Custom Search

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Saint Paul Fair Housing Lawsuit Update/ APPELLEES’ PETITION FOR EN BANC HEARING case # No. 09-1209

The city of Saint Paul is appealing the federal court decision to send the fair housing lawsuits to a jury trial.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey where is the appeal?

2:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I don't feel like wasting my time posting a frivolous appeal. If someone else here would like to post it have at it.

We will see the city of Saint Paul at jury trial!

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are so sorry, they don't deserve an appeal.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous AppelleCitySt.Paul8thCir-09-1209 said...

For Public Education the Free Accounts at SlideShare and Scribd, Appeal is posted also at Twitter and Facebook for Public Preview

8:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city's disphits would have an easier time of it if they had been acting in a professional and responsible manner. What would their mothers think if they knew what they were really doing?

1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The City to Petition for Rehearing Enbanc is not wasting time Read the Brief Appelle's Brief what goes around comes around for WHITE Homeowners

3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Sharon for the link...

So, what the City is saying is that they want a hearing on the pannels ruling that they would allow the case to go forward.

I am not an attorney, but, when the ruling for this came out I said that now we will see whatever stat's the landlords have that prove that there was a diverse impact... you know real evidence. I said that because there hasn't been any of that presented. Only the suggestion that since some landlords were either unable or unwilling to repair their property that would have an impact on low income tenants and since more African Americans are low income then it must have had a bigger impact on African Americans.

What the City is saying is that if the landlords had any real evidence it had to come up in discovery and it didn't. So, you can't have a trial on diverse impact when there is no real evidence only the inferal that since more poor are African American then the inforcement must have impacted them more.

I think they have a good shot.

Makes sense to me.


Chuck Repke

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Remand Order Melloy_09-1209 said...

Compare the "Order" What bother me is if the Remand then the City covertly is ursuping the 8th Cir. "Order" to Remand back to Federal Court.
Issued Circuit Judges Wollman, Bye and Melloy

now online
"Appellants argue in their reply briefs that the magistrate judge improperly
required them to demonstrate bad faith as a precondition for spoliation-of-evidence
sanctions. However, Appellants failed to assert their legal argument in their opening
briefs, thereby depriving the Court of full briefing on this issue. As such, we deem
Appellants’ argument waived. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir.

sanctions, renewed motion for sanction, and motion to compel. We remand these
consolidated cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.11

10:53 AM  
Anonymous Slideshare Forensic Files said...

Repke Thanks for your response as Sharon's 100 plus Blogs Facebook,Twitter,

Chuck you've blocked or Greylisted Sharons e-mail for years. Please do no underestimate Bloggers specifically Republican Mike Brodbok (sp) exposing Democrat's
HOWEVER Bobby's Blog to expose the Truth of Landlords must also expose the WHITE HOMEOWNERS such as Sharon transposed Lennie's to and Sharons 12 Propertys acquired in the past 30 yrs "taken" without Just Compensation Disparate Impact of White Homeowners Reverse Rasicism Read the Black Panthers Case etc. City Attorney Sara Grewing must put these files on City Attorney Site for Public Preview.

Chuck I think Gloria will WIN and will be in a Conflict of Interest.
The City's link is at Slideshare also Thanks to Someone

11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds to me like the city is pretty desperate. Hopefully the judges are of your mindset Chuck because there are just a very small number of these appeals ever granted. I think it's a better shot that the city is going to have to stop violating the Fair Housing laws.

7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" The panel relied upon evidence that showed the city experienced a shortage of affordable housing, but their is absolutley no evidence in the record that any shortage was because of anything done by the city " .
( page 8 of appellee's brief ) .

On page 2, the brief sets out that the panel found evidence in the record that the cities aggressive housing code enforcement practices increased costs for the landlords and had a trickle down dispatate impact on African Americans.

Even thouh the panel acknowledged that the the housing code had a manifest non discriminatory objective ( as most laws and procedures are presumed ) This panel was able to infer that the way this housing code was enforced is the reason this is going to trial.

