Custom Search

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Pioneer Press/ Justice Department's role in St. Paul's decision to drop Supreme Court case questioned

LINK TO STORY HERE

These people should be in jail!

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what happens in the Magner case when it goes to trial and the city loses ? Does the city appeal the ruling and find itself BACK in the Supreme Court ? I think in the interest of tax payor expense, the public interest's of landlords to remain a viable source of affordable housing to low income persons, but most of all the upholding of the Fair Housing Act which in part supports the landlords contentions that the actions of the city were violative and indeed had a disparate impact on minorities . In the end when the landlords prevail, we should thank them for standing up not only for themselves, but for minorities and their need for affordable housing that landlords can provide.



Jeff Matiatos

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

By the City dropping its case at the Supreme Court, you got what you wanted, which I thought was a trial on the merits of the landlords' case.

If Saint Paul would have won at the Supreme Court then your landlords' case would be all done, over, finished. What the GOP reps are arguing is that the City's case was so good and the landlords' case is so bad that the Supreme Court would have thrown out all of the landlords arguments and nobody could ever make them again!

The GOP reps would have liked the City to win because they fear that some private citizens may make the same kind of twisted arguments that the landlords use against the City against banks and that the Justice Dept might suport those arguments.

Your landlords arguments are that you can't enforce housing code standards on properties where people of color live because that discriminates against the people that live there. If you enforce the code, they might be forced to leave. The banks and the GOP fear that if that argument is allowed to be an argument and an interpritation of the FHA that you could argue that you can't enforce the provisions of your mortgage because people of color live there and that might force them to lose their housing.

...and since a higher percentage of people of color are poor both arguments cary the same weight if that is what the FHA means concerning adverse impact.

The GOP would argue that you can't have adverse impact only adverse intent. They were betting that the Supreme's would not only agree with the City but rule that the landlords arguement was insane.

Duh!

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:43 AM  
Blogger Sharon 4Anderson said...

Good God Repke the Issues now are DOJ lawyer Tom Perez complicit with numerous lawyers to deny "due process" etc Triggers Federal Judge Joan Ericksen "Orders" conflicting with MGSF et al Download the Doc's
http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_21629950/justice-departments-role-st-pauls-decision-drop-supreme?fb_action_ids=4410054978955&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%224410054978955%22%3A366453730098668%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224410054978955%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]

10:01 AM  
Anonymous Holder Letter USSC 10-1032 said...

Holder Letter Write your Congress on the City St.Paul apparant Complicity on the State and Federal Level, Sharon is seeking the Resignation of Jerry Hendericksen City Attorney advising the Counsel, PS Lantry is on Vacation?

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember Chuck, it was the landlords who won causing the city to have to appeal. So as it stands now the landlords are winning pending the outcome of trial which I'am sure the landlords are prepared . Never know, trial preparation and final discovery on or before the eve of trial could bring a settlement. If I was the city I would be strongly think of settling .



Jeff Matiatos

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

You are a fool, STOP blaming the GOP for the DFL stupidity.

Don't you remember the DFL has had total control of all things St. Paul for the last 25 years.

Your argument is faulty and totally without foundation.

7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:25 read the article before you post a comment. This is about a group of GOP congressmen who are upset that the City dropped its case. My point was that they think the landlords case is so lame that the Supreme Court would have thrown out the issue of adverse impact for all FHA cases and the GOP thinks that would be a good thing. So, they are upset that the Justice Department encouraged the City to drop the case. The GOP Reps wanted Saint Paul to win.

Jeff, what the landlords won was the right to try the case on the ONE ISSUE of adverse impact. The first judge threw that issue out but the higher court said to try the issue and that was what the City appealed to the Supreme Court.

And, yes if the court rules against the City that could be appealed up the chain.... and you could end up with the Supreme's throwing out adverse impact in FHA cases as insain... but the more likely happening is the City wins and then the issue of if one can sue under adverse impact doesn't come up.

And, Jeff I don't think there is a chance in heck of the City settling for anything other than makining the landlords go away...(a token to get rid of a silly suit that is wasting City time and money).

The principle of being able to protect tenants from bad landlords is to important. If the landlords were to win the case then the courts would in effect be saying that the City can not enforce any housing standards where people of color live. The landlords have a right to keep them in substandard conditions because it the City enforced to code they might lose their housing.

It will never stand.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck it okay to make the statement, "The principle of being able to protect tenants from bad landlords is to important." Is interesting when the code is applied differently to the citizens of St. Paul.

Just for fun, let's take a sitting city council member who happens to own rental property on a major street in St. Paul. He does numerous improvements to the building without a permit and has piles of trash behind the building. When a complaint is made against him to the city, the DSI supervisor, oh let's say his name is Phil Owens covers for the council member. If it had been you or I we would have been coded to the max, but because he was or is a sitting council member he was given a pass. Is that fair Chuck?

6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The very fact that the City of St.Paul was a primary requester of asking the Justice Department to not intervene in the two lawsuits that as we hear, involved $ 180 million dollars in stolen money, reeks of the sort of back door deals the city makes with Ramsey District Court Judges in civil litigation in which the city are defendants in private suits. Who should be surprised by this ? No one that's your answer.




Jeff Matiatos

7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well if it is indeed decided Chuck that what the city did, had a disparate impact on tenant's, then the dynamics of how St.Paul enforces the code means alot not only to landlords, but to future tenant's. Attorneys fees and magor changes on how the city code enforcement's local and nation wide are at stake. It's just to bad that the poor black tenant's and minorities that were run out because of the way St.Paul enforced it's code, were to poor to file suit themselves.



Jeff Matiatos

7:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just want to clarify one thing. Two Ramsey County judges in particular in cases I was involved in, I refer to in my 7:29 A.M. post. It would not be fair to proclaim or implicate every judge on the bench. Some of them judges are new also.


