Saturday, March 31, 2007

Judge v Jury Demand

A D NOTICE:

This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail /blog court documents (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and FOIA Title 5 Freedom of Information No information or opinions contained herein shall constitute legal advice. THANK YOU.
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com

www.cobrashar.blogspot.com trouble with Joel Essling causing irreparable harm,injury on file.

"Plaintiffs in racketeering lawsuits want jury trial."

5 Comments -


Show Original Post


Bob said...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Thomas J. Gallagher; Joseph J. Collins, Sr.; Dadder’s
Properties, LLC; Dadder’s Estates, LLC; Dadder’s
Enterprises, LLC; Dadder’s Holdings, LLC, Troy Allison,
and Jeff Kubitschek and Sara Kubitschek;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor of City of
St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement; Mike Cassidy, individually and as a
code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Joel Essling,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Steve Schiller, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Joe Yannarelly,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Dennis Senty, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Rich
Singerhouse, individually and as a code enforcement
officer of City of St. Paul; Kelly Booker, individually and
as a code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Michael
Urmann, individually and as a fire inspector of the City of
St. Paul; Andy Dawkins, individually and as Director of
City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing
and Property Improvement; Randy Kelly individually and
as Mayor of City of St. Paul; John Doe and Jane Doe,
individually and in their official capacities as code
enforcement officers of City of St. Paul's Department of
Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement, law
enforcement officers or other officials or employees of the
City of St. Paul; individually, jointly and severally; and
City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation,
Defendants.
PROPOSED
SECOND
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Court File No.:05-1348
JNE/SRN
DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
Thomas J. Gallagher, Joseph J. Collins, Sr., Dadder’s Properties, LLC, Dadder’s Estates,
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 102

LLC, Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC; Dadder’s Holdings, LLC, Troy Allison, Jeff Kubitschek and
Sara Kubitschek (hereinafter referred to as “Gallagher,” “Collins,” “Dadder’s,” “Allison,” and
Kubitschek’s,” collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), hereby allege and state the following
Second Amended Complaint against Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor of the City
of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (hereinafter
"Housing Department"); Mike Cassidy, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the
Housing Department; Joel Essling, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Steve Schiller, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Joe Yannarelly, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Dennis Senty, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Rich Singerhouse, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Kelly Booker, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Michael Urmann, individually and as a fire inspector of the City of St. Paul; Andy
Dawkins, individually and as the Director of the Housing Department; Randy Kelly, individually
and as the Mayor of the City of St. Paul; and John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and in their
official capacities as code enforcement officers of the Housing Department, law enforcement
officers, other officials or employees of the City of St. Paul; individually, jointly and severally;
and the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.
JURISDICTION
This civil action arises under the laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota.
This Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiffs herein are alleging standing under:
(1) Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, as amended, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1961, et seq.;
2
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 102

(2) Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.;
(3) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1985; and
(4) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(5) 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, 13 and 18 for treble damages and injunctive relief for
violations of the federal antitrust laws.
The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 18 U.S.C. Section 1964 (c), 42 U.S.C.
Section 3613, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1337 and 1343, and 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims herein pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367, as Plaintiffs are alleging state claims arising from a common nucleus of
operative facts with Plaintiffs' federal claims.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613
and/or 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq., and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
VENUE
Venue herein is proper under 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (a), 42 U.S.C. Section 3610 (d) and
28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b), and under 15 U.S.C.A. Sections 15 and 22.
PARTIES
1. Thomas J. Gallagher (“Gallagher”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Wisconsin.
2. Joseph J. Collins, Sr. (“Collins”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota.
3. Gallagher and Collins are equal owners/members of Dadder’s Properties, LLC, a Minnesota
3
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 102

limited liability company. Dadder’s Properties, LLC, is a Minnesota limited liability
company and is the sole owner/member of Dadder’s Holdings, LLC, Dadder’s Enterprises,
LLC and Dadder’s Estates, LLC, all Minnesota limited liability companies (all hereinafter
referred to as “Dadder’s”).
4. Troy Allison (“Allison”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of Minnesota.
5. Jeff Kubitschek and Sara Kubitschek (“Kubitschek’s”) are citizens of the United States, and
are residents of Minnesota.
6. Defendant Steve Magner ("Magner") is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Magner is a supervisor for the Housing Department.
7. Defendant Mike Cassidy ("Cassidy") is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Cassidy is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
8. Defendant Joel Essling ("Essling") is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of
Minnesota. Essling is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
9. Defendant Steve Schiller ("Schiller") is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of
Minnesota. Schiller is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
10. Defendant Joe Yannarelly ("Yannarelly") is a citizen of the United States and a resident of
Minnesota. Yannarelly is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
11. Defendant Dennis Senty (“Senty”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Senty is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
12. Defendant Rich Singerhouse ("Singerhouse") is a citizen of the United States and is a
resident of Minnesota. Singerhouse is a code enforcement officer for the Housing
Department.
13. Defendant Kelly Booker ("Booker") is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of
4
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 102

Minnesota. Booker is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
14. Defendant Michael Urmann ("Urmann") is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Urmann is a fire inspector for the fire prevention office of the City of St. Paul.
15. Defendant Andy Dawkins ("Dawkins") is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Dawkins is the Director of the City's Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement ("Housing Department") and Director of the Problem Property Unit
(hereinafter, "PPU").
16. Defendant Randy Kelly ("Kelly") is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Kelly is the Mayor of Defendant City and was Mayor at all times relevant to the
allegations contained herein.
17. Defendant John Doe and Jane Doe, are citizens of the United States, and are residents of
Minnesota. Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe, whose identities are unknown at this time,
were at all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, code enforcement officers, law
enforcement officers, or other City officials or employees, working with, or within, the
Housing Department, PPU, Fire Department, and other city offices, coordinating their
activities with Defendants Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty,
Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and others.
18. Defendant City of Saint Paul ("City") is a municipal corporation existing under and by virtue
of the laws of the State of Minnesota.
5
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 102

INTRODUCTORY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Property Owners Targeted With Discriminatory and Illegal Code
Enforcement and Racketeering Conduct
19. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs were property owners in the rental
business with rental properties located within the City of St. Paul.
20. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs' tenants were almost exclusively African-Americans,
Hispanics, Asians, other people of color, mixed race couples, and individuals receiving state
and federal financial assistance, and families with children, who were and are individuals
protected under anti-discrimination laws, hereinafter defined as "protected class."
21. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s were the
owners of forty-four (44) real estate investment properties located in the City, 29 of which
were rental properties. Approximately 10 of the 29 tenants have or did receive federal rent
subsidies under the Section 8 program. Approximately 19 of the 29 tenants are members of a
protected class. Five of the Dadder’s properties were 1522/1524 Carroll, 1595 Van Buren,
643 Watson, 250 Duke and 974 James.
22. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Allison is the owner of seven (7) rental
properties within the City of St. Paul, including properties located at 1522/1524 Carroll
Avenue, 1500 Concordia, 1512 Concordia, 1532 Concordia Avenue, 877 Woodbridge, 367
Blair, and 1069 Albemarle. Approximately 4 of the 7 tenants have or do receive Section 8
assistance or other assistance. Approximately 5 of the 7 tenants are members of a protected
class.
23. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, the Kubitschek’s were owners of four (4) rental
properties within the City of St. Paul, including properties located at 1086 Minnehaha East,
6
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 102

883/885 Sims, 668 York, and 748 Desoto. Approximately 7 of the 8 tenants do or did
receive Section 8 assistance or other assistance. Approximately 8 of the 8 tenants are or were
members of a protected class.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
Saint Paul Public Housing Agency
24. The Saint Paul Public Housing Agency ("PHA ") owns and manages almost 4,300 rental
units of low income public rental housing in the City with funding from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). PHA's public housing properties
includes high rise, congregate and scattered site housing. PHA has about 400 families living
in PHA owned single family and duplex style homes. PHA is governed by a Board of
Commissioners appointed by St. Paul’s Mayor and approved by the City Council. All of the
individuals in the 4,300 PHA owned rental units are low-income and many are members of
the “protected class.” These PHA tenants are similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other
targeted rental property owners.
25. PHA also administers the federal rent subsidy Section 8 program for low income households
renting from private property owners in the City. PHA administers over 3,700 Section 8
certificates and vouchers. Many of the Section 8 voucher recipients are members of the
“protected class”. These PHA tenants are similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other
targeted rental property owners.
26. PHA's public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair problems similar in
nature to privately owned rental housing stock. PHA administers its own maintenance,
inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing stock. Many of PHA's rental
properties are older properties and are considered by PHA to be in need of major capital
7
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 7 of 102

improvements. Historically, PHA has been under funded for capital repairs of its aging rental
housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been deferred to later years
for additional federal funding.
27. Plaintiffs' properties and those of other targeted rental property owners are not afforded
PHA's competitive advantage of deferral of capital improvements but instead suffer
immediate and long term adverse consequences from Defendants' discriminatory and illegal
code enforcement actions and racketeering activity against the privately owned rental
properties and rental businesses who are providing housing services to Section 8 and low
income “protected class” members.
28. PHA's rental housing stock has similar health, safety, fire and housing code issues as the
rental properties that are owned by Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to “protected
class” members including those property owners providing critical housing under the Section
8 program.
29. PHA’s rental housing stock is subjected to City code enforcement but to a minimal degree
compared to City code enforcement applied to Plaintiffs and similarly situated private rental
property owners.
30. PHA's rental housing stock is not subjected by Defendants to condemnations, orders to
vacate, demands for code compliance inspections, fines or rental registration provisions,
including rental revocation actions. Additionally, PHA’s rental housing stock is rarely, if
ever, targeted with any other code enforcement actions by Defendants. Conversely, Plaintiffs
and other private landlords renting to “protected class” members are subjected to these
adverse code enforcement actions by Defendants.
31. PHA's rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems that are similar to the
8
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 8 of 102

tenant and guest behavior problems of Plaintiffs' properties and those rental properties owned
by other similarly situated property owners in the City. PHA rental properties are subject to
frequent police service calls.
32. PHA housing inspectors conduct inspections of Section 8 rental units. PHA claims that as
part of its inspections "vacant [rental] units are prepared to high standards for each new
resident" in order to meet local codes and HUD's standards. PHA conducts inspections of
Section 8 rental units in the City at least annually and utilizes HUD Housing Quality
Standards (“HQS”) in these inspections.
33. Defendants apply adverse code enforcement actions, including condemnations, on Section 8
approved, privately owned rental units shortly following Section 8 inspections and
certification of these rental units.
City's March 2002 Report on "Chronic Problem Properties" Reveals
Defendants' Motive and Opportunity to Target Plaintiffs
and Their "Protected Class" Tenants
34. At the direction of the City Council, a report on the City's "Chronic Problem Properties" was
prepared by the Council's Research Center and presented to the Council and the public in
March, 2002. The Report outlined many of the problems facing private landlords, tenants,
other citizens and the City.
35. The City's March 2002 Report detailed the prior efforts of the City to address "problem
properties" and other housing related problems. The Report quantified the number of
"Chronic Problem Properties" at "220-280".
36. The City's March 2002 Report outlined the City's prior experience with "problem properties".
In 2000, the City launched an initiative called "Problem Properties 2000" (hereinafter
"PP2000) in response to media reports questioning the efficacy of the City's code
9
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 9 of 102

enforcement activities. The Council's study acknowledged that City policy, custom and
practice applied to "some" problem properties included a knowing and intentional lack of
published or documented standards for selectively targeting a property for increased code
enforcement as a "problem property". The Council determined that City code enforcement
officials and officers, through the PP2000 initiative, identified "some problem owners
through a process Code Enforcement officials were consistently unwilling to document or
even describe" as it was feared by officials that documenting the selection criteria might not
always select the "right" property owners and "might provide a basis for those selected for
special attention to challenge their inclusion." The Council Report also determined that,
"Since the selection criteria were unknown and undocumented, there could be no basis for
challenge" and that although "code enforcement officials consistently denied they were
targeting selected owners, the fact they were selectively targeted seemed obvious”.
37. The City's March 2002 Report to the Counsel reviewed how multiple city agencies, including
fire, police, housing, and animal control, could target enforcement to accomplish the goals of
gaining access to interiors of homes for inspections, so as to force ownership changes on
landlords who did not meet the admittedly undocumented standards.
38. Through the chronic problem property study and the City's March 2002 Report, the Council
determined that, "The prospect of being forced out of their (owner's) home or losing the
income from tenants can be a very effective enforcement tool when nothing else seems to
work," but "It is not, however, very effective with large apartment buildings as owners know
that the City is loath to make large numbers of people evacuate."
10
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 10 of 102

City Adopts New Housing Code Enforcement Rules
Following March 2002 Report
39. Following City Council and City staff analysis of the March 2002 Report, new rules went
into effect on August 14, 2002, concerning rental property inspections, code compliance and
nuisance abatement. The Fire Prevention Division of the City Fire Department (“Fire
Department”) conducts inspections of buildings that contain three or more rental units within
a building. A Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) is issued by the Fire Department to owners
if those rental units pass an inspection. Thereafter, a building must pass the C of O
inspection every two years.
40. These new rules were announced by mail and on the City's website, among other ways, and
these announcements reported that the "time lines for getting your property cleaned up have
been shortened considerably" and "criminal misdemeanor citations will be issued routinely
until property owners get the message that we are cleaning up this city." The City
announcements also stated that, "the court system has agreed to back up our tags with serious
penalties. If we have to come back to a property a third time because you haven't gotten the
message, you may very well be facing jail time."
41. The new Code rules incorporated written notice requirements and claimed conformity with
due process requirements.
42. On June 2, 2003, the City announced receipt of $12.5 million in federal grants to provide
low-income housing and economic development opportunities in the City.
43. On December 31, 2003, the City announced by mail and through its web site that the "new
Year" brings tougher housing codes in St. Paul.
44. The December 31, 2003, City announcement also included statements from Dawkins and
Kelly that they expected to see a four-fold increase in apartment safety inspections in 2004,
11
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 11 of 102

from approximately 2,000 to approximately 8,000 inspections.
45. The December 2003, City announcement also stated, according to Kelly: "These changes
target the bad apples" and "they don't increase burdens unnecessarily for responsible property
owners and in fact they reduce burdens for law abiding property owners" and present a plan
of action to correct the problem and allow an interior inspection.
46. The December 2003, City announcement stated that if the property owners do not comply
and agree to better lease-management practices, the Council can revoke their rental
registration certificate, thereby requiring an interior inspection before being issued a new
certificate.
47. The December 2003, City announcement also stated that, "the rental registration ordinance
lays out clear guidelines and increased procedural protections." The announcement also
stated if a landlord has a single incident of documented nuisance behavior or repeat code
visits, they would receive a notice of intent to revoke their registration certificate; the
landlord would then be asked to contact Dawkins.
48. Under Kelly and Dawkins' control, the Housing Department has claimed that it seeks to
enforce minimum property maintenance standards and ordinances on one and two family
dwellings (duplexes) and exterior of properties across the City on a consistent basis. In fact,
the policy, custom and practice of the Housing Department and Defendants has been to
selectively target Plaintiffs and other similarly situated property owners while refusing to
enforce city codes against neighboring properties with egregious violations of codes.
The Problem Property Unit
49. After Dawkins' appointment, he created and managed a "Problem Property Unit," ("PPU")
which consisted of Dawkins, two City code enforcement officers, two police officers, and an
12
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 12 of 102

Assistant City Attorney.
50. On information and belief, Dawkins meets regularly with Kelly on the activities of the
Housing Department and the PPU, and Dawkins receives direction from Kelly on managing
the daily activities of the Department and the PPU.
51. A "Problem Property" is defined by Dawkins and members of the PPU as a building where
"both building maintenance issues and nuisance behavior issues" exist.
Problem Properties List
52. Following Dawkins appointment, he created periodic lists containing Rental buildings
considered by PPU to be "problem properties." These "problem properties" were then subject
to increased code enforcement activities by Dawkins, City Attorney Dolan and other
inspection officials and employees, including attempts to gain access to interiors of rental
properties to issue condemnations, remove grandfathering protections, demand full code
compliance through extensive renovations, and to force sale of the properties.
53. The new Rules and Procedures for conducting code enforcement activities in the City
provided that once the Defendants initially targeted one of a landlords properties the
Defendants were authorized to target all of that landlord's properties.
54. Defendants targeted landlords and tenants whether or not they were on the “problem property
list”.
Dramatic Increase in Code Enforcement Actions After Dawkins Appointed
55. Following Dawkins appointment to head the Housing Department, Dawkins and members of
the PPU and other inspectors of NHPI managed a dramatic increase in housing inspection
activity, issuance of criminal citations, Correction Orders, Notices of Condemnations and
Orders to Vacate, as well as Tenant Remedies Actions by the City, all directed against
13
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 13 of 102

Plaintiffs property owners and other similarly situated property owners. These increased
code enforcement actions were not directed at, nor did they affect, the rental properties of
PHA.
Discriminatory Code Enforcement Operations
56. Dawkins, at the direction of Kelly, directed other said individual Defendants, to increase the
number of exterior inspections on housing units in the City and to gain access to units in
order to conduct interior inspections, remove grandfathering protections and demand full
code compliance inspections and certifications.
57. Kelly and Dawkins, with the consent of the City Council, ordered housing inspectors,
including named Defendant code enforcement officers and others unknown to Plaintiffs at
this time, to selectively enforce the City's codes in order to rid the City of "bottom of the
barrel," "undesirables," "down 'n outers" and "low income" individuals and rental property
owners providing those individuals with housing. A very large majority of St. Paul
individuals selectively targeted by Defendants were members of the "protected class".
Certain unknown third parties pressured Defendant City and its officials and employees,
including Defendants, to target these "protected class" members.
58. Said Defendants and others carried out these discriminatory orders as part of Defendant
City’s policy, custom and practice.
59. Defendants knew and intended that their selectively aggressive code enforcement operations
against Plaintiffs, other property owners, and their tenants, would have a discriminatory
impact upon members of the "protected class" living within the City and upon the private
property owners providing housing to said “protected class”. Said Defendants also knew and
intended that such enforcement would directly contradict the purported purposes of the
14
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 14 of 102

federal funds received by the City and the stated due process rights and procedures
incorporated into the City Code.
60. In the fall of 2002, as part of the policy, custom and practice once again implemented by
Kelly and Dawkins with the approval of the Council, and continuing presently in the City,
Kelly and Dawkins directed housing inspectors to once again perform code inspections in
coordination with raids conducted by law enforcement agencies. The City’s FORCE unit
was used to implement this policy custom and practice.
61. The discriminatory policy, custom and practice had a discriminatory impact on the protected
class, and the policy, custom and practice continued at all times thereafter and continues
presently in the City.
62. Plaintiffs’ rental properties have been consistently targeted by Defendants, while adjacent
rental and other properties with serious code violations including PHA owned properties and
properties owned by certain third parties acting in concert with Defendants were protected by
Defendants from the discriminatory code enforcement operations.
63. Defendants' discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice was intentional and
malicious in Defendants' efforts selectively target the "protected class" and private landlords
that rented to "protected class" members. Defendants actions were intended and did in fact,
benefit Defendant City, Defendants themselves, PHA and certain third parties in concert with
Defendants.
64. This intentional and malicious conduct by Defendants directly caused Plaintiffs and other
landlords to be damaged in their property or business.
65. Defendants discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice and pattern of
racketeering activity, included, but was not limited to, Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller,
15
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 15 of 102

Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann and Dawkins maliciously and fraudulently,
claiming false code violations related to Plaintiffs rental properties during the period early
2003 through July 2005, in written Corrections Notices, Notices of Condemnations,
Summary Abatement Orders, and Vehicle Abatement Orders.
66. Defendants described these false code violations in written City code documentation
including Summary Abatement Orders, Vehicle Abatement Orders, Correction Orders,
Correction Notices and Notices of Condemnation, all mailed to Plaintiffs and others
described herein with an interest in the properties during the period commencing in the Fall
of 2002 and continuing through July 2005. Said discriminatory policy, custom and practice
continues in the City.
67. Defendants intentionally created false statements in City records and notices in order to force
discriminatory condemnations on Plaintiffs' rental buildings and those of other St. Paul
landlords. This wrongful conduct by Defendants damaged the businesses and properties of
Plaintiffs and other landlords targeted and caused injury to tenants.
68. Defendants' discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice included, but was
not limited to Dawkins and PPU Assistant City Attorney Dolan maliciously preparing and
filing court papers against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and also other City landlords,
and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, including filing court Complaints and related
pleading documents, attached exhibits and sworn Verifications, in numerous tenant remedies
court actions during the period commencing in the fall of 2002 and continuing to present.
69. Defendant Dawkins and Dolan and other City officials and employees, knew that these court
filings against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s contained intentionally false and malicious
statements in said pleadings and inspection records prepared by said Defendants.
16
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 16 of 102