The panel was able to look at all the collateral evidence such as evidence that their were trumped up and exagerated violations and procedures were not followed and the code was enforced in an arbitrary way where DSI employees took matters into their own hands and colluded, of course the appellees are not speaking of these things but i expect the Landlords to point that out in their responce.

Jeff Matiatos

1:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way Bob, who ever TOOK THE TIME to post this brief,gets a gold medal because after reading it, it's all just hogwash spin .
This blog is starting to mimick Fox News. Fair and balanced my ass. The readers here are better served by getting both sides.

1:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You got it. The point of this appeal is that the appeals court is saying that because there is an inference that there may be a trickle down effect on African Americans it should go to trial.

The City is saying that other courts have said that once it is in trial you need statistical evidence that actual shows that some disparate impact occurred. Since the plaintiffs don't have that evidence, (they have no statistical data at all) then there is no point in a trial. IE since the City can't lose why make them waste all of the money for a trial?

The City has already won on every other point. No evidence of any of the other issues. This is the last issue left and the plaintiffs have no data to back up the charge.

So, we shall see if they get the en banc hearing and what is ruled.


Chuck Repke

9:10 AM  
Blogger Bob said...


The fact is I was attempting to post it and having problems with copying and pasting so I emailed a REQUEST TO SHARON TO POST IT! ASK HER! I was frustrated and didn't want to waste anymore time on it.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" I don't feel like wasting my time posting a frivolous appeal "
" Was having problems posting and pasting so I e-mailed a request to Sharon to post it "

Make up you mind Bob, was it really frivolous or was it just wasting your time, OR were you just having trouble copying and pasting ???

9:51 AM  
Anonymous MNAwardHighTech said...

Bobby's Blog is Great Low Budget YES it is frustrating However Candidates who stay updated have the drivers to print pdf files.
Its a 24_7 time consuming MN given a High Tech Award.

10:13 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

It's a FRIVILIOUS APPEAL and I was frustrated trying to copy and paste the garbage. I felt I was wasting my time.

Please stop with the petty shit.

10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Chuck, you agree of the possibility of a trickledown affect ? Sounds like it to me and then you must agree that their was a cause to this trickledown affect and that can only have come from the manner that DSI employees were enforcing what the appeals court stated, that even though their was in existence a presumend non discriminatory code enforcement mandate, that DSI employees were discriminating apparentley without the blessing of their superiors.

Chuck, evidence consisting of landords lost income and excessive repairs invoices can be reasonably linked to the actions of the city.

Further, this case will be determined by a preponderance of evidence.

I read the cities appeal for en banc hearing to be one that is grasping at straws in order to fend off what the appeals court has ruled that the cities DSI employess engaged in conduct that affected the landlords buisness and had a disparate impact on African Americans.

I give the city credit for pulling out all the stops, but were not dealing with Ramsey County District Court Judges here.

Jeff Matiatos

10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This appeal is a whining effort by the city. They trampled other peoples' rights and destroyed a number of other peoples lives. When they are started to be brought to account, they act like spoiled babies. They must have thought that because of being government, they were above the law.

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, I agree that was what the landlords said. I don't see at all that they have any evidence that it occurred. From what we have seen here there were as many white tenants as black tenants in the properties that had issue. If that is the case there is no case.

What the City is saying is that we will never know what was the case because the landlords have no data.

That is the point of their appeal. The law requires for the landlords to win that they have some data that would prove their case... some survey that was done some research of tenants that lost their housing during this time period... none of that occurred.

The landlords case on disparity boils down to:

1. Enforcing housing codes increase costs to landlords.
2. Some landlords will not pay the costs of maintenance.
3. Because of lack of maintenance inspectors will condemn property.
4. Because properties are condemned tenants will lose their living arrangement.
5. African Americans have a higher percentage of their population in poverty than white Americans
6. Most condemned properties will have housed low income tenants.
7. Since African Americans have a disproportionate number of poor they will be represented in a higher percentage in the condemned properties.
8. Since a higher percentage of African Americans than whites, will be in condemned properties, then condemning properties has a disparate impact on African Americans.
9. Since any code enforcement may result in condemnation, than code enforcement creates disparate treatment.
10. To fulfill the Fair Housing Laws no city can enforce any housing code.

