or civil rights be damned. To St. Paul, a person's constitutional rights are just an unintended consequence that stands in the way of government sanctions. Right Eric?

1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Black Jack

paragraph 37
whatever our law was once, we now firmly recognize that the arbitrary quality of thoughtlessness can be as disastrous and unfair to private rights and the public interest as the perversity of a willful scheme.

A good message for Dawkins dumb ass!

9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob post Stevens

10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dark days are coming for St. Paul

11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name of the game now Repke is Blackjack and the landlords are holding the ace and queen cards. Do you suppose the landlords will want to be paid by the violation or do you think they'll give the city a bulk rate?

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Bob, BOB!!!

They rezoned the property that there was a purchase offer on to prohibit the construction of multi-family housing, when they knew that the buyer was trying to build affordable housing, targetted at minority residents!

DUH

Those are some pretty clear facts Bob. The word was out that the land was going to be used for low income housing and the City down zoned it.

What we have here are landlords refusing to repair their properties exploiting the low income and minority residents and are asking the court to restrict the City from requiring them to repair their properties. They want to be excused from having to provide basic health and safety issues.

And you find that similar how?

No chance for you guys to win with Black Jack.

And have the cops questioned you yet on the Lindburg kidnapping? I swear its a huge conspiracy to protect you.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doesn't make any difference what it's about Chuck. The point of law that is on point is that the court says:

"the Tenants “need prove no
more than that the conduct of the defendant actually or predictably results in
discrimination; in other words, that it has a discriminatory effect.”

That's the law whether you like it or not Chuck so just change the word Tenants to Landlords. I think your buddies at city hall are going to be having some headaches in the days to come.

3:02 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Here is the link to Stevenson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Prior to trial, the plaintiffs filed a motion in limine, seeking to prohibit Union Pacific from calling witnesses to explain that it destroyed the tape and track maintenance records pursuant to its routine document retention policies.

The district court granted the motion and, at the outset of trial, orally instructed the jury that the voice tape and track inspection records "were destroyed by the railroad and should have been preserved," and that the jurors "may, but are not required to, assume that the contents of the voice tapes and track inspection records would have been
adverse, or detrimental, to the defendant." (Trial Tr. at 180.)

The district court thus
permitted the plaintiffs to immediately reference the destroyed material and the fact
that Union Pacific willfully destroyed it, but denied Union Pacific any opportunity
to offer its routine document retention policy as an innocent explanation for its
destruction of the evidence.

3:04 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
What we have here are landlords refusing to repair their properties exploiting the low income and minority residents and are asking the court to restrict the City from requiring them to repair their properties. They want to be excused from having to provide basic health and safety issues.

My response;
Your statement is what the city wants folks to believe Chuck. It is so far from the truth it is pitiful.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And on the other side of issue Chuck is the city wanting to be excused from honoring basic civil rights and constitutional protections.

3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Bob, BOB !!!!

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions on the ground that Union Pacific had destroyed evidence, namely, a voice tape of conversations between the train crew and dispatch at the time of the accident and track maintenance records from before the accident."

They had a crushed vehicle for god's sake Bob! Something happened they have evidence that a freaking train hit a car!

That is that point of what the judge said in ruling against the plaintiffs on the sumary judgement. You have to have some evidence that something happened.

Try starting a suit againt the Union Pacific because your car is missing and you have decided that it must have been eaten by a train. Then ask for all of the tapes for the last 10 years. If they don't produce the tapes NO JUDGE ON THIS PLANET WILL RULE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET MONEY.

You need evidence that a crime was committed to show that the missing information may help your case.

This case no evidence that anything that is being accused occured, other than they emptied the trash.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

4:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city is so scared, I've heard they offered to do their typical code compliance inspections on Thune's and Repke's houses.

4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Something happened in St. Paul too Repke. The city violated the rights of tenants, fabrictaed false violations, intentionally forced people out of business and carried on an illegal code enforcement agenda and there's a ton of evidence to support those claims. You just don't want to acknowledge it. Why do you keep talking about what the Judge said? What the Judge said isn't worth the paper it's written on any longer. There's a new court that's been convened and from the audio tape it doesn't aound to me like they are buying into the city's argument. Your city destroyed evidence in an attempted cover up Chuck and now they are going to get a damn good spanking for it.

6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have a very odd way of processing and rationalizing things Chuck.

7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just feel free to jump right in Eric! Why don't you tell about the code violations these people had again?

10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:05 of that list the only thing that would be relevant to the Federal case is the rights of the tenants... because the case is a Federal Fair Housing case... get it?

You guys keep bouncing off of the wall with one crazy charge after another but what matters to the court is what you have actually made Federal charges out of.

So, this violation of the the tenants rights is what? Their right to pay high rent rates for unsafe housing...?