Defendants' court filings were mailed to Plaintiffs, other landlords and occupants of the
rental properties. Said discriminatory policy, custom and practice continues in the City.
70. The mailings of the City inspection documents, claimed notices and court filing documents
through coordinated efforts of Defendants as part of their fraudulent scheme, caused
Plaintiffs' funds, and/or other landlords' funds, and/or tenants' funds, and/or City funds and/or
contractors' funds and/or federal funds, to be transferred in furtherance of Defendants'
scheme. Defendants' mailings triggered issuance, or transfers, of funds held in federal
banking institutions, including funds related to Section 8 and HUD financial assistance, or
other funds for the benefit of tenants or Plaintiffs, or other landlords, or for payments related
to City permit fees, Code Compliance fees, other City fees and fees for court filings and
process.
71. Dawkins provided sworn Verifications of the truth of each such court Complaint and the
truth of the attachments of City inspection records, when in fact such Complaints and
attachments contained false statements of fact that Dawkins and other said Defendants knew
to be false, and which were intentionally made by Dawkins, Dolan and other members of the
PPU, and other members of the City Attorney's office, with the intent to harm Plaintiffs,
other landlords and tenants, including members of the "protected class". Said discriminatory
policy, custom and practice continues in the City.
72. As a direct result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and
others similarly situated, were forced to incur significant unnecessary expenses which placed
a heavy financial burden on said landlords and forced them to close their rental units, and sell
their rental properties, thereby decreasing the available rental units for "protected class"
members in the City.
17
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 17 of 102

73. As a result of Defendants malicious wrongful conduct Defendants also obtained, under color
of law or official right, an increase of inspection, permit excessive consumption, and other
related City fees from Plaintiffs and other landlords. Said Defendants' malicious conduct
triggered issuance or transfer of Plaintiffs' funds and/or other landlord's funds, and/or tenant
funds, and/or City funds and/or contractor funds, and/or federal funds, held in federal
banking institutions.
74. Defendants' wrongful conduct included, but was not limited to, Dawkins, Magner, and other
members of the PPU, in coordination with third parties encouraging tenants to file false
claims in court actions against selected landlords, including Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s,
Allison and other property owners.
Tenants Were Injured By City's Discriminatory Code Enforcement Operations
75. Defendants' illegal code enforcement of Plaintiffs rental properties and the rental properties
of other St. Paul landlords interfered with the ability of "protected class" tenants' to locate
replacement housing and interfered with those tenants' employment, all to the tenants
detriment.
76. Plaintiffs' tenants and their families suffered great harm as a result of the malicious and
illegal discriminatory policy, custom and practice, and illegal code enforcement activities, of
Defendants.
City of St. Paul Policy and Practice of Discriminatory Code Enforcement
77. As an example of the official policy of aggressive discriminatory code enforcement, City
Council member Jay Benanav and Mayor Kelly were guest speakers at a St. Paul Association
of Responsible Landlords meeting held on October 23, 2003. During this meeting with many
St. Paul landlords, a question and answer period took place. Council member Benanav, in
18
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 18 of 102

response to a question from the audience, stated that when it comes to housing code
enforcement, "I don't think any amount of aggressiveness is too aggressive."
78. At this same meeting, a member of the audience asked Defendant Kelly, "Why are you
coming into places when the tenant doesn't want you there and citing minor things and just
condemning the buildings. I don't think that is fair and what happens if I don't let you into my
house?" In a loud and threatening voice, Defendant Mayor Kelly said, "You will comply."
During this statement, Defendant Kelly used very aggressive body language including
pointing his finger at the landlord asking the question.
79. City officials have informed at least one Project Hope case worker that City officials do not
want “low income” people renting in St. Paul.
80. City officials have also informed Kenneth Krahn that the City does not want him renting to
Project Hope individuals.
81. This expressed policy against the poor is consistent with the City’s proposed legislation in
the Minnesota Legislature as far back as 1996 when Kelly, then a State Senator, and
Dawkins, a State Representative, worked together in proposing legislation to deconcentrate
poverty in certain sections of the City, thereby relocating the poor out of the City.
Abuse of City's Excessive Consumption Fee System
-NHPI's Fraudulent Mailing Scheme
82. The methods of illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity conducted by City code
enforcement officials and employees against Plaintiffs and other property owners, has also
included, but has not been limited to, a fraudulent scheme to illegally acquire monies from
Plaintiff’s and other property owners in the City through abuse of the City's excessive
consumption fee system.
83. City employees of the Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement
19
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 19 of 102

("NHPI"), including Dawkins, and possibly others, have participated in a fraudulent scheme
against selected property owners, including Plaintiffs and other property owners that has
included intentionally sending NHPI written communications, including inspection
Appointment Letters, code Correction Notices, and excessive consumption fee assessment
notices, to a property owner's wrong residential address so the property owner remains
unaware of the City's intent to inspect the owner's rental property, the City's claimed
inspection, the time lines for correcting any claimed code deficiencies and the adverse
consequences to the property owner of failure to make the corrections. The City, through
Defendants' stack the deck against the property owner in order to trigger the assessment of
fees for the benefit of Defendants.
84. Through this fraudulent mailings scheme, Defendants intentionally seek to ensure that NHPI
re-inspections can be completed without the property owners being able to complete the
demanded repairs, thereby triggering "excessive consumption fees" against the owners of the
property and rental registration revocation actions by Defendants.
Property Owners Who Have Been Victims of Fraudulent Mailings Scheme
85. NHPI inspectors and Director Dawkins have used the fraudulent mailings scheme described
above against Plaintiffs and other property owners who have been victims of Defendants'
delayed mailing scheme, including Plaintiffs and other property owners who have been
forced by Defendants to pay excessive consumption fees for activities that occurred after
selling properties subject to continued adverse enforcement actions.
86. Dawkins and others forwarded City notices to Plaintiffs wrong address in order to "stack the
deck" against Plaintiffs as part of the City's targeting property owners.
20
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 20 of 102

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO EACH PLAINTIFF
87. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann and
others, under supervision of Dawkins and Kelly, and in coordination with other City Code
officials and employees, participated in furthering the discriminatory action and illegal code
enforcement conduct by targeting Plaintiffs, who at all times relevant herein was providing
housing to "protected class" tenants.
88. Commencing on or about March 12, 2003, and continuing to present, City housing inspectors
and officials, including Dawkins, Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty,
Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, along with Assistant City Attorney Dolan, have harassed
Plaintiffs on their rental properties in an effort to shut down their rental business, or force
change in ownership of properties. Said Defendants' illegal, discriminatory and malicious
actions have forced the Plaintiffs to sell off many of their rental properties that they were
renting to members of the "protected class".
89. Even though Plaintiffs had no abnormal history of code violations during their ownership of
rental properties prior to 2003, commencing on or about April of 2003, most of their rental
properties in St. Paul have been selectively targeted by said Defendants.
90. Said Defendants have repeatedly harassed Plaintiffs by selectively enforcing the City housing
code in a very strict and petty manner against them, while at the same time Defendants
looked the other way on serious housing code violations by the director Dawkins himself or
at numerous adjacent properties not owned by Plaintiffs.
91. Dawkins and code enforcement officers participated in discriminatory and illegal action
directed at Plaintiffs at their rental properties located in the City. Defendants selectively
targeted Plaintiffs based upon impermissible factors of the race, color and national origin of
21
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 21 of 102

many of Plaintiffs tenants.
Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
on the 643 Watson Property
92. Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC purchased 643 Watson in January 2003. One of the two tenants
was in a protected class and received government assistance. Dadder’s proceeded with the
rehabilitation of the property by obtaining a building permit and posting a $2,000.00
performance deposit on March 21, 2003. Dadder’s filed a Vacant Building Registration
Form on May 13, 2003, and informed James Seeger, Code Compliance Inspector, via letter
dated September 23, 2003, that Dadder’s had completed their repairs. Dadder’s spent
approximately $70,000.00 rehabilitating 643 Watson, including a new roof, new cedar siding,
trash removal, new sheetrock, new paint, new electrical, new fixtures, new doors, new
cabinets, new appliances and refinished hardwood floors, thereby completing all tasks
itemized in the prior owner’s inspection report from 2001.
93. On October 23, 2003, a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration for 643 Watson was
issued to Thomas J. Gallagher by Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement Programs Supervisor.
On January 21, 2004, Gallagher was sent and paid for a Rental Registration Renewal for 643
Watson.
94. In April 2004, Gallagher discovered that employees of the city were contacting his tenants
informing them of the City's interest in suing Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s for housing
tenants in a condemned building. On April 9, 2004, a Correction Notice was issued by
Defendant Magner for illegal occupancy of a Registered Vacant Building (after the city
issued and collected funds for a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October
23, 2003) and for lack of proper ground cover and for the removal of all concrete ruble,
22
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 22 of 102

brush, wood, piles of dirt or rubble. The April 9, 2004, Correction Notice was prepared by
Magner and was attached as Exhibit #5 to the Verified Tenant Remedies Action ("TRA ")
Complaint.
95. On or about April 29, 2004, Dawkins directed the commencement of a TRA suit on Dadder’s
rental property located at 643 Watson. Dawkins was assisted by Magner and Attorney
Dolan. In the Verified Tenant Remedies Action Complaint dated April 29, 2004, Dawkins
verified that the allegations of the Complaint were true and accurate. Dawkins claimed in
Paragraph No. 6 that the code violations had not yet been remedied. This was false as the
entire property had been renovated and the 2001 inspection report completed before the City
commenced the TRA action. Gallagher was informed that although the property had been
completely renovated, it would not be removed from the condemned and vacant housing list
because the prior owner did not pull permits for the work done before Dadder’s purchased
the building. Gallagher was forced to incur expenses in excess of $10,000.00 to tear down
and rebuild already new sheetrock, and to incur expenses on city permits and city inspections
for heating, plumbing and electrical work done by the prior owner of the building.
96. The tenant in the lower level of 643 Watson did not joint the TRA, and the tenant in the
upper unit repeatedly informed Mr. Gallagher, and informed counsel at the TRA hearing, that
she did not want to join the action, nor did she want to be removed from her newly
remodeled rental unit. Dadder’s was forced to retain an attorney to protect their interests in
Ramsey County District Court during the period of April 2004 through May 2004.
97. In connection with the alleged violations at 643 Watson, a prior Correction Notice dated
November 13, 2003 was issued to Collins for illegal occupancy of a building (again, after the
issuance of a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October 23, 2003), followed
23
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 23 of 102

by a citation dated December 17, 2003 and a warrant for his arrest. Part of the settlement of
the TRA was a fine, removal of warrant and an Agreement to Suspend Prosecution against
Collins.
98. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by Magner,
Dawkins and the City directed against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, they lost revenue and
rental income and incurred expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other
expenses.
Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison
on the 1522/1524 Carroll Property
99. Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC purchased 1522/1524 Carroll in March of 2003. Both tenants
were members of a protected class and received Section 8 assistance. Shortly after
renovating the property, including a new roof, paint, and refinished hardwood floors, PHA
conducted a Section 8 Housing Quality Standards ("HQS") inspection of the property and
approved the 1522/1524 Carroll property for Section 8 payments. A protected class, Section
8 tenant moved in.
100. In March of 2005, Enforcement Officer Senty, supervised by Dawkins, commenced the
illegal harassment against Dadder’s (and Allison, who purchased the unit from Dadder’s) by
posting a "Vacant Building" sign on the occupied property located at 1522/1524 Carroll.
Senty stated that he could produce affidavits from neighbors that the property had been
vacant for six months. However, this property was in fact occupied by tenants until the end
of February, when Dadder’s sold the rental property to Allison. Senty ignored the obvious
occupancy of the home and posted the home as vacant. Because of the Vacant Building
posting and order prohibiting occupancy of the home, Allison has been forced to leave the
24
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 24 of 102

unit empty.
101. Gallagher spoke with Senty and also met with Dawkins on April 1, 2005 to inquire why
Senty had posted the home “vacant.” Gallagher informed Senty that the home was in fact
occupied by tenants and that the posting was wrong. Gallagher had copies of a signed lease
and bank deposit slips for paid rent.
102. Gallagher was forced to file an appeal of Senty’s vacant building posting on Allison’s
rental unit through the City Council legislative hearing process (although 1522/1524 Carroll
was sold to Allison, Gallagher continued to receive the paperwork from the City). After
waiting for several weeks for the decision of the legislative hearing officer (during which
time the property remained empty), the legislative hearing officer refused to overturn the
“vacant” posting on appeal because the Section 8 lease which Gallagher produced expired in
January 2005. However, the tenant remained in the building until approximately February of
2005, and Gallagher moved the tenant to another rental property as the sale to Allison took
place on February 28, 2005.
103. Many of the claimed code deficiencies at the 1522/1524 Carroll rental property are due to
the tenant's behavior. For example, the property has been cited on more than one occasion
because the tenant left the service door to the garage open.
104. Magner prepared and mailed a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning Letter dated
May 4, 2005 to Dadder’s (at their former address in St. Paul) requiring $250.00 for
administrative costs or the owners would be subject to a criminal Summons and Complaint.
Even though there were tenants in the unit, signed leases and bank deposit slips showing rent
payments, Dawkins, Magner, Senty and others used the vacant building procedure as
leverage against Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison to illegally remove the
25
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 25 of 102

grandfathering protections of their older building under Minnesota law and to force them into
having code compliance inspection and certification process on the 1522/1524 Carroll
property.
105. Dawkins, Magner, Senty and others working for the City targeted both Dadder’s and
Allison (the prior and current owner of the 1522/1524 Carroll rental property) as part of an
illegal scheme to hold City landlords responsible for all adverse tenant behavior, including
tenant caused damage to rental properties in the City, all in an effort to extort property and
other rights from landlords to the benefit of the City and to Dawkins, Magner and others
personally.
106. Additionally, by declaring a property vacant, and illegally removing the grandfathering
protections of older City homes and buildings and demanding full "Code Compliance
Inspections and Certificates" before allowing the re-rental of the targeted properties,
Defendants ensured that the targeted property owners would not be able to afford to rent once
again to the low income minority tenants in the properties targeted.
107. The 1522/1524 Carroll rental property owned now my Allison is currently registered as a
vacant building site and is not being rented to protected class members. As a direct result of
said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and
Allison, they have sustained damages, lost revenue and rental income after March 2005, and
incurred expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other expenses.
Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
on the 1595 Van Buren Property
108. Dadder’s purchased 1595 Van Buren in 2003 as a rental property. At the time of
purchase, 1595 Van Buren was listed and registered with the City as a building with four
26
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 26 of 102

units to be rented. Three of the units were occupied by protected class members. Gallagher,
Collins and Dadder’s continued the registration and paying taxes on the four unit building.
109. The property located at 1595 Van Buren had been issued a Certificate of Occupancy, as
another fire inspector had inspected the same address in the spring of 2004 and granted the
Certificate with no deficiencies.
110. In June of 2004, Fire Prevention Inspector Urmann made a “Re-Inspection of Referral” of
the property located at 1595 Van Buren, and then prepared and mailed to Gallagher and
Dadder’s two Deficiency lists dated June 24, 2004, both of which noted "deficiencies" to be
corrected on or after June 24, 2004 and June 28, 2004, respectively.
111. The deficiency lists contained 31 numbered deficiencies. Urmann claimed that one of the
units was illegal and could not be rented as a separate unit. Also among the 31 deficiencies,
Urmann claimed that the unit must have a central fire alarm installed.
112. The 1595 Van Buren property has been fined no less than four times for reinspection
fees.
113. As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Gallagher,
Collins, and Dadder’s, they have sustained expenses and damages in the form of loss of rent
after June 2004 as well as inspections, repairs and other expenses.
Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
on the 467 Maryland Property
114. Dadder’s purchased multi-unit adjacent apartment buildings including one located at 467
Maryland in approximately March of 2005. At that time and thereafter, these properties were
almost exclusively occupied by protected class members and a significant percentage of the
units received Section 8 or other government assistance. At the time of purchase, the
27
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 27 of 102

buildings had Certificates of Occupancy and had maintained their certificates every two years
dating back to the construction of these properties in the 1960’s.
115. On March 28, 2005, one of Urmann’s fire inspectors, James Thomas, conducted an
inspection of 467 Maryland and issued a letter dated March 28, 2005, with 10 code
deficiencies. In fact, this rental property located at 467 Maryland had been issued a
Certificate of Occupancy in all prior years.
116. One of the claimed deficiencies was that a smoke detector needed to be located outside
each sleeping area. The existing placement of smoke detectors had passed inspection for
over thirty years. Upon speaking with Urmann, Urmann claimed that the new code required
a smoke detector in each bedroom. When asked whether or not an older building must
comply with the new code, Urmann stated that it did. Defendant City has granted PHA
preferential treatment under similar circumstances by deferments of City fire safety
requirements on PHA rental properties.
117. As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Gallagher,
Collins, and Dadder’s, they have been forced to incur significant expense in time, labor and
materials in order to comply with the claimed deficiencies.
Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Jeff and Sara Kubitschek
on the 883/885 Sims Property
118. On January 14 and 19, 2005, two search warrants were requested by law enforcement
authorities seeking to find drugs, guns, weapons and other items in the premises of 883 and
885 Sims. The search warrants were executed on January 20, 2005, when a law enforcement
raid was made of both properties. Both 883 and 885 Sims were occupied by protected class
members receiving Section 8 or other assistance.
28
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 28 of 102

119. At approximately 6:30 p.m. on January 20, 2005, City of St. Paul law enforcement
officers broke down the doors of both Sims properties and proceeded with their search; City
police trashed the inside of both properties and inspectors contemporaneously condemned the
property.
120. After the raid, Dawkins forwarded to Kubitschek’s a Notice of Condemnation and Order
to Vacate dated January 21, 2005. Upon information and belief, inspector Rich Singerhouse
conducted the inspection for Dawkins at the time of the raid.
121. The January 21, 2005, Notice of Condemnation stated that the principal violations were
general filthy conditions and infestation of cockroaches. On January 24, 2005, the
Kubitschek’s hired “Be There Pest Control” to exterminate any cockroaches in the building.
The exterminator found cockroach activity in unit 883 and “low or no activity in unit 885;”
pest control was completed. On January 24, 2005, Kubitscheks received a letter from
Magner notifying them of an assessment for securing the property at 883 Sims after the
police raid. On January 25, 2005, Kubitscheks faxed a letter to Dawkins along with the
exterminator invoice as well as requested cooperation as one of the tenants not present at the
police raid was cleaning her unit and wanted to occupy her unit again.
122. On January 26, 2005, Magner sent Kubitscheks a Vacant Building Registration Notice
stating that the premises as 883 Sims had been inspected and found to meet the definition of
a Vacant Building as described in the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 43, and informing
Kubitscheks that they were required to pay a $250.00 vacant building registration fee and
that the enforcement officer might declare the building to constitute a nuisance building
subject to demolition.
29
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 29 of 102

123. Kubitscheks proceeded to pay the $250.00 fee and James Seeger from the City’s LIEP
office inspected 883-885 Sims on February 25, 2005, and sent his three page code
compliance list to Kubitscheks.
124. For ten months Kubitscheks have been involved with contractors to satisfy the City to get
a certificate of code compliance spending time, money and effort in attempting to remodel
the duplex at 883/885 Sims since the February 25, 2005, code compliance inspection.
During this long code compliance remodel process, Singerhouse again issued a Summary
Abatement Order on June 10, 2005, for discarded furniture and tall grass. Although
numerous other properties in the City had serious code violations, which Defendants’
ignored, Defendants selectively targeted Kubitscheks and their protected class tenants as part
of their discriminatory policy, custom and practice.
125. As a direct result of the discriminatory policy, custom and practice by Dawkins, Magner
and Singerhouse and others directed at Kubitscheks and their tenants, Kubitscheks have lost
rental income from their tenants and have been unable to afford to pay for the full “code
compliance” Defendants wrongfully demanded in order to again rent their duplex. Because
of the large expenditures required to comply with the code compliance on the Sims property,
Kubitscheks eventually had to sell a duplex rental property located at 1086 Minnehaha,
which was rented to members of a protected class receiving Section 8 assistance, as they
could not make the payments on the property or pay for other expenses on the duplex without
rental income. Kubitscheks also lost thousands of dollars expended by them in remodeling
and repairing the Sims duplex in order to meet the demands of Defendants, and they lost their
business expectancy, including profits and now attorney’s fees, as a direct result of said
Defendants’ discriminatory policy, custom and practice.
30
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 30 of 102

Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Jeff and Sara Kubitschek
on the 748/750 DeSoto Property
126. On March 9, 2005, an inspection was conducted by Kelley Booker and a Correction
Notice issued for 748 Desoto due to storm doors in disrepair, windows and/or door screens in
disrepair, and windows and/or storm windows in a state of disrepair. Both 748 and 750
Desoto were occupied by protected class members receiving Section 8 or other assistance.
127. On August 3, 2005, Dawkins sent Kubitscheks a Notice of the City’s intent to revoke the
rental registration certificate for 748 Desoto, stating that he had determined that the use and
occupancy of the premises at 748 Desoto constituted a nuisance under Chapter 51 of the
legislative code because police officers had been called to a loud party, because of
complaining neighbors, and because of code violations such as rotting and broken window
sills, screens cut around window air conditioners, gutters plugged with leaves, and a broken
screen door or no screen. Dawkins further stated that he recommended that the City Council
revoke the rental registration certificate, and if revoked, occupancy would not be allowed
until an inspection was conducted by his department (NHPI) and the property was in
compliance. Dawkins requested a call from Kubitscheks as soon as possible to set up a
meeting to discuss how to correct this situation before the City Council revoked the
certificate.
128. Kubitscheks contacted Dawkins pursuant to his letter and Dawkins told them that they
needed to find new tenants. At Dawkins request and in the hopes of saving their rental
registration certificate, Kubitscheks served a notice of lease termination on one tenant, and
begged Dawkins to allow them to keep an existing tenant.
31
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 31 of 102