That is their case and that isn't going to fly. They have no data that suggests that anything changed between administrations that impacted percentages. The point of the appeal is that the panel accepted the above logic as potential evidence and courts have ruled in the past that more is needed. Data is needed.


Chuck Repke

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like I said before Chuck, the landlords can provide a list of tenants they rented too, note thier race and provide records that they were low income and poor and were on assistance programs.

The courts here already have this data in evidence and your not seeing it argued here in this En-Banc brief of the city because the city doesn't want to bring it up.

I assure you that the landlords will remind the appeals court here that it in fact is the data that the panel is reffering to.

The panel did infer that ( PRIMA FACIA ) evidence of primarily low income and racially diverse tenants in conjunction with evidence of arbitrary enforcement of a presumed non discriminatory code AND landlords proof of losses satisfies the current case law that supports the landlords theory of liability justifying these issues fro trial.

Jeff Matiatos

4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will give you these cases Chuck and leave you to draw your own conclusions about this standard of proof.

431 U.S.324 at 335

AND 895 F.2d 1529-30
(7th Cir.( 1990 ).

I understand the landlords have some prima facia evidence that some DIS employees made some remarks about wanting to get rid of blacks ?

This link will really help all of us understand exactly what a fair housing brief should look like.

Jeff Matiatos.

5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The website I posted giving the legal brief explains very well about how the court considers a disparate impact claim affecting African Americans. See page 31 of the brief. See the table of contents for any specific issue or topic of interest concerning the Fair Housing Act and the pending litigation we are all so interested in.

This brief is so good, either side in this case might use it as ammunition.

As you will see, the author of this brief is very skilled.

Jeff Matiatos

8:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city's brief is nothing more than a piece of science fiction.

1:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to Chuck(le) when I read the cities brief where they claimed that the cities housing code enforcement applies to the entire housing stock.

Of course we all know that the PHA has been given a free pass on many of it's building and property inspections and that the PHA Board of Commisioners is stocked with police officer(s) to other city officials loyal to city hall.

Jeff Matiatos

7:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, regarding the cities contention in their brief that plaintiffs failed to provide statistical evidence, if your looking for statistics of those who could afford the rent before the " code enforcement " and those who could afford it afterwards, the answer would be in effect that before the code, these low income mostly black tenants or tenants most likely to fall under the Fair Housing protection netting, were paying rent that was stable and modest at least. After the code, the city coded to the max in an arbitrary manner that ruined plaintiffs buisness and displaced the tenants some of whom had to pay higher rents elseware even for a short time is enough to trigger
the alleged violations under the FHA.

The city trys to minimize the impact of this Disparate impact claim by saying the diversity in plaintiffs rental units were just as much white and other nationalitys as it was African Americans but this arguement doesent't hold water because all of plaintiffs tenants generally are the type that get the most consideration under the FHA so the panel was able to infer on this basis.

Jeff Matiatos

7:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are proving the City's case to throw this out. If what you are saying is true then data should have existed and the plaintiffs should have given it to the City and the Judge during discovery.

But, they don't have that data.

They have stories.
They have assumptions.
They have allegations.
They have accusations.

They don't have statistics.
They don't have data.
They don't have evidence.

They don't have a case.

... and they should put the court system through the expense of a trial that they have no chance in winning because prior courts have said they need data/stats/evidence.


Chuck Repke

9:22 AM  
Anonymous Murders by DSI said...

Chuck What about Victims who are "Murdered" for their Property Rights ie: Jim Casci Sharons2nd Husband Friends of Bobby's on Butternut? etc.

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, I know a man with your knowledge has the ability to read, but your ignorance to the plaintiffs disparate claim cannot go un-noticed.

Your statistics you crave that support the plaintiffs Disparate Impact claim are contained on page 15 (d) and on page 16 of the panel Judges order ( Melloy Judge ). It is posted in this commentary.

Is their anything else you need to know ;) !!!!!!

Jeff Matiatos

10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and Chuck, read pages 17 and 18of the order also.