Where/how did the City inspection program have an inpact on tenants other than to insist that owners repair properties that were unsafe?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go back and the read the complaint Chcuk. Have someone there to help you through it and explain things. When you get it then come on back and we can have a discussion. Until then you really don't know what you are talking about.

12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:08 As I explained earlier the cases had two basic charges first RICO - that there was a conspiracy to do go after these landlords to benefit someone else. They never had someone who would benefit, nor any discussion between two people that would show any kind of conspiracy, so that has pretty much died.

Second is the Federal Fair Housing Act - the idea there is that the effect of enforcing the housing code is to reduce rental options to minorities. What the plaintiffs didn't do at all is even try to show statically that it occurred. They claim that it happened but they offered nothing. You know, evidence.

The rest of the "charges" about how mean the City staff was to this landlord or that landlord, just aren't Federal cases and are silly anecdotal stories that the lawyers are putting in there to keep getting paid by their clients. It sounds good to the clients because they get to read about what a bunch of meanies the City is, but if it isn't about RICO or FFHA it is puff to make the client reach deeper into his wallet.

It is impossible to inspect every house on the same day... so, someone is always getting inspected when his neighbor is not. There is nothing criminal in that (yet that is a big part of the charges). In a complaint based system (what you have when you can't inspect every house in the city every day) the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Neighbors who live near houses with loud parties at night are more likely to call about the junk in the yard because they are upset with their neighbor anyway. That is human nature. Landlords who are slow to respond to those complaints are going to get more complaints because the neighbors really don't like them.

That becomes the connection between problem people and problem landlords. Landlords that respond to those complaints quickly aren't the landlords in these law suits...and they don't habitually have problem tenants and their neighbors cut them a little slack and they don't get regular complaint calls.

So, to imagine that the City is a part of a criminal enterprise because it response to the complaints of its citizens is insane.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A certain council person had a hit list of property owners and was discussing action on it with people. A cetain council person was in constant contact between neighbors and enforcement personel scamming about how to get a property sold to a certain individual. That's just the start. No wonder they destroyed all the evidence they did.

11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:04 exactly the insanity I was talking about! Thank you for showing just how nutty that is!

Think about what you just wrote. What would be the reason why a city council person and his/her constituants would create a "hit list?"

Do you think it would be a problem property list? A list of properties that the neighborhood was constantly complaining about and demanding that some action be taken to control the landlords who refused to keep up their properties and refused to evict those who were involved in criminal activities? Do you think that the council person might think that it was their job to make sure that enforcement was doing their job and responding to all of the complaint calls?

No, its because they just like picking on some landlords for no good reason. They are just mean that way. ...and they have a secret plan to sell all of the houses to Steve Magner... yup that's the ticket!

Insanity...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:39 AM  
Blogger Sharon 4Anderson said...

Sure seems like Chuck Repke has taken over this Blog, Why didn't he write an Amicus Brief?
Where is the City St.Paul Amicus Brief in the Unallotment Case?
Interesting Case to follow in MN Supreme Court is Imperial v.Calhoun A081883

Thought I'd be no 100 unless deleted

12:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I won't take the 100th comment from you Sharon.

I guess I am 101. How fitting. :)

For some 101 here. I believe 11:04 was making reference to an email in which a city counsel person was suggesting the force sale of a property. This email is in the evidence.

12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Chuck you just make the case for the landlords lawsuit to go to trial. The phase that they are in right now is not to offer evidence but to show facts that different people could listen to and come to different conclusions. You see it as a problem property list and the landlords see it as a hit list. These lists existed in the past and they exist today. That's a fact for the jury to look at and decide. Onward to trial!

10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:09 No you don't understand how these cases work, the plaintiff actually have to show the judge first that there is something to go to trial with. Some evidence that something occured. Not just an oppinion or accusation... evidence.

Cause if the court agrees with you, since I said I think Bob and Bill kidnapped the Lindburg baby the Federal Court should have a trial... By the way have you two been arrested yet or are the Saint Paul police a part of the conspiracy to cover up your crime.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the exception of Chuck and Eric this list is brain dead.

10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The difference in you saying that Bob kidnapped the Lindberg baby and getting a trial and the landlords is that the landlords have more than what someone thinks Chuck. They have email from council people trying to influence inspection outcomes for people who want to buy a property. The way I hear it is that certain email is one of the ones destroyed by the city. They also have signed statements from several people saying that certain offiicals are shaking them down for their property. And yes some of the St. Paul Police are part of the conspiracy.

2:19 AM  
Anonymous Kevin Trudeau v. Judge Gettleman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:19 actually that is not what they have, that is what is said here that they have.