129. At Dawkins request, Kubitscheks and Dawkins signed a Certification of Rental
Registration Non-Revocation Agreement, whereby they agreed with Dawkins to evict a
tenant by voluntary Notice to Quit or Unlawful Detainer.
130. When Mr. Kubitschek met personally with Dawkins to sign the Certification of Rental
Registration Non-Revocation Agreement to evict his tenants in both 748 Desoto and 668
York, Dawkins told Kubitschek, as he patted him on the back, that “If we had more landlords
like you in this city, we could clean this place up.”
131. Although numerous other properties in the City have many more police calls for more
serious conduct, which Defendants’ ignore, Defendants selectively targeted Kubitscheks and
their protected class tenants as part of their discriminatory policy, custom and practice.
132. As a direct result of the discriminatory policy, custom and practice by Dawkins and
others directed at Kubitscheks and their tenants, Kubitscheks have suffered damages and lost
rental income from their tenant. Kubitscheks also lost their business expectancy, including
profits and now attorney’s fees, as a direct result of said Defendants’ discriminatory policy,
custom and practice.
Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Jeff and Sara Kubitschek
on the 668 York Property
133. On May 11, 2004, an inspection was conducted by Kelly Booker and a Correction Notice
issued for 668 York due to unpainted wood trim around windows and a mattress in the alley
behind the property. Kubitscheks had installed a new window and were in the process of
adding the trim and paint around the new window. Both units at 668 York were occupied by
protected class members receiving Section 8 or other assistance.
32
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 32 of 102

134. On May 20, 2004, another inspection was conducted by Kelly Booker and a Correction
Notice issued for 668 York due to a mattress in the back yard off the alley. Kubitscheks also
received an excessive consumption notice and $50.00 fine from Dawkins for the cost of the
reinspection.
135. Kubitscheks also received a notice to cut tall grass and/or weeds at 668 York, even
though Mr. Kubitschek cut the grass on a weekly basis.
136. On April 12, 2004, and NHPI inspection was conducted and a Correction Order issued
for 668 York due to an inoperable vehicle. Kubitscheks investigated and the tenant’s vehicle
was property licensed and parked, however it had a flat tire which the tenant had not been
able to repair.
137. On July 28, 2005, Dawkins sent Kubitscheks a Notice of the City’s intent to revoke the
rental registration certificate for 668 York, stating that he had determined that the use and
occupancy of the premises at 668 York constitutes a nuisance under Chapter 51 of the
legislative code because of numerous police calls and because police officers had been called
to the premises after the son of tenant had a dispute with his brother and shot and wounded
him in the back. According to Dawkins letter, the son of the tenant was charged with
“possession of a firearm by an ineligible.” Dawkins further stated that he recommended to
the City Council that they revoke the rental registration certificate, and if revoked, occupancy
is not allowed until an inspection by his department (NHPI) and he has determined the
property to be in compliance with city code and no longer a nuisance. Dawkins ended his
letter requesting a call as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss how to correct this
situation before City Council revoked the certificate.
33
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 33 of 102

138. Kubitscheks contacted Dawkins pursuant to his letter and Dawkins told them that they
needed to find new tenants. At Dawkins request and in the hopes of saving their rental
registration certificate, Kubitscheks served a notice of lease termination on both tenants.
139. At Dawkins request, Kubitscheks and Dawkins signed a Certification of Rental
Registration Non-Revocation Agreement, whereby they agreed with Dawkins to evict the
tenants from “both up and down” units by voluntary Notice to Quit or Unlawful Detainer.
140. When Mr. Kubitschek met personally with Dawkins to sign the Certification of Rental
Registration Non-Revocation Agreement to evict his tenants from both 748 Desoto and 668
York, Dawkins told Kubitschek, as he patted him on the back, that “If we had more landlords
like you in this city, we could clean this place up.”
141. Although numerous other properties in the City have many more police calls for more
serious conduct, which Defendants’ ignore, Defendants selectively targeted Kubitscheks and
their protected class tenants as part of their discriminatory policy, custom and practice.
142. As a direct result of the discriminatory policy, custom and practice by Dawkins and
others directed at Kubitscheks and their tenants, Kubitscheks have suffered damages and lost
rental income from their tenant. Kubitscheks also lost their business expectancy, including
profits and now attorney’s fees, as a direct result of said Defendants’ discriminatory policy,
custom and practice.
Racketeering Activity and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
on various other rental properties.
143. Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code enforcement activity against Gallagher,
Collins and Dadder’s and the other Plaintiffs continues to this day. Code enforcement
officers prepared and mailed to Dadder’s written Correction Orders and Summary Abatement
34
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 34 of 102

Orders of their rental properties wherein they made petty, malicious and false statements
about claimed code violations; many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by
the code enforcement officers to Dadder’s were false and calculated to make the Dadder’s
properties look bad.
144. Cassidy’s June 20, 2005, Summary Abatement Order cited 643 Watson for piles of dirt
and yard waste.
145. Senty’s April 19, 2005, Summary Abatement Order cited 1524 Carroll for the door on the
north side of garage.
146. Cassidy’s February 8, 2005, Correction Order cited 624 James for rubbish and household
items.
147. Cassidy’s December 16, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 543 Michigan for
household items and house and garage numbers.
148. Magner’s December 10, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 250 Duke for a tool
box, tires and a couch.
149. Essling’s September 23, 2004, Correction Order cited 974 James for rubble and doors.
150. Cassidy’s September 13, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 547 Michigan for carpet
and pools.
151. Cassidy’s September 8, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 624 James for plastic and
a battery.
152. Cassidy’s August 23, 2004, Correction Order cited 547 Michigan for pools, carpet and a
microwave.
153. Yannarelly’s July 29, 2004, Correction Notice citied 1532 Concordia for lack of water
service (after the tenant failed to pay the utility bill).
35
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 35 of 102

154. Essling’s July 28, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 624 James for couches, wood,
and cardboard.
155. Schiller’s July 21, 2004, Summary Abatement Order citied 974 James for items and tall
grass along the alley.
156. Cassidy’s June 28, 2004, Correction Order cited 250 Duke for a couch and storm door,
vehicle parked on an unimproved surface, and scrape and paint garage.
157. Yannarelly’s June 25, 2004, Correction Order cited 1500 Concordia for expired plates on
a vehicle.
158. Yannarelly’s June 25, 2004, Correction Notice cited 1512 Concordia for peeling paint on
siding and expired tabs.
159. Cassidy’s June 17, 2004, Correction Order cited 624 James for a door and railing and
birds nesting in the siding.
160. Magner’s June 14, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 643 Watson for items in the
rear and side yard area.
161. Senty’s April 28, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 509 Bay for north side
basement windows.
162. Schiller’s April 19, 2004, Vehicle Abatement Order cited 551 Michigan for expired tabs
on a vehicle.
163. Schiller’s April 19, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 551 Michigan for items
around the building.
164. Schiller’s April 19, 2004, Summary Abatement Order cited 547 Michigan for items along
the alley and under the side steps.
165. Schiller’s April 9, 2003, Correction Notice cited 543 Michigan deteriorated paint and
36
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 36 of 102

deteriorated soffits/fascia.
166. Schiller’s January 23, 2003, Summary Abatement Order cited 547 Michigan for items
along the building, under the front steps, and under the front porch.
167. Another code enforcement officer’s November 20, 2003, Correction Notice cited 543
Michigan for deteriorating paint and deteriorating soffits and fascia.
168. Due to the volume of false and petty orders issued by Defendants, and due to the
behavior and items used by tenants which a landlord cannot control (yard furniture, kiddy
pools and birds nesting), Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s attempted but could not keep up
with the City’s requirements and therefore incurred many reinspection fees and excessive
consumption invoices.
169. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann and
John Doe and Jane Doe, worked together with Kelly and Dawkins against each plaintiff to
run them out of town by illegally using legitimate tools in the law and city code to interfere
with the Plaintiffs’ business by driving up the cost of doing business for the benefit of the
city and other competitors in the low income housing market, including PHA, whom on
information and belief, receives beneficial treatment.
170. As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement treatment
and racketeering activity directed at Plaintiffs by said Defendants, all at the direction or with
the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, Plaintiffs were injured in their rental business and
incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits and Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
were thereafter forced to sell more than 20 of their real estate investment properties in the
City. Other impacted rental property owners were forced to sell properties as well.
171. The illegal actions against Plaintiffs as described above were accomplished to further the
37
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 37 of 102

racketeering activity of Defendants.
172. In comparison to the adverse code enforcement operations conducted against Plaintiffs
and other similar private rental property owners, Defendants provided preferential code
enforcement treatment to PHA with its owned and managed low income rental properties,
which included minimal code enforcement oversight, no adverse threat consequences to PHA
as a result of code deficiencies in PHA properties, PHA tenant behavior problems, PHA
rental property vacancies, and in other matters similar to private rental property owners.
173. Defendant Dawkins owns at least two properties in the City that have been consistently in
a state of disrepair and in serious violation of City Code. Moreover, certain city inspectors
own rental properties in the City and these inspectors are recipients of preferential code
enforcement treatment even though their properties have multiple code violations.
City and Its Officials and Employees Benefit From Illegal Schemes
174. Gallagher met with Dawkins in Dawkins’ office to discuss code enforcement issues.
Gallagher noticed a chart on Dawkins’ wall with a goal to raise $200,000.00 in fees from
excessive consumption fines of City property owners. Dawkins explained his goal chart to
Gallagher and Collins upon a second visit to his office when he was questioned about the
motive and validity of such a chart.
175. As a result of the illegal code enforcement operations and racketeering activity of
Dawkins, Magner, and other city officials and employees, Plaintiffs have been forced to sell
many of their rental properties (some of them to Allison), as well as the other plaintiffs,
brought on by the City’s attempt to circumvent the grandfathering protections due to the
placement of properties into condemnation or on the vacant housing list. Plaintiffs and other
property owners will be forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars per property in
38
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 38 of 102

bringing the home up to modern code instead of being able to make repairs and then
immediately re-renting or selling the home.
176. Defendant City has benefited from these illegal schemes against Plaintiffs and other
rental property owners, through fees triggered by the condemnations, vacant building
registration, "full code compliance" inspections and certification process, excessive
consumption fees, permit fees and other fees. Defendant City also benefited through receipt
of grant funds for bringing TRA suits against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s and other
property owners. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse,
Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and other officials and employees have also benefited
personally in their positions of employment with the City.
177. Following the receipt of the Assessment Notices, Summary Abatement Orders,
Correction Orders, Vehicle Abatement Orders, Excessive Consumption Invoices, and others,
Gallagher often has called the inspectors and Dawkins to protest the assessment of fees and
to explain the false code violations that had led to the assessments. Most of the time,
Gallagher is informed by the inspector and Dawkins that if he fails to make the payment, his
rental registration will be revoked. In fact, Gallagher and Dadder’s had their rental
registration’s revoked on rental properties located at 250 Duke and 551 Michigan. Gallagher
was forced to make payment to the City in the amount of $400.00 after Gallagher met with
Dawkins in order to keep his rental registration and continue his rental business at 250 Duke
and 551 Michigan.
178. Dawkins, Magner and others working for the City targeted Plaintiffs as part of an illegal
scheme to hold City landlords responsible for all adverse tenant behavior, including tenant
caused damage to rental properties in the City, all in an effort to extort property and other
39
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 39 of 102

rights from landlords to the benefit of the City and to Dawkins, Magner and others
personally. Conversely, Defendants do not target PHA for the same type of tenant behavior
and damage issues, but instead directly hold tenants of PHA rental properties responsible for
their actions.
179. Defendants and other City officials and employees have had knowledge of the existence
of these continued fraudulent schemes being operated by NHPI as set forth herein and
Defendants and certain other officials and employees encouraged this pattern of illegal code
enforcement and racketeering activity to continue within the City on a continuing basis since
Kelly placed Dawkins in control of the NHPI department in late 2002.
180. Due to the racketeering activity and illegal and discriminatory code enforcement
operations directed against them, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages including loss
of rental income, profits, and investments in multiple rental buildings. Additionally, Plaintiffs
damages include anticipated losses from forced sales of their rental properties, unnecessary
repairs, excessive fees and charges, expenditures to protect their interests, payment of
attorney's fees, costs and disbursements and other damages. The damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs are substantial, ongoing in nature and are increasing daily.
Other Property Owners Subject to Discrimination and Racketeering Activity
181. Frank Steinhauser, Mark Meysembourg, Kelly Brisson, Sandra Harrilal, Bee Vue, Steven
Johnson and others, former and current City property owners renting to “protected class”
tenants, were subjected during the period 2002 through 2005, to discrimination and
racketeering activity similar to what Plaintiff’s experienced, including false allegations of
code deficiencies, illegal condemnations and code compliance inspections, City lawsuits, and
Paragraph 186 (herein) predicate acts. As a result, they were injured and lost or sold their
40
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 40 of 102

rental properties in the City.
COUNT I
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1961, et seq.
182. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
183. At all relevant times, some or all of the following constituted a RICO enterprise within
the meaning of 18 U.S.C. S 1961(4), or an association in fact: the Division of Property Code
Enforcement; the Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement Office; Citizen's
Service Office; Problem Property Unit; Problem Properties Task Force; the Mayor's Office;
the St. Paul Police Department; the St. Paul Fire Prevention Department; the Ramsey County
Courts; and Community Stabilization Project, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) and
1962(c), in that it was a legal entity or an association in fact.
184. Defendants Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker,
Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe are individual "persons" within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3) and 1962(c), who associated with, and/or participated in, the
conduct of said enterprise's affairs.
185. From at least October 08, 2002, and continuing at present, Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacity, as persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961(3), conducted and participated, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the
affairs of said enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962 (c). Defendants Dawkins, Magner and Kelly operated and managed the
41
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 41 of 102

enterprise(s).
186. Said individual Defendants pattern of racketeering activity consisted of:
a. Said individual Defendants' extortion, or attempts, or conspiracy to do so, and/or
threats of physical violence, under color of official right, in interference with
interstate commerce, that was designed to extract direct or indirect personal
rewards from Plaintiffs, if and when Plaintiffs refused to turn over or succumb to
Defendants' demands for illegal Code compliance, control of the Plaintiffs'
properties, weeding out of tenants that Defendants decided were "undesirable"
within the City of St. Paul, and that was designed to reach coerced settlements
that Defendants never intended to honor, to interfere with the rights of Plaintiffs
and their tenants to honest government services, to force Plaintiffs to admit the
truth of statements filed or prepared by Defendants which Defendants knew were
false; said racketeering activity interfered with the rights of Plaintiffs to honest
government services, and damaged Plaintiffs in their property or businesses; all or
some of said acts were done in violation of the "Hobbs Act," 18 U.S.C. 1951.
b. Said individual Defendants' intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasion, or attempts
to do so, or misleading conduct toward Plaintiffs, with intent to influence, delay,
or prevent testimony of any person in an official proceeding, or to coerce or
induce any person to withhold testimony, from an official proceeding, or to
hinder, delay or prevent Plaintiffs from communication with a law enforcement
officer or judge of the United States relating to Defendants' commission of
possible federal or state criminal offenses, and such acts violated 18 U.S.C. 1512.
c. Said individual Defendants' devised, or intended to devise, a scheme to defraud or
42
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 42 of 102

for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises, beginning in or about March 2002, and continuing to
the present; said Defendants misused the code inspection procedures, intentionally
failed to provide notices or intentionally delayed notices, maliciously falsified
facts which the Defendants knew were not true, made false representations,
promises, offers of settlement, made fraudulent representations to the courts and
to the citizens of St. Paul to cover up and conceal the true duties of Defendants
under the Federal HUD grants and the City Code and state law. For purposes of
executing such fraudulent schemes, Defendants placed or caused to be placed in a
post office or authorized depository for mail, matter that furthered the scheme(s).
Defendants committed mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 each time they
used, or foreseeably caused, the US mails to be used to distribute the materials
described.
d. Said individual Defendants beginning in or about March 2002, knowingly and
fraudulently devised, or intended to devise schemes or artifices to defraud or for
obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises, and transmitted or caused to be transmitted by
means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign
commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds, for the purpose of
executing the schemes or artifices to defraud Plaintiffs. For purposes of executing
such schemes, Defendants placed or caused to be placed, or did not correct,
communications transmitted by the City web site, and other electronic
communications, where such matter furthered the schemes. Said Defendants
43
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 43 of 102

committed wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 each time they used or
foreseeably caused such wire transmissions or other electronic communications to
be made or used to distribute the information described.
e. Said individual Defendants, commencing in or about March 2002, knowingly
executed, or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to obtain money, funds,
credits, assets, or other property under the custody or control of a financial
institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344.
f. Said individual Defendants, commencing in or about March 2002, knowingly,
intentionally, directly or indirectly, corruptly gave, offered, or promised, sought
or obtained, to or from a "public official," something of value to act or refrain
from acting, with the intent to influence or aid an official to commit or aid in the
commission, collude, allow fraud or make opportunity for commission of fraud,
on the United States, or accepted something of value personally for or because of
any official act to be done or to be given as a witness in a hearing, trial or other
such proceeding, including proceedings in Ramsey County, tenant remedy
procedures, other landlord compliance proceedings, federal court proceedings,
Federal Fair Housing Act proceedings, HUD grant application and fund
distribution proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.
g. Said individual Defendants took, stole, tainted, alienated, transferred, concealed,
or retained without claim of right, property of Plaintiffs by artifice, swindle, trick,
or other means, including promises to settle without any intent to perform, the
filing of false oaths and statements, in violation of Minn. Stat. Ann. 609.901 et
44
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 44 of 102

seq. (RICO), 609.05, 609.27, 609.2336, 609.43(2)(3)(4), 609.52, applicable to
RICO under US. v. Nardella 393 U.S. 286 (1969).
187. These acts all occurred after the effective date of RICO and more than two such acts
occurred within ten years of one another.
188. Said individual Defendants are individuals or other persons within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. 1961 (3) and 1962(c) who associated with, and/or participated in, the conduct of said
enterprises affairs.
189. From March 2002 through the present, said individual Defendants conducted,
participated in, engaged in, conspired to engage in, or aided and abetted, the conduct of the
affairs of the "enterprise" as alleged in paragraph no. 183 through a "pattern of racketeering
activity," as listed in paragraph no. 186, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3), 1961(5)
and 1962(c). Said Defendants pattern of racketeering activity consisted of acts as listed
elsewhere in the Complaint.
190. At all relevant times, the enterprises alleged in paragraph no. 183 were engaged in, and
their activities affected, interstate commerce and foreign commerce.
191. All the predicate acts described in paragraph no. 186 above, were related so as to
establish a pattern of racketeering activity, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), in that
their common purpose was to misuse the Code enforcement process, fraudulently induce
settlements never intended to be honored, fraudulently increase the number of criminal rental
property penalties, and carry out such actions and other related actions under color of law or
official right so as to damage landlords' property and businesses and the property interests of
Plaintiffs tenants, and their common result was to extort or obtain monies, property or
damage the businesses of Plaintiffs and/or conceal the improper motives of Defendants under
45
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 45 of 102

the guise of protecting the exact same "protected class" tenants Defendants had decided to
remove from St. Paul; Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse,
Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe and John Doe and Jane Doe,
each personally, or through their agent or agents, directly or indirectly, participated in all of
the acts and employed the same or similar methods of commission, fraud, false oaths,
extortion and retaliation. Plaintiffs and others as yet unknown, were the victims of said
Defendants racketeering and or the acts of racketeering were otherwise interrelated by
distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated events.
192. All of the predicate acts described above were continuous so as to form a pattern of
racketeering activity in that:
a. Said individual Defendants engaged in the predicate acts described above over a
substantial time (from at least March 2002 through 2005, and continuing until
present); and
b. Said individual Defendants continue, or threaten to continue, to engage in the
predicate activity described above as regular way of conducting the enterprise and
Defendants' ongoing governmental activities.
193. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of said individual
Defendants and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Plaintiffs and other property
owners as yet unknown to Plaintiffs, have been injured in their persons, estates, business
and/or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). Each Plaintiff has sustained
damages to business or property, and such actions of said Defendants including their actions
in fraudulently conducting the code enforcement, court proceedings, and settlements, caused
Plaintiffs to incur legal and accounting costs and the costs of investigation.
46
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 46 of 102

194. Said individual Defendants' secret agreements were fraudulently concealed from
Plaintiffs, other property owners, the courts, and law enforcement.
195. Said individual Defendants took specific acts and conspired to conceal their liabilities
under their false statements, fraudulent code enforcement, false court and administrative
filings, fraudulent settlements, threats of criminal prosecution, and fraudulent compliance
with other federal laws.
196. These specific acts included racketeering and conspiracy and were of an ongoing nature
continuing into the future.
197. Said individual Defendants each knowingly committed or conspired to commit, or agreed
with the commission of, at least one act described above in violation of RICO, or aided and
abetted the commission of one such act and thereby agreed with the objectives of the other
Defendants.
198. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller,
Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe,
individually, jointly and severally, for threefold the damages sustained, together with the
costs of this suit, including reasonable attorney fees and expert fees.
199. Plaintiffs also seek permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing
their pattern of discriminatory and otherwise illegal code enforcement and racketeering
activity as described above.
47
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 47 of 102