Jeff Matiatos

10:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, Eric, I couldn't help but think of you when I read that the evidence in this case according to the Judges order, mentioned evidence that Lisa Martin and police officer Dean Koehnen allegedly made and or supported derogatory remarks about the plaintiffs African American tenants " The black plague come like Roaches ".

Furthermore, we have Dawkins and his animus attitude towards blacks and low income citizens.

Is this the DFL you have supported all these years Eric ? Can you bring yourself to shake the Hand of Dawkins and Lisa Martin knowing how they speak of African American people ?

Oh, and Chuck, the plaintiffs are not required to prove a particular stastical comparison ( See Teamsters 431 U.S. at 340 ).

I think both Chuck and Eric need to re-evaluate their loyalty to the DFL Knob Bobbers down at city hall.

And your welcome for my splendid interpretation of the Judges order.

If you can do better, please do.

Jeff Matiatos

12:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawkins and Martin might be racists pigs ? How can the city employ people like that and they are still working for the city ??
Someone needs to call for their removal right now !!! The mayor should fire them !!!

12:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conduct unbecoming of a city employee.

12:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck and Eric,

It's now been proven in these massive courtroom proceeding that you are part of the problem.

Why don't you drop your creepy friends and become part of the solution. Your friends have had their laughs - now they have got to pay. This en banc does not have a snowball's chance in hell, or should I say a Magner's chance in hell.

2:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the defendant city should be lucky that this matter didn't get in front of Judge Wilson of Ramsey District Dourt. Being an African American man that he is, the city would be in pretty rough shape because of their hatred for blacks !

8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think your right 8:00 a.m., they would have filed a notice to remove Judge Wilson the moment they found out he was going to be the sitting Judge in the case. How obvious would the citys racists sentiment's towards blacks be then ?

8:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, then you all in favor of blacks receiving compensation if they were removed BECAUSE of the landlords shitty upkeep? I'll keep that in mind as this case continues to peter out. I'm sure I'll see all of you standing there with me demanding justice.

As someone who has said over and over, there are individual bigots on the city payroll and have pointed to lawsuits against the police, fire and city contracting as proof of this, you're not exactly breaking news here. Can you find individuals with this attitude- yes. And when we do, we need to make examples out of them. Same for landlords. Most are just fine with the city and the city is fine with them. However there about a dozen or so, out of hundreds, who are so bad at maintaining their property or being responsible for their property, that they're a detriment to the area and even the reputation of other landlords. Those are the bastards we went after and got. And, trivial lawsuit after lawsuit won't change that.

I don't know officer Dean K., I don't know Lisa Martin. However, I do know Andy Dawkins and his family. He's got a 15 year record in the legislature of standing up for the poor. As an attorney, he has a long court record of supporting and fighting for civil rights.

Just by making that shit up about him, you show your bold ignorance and flagrant stupidity about this entire fiasco of a case.

Dawkins, who lived in Frogtown and was their elected state rep for 15 years, was quite often the ONLY voice for his neighbors. No need to guess what side he's on, its on paper. He clearly is not on the side of those who exploit the poor and minorities in order to profit.

You all have to be dumbest and most useless sons of bitches this side of Wasilla.


3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the bigots is Jeff M. himself.
Yes, your half-retarded legal beagle (mostly beagle) has spouted ignorant bigoted crap right here on this blog in the past. Its not hidden in court records its right here.

So, maybe I should listen to him when calls someone racist. No one knows their own kind better.


3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right Eric, you can't name one other person here who has ever "called" me a bigot besides yourself.

Truth is Eric, your man Dawkins and others, according to the latest developments in this case, have been determined by a Federal Court ( which Eric obviously doesn't respect ),to have been part of a violative housing code edict that has thrown your race out into the street.

And, has helped ruin the landlords buisnesses.

But the Federal Court seems to believe in the landlords when they found credible, the statements made about your race being called "The Black Plague ".....

Now are those remarks of the kind you speak of by your definition of being a bigot ?

Well, seems like they were made from the very people you support. What a shame.

