|2.||Summons and Complaint in the matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., vs. the City of Saint Paul. (657 Dale Street North)|
|37.||First Reading - 07-147 - An ordinance amending Chapter 13 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code to reflect the creation of the new Department of Safety and Inspections. (GS 3036440)|
FDIC: Federal Register CitationsFDIC: Laws & RegulationsFinancial Institution Recovery Reform Enforcement Act - Google Searchhe RICO suits challenge the agenda wed.Candidate profile LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documents BlogItBabe Sharon-AndersonI AndersonAdvocates Sharon4Anderson2ND POST 13fEB07 Pic'sChapter 45. Nuisance Abatement*AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTAGAINST CITY EMPLOYEES JOEL ESSLING ET ALTo Police Chief John Harrington Fire Chief Doug HoltonFire and Safety Services SaintPaul Police Department Criminal Complaint against apparantly email@example.com ET AL unknown at this timetoday at approximately 11:01 am Tues. 13Feb07 Affiant VA Widow answered tel:joel.essling st. paul - Google SearchMPR: Former Senate majority leader could lose law license as no ID No appeared.watchdognews.48thissue2006pdf----------------- Forwarded Message:AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTCOUNT I MS 609.43Office of the Revisor of Statutes - StatutesSome Male person stated his name was Joel Essling an InspectorHe stated he wanted to access entrance to 697 Surrey : www.sharonanderson.org Default now taken by Sharon.Affiant stated: Produce ID, What do you want put it in writing etc. RefusedAffiant got camera: White Truck unmarked except for no. 2195 another short Hmong looking person got into a small White unmarked car license 2798THEREFORE: AFFIANT STATES AND ALLEGES THAT THESE (2) MALE PERSONS ID unk except for pic's are stalking, harrassing, trying to intimidate Sharon because she is announced Cand idate for City Council Ward (2) against5 Thune for St. Paul City Council from their Legal Domicile 1058SummitTaxNo. 01-791: St. Paul v. United States - OppositionThune _22 US CODE: Title 42,TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 42 USC 3631
Sharon's Water shut off 19Apr06, Stalking by police 29Apr06 causing broken ankle over $22 thous medical bills, Patterned Enterprise by the City to cause 2006 Water Surrey St.- Sharonirreparable harm injury for evil motives, unabated by officials.Right to Refuse EntryHUD v. City St. Paul/2001-0791.resp.pdf Corruption of Aitkin Sheriff Scott Turner on other property issues triggering the Murder of my husband of over 20 years 21Sept00 Tenant Steve Quale Sr. MNCrtApplC6-88-859JohnsonvAndersonsfiles/get_file?id=16AitkinAns_CrossAug2001_27 removals US Dist 02-0332(RosenbaumSome 3631 firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.comSharonScarrellaAnderson Candidate profile LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documents BlogItBabe Legal Eagle SharonAnderson Sharon-AndersonI AndersonAdvocates Sharon4Anderson Bill Dahn Sexy Seniors1 Alice Krengel Cheryl Hilyar Judicial Delusions1 WILLY LUFSKY Scap129FAnokaP2697(1976) Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation. Senior Queen 2007 Winter-Carnival TAKING DL_AOL Journal Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates http://www.sharonanderson.org/Check www.ademocracy.blogspot.com read comments Julia of SMRLS are representing some Tenants in Stenhauser Fed. Case 321 Bates 1 block from www.sharonanderson.org
Sunday, January 21, 2007Please look in the comments for the post. This post is dedicated to the other bob "the landlord hater..Bob said...
28 comments links to this post
Kathy Lantry St. Paul City Council City Hall - Room 320C 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 LAW OFFICES OF MINNESOTRAE GIONAL EGAL SUITE 200 Ifdi EA..T FOIIRTH STREET ST PA'Alll.. MINNESOTA ri,lOl (651) 222-5863 FAX (651) 297-6457 August 11,2004 HAND DELIVERED LAW WORK MANAGER STEVENWOLFE ATTORNEYS JULIAALTHOFF BETIYBERGER PERRYDE STEFAN0 M*R111** EAVES KATHLEENM. EVESTAGE JON OEFfEN KEN GlLCHRi8T JAP*UL HARRIS LAUWJELINEK GEWLDG. ULUZNY DOLLENE LAMBERM JAMES LAURENCE LAURA MELNICK RON MICWLSON JENNIFER MUCHEK REBECCAAOSSOW RACHEL SIBLEY VALERIE BSNWER .JAMES J. STREET COLLEENWALBW BENJAMIN LWEISS Re: 321 Bates Avenue Dear Ms. Lantry: Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services represents the tenant-caretaker, Robert King, in the above-referenced matter. We DO NOT represent the owner of the property. At the legislative hearing on August 10. 2004, the hearing officer instructed us to write you a written response and request as you have this matter on the closed agenda. We would respectfully request that you read this letter along with the August 5, 2004 letter, which is enclosed herein, into the record. We have also included a copy of the July 22, 2004 inspection notice, the July 27, 2004 letter from the owner, the July 29, 2004 letter to the legislative hearing officer from our office and a print out from the Fire Marshall's office verifying that the inspection notice generated July 14, and typed up July 22, 2004, did not get sent thereby proving that the caretaker did not have notice of the repairs until the actual hearing on July 27, 2004. Our office has the following concerns in addition to those noted in the attached August 5, 2004 letter: 1. The neighbors have made repeated false allegations that the caretaker, Mr. King, is involved in drug activity. As you know, our office has a policy that we do not represent people if there is credible evidence of drug activity. We checked with Ruth Ann Eide from the St. Paul Force Unit. There is simply no credible evidence that Mr. King is involved in drug activity on the premises. Quite the contrary, he has met personally with the Force Unit and Ruth Ann Eide so that he can learn about tenant screening procedures that the Force Unit of St. Paul recommends. He has agreed to implement their recommendations. Further, he has agreed to work hand-in-hand with the Force Unit, the District 4 Community Council and the neighbors to remedy the criminal activity in the neighborhood. Mr. King has even agreed to put exterior lighting and cameras on the premises to ward off the criminal element that is out in the neighborhood. He has no more control over the criminal activity on the street than the complaining neighborhood residents. I challenge you to find a more responsive caretaker in the Dayton's Bluff Area. At the hearing, the neighbors even accused Mr. King of having long grass, not that this is a big matter. However, the point is that this was a EXHIBIT G STP 018291 Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 36 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 29 of 46 completely false allegation as I was personally on the premises on Monday and there is no long grass on the premises. You know as an officer of the court, I am obligated to be honest and you know me well enough to know that I am honest and straight forward. Since the neighbors are lying about that and I question whether they are credible about their other allegations. Although there are a number of police calls, Mr. King had vacated other problem tenants. He is the only one there and he is willing and able to work with the Force Unit to prevent other bad tenants from moving in. 2. The lnspection Office has set this case up for failure. The record is clear that Unit 1 was condemned for being over-crowded. The unit has been vacated. Therefore, that unit should no longer be condemned. Secondly, the inspection notices have not been sent out as represented in their letters. We proved this at the hearing. One may construe this as either a misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated by the inspectors office. Based on how this case has proceeded one could argue this was just another tool which was being used to vacate the building. We obtained an inspection report dated July 14, 2004. At the hearing, it was brought up by the building inspector herself, Pat Fish, that this letter never went out either. Thus, there are two inspection reports during the time this matter was before the legislative hearing officer. The two letters listed the repairs that were of issue before the legislative hearing officer and neither the owner nor the received the repair notices until the actual hearing date. Is that fair play? Additionally, the apartment was supposed to be reinspected by the City Fire Marshall prior to the hearing on August 10, 2004. Naturally, that never happened as there was allegedly another mistake by the City lnspection Department. Although we provided proof by pictures that a majority of the repairs were made, the City conveniently did not reinspect the premises by the hearing as promised and thus it caused yet another delay. Moreover, if you look at the July 22, 2004 notice, it is defective on its face as it states the reinspection will be on or after July 12, 2004. That is clearly erroneous as the reinspection date precedes the date of the notice. Again this notice was not received until the actual legislative hearing on July 27, 2004. Nevertheless, essentially all the repairs have been completed with the exception of the electrical work as the caretaker was taking bids from electricians. If the City Inspector had not been negligent in failing to give proper notice or if they were not trying to sabotage the success of the repairs, the repairs would have already been made. I was informed by the on-site and off-site caretakers that they have narrowed down their electrician bids to two prospects. They will be making a final decision this Friday on which one to choose. 3. I was concerned that the City was using the Building Inspection Department to vacate a building of disabling and minority people. Every person in this building was a person in a protected class. They were either minorities or disabled people. Vacating the building by using the inspection department in this manner did have a disparate impact. I know the City did not intend to have a disparate impact. We try to collaborate with the City and try to produce win-win situations. I can easily see that the owner and tenants would have a claim for disparate impact against the City. Naturally, I do not represent the owner nor would I be bringing such an action against the city as we have a long history of collaborating together. However, I thought you should know that as a practicing housing law attorney who knows about discrimination law that there is exposure to a discrimination claim on this matter due to the way it was handled. 4. I know you would agree it is best to play with an "open hand" when dealing with the public. The hearing officer ~nformedu s that the decision will be before the City Council but it will be presented at a closed meeting. She specifically said we were not invited. I can see the City Council deliberating in closed chambers on matters. However, when there is a actual vote whether it is on the consent calendar or otherwise, it should be open to the public for comment. I 2 EXHIBIT G STP 018292 Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 36 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 30 of 46 will research the Open Meeting Act and fo~lardit to you. I admit I have not looked at the Open Meeting Act for awhile as I have not needed to. 5. By forcing a vacate of the building by revoking the Certificate of Occupancy, we will now have a vacant building on a corner where there is criminal activity. As you know, there is nothing that will blight a neighborhood more than a vacant building on a city corner. There will no longer be "eyes and ears" watching the criminal activity. Since Mr. King was working "hand-inhand" with the Force Unit, he would be able to put good tenants in the building. Without having people in the building there will be no additional "eyes and ears" thereby resulting in an increase of criminal activity on the corner. Although the neighbors consistently claimed there are still squatters, there is absolutely no evidence of that. They have already proven not to be credible. Mr. King assures me that he has not allowed squatters in, has secured the building and is working with the Force Unit to prevent squatters. I went over to the building to take pictures for the hearing and I could not get in. 6. I was informed by the legislative hearing officer that I would be informed of her decision by noon today so we could send you written comments. It is now 1:30PM and I was never called regarding her decision. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me and I hope the City Council will allow Legal Services to collaborate with the District IV Community Council, the Force Unit, the Fire Marshall, the caretaker and the neighbors to rectify this situation as it is not common that we are able to obtain a cooperative caretaker who works for an alleged problem landlord. I would hate to lose the opportunity to collaborate together on this case as it does appear that we have got the owner's attention and were making great progress despite the "hide the ball" tactics that were being played by the inspectors office. ss encs cc Robert King Debbie Montgomery Dave Thune Pat Harris Jay Benanav Lee Helgen Dan Bostrom EXHIBITunday, January 21, 2007