SharonsVideo Bar

Loading...

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Frank Steinhauser RICO update_Civ04-2632

Saint Paul RICO UPDATE/ PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT - AMENDED"

17 Comments -
Show Original Post
Collapse comments

Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

New here? To bring yourself up to speed on this issue please read the RICO lawsuits against the City of Saint Paul. There is a link on the front page to the right of the screen. Scroll down until you see the "Scales of Justice".

The plaintiffs opposition to summary judgement is 78 pages in length. I will post it in sections over several days under new topic post.

There is over 2000 exhibits. SO, we have a lot to discuss.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT - AMENDED
City of St. Paul, et. al.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 78
2
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs will show the Court that summary judgment as requested by Defendants is improper as there are genuine issues of material fact present in every claim presented in the Complaint.
Prior the Court considering Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs request that the Court consider the facts and issues raised by Plaintiffs in their spoliation motions, and once again consider Plaintiffs’ renewed request that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to destruction of relevant evidence related to defenses raised by Defendants including immunities, and to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs’ submit that there is now even more evidence before the Court of Defendants’ non-disclosures and/or destruction of evidence relevant to claims and defenses herein, including Defendants’ failures to disclose federally mandated “analysis of impediments” (AI) to affordable housing related to Defendants’ affirmative duty to further fair housing (AFFH). In over four years of discovery herein, Defendants have failed to produce, and Plaintiffs have been unable to discover, any evidence that Defendants ever conducted an AI for disclosure to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the public related to whether the “protected class” was adversely impacted by the City’s application of its “heightened code enforcement standard” and illegal policy of removing “grandfathering rights” under the Minnesota State Building Code through “Code Compliance” inspections and certifications applied to older inner-city housing stock disproportionate occupied by “protected class” members. This issue is not to be taken lightly, as falsification of AFFH certifications in return for hundreds of
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 2 of 78
3
millions of dollars in federal funding and spoliation of documents related thereto through destruction of internal documents, including e-data and e-mail communications, have serious implications. Defendants spoliation of written communications, including e-mails and other e-data for the years prior to 2005, has left Plaintiffs, HUD and the public without the key evidence HUD required the City to maintain related to the Defendants’ Fair Housing certifications and obligations. HUD regulations require the City to conduct a full and fair analysis of impediments to fair housing in the City, to identify those impediments, including those based on the City’s legislative code, rules, procedures and practices related to fair housing and “protected classes,” its illegal demands to the private market landlords in the City to meet expensive “code compliance” inspections and its creation of other barriers to fair housing. The City’s illegal “Code Compliance” requirements subverting grandfathering protections for older buildings in violation of the State Building Code, brings into question whether the City falsified its certifications to HUD through material non-disclosures.
INTRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS
Plaintiffs are or were landlords providing housing primarily to low-income, “protected class” tenants in the City and at various times housing under the Federal Section 8 funded program. Plaintiffs owned and managed older rental properties located in the inner-city neighborhoods where older housing stock was common, where poverty was persistent, and where people of color had a critical need for safe and decent affordable housing. See generally Affs. of Plaintiffs attached as Exs. 70-79 to 2nd Engel Aff., and Exs. 140-144 to 2nd ShoemakerAff.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 3 of 78

8:09 PM

Pdf_16x16 Steinhauser v.CitySt.Paul_SumJud29Jul08 17

Freedom-4You: Steinhauser et al v. City St.Paul_Magner et al Civ 05-461 ...

24 days ago 14 Published Edit Delete Share Preview
26 days ago 30 Published Edit Delete Share Preview

Pdf_16x16 Steinhauser et al v. City St.Paul Civ04-2632

Landlords Anti Trust, RICO lawsuits v. City St. Paul,MN Files from ECF D...

27 days ago 19 Published Edit Delete Share Preview

Pdf_16x16 Raven Property Managment v. City of St. Paul

Federal Cases v. City St. Paul, Published ECF, Pacer Accts

1 comment:

smplcv said...

Thanks for the pdf files..People need to know of this lawsuits and have shared this right away with face book! Thanks dude


Office Secretary CV Template