You have that way of trying to escape from the truth Eric when questioned and when it's been pointed out that your side is losing, you start calling the messenger a bigot. No harm done here Eric as I do not and will not change my perception of those around me who themselves refuse to accept the realities that they are guilty and hypocritical.

Go ahead and read Chuck sputtering comments, something about the landlords being full of hot air.

Then read the courts order and concede in the truth that the city is going to have pay for it's
Arbitrary and biggoted enforcement of the code.

As I have correctly pointed out Eric, your side will not get this en banc hearing as the Federal Court has correctly decided the disparate impact claims right to go to trial.

You might be right about Dawkins not wanting to hurt the poor, but the record shows that he was involved in a scheme of sorts to rid the city of low income mainly Blacks.

You can't possibly know Dawkins private thoughts about any particular race, and for all we know, he could have racists biasis against blacks and if he is, he sure would't come right out and say the exact words. You just don't know him that well Eric.

Conclusion ? Martin, and Koehnen are alleged bigots taking orders and direction from Dawkins.

Dawkins allowed bad things to happen to poor minorities and buisness owners.

So, Your case for Dawkins credibility is far from accurate.

Jeff Matiatos

6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawkins and Martin might be racists pigs ?

I don't know bout Dawkins but Lisa Martin is not a racist.

She was married to a blackman (Aaron Foster) and dated black men.

6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well it's clearly indicated in the Federal Courts order that Martin made racially derogatory remaks about African Americans. See page 11 of Federal Judge Melloys order.
Sounds like she could be a racist and after having lived with a man like Foster, someone just might learn to hate the blackies.

7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


These are the two quotes from the order that support to plaintiff's case:

"These premises, together, reasonably demonstrate that the City’s aggressive
enforcement of the Housing Code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on
racial minorities, particularly African-Americans. Viewed in the light most favorable
to Appellants, the evidence shows that the City’s Housing Code enforcement
temporarily, if not permanently, burdened Appellants’ rental businesses, which
indirectly burdened their tenants."


"Though there is not a single document that connects the dots of Appellants’ disparate impact claim, it is enough that each
analytic step is reasonable and supported by evidence."

Both support the notion that if you look at everything through the eye of the plaintiff and allow no defence or explanation you may be able to have a case. What the City is asking in the for in an En Banc Hearing is to show that the "evidence" isn't "evidence." That there is no data to support the plaintiffs suggestion that these things occurred.

That is what I am saying the City is saying, yes the plaintiffs say these things happen and yes they have some isolated cases but where is the data that they would need to win a case?

That's all.


Chuck Repke

9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I didn't write the order Chuck and to the typical laymen, these orders sometimes are not understood because generally the laymen reader doesn't connect case law to what they are reading.

My understanding from reading both the decision of the order, the relevant law, and the documented allegations of fact, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, AND factor in the fact that plaintiffs do not need to always provide the statistical evidence you believe is required.

This court stated that prior precedent dictates that having the statistics is just one way but not the only.

It appears other affidavits and verified statements recieved via depositions were enough, in conjunction with some statistics already provided by the plaintiffs ( like the demographic evidence both parties agreed were fact ) to remand this case back to the court for trial to see whether the individual actions of the various defendant city employees actions had a disparate affect.

All this appeals court said is that it thinks their is a prima facia case for disparate affect not a verdict to that effect.

Your trying to pass judgement on this case Chuck before it's even tried and that's not consistant with due process. You have the right to your opinion about the case but your no lawyer and I just don't think that you have correctly connected the circumstances of this case to the law of the case.

It's coming down now to a burden shifting test that challanges the defendants to justify the conduct of their DSI employess to a presumed non-discriminatory code and then the burden may shift back to the plaintiffs depending on whether or not the defendants have prevailed meeting their burdens of legitamizing their conduct.

My prediction is that the Federal District Court will hear this trial and whatever happens happens.

Jeff Matiatos

11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's coming down now to a burden shifting test that challenges the defendants to justify the conduct of their DSI employees to a presumed non-discriminatory code and then the burden may shift back to the plaintiffs depending on whether or not the defendants have prevailed meeting their burdens of legitimizing their conduct."