When Bob actually posts what they have, and what they have already shown to the judge, what they actually have is things like a council member bitching out City staff for being so slow to take action on properties, giving problem landlords too much time and too many chances.

Or as we saw in the Nancy O case you have a citizen saying that the staff tried to make her sell to someone and because she didn't the building got torn down. What you see when Bob posts the rest of the story is that the citizen actually sells the building on CD to someone else, the City tries for three more years to get them to bring the building up to code, they never do and the City ultimately demo's the building and the buyers default on their contract with the original owner.

And, as any rational person would tell you making the leap someone threatened to get me to three years later they demo'ed the place with tons and tons of opportunities to bring the building into compliance, is a tad bit of a strain to anyone living on this planet.

What people are missing when they suggest this thing will go to a jury is that the plaintiffs have the obligation to give a judge reason to believe they might win the case. Just like the DA in an arraignment.

So, as others have posted here their obligation on the FFHA case was pretty small, show that there was some disparit impact... some study that would show more blacks then whites had a hard time finding housing because of the City's actions. That isn't that tough... and they didn't even bother to try.

On the RICO its harder what they needed was something some scrap of evidence that showed someone benefiting wrongly from the City's actions. Meaning other than the stated purpose which was healthier buildings and better housing both legal non-discriminatory goals.

They had nothing.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They have email from council people trying to influence inspection outcomes for people who want to buy a property. The way I hear it is that certain email is one of the ones destroyed by the city."

Read that quote again from 10:04. 10:04 has heard that this email is one of the missing emails... get it?

There is no evidence that the council member tried to do that but because there are emails missing, there must be an email that says I want Bob and Bill to get all of the vacant properties in Saint Paul given to them for a dime.

Yup that's the ticket...

The missing emails are what actually is the evidence of all of the crazy stuff we make up in our heads...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep on spinning Chuck but it doesn't change the fact that the city destroyed emails that were incriminating to them and the landlords have some of the emails to prove it. Dirty government at beat.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you know the emails were incriminating? The whole point is that there is nothing to indicate that those emails were discriminating. Nothing at all.

Again, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of emails were presented, thousands of emails that were destroyed were pieced together after an independent forensic team put them back together. And, there was nothing to indicate that some evidence may have been destroyed. Nothing at all.

Your own lawyer admits he has no evidence (exact words) that point to the emails containing any pertinent information.

Of course, if you admit this piece of fact, then, your whole conspiracy theory falls apart. A couple of more facts which you should know.

For the record, there are MORE minorities living in St Paul AFTER your so called effort to remove or target them.

More than 9 out of 10 landlords who rent to poor minorities have not had problems with the city or run problem properties.

These properties were some of the more constant violators in the city.

Suburban rental ordinances are much tougher than St Paul- which is why you and your friends are still buying up property.

There is no discrimination against a protective class here, unless you count landlords who don't take care of their property but, are willing to take that section eight money from the government.



Eric

9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This remains a sizzling topic, even though it has gone on for some time.

Their are many more who've moved on, but who's passions remain easily aroused - something the idiots in city hall need to understand.

4:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Idiots in city hall are winning over and over. It may be that the idiots are outside of city hall.

Idiots profess their passions to be fact, no matter the contrary.

9:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most people following this issue are aware of the facts and know where the city is headed.

In City Hall, there will be a lot of whining and crying when this finally hits, and the landlords take command of the city.

9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city should have settled this damn thing a long time ago and blamed it on kelly and Dawkins. Now it's going to stick to the current administration and in a time when people are already angry at government. Couldn't be worse timing.

9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Idiots profess their passions to be fact, no matter the contrary."

And DFLrs just keep spewing their lies and mistatements like those things are facts.

12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really?
Because it seems to me that they are winning the lawsuits and every single election in the city.

As Chuck said earlier, its ranked as one of the best ran cities in America. Its in the top 25 out of 350 cities. These are not liberals who rank them. Moody is full of tax cut loving economic professionals.

I'd like to see a law that says you can't own rental property if you don't live in the city.

8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As Chuck said earlier, its ranked as one of the best ran cities in America. Its in the top 25 out of 350 cities. These are not liberals who rank them. Moody is full of tax cut loving economic professionals."

Sure you can mske things look good in the short run with mirrors and cutting corners and putting sugar on shit and alienating the people you need.

The foundations of trust and integrity are gone.

But sooner or later you will have to pay the Reaper. . .

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Minneapolis system losing the fight against lax landlords | StarTribune.com

I don't know if that will work as a link, but there is a story in the Trib about all of the problems they are having in Minneapolis and the have landlord licencing.

Saint Paul is by far the EASIEST place in the metro to be able to be a landlord.


JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

China is an easy place to be too if you do not give a damn about having any rights.

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure Chuck and Eric are highly concerned about there own rights.

7:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home