COUNT II
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1961, ET SEQ.
200. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
201. From at least March 2002, and continuing on presently, Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe
and Jane Doe, along with unknown third parties, have conspired to conduct or participate,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the "enterprise" described in paragraph no. 183
through a "pattern of racketeering activity," as listed in paragraph no. 186, and elsewhere in
the Second Amended Complaint, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (d).
202. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe with unknown third parties, agreed to commit
one or more predicate acts in furtherance of the scheme to defraud and/or agreed to the
overall objective of the scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and other landlords, all of whom were
providing housing services to members of the "protected class".
203. Each individual Defendant committed, planned, conspired to commit, aided and abetted
at least one of the predicate acts and/or conspired to commit, and/or aide and abetted the
commission of one or more predicate acts, and/or agreed to commit at least one predicate act,
including threats of criminal prosecution, and thereby committed at least one act in
furtherance of the conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d).
204. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of Magner, Cassidy,
Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and
48
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 48 of 102

John Doe and Jane Doe, along with unknown third patties, as defined herein, Plaintiffs have
been injured in their business or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1964 (c)
and (d).
205. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller,
Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe,
individually, jointly and severally, for threefold the damages sustained, together with the
costs of this suit, including reasonable attorney fees and expert fees.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1968 AND AMENDMENTS
(FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT)
42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3601 ET SEQ., 3613 AND 3617
206. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
207. Commencing in March 2002, and continuing thereafter, Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and
Jane Doe, and other officials and employees of Defendant City, as well as inspectors from
Defendant City's Fire Department, intentionally and maliciously commenced and thereafter
continued a discriminatory policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct that
selectively targeted Plaintiffs and other St. Paul landlords, who were aiding, encouraging and
associating with individuals with protected rights to housing under Title VIII, Federal Fair
Housing Act and Amendments, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, American-
Indians, families with children, individuals with disabilities, those receiving state and federal
financial assistance, as well as others less fortunate, all ("protected class" members) living
49
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 49 of 102

within the City of St. Paul.
208. Said Defendants discriminatory policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct
did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with Plaintiffs on account of Plaintiffs having
aided, associated with or encouraged their protected class tenants in exercise of these tenants'
rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.
209. This discriminatory policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct had, and
continues to have, the approval of the City Council.
210. Defendants' discriminatory policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct was
intentional and malicious in Defendants' efforts to rid the City of St. Paul of "bottom of the
barrel," "undesirable," "low income" individuals, who were in very large part, “protected
class” members, and Plaintiffs and others who were assisting these individuals.
211. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly, and other officials and employees of Defendant City, a well as inspectors
from the Fire Department, intended that their aggressive code enforcement operations would
have a discriminatory impact upon members of the "protected class" and Plaintiffs as
providers of housing services to those "protected class" members.
212. Said Defendants' further instituted a campaign of coercion, extortion, intimidation,
threats, interference and retaliation against Plaintiffs which impaired Plaintiffs' abilities to
provide housing for low and moderate income tenants, members of the “protected class”.
Said coercion, extortion, intimidation, threats, interference and retaliation resulted in actual
damages to Plaintiffs' businesses and properties, including loss of income, profits and
investments, physical disruption of rental and repair activities, false settlements, forced
payments, forced sales of rental properties, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and
50
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 50 of 102

other fees.
213. Defendant City has acquired, retained and expended millions of dollars in HUD grants, as
well as other federal funds, while at the same time Defendants have concretely undermined
the policy and purposes of those grants by targeting privately owned rental properties
providing low income housing to "protected class" members, thereby forcing tenants and
private landlords out of the St. Paul market for affordable, safe housing, in violation of
federal and state law, including without due process and under color of law or official right.
214. PHA is a direct competitor of Plaintiffs and many other targeted rental property owners
within the City. Defendants have abused Defendant City's police powers in selectively
targeting privately owned rental properties with discriminatory and illegal code enforcement
and racketeering activity, while at the same time the PHA is not and has not been, subject to
the same or similar code inspection system on PHA’s rental properties or subject to the same
or similar adverse threat consequences for code violations or tenant behavior problems.
215. PHA's rental housing stock in the City has similar health, safety, fire and housing code
issues as Plaintiffs’ rental properties as those of other private landlords renting to “protective
class” tenants. Many of PHA's rental properties have similar maintenance issues and
problems as Plaintiffs' older rental buildings, yet only privately owned rental properties are
subject to Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity.
216. PHA's rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems, including those that
require frequent calls for City police protection, that are similar to the tenant and guest
behavior problems of Plaintiffs’ properties and those rental properties owned by other
similarly situated property owners in the City. Nevertheless, Defendants have targeted the
properties of Plaintiffs and other property owners who are in direct competition with PHA for
51
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 51 of 102

the same low income, predominately minority tenants, based upon claimed tenant behavior
problems that also exist in PHA properties.
217. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its provisions, and
Defendants cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against themselves.
218. Said Defendants' code enforcement operations had a discriminatory impact upon African-
Americans, Hispanics, Asians, American-Indians, families with children, disabled
individuals, those receiving state and federal financial assistance, and others less fortunate,
all members of the "protected class" living within the City of St. Paul, and upon Plaintiffs
and other property owners providing housing services to "protected class" members.
219. Defendants' discriminatory policy and pattern interference and retaliatory conduct
continued at all times set forth herein and continues presently in the City.
220. As a direct result of said Defendants' discriminatory policy and pattern of interference
and retaliatory conduct directed at Plaintiffs and others, Plaintiffs have sustained loss of
rental income and damage to their rental businesses, including lost profits and investments,
have been forced to sell rental properties, and incurred other damages, included increased tax
burdens, and have incurred unnecessary expenses and fees, and attorney and accounting fees
and costs.
221. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner,
Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Senty, Dawkins and Kelly.
222. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by
Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
52
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 52 of 102

Dawkins, Kelly, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
223. Plaintiffs seek pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 permanent injunctive relief to prohibit
Defendants from continuing their wrongful conduct, as Defendants' discriminatory code
enforcement policy, custom and practice, as described above, has existed and continued and
presently continues, within the City over an extended period of time.
COUNT IV
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981
224. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
225. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and lane Doe, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, have
intentionally denied Plaintiffs, on account of race, the same right to make and enforce
contracts, and to have the full and equal benefit of all laws or proceedings for the security of
persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, all in violation of the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
226. Defendants, with racially discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs' contracts, and
right to make and enforce contracts with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs' right to
enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of Plaintiffs' contractual
relationships with their non-white tenants.
227. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages
in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and investments,
unnecessary expenses, fees and costs, and damages for deprivation of their civil and
53
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 53 of 102

constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
228. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner,
Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Senty, Dawkins and Kelly.
229. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker,
Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT V
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
230. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
231. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, have denied Plaintiffs, on
account of race, the same rights as are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell,
hold and convey real and personal property, all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
232. Defendants' discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as more fully
described above, impaired Plaintiffs' property rights and those of its tenants.
233. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages
in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and investments,
54
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 54 of 102

unnecessary expenses, fees and costs and damages for deprivation of their civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
234. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner,
Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Senty, Dawkins and Kelly.
235. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker,
Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe.
236. Plaintiffs also seek permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing
their pattern of discriminatory code enforcement as described above.
COUNT VI
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
237. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
238. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly and other employees of Defendant City, unknown to Plaintiffs at this time,
all in their official capacities, did wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs and their tenants of rights
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be free from taking of their property without
compensation, and the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the laws,
55
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 55 of 102

and the right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from governmental
deprivation or undue interference, or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the
Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, and rights established by 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
239. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly and other employees of City unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, all in their
official capacities, were following an unconstitutional City policy, custom and practice of
discriminatory code enforcement at the time of said deprivation of rights, all as fully
described above.
240. The policy, custom and practice, described above, proximately caused the injury to
Plaintiffs. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs' damages as a result of the policy,
custom and practice set forth herein.
241. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Kelly, Dawkins, other employees of Defendant City of St. Paul, unknown to Plaintiffs at this
time, in their individual capacities, acting under color of state law, intentionally and
maliciously subjected to harm the Plaintiffs in occupations and/or professions to deprivation
of their rights and undue interference on account of Plaintiffs' tenants being “protected class”
members.
242. Said Defendants intentional and malicious conduct was a violation of Plaintiffs' rights
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, to be free from taking of property without compensation,
the right to due process, the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to pursue an
occupation, business or profession free from deprivation or undue interference, or
56
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 56 of 102

government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and rights established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
243. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages
in the form of economic loss and deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights.
244. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner,
Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Senty, Dawkins and Kelly.
245. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker,
Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and
others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT VII
CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1985
246. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
247. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and other
employees of Defendant City of St. Paul, unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, conspired
together with certain third parties, also unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but who were not
employees or agents of said City, to deny Plaintiffs and their tenants their federal civil rights
as set forth above.
57
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 57 of 102

248. Said individual Defendants and their third-party conspirators conspired to deprive, either
directly or indirectly, Plaintiffs and their "protected class" tenants of their rights under the
United States Constitution, including their right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures, right to compensation for taking of their property and to due process, right to equal
protection of the laws, right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from
deprivation or undue interference or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the
Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as their rights under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981, 1982 and 1983, and Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.
249. Said Defendants did act in furtherance of the conspiracy as more fully set out above.
250. Said conspiracy was motivated by racial and other class based, invidious discriminatory
animus behind the conspirators' action.
251. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages
in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, and deprivation of their civil
and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
252. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner,
Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Senty, Dawkins and Kelly.
COUNT VIII
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND VOID FOR VAGUENESS
58
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 58 of 102

253. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
254. A statute, ordinance, or regulation as a penal law must define the offense with sufficient
clarity and precision so that an ordinary individual can understand what is prohibited, and
that it does not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
255. Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 of the St. Paul Legislative Code (“City Code”) are void for
vagueness, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, because they
fail adequately to define key terms contained in those code chapters. These provisions are
penal in nature as the City frequently brings criminal actions against Plaintiffs and other
property owners based upon claimed violations of these chapters.
256. As a result of numerous poorly defined (or undefined) terms that are central to their
application, these chapters of the City Code fail to provide landlords and other property
owners with sufficient notice of their basic obligations under law, and thereby places
unwarranted discretion in the hands of those charged with code enforcement.
257. The term “unoccupied” in chapter 43 is highly ambiguous. In this chapter, unoccupied is
defined under Section 43.02 – Definitions. Subdivision (5) reads as follows: Unoccupied: A
building which is not being used for a legal occupancy as defined in the Saint Paul
Legislative Code. Legal occupancy is not defined in Chapters 43, 34, 45, or 51.
258. The term “vacant building” in chapter 43 is highly ambiguous. In this chapter, vacant
building is defined under Section 43.02 – Definitions. Subdivision (7) reads as follows:
“Vacant building: A building or portion of a building which is: a. Unoccupied and
unsecured; b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means; c. Unoccupied and a
dangerous structure; d. Unoccupied and condemned; e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing
59
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 59 of 102

or building code violations; f. Condemned and illegally occupied; or g. Unoccupied for a
period of time over three hundred sixty-five (365) days and during which time the
enforcement officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions (emphasis added).”
259. Nothing in Chapter 43 indicates whether the term “vacant building” or “unoccupied”
refers to a property which is unoccupied by a resident, a tenant, or personal property, or
whether the definition relates to a certain period of time – one day, one week, two weeks, one
month, three months, one year, etc. The City Code contains no standard for a code
enforcement officer to judge whether a property is “unoccupied.” The section (7)(e)
definition of “vacant building” is “unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code
violations.” Many homes in the City of St. Paul have multiple housing or building code
violations in which a resident, a landlord or a tenant, may be out of town, on vacation, or
between tenants, and the property is “unoccupied.” The resident, landlord or tenant cannot
tell by reading Chapter 43 whether their property will be placarded as a “vacant building,”
subjecting it to removal of the tenant and/or resident, and subjecting the property to
expensive and lengthy code compliance certification. As a result, neither Plaintiffs nor other
property owners have received fair notice of what properties are considered “vacant
buildings” or are “unoccupied.” Plaintiffs and other property owners do not know whether a
property they own will placarded as vacant if they leave their residence for a two week
vacation, or if they are between tenants and cannot find a tenant for two months in a tough
rental market. In any case, Plaintiffs and other property owners have not have received fair
notice, and the lack of a standard for the code enforcement officers to use in these
circumstances places unwarranted discretion in their hands.
260. The term “nuisance building” in chapter 45 is highly ambiguous. In this chapter,
60
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 60 of 102

nuisance building is defined under Section 45.02 – Definitions: Nuisance building: A vacant
building or portion of a vacant building as defined in section 43.02 which has multiple
housing code or building code violations or has been ordered vacated by the city and which
has conditions constituting material endangerment as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code
section 34.23(g), or which has a documented and confirmed history as a blighting influence
on the community.
261. The term “blighting influence on the community” as referenced above is not defined
under the City Code and places unwarranted discretion in the hands of code enforcement.
262. The definition of “nuisance” in Section 45.03 is also highly ambiguous, using the terms
“offensive,” “blighting influence on the community,” and “nuisance building,” all discussed
above, which place unwarranted discretion in the hands of code enforcement officers and
officials.
263. Nothing in Chapter 45 gives a standard for the terms “nuisance building,” “multiple
housing or code violations,” “vacated by the city,” or “blighting influence on the
community.” There is no standard contained in the City Code as to which a code
enforcement officer is to judge whether a property is a nuisance or a nuisance building by
using terms such as “vacant or vacated” (the vagueness of which is discussed above),
“multiple violations,” or “blighting influence.” Such terms place unwarranted discretion in
the hands of City officials and employees. A landlord, tenant or property owner cannot tell
by reading Chapter 45 whether their property will be considered a nuisance by code
enforcement, subjecting them to rental registration revocation, removal of the tenant and/or
resident, and subjecting the property to expensive and lengthy code compliance. As a result,
neither Plaintiffs nor other property owners have received fair notice of what properties are
61
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 61 of 102

considered “nuisance buildings” or are a “nuisance.” Plaintiffs and other property owners do
not know whether a property will be determined by code enforcement to be a nuisance
building if they have one or more police calls to their property, or whether the calls are for
criminal or domestic reasons. In any case, Plaintiffs and other property owners have not
received fair notice, and the lack of a standard for the code enforcement officers places
unwarranted discretion in their hands.
264. The term “structures unfit for occupancy” in chapter 34 is highly ambiguous. In this
chapter, power is granted to code enforcement for structures unfit for occupancy under
Section 34.23, which provides: “(1) Action authorized to condemn structures or units as unfit
for occupancy. Whenever an enforcement officer finds that any dwelling unit, structure or
portion thereof constitutes a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or to the
public for any of the reasons enumerated in this chapter, including those violations defined
herein as constituting material endangerment, but which structure does not constitute a
dangerous structure, the officer may take action to condemn the unit or structure as being
unfit for occupancy (emphasis added).”
265. The term “unfit for occupancy” as referenced above is not defined under the City Code
and places unwarranted discretion in the hands of code enforcement. Nothing in Chapter 34
indicates whether the term “unfit for occupancy” refers to a hazard to health and safety, a
material endangerment, or if the code enforcement officer simply thinks the dwelling unit it
not tidy enough. Conditions which endanger health and safety are one thing, but a general
lack of housekeeping does not make a dwelling unit unfit for occupancy. Here, the City
Code provides no standard for a City Code enforcement officer to use to determine whether a
property is unfit for occupancy. Many homes in the City lack general housekeeping, and yet,
62
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 62 of 102

there homes are not “unfit for occupancy.” The property owner, landlord or tenant cannot
tell by reading Chapter 34 whether their property will be placarded “condemned” as “unfit
for occupancy,” resulting in removal of the tenant and/or resident, and subjecting the
property owner to expensive and lengthy code compliance certification process. As a result,
Plaintiffs and other property owners have not received fair notice of what properties are
considered “unfit for occupancy,” and the lack of a standard for the code enforcement
officers places unwarranted discretion in their hands.
266. The term “professional state of maintenance and repair” as defined in Section 34.07 of
the City Code is ambiguous as it defines maintenance and repair in a “reasonable and skillful
manner” and places unwarranted discretion in the hands of code enforcement (emphasis
added).
267. As a result of the ambiguity of the terms used in the City Code such as “vacant building,”
“unoccupied,” “nuisance building,” “unfit for occupancy, “and “professional state of
maintenance and repair,” Plaintiffs and other property owners have not received fair notice of
when it is appropriate for the City to suspend, revoke or deny a rental dwelling unit
registration under Section 51.06 of the City Code, which states in part: “a) Grounds for
revocation. The director may, in writing, issue a notice to the owner or owners of the city's
intent to suspend or revoke a rental dwelling unit registration certificate or deny an
application therefor: (ii) When it is determined by the director that the dwelling unit
constitutes a nuisance as described in section 45.03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, or is
in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any provision of the Saint Paul Legislative or
Administrative Codes” (emphasis added).
268. Given the City Code’s ambiguities, illegal code enforcement with unwarranted discretion
63
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 63 of 102

could impose unnecessary burdens and costs on landlords and property owners, and in
practice, does produce such results. It is difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiffs to know
whether their properties would satisfy the City Code, and consequently, code enforcement
officers.
269. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment proscribes laws that fail to give
adequate notice of the conduct proscribed or place excessive discretion in executive officials
to interpret and enforce vague or conflicting statutory terms. If arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply
them.
270. Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 of the City Code are void for vagueness under the Due
Process Clause. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357 (1983); See Connally v. Gen.
Const.: Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).
271. Because Plaintiffs face criminal and civil penalties for violations of Chapters 34, 43, 45,
and 51 of the City Code, and because Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 of the City Code are
unclear in what constitutes a “vacant building,” “unoccupied,” “unfit for occupancy,” a
“nuisance building” or “professional state of maintenance and repair,” they are void for
vagueness. See, e.g., Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104,109 (1972).
272. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that these provisions in
Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 of the City Code violate Plaintiffs' Due Process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
273. Plaintiffs further are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting
Defendants and any officer or employee of the City from violating Plaintiffs' Due Process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by enforcing or
64
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 64 of 102

attempting to enforce any part of Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51of the City Code concerning
these provisions.
274. In sum, Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 of the St. Paul City Code are unlawful under the
United States Constitution. Because infirmities run through each chapter, which are void for
vagueness, this Court should declare Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 of the St. Paul City Code
invalid in their entirety and provide Plaintiffs with the damages and injunctive relief they
seek.
COUNT IX
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS
15 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1, 2, 13 and 18
275. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
276. PHA owns and manages almost 4,300 rental units of low income public rental housing in
the City with federal funding. PHA's public housing properties includes high rise,
congregate and scattered site housing.
277. PHA has about 400 families living in PHA owned single family and duplex style homes
that are similar to Plaintiffs privately owned properties. As a result, both PHA and Plaintiffs
are providing low income housing to a low income market and are competitors of each other
for low income tenants in the City.
278. PHA is controlled by a Board of Commissioners, members of which are appointed by the
City Mayor and approved by the City Council. As a result, Defendant City has effective
control over PHA and its rental properties. Moreover, City inspectors view PHA properties
as “city owned” and provide PHA with preferential code enforcement treatment not provided
65
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 65 of 102

to Plaintiffs or private owners of low income housing.
279. PHA administers the federal rent subsidy Section 8 program for low income households
renting from private property owners in the City. PHA administers over 3,700 Section 8
certificates and vouchers. Many of the Section 8 voucher recipients are members of the
“protected class.” These PHA tenants are similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other
targeted rental property owners.
280. Commerce in rental units of low income public and private Section 8 rental housing is
substantial and affects interstate commerce. The market for low income and Section 8
housing is often derived from low income and protected class families and individuals who
arrive in Minnesota from out of state cities, such as Chicago and Atlanta.
Defendants’ Anticompetitive Conduct
281. PHA's public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair problems
similar in nature to privately owned rental housing stock. PHA administers its own
maintenance, inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing stock. Many of
PHA's rental properties are older properties and are considered by PHA to be in need of
major capital improvements. Historically, PHA has been under funded for capital repairs of
its aging rental housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been deferred
to later years for additional federal funding. The City has assisted PHA in these deferments.
282. Plaintiffs' properties and those of other targeted rental property owners are not afforded
PHA's competitive advantage of deferral of capital improvements provided to PHA by HUD
and Defendant City, but instead private owners of low income housing suffer immediate and
long term adverse consequences from Defendants' code enforcement actions.
283. PHA's rental housing stock has similar health, safety, fire and housing code issues as the
66
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 66 of 102