Actually, with a Federal Fair Housing case, none of that will matter at all. We are really down to did the City's turn up the heat on code enforcement have a disparate treatment on people of color. It doesn't matter if the staff were ass holes or if they did the inspection with a white hood on. Or, if they were trying to discriminate or not or if they took the plywood out of someones garage. That part of the case has been thrown out.

If the case goes forward that part of the case that is left is: Did the City's increased efforts on code enforcement have a disparate treatment?

The panel said that if you took every statement that the plaintiff said in the best light for them and considered nothing else then maybe you could see that as disparate treatment. The point of the City's en banc hearing is to say, there isn't enough there, there. No meat on the bones. No stats, no data, not enough to just say maybe it happened so lets go to trial, the plaintiff should have produced more factual data.

It is about impact.


Chuck Repke

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, it's perhalps the last time I'am going to try to educate you. The order on page 16 states

" ...., the evidence shows that the citys housing code enforcement, ( the way the code was enforced by employees of DSI ) temporarily, if not permanently, burdened appelants rental buisness, which indirectly burdened their tenants " .

The defendant city is saying that the panel court reached this conclusion without sufficient data.

I pointed out Chuck, that in prior cases in other circuts, as did the city defendants, that data WAS a factor in those cases, but this panel pointed out that having the data the city complains is lacking here, is only one way of making out a prima facia case which in turn requires a trial on the merits.

I also pointed out to you that pages 15-18 of the order gave plenty of data and percentiles with which the court relied on, not to mention all the affidavits and deposition testimoney that was considered.

Your just wrong here Chuck and ignorant to what the order says and when i try to explain it to you time after time.

Go ahead and believe what you want because your ignorance to the order and relevant case law won't help the city one Iota.

Jeff Matiatos

6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


But... like the City said the plaintiffs gave affidavits of THREE African American tenants!!!!

That is evidence??? That is data???

That is the point of the hearing. The panel "inferred" that since this happened to three people that it may have happened to the class.

Again it isn't about the employees anymore it is about the policy and the impact of that policy on a class of people.

To be successful the plaintiff should have had data that showed that Saint Paul's foreclosure rate was higher than Mpls... that the number of condemnations were higher among the foreclosed properties in Saint Paul than Mpls. Or even that the number of condemnations in the foreclosure pool was higher after the policy than before.

That is the point. The panel has lowered the bar for a hearing to: you changed your policies, at least 3 African American families were evicted, lets have a trial.

That is the issue.


Chuck Repke

9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, as an example, class action lawsuits most always begin by one person bringing the lawsuit and if the court determines that yes, the issue or issues cannot be resovlved or complete relief determined without all those affeted, it will certify the action for the entire group of individuals affected saving the time and expence of many trials.

I just recieved notice that my credit card company was sued and I was made a party to the pending litigation unless I waived that right.

Summary Judgement requires that the courts determine the discovery and pleadings to show that when there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, the case is from that point over. Appeals may follow.

The evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgement was granted.

Plaintiffs need only submit to the court verified sworn testimony and other evidence that will withstand a summary judgement motion.

The panel here determined that the affidavits of the tenants in and of themselves, had probative value to meet the elements of the Disparate Impact claim.

So, Chuck would have us all believe that 3 victimized black tenants doesn't justify compensation ?

Just how many victims does it take Chuck ?

Notice the Panel court quoted that plaintiffs were damaged because : " The evidence shows that the citys code enforcement " This meaning how the code was enforced which equates to how individuals from DSI enforced the code so it has more to do with actions of individuals who cited the plaintiffs.

The policy was presumed to be non discriminatory so what made this action violative were the actions of the employees. I mean if it wasn't, the defendants could always ask the court to amend the caption and dismiss the individual DSI defendants but that hasn't happened.

Jeff Matiatos

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see.

Chuck's wife has been a lawyer for 25 years and is about to become a judge.
Jeff's wife took him to a judge and he was threatened with doing 25 years.

Chuck gets the point in this one.

8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:23 gets points for being a no name idiot. This has nothing to do with Chucks soon to be wife.

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has to do with sources and basis of information since neither Chuck or Jeff hold law degrees or passed the Minnesota bar exam.