Jeff Matiatos

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happened is simple. St. Paul has lost its heart and soul. Dirty and vicious people rule. They did not have a snowballs chance in hell of even getting to the Supreme Court, so they sold their souls to the devil one more time. They introduced new things into their appeal, which would let the Supreme Court full consideration of the Fair Housing Act. They just didn't care that they betrayed the entire Democratic party, and introduced an appeal that the lunatic fringe of the Republican party loved. The Supreme Court jumped at the chance to consider the Fair Housing Act. The backroom deals were the Democratic party trying to save its skin. OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE, WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE. They took a good city and trashed it.

Bob G.

3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, I didn't catch your response to my 6:54 PM post.

Well.......

11:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:54 - I love that you guys always attack the one city council member that is actually on your side more often than not... its just a knee jerk reaction you guys have to be stupid.

Jeff - you are correct if the court finds that enforcing a housing code has a disparate impact on people of color it will mean that cities can't enforce any property code standards on people of color and therefore because of equal protection on nobody at all. It would have a ripple effect across the country and you are also correct that at that point the City would have to appeal up as high as the Supreme Court to protect every city in the country being allowed to set health and safety standards.

Remember there is no longer a case of if the City acted fairly or not. The landlords' case on anything to do with fairness has already lost. What is left is that understanding that the City was fair did it still adversely impact people of color by enforcing the code.

That is why to most rational people the charge that is out there and the impact if the City loses is pretty insain.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:51 PM  
Anonymous Magner v. Gallagher USSC 10-1032 said...

Revisit Magner v Gallagher All Briefs must be downloaded before the Case is taken down.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/magner-v-gallagher/
Magner v. Gallagher
CHUCK YOUR TRYING TO CLUTTER THE DISPARATE IMPACT ISSUES: AND THE CITYS APPOINTMENT OF LILLEHAUG TO SETTLE USSC 1032

Docket No.

Op. Below

Argument

Opinion

Vote

Author

Term




10-1032

8th Cir.

Not Argued

Feb 14, 2012

N/A

N/A

OT 2011





Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.

Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?

Judgment: Dismissed - Rule 14 on February 14, 2012.

SCOTUSblog Coverage
Fair housing case dismissed
Petition of the day

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Brief for Steve Magner et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Brief of the American Bankers Association et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Brief of the United States

Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
Brief of the Lawyer’s Committee on Civil Rights et al.
Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al.
Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al.
Brief of the ACLU
Brief of Massachusetts et al.
Brief of Henry G. Cisneros
Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action


Certiorari-stage documents
Opinion below (8th Cir.)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition of respondents Thomas J. Gallagher et al.
Petitioners' reply

2:09 AM  
Anonymous USSC 11-132 said...

This Case will be heard 5Oct2012
Affiants take on this Federal Judge Joan Ericksen Dismissal USSC 10-1032 complicit with Lawyers Mark Gehan Metro Gang Stike Foce Cv09-1xxx should be Federally indicted for Conflicting Judicial Orders, Current Docket 11-1352 Docket: 11-1352.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 and the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 effected a taking of petitioner’s property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because the legislation required petitioner to house qualifying tenants for a period of years and otherwise unfairly compelled petitioner, rather than the public as a whole, to bear the societal cost of low-income housing; (2) whether the government breached its contractual obligations to petitioner when it outlawed prepayment because the prepayment right formed part of the overall agreement among petitioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the lender. FOR CONFERECE OCT 5TH, 2012.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-1352.htm

2:22 AM  
Anonymous EM Takings CCA vs. US said...

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cca-associates-v-united-states/

Chuck your research lacking specifics READ the BRIEFS

2:32 AM  
Anonymous Holder said...

Eric Holder US Attorney in Trouble
http://jurist.org/forum/2012/09/tung-yin-holder-discretion.php

Keep the Pressure ON

2:45 AM  
Anonymous CitySt.PaulFedMoneys said...

Apparantly Reporter Fred Melo is starting to print the Citys Ponzi Misue of Federal Moneys for Housing?http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_21656260/st-pauls-affordable-housing-deals-draw-fire?source=rss

5:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just wondering if Magner can get attorneys fees based on the premis that perhalps the dismissal in the Supreme Court was in bad faith ?



Jeff Matiatos

9:47 AM  
Anonymous LandLords vs. CitySt.Paul said...

Realy Busy File this one
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/172023641.html?refer=y
How St. Paul enforces housing codes is the key issue in a suit that has traveled a tortuous legal road to the U.S. Supreme Court and back -- and raised the ire of Republican congressional leaders along the way.

A dozen landlords claim the city is overly aggressive in enforcing codes, which they say costs them excessively, shutters their properties and forces out low-income and minority renters.

St. Paul counters that the property owners are slumlords who are taking advantage of down-on-their-luck tenants.

Four GOP congressmen pushed the lawsuit into prominence last week with claims -- denied by St. Paul and the federal government -- of legal horse-trading at the U.S. Department of Justice.

St. Paul had appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but then dropped the appeal for fear that the high court, dominated by conservatives, would use the case to gut federal fair housing laws.

Now the case awaits action in the St. Paul courtroom of U.S. Magistrate Steven Rau. A settlement conference is set for Oct. 26, but the case is expected to eventually go to trial in front of Judge Michael Davis.

The Republicans accused the Justice Department of encouraging St. Paul to drop the high court appeal, in exchange for staying out of two housing-related federal suits against the city.

Former Vice President Walter Mondale, who authored the Fair Housing Act when he was in the Senate, said that he called St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman after University of Minnesota law professor Myron Orfield "recommended the city withdraw and go to trial, which is what they've done

9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go Landlords!!!

Bob G.

6:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home