rental properties that are owned by Plaintiffs and other private landlords serving this market.
284. PHA’s rental housing stock is subjected to City code enforcement but to a minimal
degree compared to City enforcement applied to Plaintiffs and similarly situated private
rental property owners. For example, inspectors frequently close out their inspection files on
PHA properties when the inspectors discover that tenants have left PHA rental properties and
the properties appear “vacant.” Defendants’ take no adverse action against PHA as a result
of these vacancies as the rental properties are not designated as “vacant” buildings and are
not subjected to the code compliance certification requirements.
285. PHA's rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems that are similar in
nature to the tenant and guest behavior problems of Plaintiffs' properties and those rental
properties owned by other similarly situated property owners. For example, PHA rental
properties are recipients of frequent police service calls.
286. PHA's rental housing stock is not subjected by Defendants to condemnations, orders to
vacate, demands for code compliance inspections and certifications, or rental registration
provisions, including rental revocation actions. Additionally, PHA’s rental housing stock is
rarely, if ever, targeted with any other code enforcement actions by Defendants. Conversely,
Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to “protected class” members are relentlessly
subjected to these adverse code enforcement actions by Defendants.
287. If Defendants applied the same nature and volume of code enforcement operations
against PHA that Defendants have directed, and continues to, direct against Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated landlords, PHA would suffer short and long term adverse financial
consequences, including an adverse effect on PHA’s cash flow, forced sale of rental
properties to make up cash short falls, increased layoffs of PHA employees, which would all
67
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 67 of 102

result in an adverse impact on the protected class tenants renting from PHA.
288. Defendants’ code enforcement operations directed against Plaintiffs and others as set
forth above are frustrating national housing policies enacted by the United States Congress in
the numbers housing acts and amendments.
Monopolization, Attempt to Monopolize and Conspiracy to Monopolize
15 U.S.C. Section 2
289. Defendants’ have monopolized the market in that they have the power to selectively
enforce the City Code and thereby exclude competition in the low income market the benefit
of Plaintiffs’ competitor, PHA, a sister government agency of Defendant City. Defendant
has acquired, exercised and maintained its monopoly power in conjunction with PHA,
willfully and intentionally, by way of the acts set forth above.
290. Defendants have also intentionally and willfully attempted to monopolize the market by
way of the aforementioned acts. There is a dangerous probability that Defendants' attempts to
monopolize the market will be successful and as a result private rental property owners will
be driven out of the low income housing market, and that federal low income housing
policies will be frustrated and protected class renters injured.
291. Defendants have also intentionally and willfully conspired to monopolize the market by
way of the acts set forth above. A substantial amount of commerce has been affected by the
conspiracy to monopolize.
292. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiffs have been
injured in their rental businesses. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the benefit of free
competition in the low income housing market. Plaintiffs have been forced to pay for repairs
and code compliances not required of PHA. Plaintiffs have also been forced to sell rental
68
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 68 of 102

properties that have been placarded as “vacant,” “condemned” or designated as a “nuisance”
by Defendants. These expedited, reduced price sales were a result of Defendants adverse
code enforcement operations. Plaintiffs have been injured by Defendants’ refusal to deal
with them fairly, and Plaintiffs have incurred increased costs and suffered decreased profits
and loss of investments.
293. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial including, inter alia, loss of revenue,
profits and investments, and increased operating costs and expenses.
Unreasonable Restraint of Trade
15 U.S.C. Section 1
294. Defendants have combined, contracted and/or conspired with other real estate companies
and/or contractors and/or developers, and/or PHA to engage in acts and conduct that have
unreasonably and substantially restrained and continue to restrain interstate trade and
commerce in the low income housing market.
295. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned unlawful agreements and
practices, Plaintiffs have been injured in their businesses. Plaintiffs have been deprived of
free competition in the market, Plaintiffs have been forced to pay for repairs and code
compliances not required of PHA, city employees who own properties, and others with close
connections to Defendant City who own properties in the City. Plaintiffs have suffered a loss
of revenue, profits and investments, and increased operating costs and expenses.
296. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned unlawful agreements and
practices, Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial
including, inter alia, loss of revenue, profits and investments, and increased operating costs
69
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 69 of 102

and expenses.
Violation of Clayton Act Section 7
15 U.S.C. Section 18
297. Defendants’ illegal code enforcement and RICO activity has lessened competition and/or
tended to create a monopoly in the low income housing market that is in excess of the limited
monopoly granted to the City and PHA by the State of Minnesota pursuant to statute.
298. The illegal code enforcement operations against Plaintiffs and other private landlords has
eliminated substantial direct competition between Defendant City’s sister government
agency, PHA, and private landlords and has eliminated many landlords as a significant
independent competitive influence in the market. The illegal code enforcement has increased
the City’s acquisition of low income rental properties or vacant lots though its Housing
5000/6000 plans, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful collusive behavior among
the Defendants and PHA in the low income housing market.
299. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acquisitions, Plaintiffs have been
injured in their businesses. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the benefit of free competition in
some or all of the market, have been forced to pay for repairs and code compliances that
PHA has not, and have incurred increased costs and suffered decreased profits.
300. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acquisitions, plaintiffs have
suffered actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial including, inter alia, loss of
revenue, profits and investments, and increased operating costs and expenses.
70
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 70 of 102

STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT X
ABUSE OF PROCESS
301. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
302. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were owners of rental properties located within the
City.
303. Plaintiffs rented their properties to individuals protected under the constitution and laws
of Minnesota and the United States.
304. Defendants, in a coordinated effort to rid the City of "bottom of the barrel," "undesirable"
and "low income" individuals, and those private owners of rental properties providing
housing services to “protected class” tenants, targeted Plaintiffs' rental properties and their
tenants for discriminatory and selective code enforcement.
305. Defendants, as part of this illegal scheme, unlawfully and maliciously created false
entries in City code enforcement documentation, including in Correction Orders, Notices of
Condemnations and Orders to Vacate, all as set forth above, in an effort to shut down the
rental businesses of Plaintiffs, increase their costs, force sale of rental properties, increase
their tax burdens, force tenants from their homes and reduce the available housing for those
whom Defendants considered "bottom of the barrel," "undesirable" and "low income"
individuals.
306. Defendants used the false entries in code documentation to maliciously condemn certain
of said Plaintiffs' rental properties and to order tenants and all other occupants to vacate their
homes, all without adequate notice or opportunity for hearing.
71
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 71 of 102

307. Additionally, Defendants, as part of the continuation of their illegal scheme, unlawfully
and maliciously used the false code enforcement documentation in court filings against
Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and against other St. Paul landlords as set forth above.
308. Defendant City's court filings prepared by Dawkins and Magner, with assistance from
other city employees and the City Attorney's office, against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s,
and other landlords as set for above, included reference to falsely stated code violations;
Defendants attached the false City code documentation as attachments to the Court
Complaints; Dawkins provided sworn Verifications as to truth of the false claims; said
Defendants' malicious actions were made in an attempt to shut down the rental operations of
Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s and other St. Paul landlords, increase their costs, and
thereby force out of the City the protected class individuals renting from said Plaintiffs and
others in the City.
309. In perpetrating the above wrongful acts, said Defendants acted maliciously and
wrongfully and with the intent, design, and purpose to specifically injure each Plaintiff and
their tenants.
310. Defendants' malicious and wrongful conduct directly caused severe damage to each
Plaintiff and to their tenants. Defendants malicious and wrongful conduct condemned certain
of the rental properties of Plaintiffs, and/or eliminated the source of rental income to
Plaintiffs through wrongful conduct by Defendants set forth herein. Defendants wrongful
conduct also directly caused a loss of profits and investments to Plaintiffs, forced Plaintiffs to
sell rental properties, and forced Plaintiffs to incur unnecessary costs, fees and expenses,
including attorneys fees, in attempting to protect their rights, and to incur unnecessary
expenses and fees in needless repairs demanded by Defendants.
72
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 72 of 102

311. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Singerhouse, Booker, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities.
312. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Defendants Magner,
Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins,
Kelly, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT XI
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
313. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
314. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between Plaintiffs and their respective
tenants for lease of private housing in the City of Saint Paul.
315. Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ leases with its tenants. Plaintiffs’ leases on said
rental properties included, but were not limited to, those individuals who were members of
the “protected class.”
316. Defendants intentionally procured breach of the contracts through illegal and malicious
condemnations of Plaintiffs rental properties and orders for tenants to vacate rental properties
and through other intentional wrongful conduct, all as more fully described above.
317. Defendants’ intentional interference with Plaintiffs’ contracts was without any
justification.
318. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendants’ tortuous interference with
Plaintiffs’ contracts, as Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and have lost
profits, incurred costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs and have incurred attorney’s
73
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 73 of 102

fees, other fees and court costs in defending against Defendants’ malicious conduct.
319. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities.
320. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Magner, Cassidy,
Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and
others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT XII
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
321. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
322. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had rental businesses located in
the City of St. Paul. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were "protected class" members.
323. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from their rental
businesses and rental relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
324. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe engaged in wrongful conduct, as more fully
described above, that wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs' reasonable business expectation
and which had an adverse effect on Plaintiffs' rental businesses.
325. Said Defendants' wrongful interference was without justification, and was maliciously
intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental relationships and reasonable
business expectation.
74
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 74 of 102

326. Said Defendants' wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of, or harm
to, Plaintiffs' rental businesses and business expectancy and the damages suffered by each
Plaintiff.
327. Without Defendants' wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.
328. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendants' wrongful
interference with Plaintiffs' rental businesses; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment
income, and profits, been forced to sell rental properties, had increased tax burdens, incurred
costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs, and have incurred attorney's fees and court costs
in defending against Defendants' wrongful conduct.
329. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe
and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities.
330. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Magner, Cassidy,
Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and
others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1. A judgment pursuant to Count I of this Complaint as set forth therein.
2. A judgment pursuant to Count II of this Complaint as set forth therein.
3. A judgment pursuant to Count III of this Complaint as set forth therein.
4. A judgment pursuant to Count IV of this Complaint as set forth therein.
5. A judgment pursuant to Count V of this Complaint as set forth therein.
6. A judgment pursuant to Count VI of this Complaint as set forth therein.
75
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 75 of 102

7. A judgment pursuant to Count VII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
8. For a declaratory judgment on Count VIII that certain provisions of the City Code as
stated in Count VII are void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. For preliminary injunctive relief on all counts enjoining the City of St. Paul and any
officers or employees of the City from taking any action to enforce or attempt to enforce
any provision related to Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 challenged herein.
10. For permanent injunctive relief on all counts enjoining the City of St. Paul and any
officers or employees of the City of St. Paul from taking any action to enforce or attempt
to enforce any provision related to Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 challenged herein.
11. A judgment pursuant to Count IX of this Complaint as set forth therein.
12. A judgment pursuant to Count X of this Complaint as set forth therein.
13. A judgment pursuant to Count XI of this Complaint as set forth therein.
14. A judgment pursuant to Count XII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
15. A judgment for Plaintiffs’ compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this matter on
all Counts herein.
16. A judgment for Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney's fees, costs and disbursements incurred,
including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein pursuant to statute.
17. A judgment for punitive damages against Defendants Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Senty, Dawkins and Kelly, in an amount as may be just and equitable
under Counts III through VII herein.
18. A permanent injunction restraining Defendants from violating 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et
seq. and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 and/or 18 U.S.C.. Section 1961, et. seq.
76
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 49 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 76 of 102

19. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the premises.
20. For trial by jury on all issues so triable.
THE LAW OFFICE OF
MATTHEW A. ENGEL, PLLC
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /S/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
77

1:33 PM

Bob said...

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
_____________________________________
Sandra Harrilal; Bee Vue;
Lamena Vue; Steven R. Johnson,
d/b/a Market Group and Properties, PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs, SANDRA HARRILAL AND
STEVEN R. JOHNSON
vs.
Court File No. 05-461
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor JNE/SRN
of City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement; Michael DEMAND FOR
Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement JURY TRIAL
officer of City of St. Paul; Dick Lippert, individually
and as a code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul;
Kelly Booker, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Jack Reardon,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of City
of St. Paul; Paula Seeley, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Lisa Martin,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of City
of St. Paul; Dean Koehnen, individually and as a law
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Andy Dawkins
individually and as Director of City of St. Paul's
Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement; Randy Kelly individually and as Mayor
of City of St. Paul; John Doe and Jane Doe, individually
and in their official capacities as code enforcement
officers of City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement, law enforcement
officers or other officials or employees of the City of St.
Paul; individually, jointly and severally; and City of St.
Paul, a municipal corporation,
Defendants.
________________________________________
Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson d/b/a Market Group and Properties
(hereinafter referred to as "Harrilal," and "Johnson" and collectively referred to as
"Plaintiffs"), hereby allege and state the following Third Amended Complaint against Steve
Magner, individually and as a supervisor of the City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 79

2
Housing and Property Improvement (hereinafter “NHPI” or “Housing Department”); Michael Kalis,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Dick Lippert,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Kelly Booker,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Jack Reardon,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Paula Seeley,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Lisa Martin, individually
and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Dean Koehnen, individually and as a
law enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Andy Dawkins, individually and as the Director of
the Housing Department; Randy Kelly, individually and as the Mayor of the City of St. Paul; and
John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and in their official capacities as code enforcement officers of
the Housing Department, law enforcement officers, other officials or employees of the City of St.
Paul; individually, jointly and severally; and the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.
JURISDICTION
This civil action arises under the laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota. This
Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiffs herein are alleging standing under:
(1) Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, as amended, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1961, et seq.;
(2) Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.;
(3) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1985; and
(4) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 79

3
The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 18 U.S.C. Section 1964 (c), 42 U.S.C. Section
3613, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367, as Plaintiffs are alleging state claims arising from a common nucleus of operative facts
with Plaintiffs' federal claims.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613
and/or 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq., and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
VENUE
Venue herein is proper under 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (a), 42 U.S.C. Section 3610 (d) and 28
U.S.C. Section 1391(b).
PARTIES
1. Sandra Harrilal ("Harrilal") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota resident.
2. Bee Vue is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota resident.
3. Lamena Vue is a legal alien and Minnesota resident.
4. Steven R. Johnson d/b/a Market Group and Properties ("Johnson") is a citizen of
the United States and Minnesota resident.
5. Defendant Steve Magner ("Magner") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Magner is a supervisor for the Housing Department.
6. Defendant Michael Kalis ("Kalis") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Kalis is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
7. Defendant Dick Lippert ("Lippert") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Lippert is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
8. Defendant Kelly Booker ("Booker") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Booker is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 79

4
9. Defendant Jack Reardon ("Reardon") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Reardon is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
10. Defendant Paula Seeley (Seeley) is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Seeley is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
11. Defendant Lisa Martin ("Martin") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Martin is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
12. Defendant Dean Koehnen ("Koehnen") is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Koehnen is a law enforcement officer for Defendant City and assigned to the
Housing Department.
13. Defendant Andy Dawkins ("Dawkins") is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Dawkins is the Director of the City's "Housing Department" and Director of the
Problem Property Unit (hereinafter, "PPU").
14. Defendant Randy Kelly ("Kelly") is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Kelly is the Mayor of Defendant City.
15. Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe, are citizens of the United States and Minnesota
residents. Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe, whose identities are unknown at this time, were at all
times relevant to the allegations contained herein, code enforcement officers, law enforcement
officers, or other City officials or employees, working with, or within, the Housing Department,
PPU, Fire Department, and other City offices, coordinating their activities with Magner, Kalis,
Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and others.
16. Defendant City of Saint Paul ("City") is a municipal corporation existing under, and
by virtue of, the laws of the State of Minnesota.
INTRODUCTORY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Property Owners Targeted With Discriminatory and Illegal Code
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 79

5
Enforcement and Racketeering Conduct
17. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs were property owners in the
rental business with rental properties located within the City.
18. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs' tenants were almost exclusively low income
Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, mixed race couples, individuals with
various disabilities, individuals receiving state and federal financial assistance, and families with
children, who were and are individuals protected under anti-discrimination laws, hereinafter referred
to as "protected class."
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
19. In 1992, the City created a community crime prevention (CCP) program called
“Focusing Our Resources on Community Empowerment” (“FORCE”). The FORCE unit worked
with the assistance of neighborhood residents in an anti-drug effort in certain sections of St. Paul. A
housing inspector accompanied police officers on drug raids and the inspectors conducted code
inspections.
20. The coordinated activity by the City allowed the City to condemn a single rental unit,
multiple units or an entire rental building and thereby force out tenants, whether or not drugs were
found on the premises. As a result of the FORCE raids, condemnations and orders to vacate,
innocent families with children were forced onto the street, usually within 24 hours, and without a
hearing. The City’s action was creating more homeless individuals and families.
21. In the Fall of 1995, the St. Paul Tenants Union (“SPTU”) prepared a court challenge
to the City’s policy of having an inspector accompany police during raids. SPTU challenged the
lack of notice to tenants of their right to appeal the condemnations. SPTU concluded that methods
of the City’s FORCE unit “show how authorities can use the term ‘community-based’ to stretch the
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 79

6
boundaries of fairness and target ‘the dangerous classes’ – usually lower-income renters and racial
minorities.”
22. As a result of SPTU’s threatened legal action, the City in December 1995, agreed to,
among other measures, discontinue the practice of having a housing inspector accompany the police
in FORCE raids.
23. On information and belief, at some point following Kelly’s election as Mayor, and
Dawkins appointment by Kelly to head the Housing Department, said Defendants, with the approval
of the City Council (“Council”), made the decision to adopt and implement the former City policy,
custom and practice of having inspectors perform inspections in coordination with drug raids.
Inspector Dick Lippert, under the direction of Dawkins, was assigned to the FORCE Unit.
Saint Paul Public Housing Agency
24. The Saint Paul Public Housing Agency ("PHA ") owns and manages almost 4,300
rental units of low income public rental housing in the City with funding from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). PHA's public housing properties includes
high rise, congregate and scattered site housing. PHA has about 400 families living in PHA owned
single family and duplex style homes. PHA is governed by a Board of Commissioners appointed by
St. Paul’s Mayor and approved by the City Council. All of the individuals in the 4,300 PHA owned
rental units are low-income and many are members of the "protected class." These PHA tenants are
similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other targeted rental property owners.
25. PHA also administers the federal rent subsidy Section 8 program for low income
households renting from private property owners in the City. PHA administers over 3,700 Section 8
certificates and vouchers. Many of the Section 8 voucher recipients are members of the “protected
class”. These PHA tenants are similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other targeted rental property
owners.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 79

7
26. PHA's public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair problems
similar in nature to privately owned rental housing stock. PHA administers its own maintenance,
inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing stock. Many of PHA's rental properties
are older properties and are considered by PHA to be in need of major capital improvements.
Historically, PHA has been under-funded for capital repairs of its aging rental housing stock. Many
of the needed capital improvements have been deferred to later years for additional federal funding.
27. Plaintiffs' properties and those of other targeted rental property owners are not
afforded PHA's competitive advantage of deferral of capital improvements but instead suffer
immediate and long term adverse consequences from Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code
enforcement actions and racketeering activity against the privately owned rental properties and
rental businesses who are providing housing services to Section 8 and low income "protected class"
members.
28. PHA's rental housing stock has similar health, safety, fire and housing code issues as
the rental properties that are owned by Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to "protected
class" members including those property owners providing critical housing under the Section 8
program.
29. PHA’s rental housing stock is subjected to City code enforcement but to a minimal
degree compared to City code enforcement applied to Plaintiffs and similarly situated private rental
property owners.
30. PHA's rental housing stock is not subjected by Defendants to condemnations, orders
to vacate, demands for code compliance inspections, fines or rental registration provisions, including
rental revocation actions. Additionally PHA’s rental housing stock is rarely, if ever, targeted with
any other code enforcement actions by Defendants. Conversely, Plaintiffs and other private
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 7 of 79

8
landlords renting to “protected class” members are subjected to these adverse code enforcement
actions by Defendants.
31. PHA's rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems that are similar to
the tenant and guest behavior problems of Plaintiffs' properties and those rental properties owned by
other similarly situated property owners in the City. PHA rental properties are subject to frequent
police service calls.
32. PHA housing inspectors conduct inspections of Section 8 rental units. PHA
claims that as part of its inspections "vacant [rental] units are prepared to high standards for each
new resident" in order to meet local codes and HUD's standards. PHA conducts inspections of
Section 8 rental units in the City at least annually.
33. Defendants apply adverse code enforcement actions, including condemnations, on
Section 8 approved, privately owned rental units shortly following Section 8 inspections and
certification of these rental units.
City's March 2002 Report on "Chronic Problem Properties" Reveals
Defendants' Motive and Opportunity to Target Plaintiffs
and Their "Protected Class" Tenants
34. At the direction of the City Council, a report on the City's "Chronic Problem
Properties" was prepared by the Council's Research Center and presented to the Council and the
public in March, 2002. The Report outlined many of the problems facing private landlords, tenants,
other citizens and the City.
35. The City's March 2002 Report detailed the prior efforts of the City to address
"problem properties" and other housing related problems. The Report quantified the number of
"Chronic Problem Properties" at "220-280".
36. The City's March 2002 Report outlined the City's prior experience with "problem
properties". In 2000, the City launched an initiative called "Problem Properties 2000" (hereinafter
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 8 of 79