Its safe to assume that aside from his many friends and colleagues that are lawyers, public attorneys or judges, Chuck can always turn to his wife-to-be for either an analysis or precedence. Not to mention that Chuck has been involved in crafting legislation that becomes law over the years.

Jeff, on the other hand, tries to lay out a 'it's a simple as that' line of reasoning. While that may make the uneducated or non-lawyers who read this nod in agreement, it has no confidence of being rooted in law. Jeff can let us know with whom he consults on these matters but, it appears that he is his own counsel and proud of it.

As someone who was once the spokesperson and a lobbyist for the trial lawyers in the state, I know that the law is not 'as simple as that'. There are many complicated parts of a case (as well as a law) that unless you have studied the application of law and been put to the test (state bar), and a test (years of trial work), you'd be a fool to bank on that assessment. And, even going through all of that, that person may not be full of sage advice. Afterall, two attorneys walk into a case, only one is going to win.


12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" After all, two attorneys walk into a case, only one is going to win " Really ????

Eric, even a lamen like me, who perhalps is way more experienced than your average citizen claiming to have even one or two tour of duties in pro-se matters before the courts, who can tell you that most personal injury cases are a win win for attorneys where insurance companys and you and me are footing the bill.

Some of the cases settle and some don't but both sides are getting paid to represent either the plaintiffs or defendants.

Ask most Judges in Ramsey County if they ever heard of me and then ask most Judges in Washington County.

You paint a false perception of me when you states that I think in terms of legal issues " being as simple as that "

There is not one single judicial district at every level of the judiciary, from your local courts to the Supreme Court that hasn't misapplied the law or erred.

I have been in the arena with the City Attorney, County Attorneys and the Attorney General and magor lawfirms in civil matters AND, I have attorney relations I can consult with and I can say that at least one county attorney has indirectly complemented me for my legal accomplishments and how I am able to bring forward a civil matter and prosecute it with a fire unmatched by any pro se litigant.

Chuck on the other hand, seems to only have the common understanding about basic court functioning and I suppose he has his way of getting a tidbit more than your common laman.

But for you Eric to go out on a limb and try to underscore the vast extent of my understanding of the law and interpretation of case law can be equated to someone who claims to know all about religion but never heard of the bible.

The city I predict will not get this enbank hearing and Chuck thinks the city will, we shall see who is right.

Jeff Matiatos

2:58 PM  
Anonymous RochesterPolice_Ordinance said...

Look at what is happening in Rochester Police Rochester police hief questions new landlord ...Oct 8, 2010 ... A part of Rochester's proposed "code of conduct" ordinance for landlords has been called into question by the police chief. ...

5:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll take Jeff's opinion any day over Eric and Chuck. Jeff is open minded and can read the law and understand it for what it is without it being filtered through some DFL bullshit spin prism. As far as having a degree? Give me a f'ing break. I'll take a guy who can do the job over the degree any day.

10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric at 12:55 wrote this about Jeff's analysis:
"While that may make the uneducated or non-lawyers who read this nod in agreement, it has no confidence of being rooted in law."

Anonymous (Jeff) at 10:51 wrote this about Jeff's analysis:
"I'll take Jeff's opinion any day over Eric and Chuck. Jeff is open minded and can read the law and understand it for what it is without it being filtered through some DFL bullshit spin prism. As far as having a degree? Give me a f'ing break. I'll take a guy who can do the job over the degree any day."

Isn't Tim Pawlenty and Tom Emmer both lawyers?

1:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you 10:51 for the compliment.

I have won a great majority of all the civil cases I have filed and I am not one of those Pro-Se frequent filers in the courts that have their cases thrown out because they fail to state a claim or file a frivilous action.

I act with respect every to single Judge I appear before no matter what I really think of them.

I use proper candor and wear a suit and tie to every hearing. I dress as well as any attorney.

I am not intimidated by any Judge and will properly file a notice to remove that Judge. On one occasion, I removed every single Judge from a case I had in Washington County. A Judge from Pine County was required to drive from Pine County to Washington County to hear my case. Good move on my part since that Judge ruled in my favor against the State of Minnesota which lead to an offer by the state to settle my claims for a monetary sum I will not disclose..

As far as Eric is concerned ? Well this comment hear lays waste to his statement trying to minimize the potential of Pro-Se litigants and what they can accomplish.

Eric baldly and blindly believes that the only people capable of having a brain are DFLers and those blue blood politicians linked to Judges and Lawyers.

Jeff Matiatos

6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric baldly and blindly believes that the only people capable of having a brain are DFLers and those blue blood politicians linked to Judges and Lawyers.

No. Doctors, most CEO's, accountants and computer programmers are examples of intelligent people with educations. All of them utilizes attorneys when going into court or analyzing the law. Even other attorneys and judges use attorneys when going into court or analyzing the law.

Politicians (both DFL and Republicans) also have legal experts (lawyers) review legislation before votes.

Those are the facts Jeff. I'll take that precedence over your half brain conclusions. Afterall, the landlords hired a real attorney for this, not you. And though you keep trying to craft a scenario where the law is on their side, the truth is, they have lost every step of the way and the only thing left has nothing to do with their original suit or the several incarnations it has endured.


8:58 AM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

Eric jeff knows his shit face it man!

you ever think about freelancing for landlords pro se jeff? you would contribute some color to the legal process. )

kudos jeff!

9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok Eric, you were attempting to tell me something I already knew but you left out one signifigant factor about what you wrote. It's that many CEOs and accountants need lawyers more for the corruption they endeavor in than like say as an expert witness or as a consultant.

It should be made more obvious to the general public that most of the laws on the books are in fact drafted and approved by lawyers not the politicians themselves as most politicians are not lawyers.

So when the public actually views a law in print, it makes the politician look smarter because of the way the law is written and the politicians image is unfortunatley enhanced. And this fact just confirms what I think of alot of politicians is that they are really not that smart to begin with and some of them probably couldn't write a 2 page essay about dogs and cats without some kind of help.

And although the Courts in these cases for the landlords have to date denied some of the claims of the landlords, any lawyer with half a brain will tell you that part of making any case means trying to make mountains out of molehills by adding claims that just might have a chance. The reason you have to add as many claims as possible even if they are borderline, is because once you file a claim, attorneys are allowed to conduct discovery to help build that claim up from essentially mere allegations to a
solid case. It doesn't mean the plaintiffs were filing excessive claims only to have them ruled as frivilous and be socked with attorneys. Most attorneys will not file a claim period unless it has at least some merit and they are able to show the court that at least the allegations can be tied to some facts and some theory of law.

As far as the landlords losing every step of the way ?? I see them having won more than anyone could have ever have imagined.

They have succeded in exposing many city employees for conduct unbecoming of a public servants.

I and some others are currently looking into the city and state laws and regulations to see if we can get any city employees who have taken part in any of the disparate discrimination to be terminated and lose any pensions.

Jeff Matiatos

11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a nice little link supporting the very idea that corruption of public servants can impact pensions.

Jeff Matiatos

12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting but not unusual that Chuck and Eric are FB friends and they seem to only post and comment at the same time. Now thats what I call friendship.

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Afterall, the landlords hired a real attorney for this, not you. And though you keep trying to craft a scenario where the law is on their side, the truth is, they have lost every step of the way and the only thing left has nothing to do with their original suit or the several incarnations it has endured."

Hey Eric do you try real hard to be stupid or soes it just come natural to you? You say the landlords have no case and Jeff and others says they do. You go on and on with all this BS and you do not mention a word about a real appeals court thats says these landlords do have a claim.....months after Jeff had been saying the same. And now you are back here trying to bash him again? You're almost better than Repke! Where do you guys get this spin shit from? What's wrong with your brain that you can't read something and interpet it with the plain meaning of the English language? Read the Appeal you fool. A real court says these guys have a claim and ordered them to trial. It's really pretty simple Eric. Maybe Jeff or someone could school you in how to interpet things with a flavor toward reality and logic.

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you 9:30 a.m. for your compliment .

Jeff Matiatos

1:28 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home