9
"PP2000) in response to media reports questioning the efficacy of the City's code enforcement
activities. The Council's study acknowledged that City policy, custom and practice applied to "some"
problem properties included a knowing and intentional lack of published or documented standards
for selectively targeting a property for increased code enforcement as a "problem property". The
Council determined that City code enforcement officials and officers, through the PP2000 initiative,
identified "some problem owners through a process Code Enforcement officials were consistently
unwilling to document or even describe" as it was feared by officials that documenting the selection
criteria might not always select the "right" property owners and "might provide a basis for those
selected for special attention to challenge their inclusion." The Council Report also determined that,
"Since the selection criteria were unknown and undocumented, there could be no basis for
challenge" and that although "code enforcement officials consistently denied they were targeting
selected owners, the fact they were selectively targeted seemed obvious”.
37. The City's March 2002 Report reviewed how multiple city agencies, including fire,
police, housing, and animal control, could target enforcement to accomplish the goals of gaining
access to interiors of homes for inspections, so as to force ownership changes on landlords who did
not meet the admittedly undocumented standards.
38. Through the March 2002 Report, the Council determined, "The prospect of being
forced out of their (owner's) home or losing the income from tenants can be a very effective
enforcement tool when nothing else seems to work," but, "It is not, however, very effective with
large apartment buildings as owners know that the City is loath to make large numbers of people
evacuate."
City Adopts New Housing Code Enforcement Rules
Following March 2002 Report
39. Following City Council and City staff analysis of the March 2002 Report, new
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 9 of 79

10
rules went into effect on August 14, 2002, concerning rental properties in the City.
40. These new rules were announced by mail and on the City's website, among other
ways, and these announcements reported that the "time lines for getting your property cleaned up
have been shortened considerably" and "criminal misdemeanor citations will be issued routinely
until property owners get the message that we are cleaning up this city." The City announcements
also stated that, "the court system has agreed to back up our tags with serious penalties. If we have to
come back to a property a third time because you haven't gotten the message, you may very well be
facing jail time."
41. The new Code rules incorporated written notice requirements and claimed conformity
with due process requirements.
42. On June 2, 2003, the City announced receipt of $12.5 million in federal grants to
provide low-income housing and economic development opportunities.
43. On December 31, 2003, the City announced by mail and through its web site that the
"new Year" brings tougher housing codes in St. Paul.
44. The December 31, 2003, City announcement also included statements from Dawkins
and Kelly that they expected to see a four-fold increase in apartment safety inspections in 2004, from
approximately 2,000 to approximately 8,000 inspections.
45. The December 2003, City announcement also stated, according to Kelly: "These
changes target the bad apples" and "they don't increase burdens unnecessarily for responsible
property owners and in fact they reduce burdens for law abiding property owners" and present a plan
of action to correct the problem and allow an interior inspection.
46. The December 2003, City announcement stated that if the property owners do not
comply and agree to better lease-management practices, the Council can revoke their rental
registration certificate, thereby requiring an interior inspection before being issued a new certificate.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 10 of 79

11
47. The December 2003, City announcement also stated that, "the rental registration
ordinance lays out clear guidelines and increased procedural protections." The announcement also
stated if a landlord has a single incident of documented nuisance behavior or repeat code visits, the
landlord would receive a notice of intent to revoke the registration certificate and would be asked to
contact Dawkins.
48. Under Kelly and Dawkins' control, the Housing Department has claimed that it seeks
to enforce minimum property maintenance standards and ordinances on one and two family
dwellings (duplexes) and exterior of properties across the City on a consistent basis. In fact, the
policy, custom and practice of the Housing Department and Defendants has been to selectively target
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated property owners while refusing to enforce city codes against
neighboring properties with egregious violations of codes and PHA properties with code and tenant
behavior issues similar to the targeted landlords.
The Problem Property Unit
49. After Dawkins' appointment, he created and managed a "Problem Property Unit,"
("PPU") which consisted of Dawkins, two City code enforcement officers, two police officers, and
an Assistant City Attorney.
50. Martin and Koehnen were, at all times relevant to the allegations contained herein,
members of the PPU and were under the direct supervision of Dawkins, Magner and Kelly. At all
times relevant herein, Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan has been a member of the PPU.
51. On information and belief, Dawkins meets regularly with Kelly on the activities of
the Housing Department and the PPU, and Dawkins receives direction from Kelly on managing the
daily activities of the Department and the PPU.
52. A "Problem Property" is defined by Dawkins and members of the PPU as a building
where "both building maintenance issues and nuisance behavior issues" exist.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 11 of 79

12
Problem Properties List
53. Following Dawkins appointment, he created periodic lists containing rental buildings
considered by PPU to be "problem properties." These "problem properties" were then subject to
increased code enforcement activities by Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Magner, Dolan and other
inspection officials and employees, including Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon and Seeley, including
attempts to gain access to interiors of rental properties to issue condemnations, remove grand
fathering protections, demand full code compliance through extensive renovations, and to force sale
of the properties.
54. Dawkins designated properties owned by Plaintiffs Harrilal and Vues and
Steinhauser, Brisson, Miller, Kakish, Krahn and others as “Problem Properties”.
55. The new Rules and Procedures for conducting code enforcement activities in the City
provided that once the Defendants initially targeted one of a landlord’s properties, the Defendants
were authorized to target all of that landlord's properties.
56. Defendants targeted landlords and “protected class” tenants whether or not they were
on the “problem property list”.
Dramatic Increase in Code Enforcement Actions After Dawkins Appointed
57. Following Dawkins appointment, Dawkins and members of the PPU and other
inspectors managed a dramatic increase in housing inspection activity, issuance of criminal citations,
Correction Orders, Notices of Condemnations and Orders to Vacate, as well as Tenant Remedies
Actions by the City, all directed against Plaintiffs property owners and other similarly situated
property owners. These increased code enforcement actions were not directed at, and did not affect,
PHA rental properties or properties of certain third parties.
Discriminatory Code Enforcement Operations
58. Dawkins, at the direction of Kelly, directed other said individual Defendants to
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 12 of 79

13
increase the number of exterior inspections on housing units in the City and to gain access to units in
order to conduct interior inspections, remove grand fathering protections and demand full code
compliance inspections and certifications.
59. Kelly and Dawkins, with the consent of the City Council, ordered housing inspectors,
including named Defendant code enforcement officers and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time,
to selectively enforce the City's codes in order to rid the City of "bottom of the barrel,"
"undesirables," "down 'n outers" and "low income" individuals and rental property owners providing
those individuals with housing. A very large majority of tenants selectively targeted by Defendants
were members of the "protected class". Certain unknown third parties pressured Defendant City and
its officials and employees, including Defendants, to target these "protected class" members and
property owners providing them with housing.
60. Said Defendants and others carried out these discriminatory orders as part of
Defendant City’s policy, custom and practice.
61. Defendants knew and intended that their selectively aggressive code enforcement
operations against Plaintiffs, other property owners, and their tenants, would have a discriminatory
impact upon members of the "protected class" living within the City and upon the private property
owners providing housing to said “protected class”. Said Defendants also knew and intended that
such enforcement would directly contradict the purported purposes of the federal funds received by
the City and the stated due process rights and procedures incorporated into the City Code.
62. In the fall of 2002, as part of the policy, custom and practice once again implemented
by Kelly and Dawkins with the approval of the Council, and continuing presently in the City, Kelly
and Dawkins directed certain housing inspectors to once again perform code inspections in
coordination with raids conducted by law enforcement agencies. The City’s FORCE unit was used
to implement this policy, custom and practice.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 13 of 79

14
63. The discriminatory policy, custom and practice had a discriminatory impact on the
protected class, and the policy, custom and practice continued at all times thereafter and continues
presently in the City.
64. Plaintiffs’ rental properties have been consistently targeted by Defendants, while
adjacent rental and other properties with serious code violations, including PHA owned properties
and properties owned by certain third parties acting in concert with Defendants, were protected by
Defendants from the discriminatory code enforcement operations.
65. This intentional and malicious conduct by Defendants directly caused Plaintiffs and
other landlords identified herein to be damaged in their property or business.
66. Defendants discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, and the
individual Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity, included, but was not limited to, Magner,
Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seely, Martin, Koehnen and Dawkins maliciously and fraudulently
claiming false code violations related to Plaintiffs’ rental properties during the period of March 4,
2003, through February 2005, in written Corrections Notices, Notices of Condemnations, Summary
Abatement Orders and Vehicle Abatement Orders.
67. Defendants described these false code violations in written City code documentation
including Summary Abatement Orders, Vehicle Abatement Orders, Correction Orders, Correction
Notices and Notices of Condemnation, all mailed to Plaintiffs and others described herein with an
interest in the properties during the period commencing in the Fall of 2002 and continuing through
February 2005. Said discriminatory policy, custom and practice continues in the City.
68. Defendants intentionally created false statements in City records and notices in order
to force discriminatory condemnations of Plaintiffs' rental buildings and those of other St. Paul
landlords. Defendants’ conduct damaged the businesses and properties of Plaintiffs and other
landlords targeted and caused injury to tenants.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 14 of 79

15
69. Defendants' discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice and the
individual Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity included, but was not limited to, Dawkins,
Magner, Martin, Kalis and Dolan maliciously preparing and filing court papers against Plaintiffs,
and also against Steinhauser and Meysembourg and other City landlords, including Kakish, Miller,
Krahn, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, including filing court Complaints and related
pleading documents, attached exhibits and sworn verifications, in numerous court actions during the
period commencing in the fall of 2002 and continuing to present.
70. Defendant Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Kalis and Dolan and other City officials and
employees, knew that these court filings against Plaintiffs, and Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Kakish,
Miller and Krahn, contained intentionally false and malicious statements in said pleadings and
inspection records prepared by said Defendants. Defendants' court filings were mailed to Plaintiffs,
other landlords and occupants of the rental properties. Said discriminatory policy, custom and
practice and racketeering activity continues in the City.
71. The mailings of the City inspection documents, claimed notices and court filing
documents through coordinated efforts of Defendants as part of their fraudulent scheme, caused
Plaintiffs' funds, and/or other landlords' funds, and/or tenants' funds, and/or City funds and/or
contractors' funds and/or federal funds, to be transferred in furtherance of Defendants' scheme.
Defendants' mailings triggered issuance, or transfers, of funds held in federal banking institutions,
including funds related to Section 8 and HUD financial assistance, or other funds for the benefit of
tenants or Plaintiffs, or other landlords, or for payments related to City permit fees, code compliance
fees, other City fees and fees for court filings and process.
72. Dawkins provided sworn Verifications of the truth of each such court Complaint and
the truth of the City inspection record attachments, when in fact such Complaints and attachments
contained false statements of fact that Dawkins and other said Defendants knew to be false, and
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 15 of 79

16
which were intentionally made by Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Dolan, other members of the PPU,
with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, other landlords and tenants, including members of the "protected
class". Said discriminatory policy, custom and practice and racketeering activity continues in the
City.
73. As a direct result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs were forced to incur
significant unnecessary expenses which placed a heavy financial burden on said landlords and forced
them to close their rental units and sell their rental properties, thereby decreasing the available rental
units for "protected class" members in the City.
74. As a result of Defendants malicious wrongful conduct, Defendants also obtained,
under color of law or official right, an increase in inspection, permit, excessive consumption, and
other related City fees from Plaintiffs and other landlords, including Steinhauser, Meysembourg,
Kakish, Miller and others. Said Defendants' malicious conduct triggered issuance or transfer of
Plaintiffs' funds and/or other landlord funds, and/or tenant funds, and/or City funds and/or contractor
funds, and/or federal funds, held in federal banking institutions.
75. Defendants' wrongful conduct included, but was not limited to, Dawkins, Martin,
Magner, Koehnen, and other members of the PPU, in coordination with third parties encouraging
tenants to file false claims in court actions against Plaintiffs.
Tenants Were Injured By City's Discriminatory Code Enforcement Operations
76. Defendants' illegal condemnation of Vues' and Johnson's rental properties interfered
with the ability of "protected class" tenants' to locate replacement housing and interfered with those
tenants' employment, all to the tenants detriment.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 16 of 79

17
77. Plaintiffs' tenants and their families suffered great harm as a result of the malicious
and illegal discriminatory policy, custom and practice, and illegal code enforcement activities of
Defendants.
City of St. Paul Policy and Practice of Discriminatory Code Enforcement
78. City Council member Jay Benanav and Mayor Kelly were guest speakers at a St. Paul
Association of Responsible Landlords meeting held on October 23, 2003. During this meeting a
question and answer period took place. Council member Benanav, in response to a question from the
audience, stated that when it comes to housing code enforcement, "I don't think any amount of
aggressiveness is too aggressive."
79. At this same meeting, a member of the audience asked Mayor Kelly, "Why are you
coming into places when the tenant doesn't want you there and citing minor things and just
condemning the buildings. I don't think that is fair and what happens if I don't let you into my
house?" In a loud and threatening voice, Mayor Kelly said, "You will comply." During this
statement, Kelly used very aggressive body language including pointing his finger at the landlord
asking the question.
80. City officials have stated that City officials do not want “low income” people renting
in St. Paul.
81. A City inspector has stated that the City does not want Project Hope individuals
renting in the City as they are “bottom of the barrel” and not desirable.
82. This expressed policy against the poor, who are primarily “protected class” members,
is consistent with the City’s proposed legislation in the Minnesota Legislature as far back as 1996
when Kelly, then a State Senator, and Dawkins, a State Representative, worked together in
proposing legislation to de-concentrate poverty in certain targeted sections of St. Paul in order to
relocate the poor out of the City.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 17 of 79

18
Abuse of City's Excessive Consumption Fee System
-NHPI's Fraudulent Mailing Scheme
83. The methods of illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity conducted by
City code enforcement officials and employees against Plaintiffs and other property owners, has
also included, but has not been limited to, a fraudulent scheme to illegally acquire monies from
Plaintiffs and other property owners in the City through abuse of the City's excessive
consumption fee system.
84. City Housing Department (NHPI) employees, including Martin, Booker, Reardon,
Magner, Dawkins, and possibly others, have participated in a fraudulent scheme against selected
property owners, including Harrilal and Vues, that has included intentionally sending NHPI written
communications, including inspection Appointment Letters, code Correction Notices, and excessive
consumption fee assessment notices, to a property owner's wrong residential address so the property
owner remains unaware of the City's intent to inspect the owner's rental property, the City's claimed
inspection, the time lines for correcting any claimed code deficiencies and the adverse consequences
to the property owner of failure to make the corrections. Said Defendants stack the deck against the
property owner in order to trigger the assessment of fees for the benefit of Defendants.
85. Martin, Booker, Reardon, Magner, Dawkins, and possibly others, have participated in
a fraudulent scheme against selected property owners, including Harrilal and Vues that has also
included intentionally using a fraudulent scheme of "delayed mailing" notices to property owners by
holding in NHPI offices these important notices to property owners for a period of time of up to
fifteen (15) days before Defendants actually mail the notices.
86. Defendant’s fraudulent scheme used against Harrilal and Vues and others, operated as
follows:
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 18 of 79

19
A) The inspector claimed to have conducted an inspection of the owner's property on day
number one. NHPI prepared a notice that was dated the day of the inspection or shortly thereafter;
B) The NHPI notice described the claimed code deficiencies and described the action
required of the property owner by a specific date, on average seven days later;
C) Defendants held the notice to the property owner in the NHPI office for five of the
seven days allowed for the correction of claimed code violations by the property owner and then
mailed the notice to the owner. Assuming a two day postal delivery period, the owner received the
notice the day the correction period expired. Under this fraudulent scheme, it is impossible for the
owner to meet the demands of NHPI and the excessive consumption fee is triggered;
D) In documented instances, Defendants have held the Correction Notices, letters and
City Excessive Consumption Invoices in the NHPI offices for 14-15 days before postmarking the
notices, letters and invoices.
87. Through this fraudulent mailings scheme, Defendants intentionally seek to ensure that
NHPI re-inspections can be completed without the property owners being able to complete the
demanded repairs, thereby triggering "excessive consumption fees" and rental registration revocation
actions against the owners of the property.
Property Owners Who Have Been Victims of Fraudulent Mailings Scheme
88. Martin, Booker, Reardon and Dawkins have used the fraudulent mailings scheme
described above against the Vues on their properties located at 707 Preble Street and 735 Smith
Avenue. Martin and Dawkins have used this fraudulent scheme against Harrilal on her 704 Lawson
Avenue East property. Other property owners have been victims of Defendants' delayed mailing
scheme, including Johnson, who has been forced by Defendants to pay excessive consumption fees
for activities that occurred after Johnson sold properties.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 19 of 79

20
89. Harrilal and Johnson have received delayed mailings with late postmarks on City
rental registration notices sent to them by Dawkins. The recent NHPI Rental Registration Renewal
Notices sent to Harrilal and Johnson were dated February 8, 2005. The envelopes containing these
Notices were postmarked February 15, 2005. Moreover, Harrilal and Johnson received the notices
four (4) to seven (7) days after the postmark date indicating delay by Dawkins in delivering
postmark envelopes to the U.S. Postal Service. Certain other City notices to Plaintiffs have been
received by them within one or two days of the postmark on the City envelope. In the case of the
Rental Registration Renewal Notice dated February 8, 2005, the notice stated that any appeal by the
property owner to the registration requirement had to be made within ten (10) days of the date of the
letter.
90. Dawkins, Martin, Booker and Reardon forwarded City notices to Harrilal and Vues'
wrong address and used the delayed mailings scheme, in order to "stack the deck" against Harrilal
and Vues as part of the City's targeting of Harrilal and Vues and other property owners, and as part
of the City's civil lawsuits against Harrilal and against Vues during 2004.
91. Additionally, Defendants' fraudulent mailings scheme and abuse of the civil court
process was used by Defendants against Vues for the additional purposes of attacking the reputation
of the Vues as responsible landlords and to manufacture evidence for the City's use in a related
federal case where Bee Vue and Johnson had been identified as witnesses and property owners
injured by similar discriminatory code enforcement operations and racketeering activity of Dawkins,
Magner, Martin, Koehnen, Kelly and others.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO EACH PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff Sandra Harrilal
92. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Sandra Harrilal, a Black American, was
the owner of two (2) rental properties within the City, including properties located at 704 Lawson
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 20 of 79

21
Avenue East and 476 West Lawson. One of Harrilal's Black American tenants was receiving
Section 8 housing assistance. Harrilal resides in a third single family home in the City.
93. Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen participated in discriminatory and illegal action
directed at Harrilal at her duplex rental property located at 704 East Lawson. Defendants selectively
targeted Harrilal based upon impermissible factors of her race, color and national origin, and the
race, color and national origin of many of Harrilal’s tenants.
94. Ms. Harrilal purchased 704 Lawson in April 2003, and registered her home address
with NHPI under its rental registration program.
95. In February 2004, Ms. Harrilal discovered that Community Stabilization Project
("CSP") was contacting her tenants with flyers informing them of the City's interest in condemning
her 704 Lawson rental property. Ms. Harrilal then contacted Ray Hessler, the prior owner of the
rental property, and obtained City code enforcement documentation dated December 16, 2002, and
February 13, 2003, along with a copy of Mr. Hessler's cancelled check for the repair work and a
receipt for a new hot water heater installed in the property.
96. Harrilal contacted Martin and was informed that the City was suing Harrilal with a
Tenant’s Remedy Action claim (“TRA”) over claimed code deficiencies on her 704 Lawson
property. Martin informed Harrilal that Martin had mailed a Correction Notice to Harrilal in
September 2003. At no time prior to that call had Harrilal been provided with notice of the City's
code enforcement actions on 704 Lawson or the City's lawsuit against her.
97. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Magner and other City officials and employees unknown
at this time, participated in a fraudulent scheme of no notice and delayed notice to Harrilal of City
code enforcement documents and court papers in order to benefit themselves to Harrilal's detriment.
The illegal actions against Harrilal as described herein were accomplished to further the racketeering
activity of Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Koehnen, Kelly and the other individual Defendants.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 21 of 79

22
98. Harrilal subsequently learned that the Correction Notice Martin had referred to was
dated September 15, 2003, and was actually addressed to 704 Lawson not Harrilal's home address
listed in the City's rental registration program. Harrilal also did not receive a copy of the TRA
Summons at her home rental registration address. However, in the Complaint, Dawkins referred to
Harrilal's home rental registration address.
99. The September 15, 2003, Correction Notice prepared by Martin was attached as
Exhibit #1 to the Verified TRA Complaint prepared and sworn to by Dawkins. The Correction
Notice listed 12 items that Martin claimed were code deficiencies. Dawkins claimed in Paragraph
No. 6 that the code violations had not yet been remedied. This was false as items numbers 10 and 12
had been remedied; the hot water heater had been replaced and the illegal locks had been replaced
before the City's commenced the TRA.
100. Harrilal's tenants did not join in the City's TRA against her. Harrilal was forced to
retain attorney Douglass E. Turner to protect her interests in Ramsey County District Court during
the period of February 2004 through July 2004.
101. During the pendency of the TRA lawsuit, Dawkins and Martin continued their
fraudulent scheme of delayed notice to Harrilal in an attempt to prejudice her and penalize her.
Following a May 27, 2004, inspection of 704 Lawson, Martin prepared an additional Correction
Notice dated June 1, 2004. In this Notice, Martin provided Harrilal until June 14, 2004, to correct the
alleged deficiencies. The envelope that enclosed the June 1, 2004, Correction Notice is postmarked
"June 15, 2004." Martin intentionally delayed mailing this Notice to Harrilal for two weeks after the
date of the Notice in order to prejudice Harrilal in the TRA action that was pending.
102. Dawkins directed the fraudulent notice scheme against Harrilal. Dawkins prepared a
letter notice to Harrilal dated June 1, 2004, notifying her that NHPI had conducted an inspection of
her rental property at 704 Lawson on May 27, 2004, and found that she was not compliant with a
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 22 of 79

23
previous order to repair her property. Dawkins stated that Harrilal was being billed $50.00 for the
cost of the inspection in accordance with St. Paul Legislative Code for excessive consumption of
City services. Dawkins stated that Harrilal' s property was scheduled for a reinspection on June 14,
2004, and warned her that if she did not have the violations corrected by that date, she would be
billed an additional $75.00 for additional City reinspection costs. Dawkins fraudulently delayed
mailing his June 1, 2004, excessive consumption notice to Harrilal for over two weeks. The
postmark on the envelope enclosing Dawkins' notice is dated June 16, 2004.
103. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by
Magner, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins and the City, and the racketeering activity by Magner, Martin,
Koehnen and Dawkins and other individuals directed against Harrilal, she lost tenants and rental
income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities, mortgage payments and other expenses of the
subject property, she lost her investment in the 704 Lawson rental property, and she was forced to
sell her two rental properties in the City.
Plaintiffs Bee Vue and Lamena Vue
104. Bee Vue and Lamena Vue, Asian Americans, were at all times relevant herein owners
of twenty-four (24) rental properties located in the City. Some of Vues' tenants have received
Section 8 assistance.
105. Bee Vue and Lamena Vue's claims against the City arise from Defendants’ actions
taken against them commencing in approximately March 2003, and continuing thereafter. The
individual Defendants have selectively targeted the Vues with illegal code enforcement operations
and racketeering activity related to Vues' rental property business, including against Vues' properties
located at 241 Front Avenue, 707 Preble Street and 735 Smith Avenue in the City. Defendants
selectively targeted the Vues based upon the impermissible factors of their race, color and national
origin, and the race, color and national origin of many of Vues’ tenants.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 23 of 79

24
106. On or about March 17, 2003, Dawkins directed the commencement of a TRA suit on
Vues' rental property located at 241 Front Avenue. Dawkins was assisted by Martin and Attorney
Dolan. In the Verified Emergency Tenant Remedies Action Complaint dated March 14, 2003,
Dawkins verified that the allegations of the Complaint were true and accurate. Dawkins and Dolan
listed in Paragraph No. 3 of the Complaint Vues' correct Woodbury residential address that was
listed in Dawkin’s rental registration registry.
107. Vues presented evidence to Dawkins that shortly prior to the Section 8 tenant moving
into Vues' 241 Front rental property in 2002, PHA had conducted a Section 8 Housing Quality
Standards ("HQS") inspection of the property and had approved Vues' property for Section 8
payments.
108. Vues also presented evidence to Dawkins that Vues’ tenant had been responsible for
many of the 25 claimed code deficiencies at the property through the tenant's breaches of the lease
and irresponsible behavior. For example, the tenant intentionally violated the lease by consistently
housing a dog in the rental unit; the dog urinated and defecated in the unit thereby creating
unsanitary conditions.
109. Vues requested Dawkins to dismiss the TRA against them. Dawkins responded that
he could not dismiss the TRA because NHPI had quotas which required prosecution of TRAs against
landlords in order to obtain foundation grant money. Dawkins referred Vues to Attorney Dolan who
was handling the TRA for the City.
110. During one of the court hearings on the 241 Front TRA, PPU Assistant City Attorney
Dolan informed Bee Vue that, "Personally, I don't think you people deserve to be in this country."
Dolan was referring to the Vues as Hmong and the Hmong community. At least one other person in
the court room overheard this racist statement by Dolan. Bee Vue was shocked by Dolan's racist
statement.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 24 of 79

25
111. Shortly prior to the City's TRA suit against Vues, PHA had sought in January 2003,
to conduct an annual re-inspection of the property to maintain Section 8 payments for the tenant. On
February 4, 2003, PHA conducted an annual inspection of the 241 Front property and issued a one
page list of deficiencies to Vues for correction. Vues determined that many of the repair items were
tenant caused. Nevertheless, Bee Vue immediately commenced to correct the deficiencies and
within a few weeks he had substantially completed the necessary work.
112. PHA's re-inspection of the 241 Front property was scheduled to take place on March
4, 2004. Near this time, the tenant dumped trash outside the rental home and Martin observed the
trash. Martin intentionally used Vues' old address, not their Woodbury rental registration address
listed in NHPI files to send a trash notice to Vues. Martin did not want Vues to actually receive the
notice because she knew that with notice Vues would take appropriate action and thereby eliminate
the excuse Martin needed to later condemn the property. Vues did not receive the notice from
Martin.
113. On or about March 4, 2003, Martin made an interior inspection of Vues' 241 Front
property and immediately condemned the property based upon 25 claimed code deficiencies.
114. Dawkins prepared and mailed a written Notice of Condemnation dated March 4,
2003, to Vues at their correct residence address in Woodbury. In the Notice, Dawkins included a
statement that, "NOTE: Due to the amount of violations, Code Enforcement is requiring a Code
Compliance Certificate". Dawkins commenced the TRA against Vues shortly thereafter. Even
though many of the claimed 25 code violations were caused by the tenant, Dawkins, Magner,
Martin, Dolan and others used the number of violations and TRA lawsuit as leverage against Vues to
illegally remove the grand fathering protections of their older building under Minnesota law and to
force them into having a code compliance inspection and certification process on the property.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 25 of 79

26
115. On information and belief, Magner was the official behind Dawkins' "Code
Compliance Certificate" requirement on Vues’ 241 Front Ave. property.
116. Dawkins, Martin, Dolan, Magner and others working for the City, targeted Vues
as part of an illegal scheme to hold City landlords responsible for all adverse tenant behavior,
including tenant caused damage to rental properties in the City, all in an effort to extort property and
other rights from landlords to the benefit of the City, Dawkins, Martin, Dolan, Magner and others
personally.
117. Additionally, by illegally removing the grand fathering protections of older City
homes and buildings and demanding full "Code Compliance Inspections and Certificates" before
allowing the re-rental of the targeted properties, Defendants ensured that the targeted property
owners would not be able to afford to rent once again to the low income minority tenants in the
properties targeted.
118. As a result of the illegal code enforcement operations and racketeering activity of
Dawkins, Magner, Martin and other city officials and employees, Vue's older home at 241 Front
Avenue lost its grand fathering protections. Vues were forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars
in bringing the home up to modern code instead of being able to make the repairs for damage caused
by the tenant.
119. The 241 Front rental property is currently registered as a vacant building site. As a
direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Vues, they have sustained
damages in excess of $50,000.00, including the labor and materials contributed to the 241 Front
home and the loss of rent after March 2004. Vues have attempted to comply with all of the
requirements of the City's Code Compliance Certification process but to date have not yet been able
to meet the City's demands.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 26 of 79

27
120. Dawkins, Magner and Martin continued the fraudulent schemes against Vues shortly
after said Defendants learned of Vues identity in the Steinhauser case in May 2004. Others City
inspectors, including inspectors Booker and Reardon, also participated in the fraudulent schemes and
racketeering activity in coordination with Dawkins, Magner, Martin and Dolan.
121. Dawkins ordered Booker to conduct an inspection of Vues’ rental property located at
707 Preble Street. Booker prepared a Correction Notice dated June 18, 2004, to Vues claiming
minor code violations related to “window and/or door screens, windows and/or storm windows and
sanitation”.
122. Booker mailed the June 18, 2004, Notice to a Brooklyn Park, Minnesota address no
longer used by Vues. Booker and Dawkins knew the Brooklyn Park address was not the Vues’
"rental registration" address in NHPI records as they had knowledge of the current address for Vues,
and Dawkins had used Vues' current Woodbury address in the earlier 241 Front rental property TRA
lawsuit. Nevertheless, to further Defendants’ fraudulent mailings scheme of purposefully failing to
provide notice to landlords, or at least to delay notice to them, to the landlords' detriment and for the
benefit of Defendants, Dawkins and Booker intentionally used the old address.
123. Dawkins forwarded a letter dated June 30, 2004, to Vues at their old Brooklyn Park
address claiming that a re-inspection of 707 Preble Street had been conducted on June 29, 2004.
Dawkins stated that the claimed deficiencies had not been corrected and a $50.00 excessive
consumption fee was being assessed against Vues.
124. Dawkins forwarded a second letter dated July 19, 2004, to Vues, again at the Vues'
old Brooklyn Park address, claiming that a second re-inspection had been conducted on July 15,
2004, and the claimed deficiencies had not been corrected and an additional $75.00 excessive
consumption fee was being assessed against Vues.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 27 of 79

28
125. Vues did not receive the June 30, 2004, or the July 19, 2004, letters from Dawkins or
the June 18, 2004, Correction Notice from Booker.
126. On August 3, 2004, Dolan with direction and assistance from Dawkins prepared and
commenced a second TRA by Defendant City against Vues on their rental property at 707 Preble.
Vues were first notified of the claimed inspections by Dawkins' department when Vues received the
TRA court documents.
127. The TRA Complaint for 707 Preble lists the Vues' current Woodbury address as
registered under the City's rental registration program.
128. At all times relevant, the Vues had properly followed the rental registration
procedure set up by NHPI. At all times during 2003 and 2004, Dawkins, Martin, Booker, Reardon,
Magner and other members of NHPI knew where Vues actually resided.
129. Defendant City's TRA lawsuit Complaint on 707 Preble lists minor claimed code
deficiencies and makes much of the claimed fact of the failure by Vues to remedy the claimed
violations after repeated notices to them.
130. Vues' 707 Preble property was a certified Section 8 unit that had passed a June 28,
2004, PHA inspection ten (10) days after Booker's Notice.
131. Due to the abuse of the civil suit process by said Defendants, including through their
fraudulent schemes to provide no effective notice, or at least delayed notice, Vues were forced to
hire St. Paul attorney Patricia Whitney.
132. On September 28, 2004, Dawkins sent another letter to Vues concerning 707 Preble,
this time claiming that Vues had not paid the excessive consumption charges. Dawkins stated in his
September 28, 2004, letter to Vues that the City was intent on revoking Vues' rental registration
certificate for 707 Preble.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 28 of 79

29
133. Vues investigated the claimed non-payment and discovered that they had
simultaneously mailed two checks to Dawkins' NHPI department for these fees. One of Vues'
checks, a check for a different property, had been presented by Dawkins to Vues' bank and had
cleared. Vues discovered that Dawkins and NHPI had not presented Vues’ 707 Preble check for
payment to Vues' bank. Vues made the payments to NHPI to protect their rental business even
though the basis for the fee was fraudulent.
134. Dawkins maliciously intended to claim non-payment by Vues in order to carry out his
threat of rental registration revocation and thereby bully Vues into refusing to testify in favor of
plaintiffs in the Steinhauser case and to discourage Vues from asserting their own claims against
Defendants.
135. Brooker’s June 18, 2004, Correction Notice, Dawkins' letters to Vues dated June 30,
2004, July 19, 2004 and September 28, 2004, and Defendant City’s August 3, 2004, TRA against
Vues, constituted furtherance of fraudulent schemes against Vues, Harrilal and Johnson, and
constituted furtherance of the racketeering activity of the individual Defendants herein and other
employees and officials of the City.
136. Vues were forced to retain attorney Whitney to correspond with Dawkins in order to
protect Vues' rights. Whitney's letter dated October 9, 2004, to Dawkins details numerous false
statements Dawkins had made in his September 28, 2004, letter.
137. On July 28, 2004, Dawkins' NHPI department prepared a Correction Notice dated
July 28, 2004, on Vues' rental property located at 735 Smith Ave. Defendant Reardon inspected the
rental property on July 28, 2004, and claimed code deficiencies for sanitation, vehicles and window
and/or door screens. Reardon’s Notice stated that the re-inspection would occur on August 4, 2004,
at which time the deficiencies must be corrected.
138. Reardon, working under Dawkins' direction and control, intentionally delayed the
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 29 of 79

30
mailing of this Correction Notice to Vues by holding the July 28, 2004, Notice for five days before
postmarking the envelope. Vues had just two days to receive the Notice and no time to comply with
Reardon’s Order.
139. The illegal efforts by Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Booker, Reardon and Koehnen, and
other City officials and employees against Vues, was designed by said Defendants with the
malicious intention to tarnish Vues’ reputation as responsible landlords in the City, to extort monies
from them, to intimidate Vues from testifying in the Steinhauser case, and to discourage them from
pursuing their own claims.
140. Defendants and other City officials and employees have had knowledge of the
existence of these continued fraudulent schemes being operated by NHPI officials and employees as
set forth herein and have encouraged this pattern of illegal code enforcement and racketeering
activity to continue on a continuing basis since Kelly placed Dawkins in control of the NHPI.
141. Due to the racketeering activity and illegal and discriminatory code enforcement
operations directed against them, Vues have sustained substantial damages including loss of rental
income, profits and investments in multiple rental buildings. Additionally, Vues' damages include
anticipated losses from forced sales of their rental properties, unnecessary repairs, excessive fees and
charges, expenditures to protect their interests, payment of attorney's fees, costs and disbursements
and other damages. The damages suffered by Vues are substantial, ongoing in nature and are
increasing daily.
Plaintiff Steven Johnson
142. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Johnson has owned numerous rental
properties in the City, including many Section 8 units.
143. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Martin, Seeley and others, under supervision of Dawkins and
Kelly, and in coordination with other City officials and employees, participated in furthering the
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 30 of 79

31
discriminatory action and illegal code enforcement conduct by targeting Johnson who was providing
housing to "protected class" tenants.
144. Commencing on or about March 12, 2003, and continuing to present, City housing
inspectors and officials, including Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Kalis, Seely and Lippert, along with
Dolan and others, have harassed Johnson on his rental properties in an effort to shut down Johnson's
rental business, or force change in ownership of Johnson's properties. Said Defendants' illegal,
discriminatory and malicious actions have forced Johnson to sell off many of his rental properties.
145. Even though Johnson had no abnormal history of code violations during his
ownership of rental properties prior to 2003, commencing on or about March 12, 2003, most of his
rental properties have been selectively targeted by Defendants.
146. Said Defendants have repeatedly harassed Johnson by selectively enforcing the City
housing code in a very strict and petty manner against him, while at the same time looking the other
way on serious housing code violations at numerous adjacent properties not owned by Johnson.
147. On January 30, 2003, Defendant Kalis, supervised by Dawkins, commenced the
illegal harassment against Johnson by posting a "Vacant Building" sign on Johnson’s occupied
property located at 469 Whitall Street. This property was in fact occupied by Johnson's son as his
home. Kalis ignored the obvious occupancy of the home and posted the home as vacant thereby
forcing Johnson’s son to leave his home in the middle of winter.
148. On or about February 1, 2003, Johnson called Kalis to inquire why Kalis had posted
the home “vacant”. Johnson informed Kalis that the home was in fact occupied by Johnson's son and
that the posting was wrong. Kalis responded, "Too bad." Johnson asked how Johnson could have the
vacant building posting removed? Kalis told Johnson, "In order to get the vacant building posting
removed, you must do a "full code compliance". Johnson asked him what that meant as Johnson had
no prior experience or knowledge of “full code compliance”. Kalis answered that Johnson would
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 31 of 79

32
need a complete upgrade of the home to current building standards in order to reoccupy the home.
Kalis refused to give Johnson any further information or clarify what Johnson needed to do.
149. Johnson was forced to file an appeal of Kalis' vacant building posting through the
City Council legislative hearing process. Following Johnsons' successful appeal, on February 10,
2003, the City rescinded the "Vacant Building" status.
150. Martin at the direction of Magner and Dawkins, retaliated against Johnson for his
appeal by conducting an exterior inspection of 469 Whitall and thereafter issued and mailed to
Johnson and the occupant a Correction Notice dated February 10, 2003. Martin informed Johnson
that she would reinspect the home on February 24, 2003, and that the Code "deficiencies" must be
corrected by that time or a criminal summons could be issued.
151. On February 19, 2003, before the February 24, 2003, reinspection deadline, Martin
made a second inspection, and then prepared and mailed to Johnson and the occupant a Revised
Correction Notice dated February 21, 2003, that noted additional "deficiencies" to be corrected by
the original February 24, 2003, deadline.
152. About one month later, Lippert and Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson and the
occupant a "Notice of Condemnation As Unfit For Human Habitation And Order To Vacate" dated
March 31, 2003, wherein Lippert and Dawkins deliberately and maliciously condemned Johnson's
469 Whitall home for no valid reason. Although the Notice was dated March 31, 2003, it ordered
that Johnson's home vacated by March 28, 2003, three days earlier. Lippert and Dawkins made the
same demand as Kalis two months earlier that a full code compliance be completed.
153. The March 31, 2003, Notice of Condemnation on Johnson's home was based solely
on slight cracking in three joists on the porch. Johnson already knew of this problem as he had
previously discussed the repair with other City inspectors who informed him that it was a minor
repair. Based solely upon this minor problem, the condemnation and order to vacate the property
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 32 of 79

33
prohibited Johnson's son and his girl friend and her two children from re-occupying their home.
154. Magner, Lippert, Kalis, Martin and Koehnen, and other inspectors from Defendant
City, under the supervision of Dawkins, continued to selectively target Johnson by condemning a
second rental property that Johnson had purchased in December 2002. This property was located at
941 Cypress Street. Johnson leased this home to a tenant who was disabled, confined to a wheelchair
and receiving Social Security Disability Income assistance.
155. In February 2003, Dawkins' NHPI commenced harassment against Johnson's 941
Cypress tenant by repeatedly citing the disabled tenant with Vehicle Abatement Orders and
Summary Abatement Orders, and by issuing a criminal misdemeanor housing code citation to the
tenant.
156. Said Defendants were able to condemn Johnson's 941 Cypress rental property on
March 13, 2003, after a questionable warrant and police "drug raid" into the disabled tenant's home.
On information and belief, no charges were ever filed against the disabled tenant. Lippert and
Dawkins promptly condemned Johnson's rental home as part of the alleged "drug raid" forcing the
disabled tenant from his home.
157. The raid at Johnson's 941 Cypress rental home for alleged drugs, the arrest of the
disabled tenant, the subsequent failure to charge the tenant and the issuance of a condemnation of the
home simultaneously with the raid, was similar to the experience of other property owners in the
City, including rental property owner Kelly Brisson on October 9, 2003. Brisson's 297 Burgess,
owner-occupied rental duplex was condemned for damage caused by law enforcement personnel
following a questionable raid, thereby forcing Brisson and his disabled tenant from their home. No
charges were ever brought against Brisson or his tenant. Brisson lost his home due to the
condemnation.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 33 of 79

34
158. As part of the condemnation of Johnson's 941 Cypress property, Lippert and Dawkins
prepared and mailed to Johnson a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated March 13,
2003. The sole basis for the condemnation of Johnson's 941 Cypress rental property was listed as
"excessive storage of combustible materials "throughout" the home. Lippert and Dawkins falsely and
maliciously stated the condition of the home. The tenant was simply repairing his snow blower in his
kitchen. Instead of allowing the tenant to remove his snow blower and gas can from his kitchen,
Lippert and Dawkins took the most drastic action in condemning the property and prohibiting
anyone from living in the home.
159. Martin continued Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code enforcement activity
against Johnson. Martin prepared and mailed to Johnson written Correction Orders of his rental
properties wherein she made malicious false statements about claimed code violations; many of the
entries in the written Correction Orders issued by Martin to Johnson were false and calculated to
make Johnson's properties look bad and to harass Johnson.
160. For example, Johnson received in the mail from Martin a Correction Notice dated
January 16, 2004, regarding his rental property located at 606 Edmund Avenue, St. Paul, that listed
claimed code violations following Martin and Koehnen's inspection of the property on January 15,
2004. Prior to conducting that inspection, and in order to gain access to the interior of the home,
Martin and Koehnen falsely informed the tenant that Johnson had sent them to conduct the
inspection. When the tenant would not invite Martin and Koehnen inside, Martin and Keohnen
forced their way into the rental unit to conduct the inspection.
161. Martin's January 16, 2004, Correction Notice (“Notice”) contained twelve (12)
claimed code violations of which five (5) were false. Martin's claims regarding the toilet seat,
cabinets, carpet, roof and sanitation (Items 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12) were deliberately false and those
claimed code violations did not in fact exist.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 34 of 79

35
162. These deliberately false allegations were malicious in that Martin and Koehnen had
personally been present, witnessed and inspected the 606 Edmund property in June 2003, when
Martin and Koehnen, with no prior notice, came to the property uninvited. At that time, Johnson was
almost completed with an extensive renovation of the home which included the items specifically
listed in the later Notice from Martin. Martin and Koehnen personally toured the premises,
including the interior, and expressed amazement of the quality of the materials and workmanship
and time and effort being expended by Johnson on renovation.
163. Kalis participated further in the coordinated discriminatory and illegal code
enforcement conduct, and racketeering activity of the individual Defendants, by citing Johnson's 469
Whitall Street rental property on May 19, 2004, with an Summary Abatement Order ordering
Johnson to cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. Kalis mailed the Summary
Abatement Order to Johnson on May 20, 2004. The lawn at 469 Whital was not over the eight inch
limit for grass height under the City's code. Kalis' claims were false and maliciously made in concert
with the other Defendants.
164. Kalis again cited Johnson's 469 Whitall Street property on July 9, 2004, with a
Summary Abatement Order ordering Johnson to cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant
growth. Kalis mailed the Summary Abatement Order to Johnson on July 13, 2004. Johnson's son had
cut the grass at 469 Whitall on July 7, 2004, and once again the lawn was well under the code limit.
Kalis' claims were false and maliciously made in concert with the other Defendants.
165. Kalis cited Johnson's 483 Sherburne Ave. single family rental property on October 1,
2004, with a Summary Abatement Order mailed to Johnson and ordering Johnson to cut and remove
tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. The lawn at 469 Whitall was not over the limit for grass
height under the code but was in fact 3-4 inches in height on October 6, 2004, when Johnson again
cut the grass. Kalis' claims were false and maliciously made in concert with the other Defendants.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 35 of 79

36
166. Paula Seeley participated in the coordinated discriminatory and illegal code
enforcement conduct and racketeering activity of the individual Defendants by repeatedly issuing
citations on Johnson's properties that were false.
167. On March 23, 2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order which she mailed to Johnson
on March 24, 2004, stating that Johnson was in violation of the City Code for a tenant's vehicle
parked on an unapproved surface. Seeley ordered the vehicle to be removed from the grass. The
Vehicle was not parked on the grass but rather was parked on a fully code compliant gravel surface
on top of an older cement garage floor.
168. Seeley also issued a Vehicle Abatement Order for Johnson's 483 Sherburne Ave.
property and mailed this Order to Johnson on April 2, 2004, claiming that an automobile owned by
Johnson's tenant was parked on grass, an unapproved parking surface. Seeley's claim was false, as
the vehicle was actually parked on a gravel surface on top of an older cement garage floor.
169. On April 19, 2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order for Johnson's 483 Sherburne
Ave property, which she mailed to Johnson on April 20, 2004. Seeley claimed a code violation
existed for garbage and rubbish stored on property. When Johnson received the notice and conducted
an inspection of the property, he found one garbage bag in front of the 90 gallon trash container. At
the same time, other neighboring properties had excessive garbage and trash rubbish.
170. Dawkins mailed to Johnson an April 20, 2004, Excessive Consumption Notice billing
Johnson $50.00 for the cost Seeley's inspection. The Notice stated that "Failure to pay this bill will
result in revocation of your registration."
171. Johnson filed a legislative appeal of Seeley’s Correction Order dated April 19, 2004.
Johnson, his son and daughter and three of Johnson's tenants attended the appeal hearing on May 11,
2004. The City Council legislative hearing officer allowed inspector Seeley to present her testimony
of claimed trash but refused Johnson’s offer to present evidence that Seeley's claims of code
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 36 of 79

37
violations were false.
172. Johnson received a St. Paul City Council Public Hearing Notice - Ratification of
Assessment, dated August 13, 2004, notifying Johnson that a hearing would be held on September
22, 2004, to authorize a property assessment on 483 Sherburne of the excessive consumption fee of
$50.00 that Dawkins had levied, plus a $20.00 service fee. Johnson had not paid the Excessive
Consumption fee of $50.00 levied by Dawkins on Johnson's 483 Sherburne property in protest over
the false code violations claims.
173. Following Johnson's receipt of the Assessment Notice, Johnson called Dawkins to
protest the assessment of fee and explained to Dawkins the false code violation citation that had led
to the assessment. Dawkins informed Johnson that if Johnson failed to make the payment, Johnson's
rental registration would be revoked. Johnson was forced to make payment to the City in the amount
of $70.00 in order to keep his rental registration and to continue his rental business at 483 Sherburne
Ave.
174. On or about February 16, 2005, Seeley issued a Correction Notice on Johnson's
property located at 483 Sherburne Ave., and mailed the Notice to Johnson on February 17, 2005,
notifying Johnson to eliminate the code violation of, "trash container is overflowing and there is
scattered trash on the ground and alley area. Remove." When Johnson received the Correction
Notice, Johnson's son and worker went to the property to check if trash was present and found the
trash container was not overflowing, the lid of the container was shut, there was no scattered trash or
any trash on the property. The tenant confirmed this fact to Johnson's son and worker.
175. As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement
treatment and racketeering activity directed at Johnson by said individual Defendants, all at the
direction or with the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, Johnson was injured in his rental business and
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 37 of 79

38
incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits and Johnson was thereafter forced to sell his
rental properties in the City of St. Paul.
176. Said Defendants' discriminatory actions against Johnson and his tenants continues at
present. Following the filing of the Steinhauser federal court Complaint on May 5, 2004, wherein
Johnson was identified as a witness and similarly injured property owner who had potential claims,
the individual Defendants continued illegal code enforcement actions and racketeering activity
directed at Johnson and his brother, Ken Johnson, a similarly situated St. Paul landlord with
"protected class" tenants.
177. On June 24, 2004, City Attorney Dolan and Kalis applied for ex-parte restraining
orders against Johnson and his brother for conduct that allegedly occurred on May 24, 2004. When
the Ramsey County District Court judge reviewed the actual evidence, the restraining orders were
dismissed as there was no basis for the relief sought by said Defendants through Kalis. Dismissal of
the restraining orders occurred only after Johnsons were forced to hire St. Paul attorney Thomas C.
Plunkett, thereby incurring substantial attorney's fees and costs in having their attorney obtain the
necessary court relief. Johnson was in the process of preparing his federal claims against the City
and the Defendants herein during the time of this retaliation and he was an identified federal witness.
178. The illegal actions against Johnson as described above were accomplished to further
the racketeering activity of the individual Defendants.
City and Its Officials and Employees Benefit From Illegal Schemes
179. Defendant City has benefitted from these illegal schemes against Harrilal, Vues and
Johnson through fees triggered by the condemnations, including from vacant building registration
fees and permit fees in the "full code compliance" inspection and certification process, and from
excessive consumption fees and other fees. Defendant City also benefitted through receipt of grant
funds for bringing TRA suits against Harrilal and Vues. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon,
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 38 of 79

39
Seely, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and other officials and employees have also benefitted
personally in their positions of employment with the City.
Other Property Owners Subject to Discrimination and Racketeering Activity
180. Frank Steinhauser, Mark Meysembourg and Kelly Brisson, former City property
owners renting to “protected class” tenants, were subjected during the period of 2002 through 2004,
to discrimination and racketeering activity similar to what Plaintiffs experienced, including false
allegations of code deficiencies, illegal condemnations and code compliance inspections, City
lawsuits, and Paragraph 190 (herein) predicate acts. As a result, Steinhauser, Meysembourg and
Brisson were injured and lost or sold their rental properties in the City.
181. Tom Gallagher and Joe Collins, City property owners renting to “protected class”
tenants, were subjected during the period of 2003 through 2005 to discrimination and racketeering
activity similar to what Plaintiffs experienced, including false allegations of code deficiencies,
illegal condemnations and code compliance inspections, and Paragraph 190 (herein) predicate acts.
As a result, Gallagher and Collins were injured and have sold rental properties in the City.
182. Leroy Miller and Mahannah Kakish, former City property owners renting to
“protected class” tenants, were subjected during 2002 through 2003 to discrimination and
racketeering activity similar to what Plaintiffs experienced, including false allegations of code
deficiencies, illegal condemnations and code compliance inspections, City lawsuits, and Paragraph
190 (herein) predicate acts. Miller and Kakish lost their rental property as a result of these illegal
actions.
183. Steve Mark, a City property owner renting to “protected class” tenants, has been
subjected to discriminatory conduct and injured since 2003 similar to Plaintiffs’ experience. Mark
was subject to a January 2004 inspector’s order to remove one of the three Hispanic tenants from a
rental unit that was identical in layout and square footage to a companion rental unit in the same
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 39 of 79

40
building that housed three Caucasian tenants. The City inspector’s discriminatory order only applied
to the Hispanic tenants.
184. Kenneth Krahn, a City property owner renting to “protected class” tenants, has been
subjected to and injured by discriminatory conduct similar to Plaintiffs, including false allegations of
code deficiencies and City lawsuits. Defendants have also targeted Krahn following the
identification of Krahn as a witness for Plaintiffs herein.
185. Akinwale Akinropo, Julian Jayasuriya and Calvin Burton, City property owners
renting to “protected class” tenants, were subjected during the period of 2002 through 2005 to
discrimination and racketeering activity similar to what Plaintiffs experienced, including illegal
condemnations and code compliance inspections, City lawsuits, abuse of process, and Paragraph 190
(herein) predicate acts. Akinropo, Jayasuriya and Burton have been injured by said illegal conduct.
COUNT I
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1961, et seq.
186. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 185 as set forth
above.
187. At all relevant times, some or all of the following constituted a RICO enterprise
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. S 1961(4), or an association in fact: the Division of Property Code
Enforcement; the Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement Office; Citizen's Service
Office; Problem Property Unit; Problem Properties Task Force; the Mayor's Office; the St. Paul
Police Department; the St. Paul Fire Prevention Department; the Ramsey County Courts; and
Community Stabilization Project; within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) and 1962(c), in that it
was a legal entity or an association in fact.
188. Defendants Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen,
Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe are individual "persons" within the meaning of 18
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 40 of 79

41
U.S.C. 1961(3) and 1962(c), who associated with, and/or participated in, the conduct of said
enterprise's affairs.
189. From at least October 08, 2002, and continuing at present, Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacity, as persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(3), conducted and
participated, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said enterprise through a pattern
of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (c). Defendants Dawkins, Magner and
Kelly operated and managed the enterprise(s).
190. Said individual Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity consisted of:
a. Said individual Defendants' extortion, or attempts, or conspiracy to do so, and/or
threats of physical violence, under color of official right, in interference with interstate commerce,
that was designed to extract direct or indirect personal rewards from Plaintiffs, if and when Plaintiffs
refused to turn over or succumb to Defendants' demands for illegal Code compliance, control of the
Plaintiffs' properties, weeding out of tenants that Defendants decided were "undesirable" within the
City of St. Paul, and that was designed to reach coerced settlements that Defendants never intended
to honor, to interfere with the rights of Plaintiffs and their tenants to honest government services, to
force Plaintiffs to admit the truth of statements filed or prepared by Defendants which Defendants
knew were false; said racketeering activity interfered with the rights of Plaintiffs to honest
government services, and damaged Plaintiffs in their property or businesses; all or some of said acts
were done in violation of the "Hobbs Act," 18 U.S.C. 1951.
b. Said individual Defendants' intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasion, or attempts
to do so, or misleading conduct toward Plaintiffs, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent
testimony of any person in an official proceeding, or to coerce or induce any person to withhold
testimony, from an official proceeding, or to hinder, delay or prevent Plaintiffs from communication
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 41 of 79

42
with a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States relating to Defendants' commission of
possible federal or state criminal offenses, and such acts violated 18 U.S.C. 1512.
C. Said individual Defendants' devised, or intended to devise, schemes to defraud or
for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises, beginning in or about March 2002, and continuing to the present; said Defendants misused
the code inspection procedures, intentionally failed to provide notices or intentionally delayed
notices, maliciously falsified facts which the Defendants knew were not true, made false
representations, promises, offers of settlement, and made fraudulent representations to the courts and
to the citizens of St. Paul to cover up and conceal the true duties of Defendants under the Federal
HUD grants and the City Code and state law. For purposes of executing such fraudulent schemes,
Defendants placed or caused to be placed in a post office or authorized depository for mail, matter
that furthered the scheme(s). Defendants committed mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 each
time they used, or foreseeably caused, the US mails to be used to distribute the materials described.
d. Said individual Defendants beginning in or about March 2002, knowingly and
fraudulently devised, or intended to devise schemes or artifices to defraud or for obtaining money or
property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, and transmitted or
caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign
commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds, for the purpose of executing the schemes or
artifices to defraud Plaintiffs. For purposes of executing such schemes, Defendants placed or caused
to be placed, or did not correct, communications transmitted by the City web site, and other
electronic communications, where such matter furthered the schemes. Said Defendants committed
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 each time they used or foreseeably caused such wire
transmissions or other electronic communications to be made or used to distribute the information
described.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 42 of 79

43
e. Said individual Defendants, commencing in or about March 2002, knowingly
executed, or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to obtain money, funds, credits, assets, or
other property under the custody or control of a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations or promises in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344.
f. Said individual Defendants, commencing in or about March 2002, knowingly,
intentionally, directly or indirectly, corruptly gave, offered, or promised, sought or obtained, to or
from a "public official," something of value to act or refrain from acting, with the intent to influence
or aid an official to commit or aid in the commission, collude, allow fraud or make opportunity for
commission of fraud, on the United States, or accepted something of value personally for or because
of any official act to be done or to be given as a witness in a hearing, trial or other such proceeding,
including proceedings in Ramsey County, tenant remedy procedures, other landlord compliance
proceedings, federal court proceedings, Federal Fair Housing Act proceedings, HUD grant
application and fund distribution proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.
g. Said individual Defendants took, stole, tainted, alienated, transferred, concealed,
or retained without claim of right, property of Plaintiffs by artifice, swindle, trick, or other means,
including promises to settle without any intent to perform, the filing of false oaths and statements, in
violation of Minn. Stat. Ann. 609.901 et seq. (RICO), 609.05, 609.27, 609.2336, 609.43(2)(3)(4),
609.52, applicable to RICO under US. v. Nardella, 393 U.S. 286 (1969).
191. These acts all occurred after the effective date of RICO and more than two such acts
occurred within ten years of one another.
192. Said individual Defendants are individuals or other persons within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. 1961 (3) and 1962(c) who associated with, and/or participated in, the conduct of said
enterprises affairs.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 43 of 79

44
193. From March 2002 through the present, said individual Defendants conducted,
participated in, engaged in, conspired to engage in, or aided and abetted, the conduct of the affairs of
the "enterprise" as alleged in paragraph no. 187 through a "pattern of racketeering activity," as listed
in paragraph no. 190, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3), 1961(5) and 1962(c). Said
Defendants pattern of racketeering activity consisted of acts as listed elsewhere in the Complaint.
194. At all relevant times, the enterprises alleged in paragraph no. 187 were engaged in,
and their activities affected, interstate commerce and foreign commerce.
195. All the predicate acts described in paragraph no. 190 above, were related so as to
establish a pattern of racketeering activity, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), in that their
common purpose was to misuse the Code enforcement process, fraudulently induce settlements
never intended to be honored, fraudulently increase the number of criminal rental property penalties,
and carry out such actions and other related actions under color of law or official right so as to
damage landlords' property and businesses and the property interests of Plaintiffs’ tenants, and their
common result was to extort or obtain monies or property or damage the businesses of Plaintiffs
and/or conceal the improper motives of Defendants under the guise of protecting the exact same
"protected class" tenants Defendants had decided to remove from St. Paul; Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, each
personally, or through their agent or agents, directly or indirectly, participated in all of the acts and
employed the same or similar methods of commission, fraud, false oaths, extortion and retaliation.
Plaintiffs were the victims of said Defendants racketeering and or the acts of racketeering were
otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated events.
196. All of the predicate acts described above were continuous so as to form a pattern of
racketeering activity in that:
a. Said individual Defendants engaged in the predicate acts described above over a
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 44 of 79

45
substantial time (from at least March 2002, through February 2005, and continuing until present);
and
b. Said individual Defendants continue, or threaten to continue, to engage in the
predicate activity described above as regular way of conducting the enterprise and Defendants'
ongoing governmental activities.
197. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of said individual
Defendants and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Plaintiffs have been injured in their
persons, estates, business and/or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). Each Plaintiff
has sustained damages to business or property, and such actions of said Defendants including their
actions in fraudulently conducting the code enforcement, court proceedings, and settlements, caused
Plaintiffs to incur legal and accounting costs and the costs of investigation.
198. Said individual Defendants' secret agreements were fraudulently concealed from
Plaintiffs, other property owners, the courts and law enforcement.
199. Said individual Defendants took specific acts and conspired to conceal their liabilities
under their false statements, fraudulent code enforcement, false court and administrative filings,
fraudulent settlements, threats of criminal prosecution, and fraudulent compliance with other federal
laws.
200. These specific acts included racketeering and conspiracy and were of an ongoing
nature continuing into the future.
201. Said individual Defendants each knowingly committed or conspired to commit, or
agreed with the commission of, at least one act described above in violation of RICO, or aided and
abetted the commission of one such act and thereby agreed with the objectives of the other
Defendants.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 45 of 79

46
202. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker,
Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe, individually, jointly
and severally, for threefold the damages sustained, together with the costs of this suit, including
reasonable attorney fees and expert fees.
203. Plaintiffs also seek permanent injunctive relief to prohibit the individual Defendants
from continuing their racketeering activity as described above.
COUNT II
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1961, ET SEQ.
204. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 203 as set forth
above.
205. From at least March 2002, and continuing on presently, Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe, along with
unknown third parties, have conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct
of the "enterprise" described in paragraph no. 187 through a "pattern of racketeering activity," as
listed in paragraph no. 190, and elsewhere in the Complaint, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962
(d).
206. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly,
and John Doe and Jane Doe with unknown third parties, agreed to commit one or more predicate acts
in furtherance of the scheme to defraud and/or agreed to the overall objective of the schemes to
defraud Plaintiffs and other landlords, all of whom were providing housing services to members of
the "protected class".
207. Each individual Defendant committed, planned, conspired to commit, aided and
abetted at least one of the predicate acts and/or conspired to commit, and/or aide and abetted the
commission of one or more predicate acts, and/or agreed to commit at least one predicate act,
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 46 of 79

47
including threats of criminal prosecution, and thereby committed at least one act in furtherance of
the conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d).
208. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of Magner, Kalis,
Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe,
along with unknown third patties, as defined herein, Plaintiffs have been injured in their business or
property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1964 (c) and (d).
209. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker,
Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe, individually, jointly
and severally, for threefold the damages sustained, together with the costs of this suit, including
reasonable attorney fees and expert fees.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1968 AND AMENDMENTS
(FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT)
42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3601 ET SEQ., 3613 AND 3617
210. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 209 as set forth
above.
211. Commencing in March 2002, and continuing thereafter, Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe, and other
officials and employees of Defendant City, as well as inspectors from Defendant City's Fire
Department, intentionally and maliciously commenced and thereafter continued a discriminatory
policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct that selectively targeted Plaintiffs and other
St. Paul landlords, who were aiding, encouraging and associating with individuals with protected
rights to housing under Title VIII, Federal Fair Housing Act and Amendments, including Black
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 47 of 79

48
Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, families with children,
individuals with disabilities, those receiving state and federal financial assistance, as well as others
less fortunate ("protected class"), all living within the City of St. Paul.
212. Said Defendants discriminatory policy, custom and practice of code enforcement
conduct did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with Plaintiffs on account of Plaintiffs having
aided, associated with or encouraged their “protected class” tenants in exercise of these tenants'
rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.
213. This discriminatory policy, custom and practice of code enforcement conduct had,
and continues to have, the approval of the City Council.
214. Defendants' discriminatory policy, custom and practice of code enforcement conduct
was intentional and malicious in Defendants' efforts to rid the City of St. Paul of "bottom of the
barrel," "undesirable," "low income" individuals, who were in very large part, “protected class”
members, and Plaintiffs and others who were assisting these individuals.
215. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly,
and other officials and employees of Defendant City, as well as inspectors from the Fire Department,
intended that their aggressive code enforcement operations would have a discriminatory impact upon
members of the "protected class" and Plaintiffs as providers of housing services to those "protected
class" members.
216. Said Defendants' further instituted a campaign of coercion, extortion, intimidation,
threats, interference and retaliation against Plaintiffs which impaired Plaintiffs' abilities to provide
housing for low and moderate income members of the “protected class”. Said coercion, extortion,
intimidation, threats, interference and retaliation resulted in actual damages to Plaintiffs' businesses
and properties, including loss of income, profits and investments, physical disruption of rental and
repair activities, false settlements, forced payments, forced sales of rental properties, unnecessary
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 48 of 79

49
expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees.
217. Defendant City has acquired, retained and expended millions of dollars in HUD
grants, as well as other federal funds, while at the same time Defendants have concretely
undermined the policy and purposes of those grants by targeting privately owned rental properties
providing low income housing to "protected class" members, thereby forcing tenants and private
landlords out of the St. Paul market for affordable, safe housing, in violation of federal and state law,
including without due process and under color of law or official right.
218. PHA is a direct competitor of Plaintiffs and many other targeted rental property owners
within the City. Defendants have abused police powers in selectively targeting privately owned
rental properties with discriminatory and illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity, while at
the same time PHA has not been subject to the same or similar code inspection system on PHA’s
rental properties or subject to the same or similar adverse threat consequences for code violations or
tenant behavior problems.
219. PHA's rental housing stock in the City has similar health, safety, fire and housing
code issues as Plaintiffs’ rental properties and those of other private landlords renting to “protective
class” tenants. Many of PHA's rental properties have similar maintenance issues and problems as
Plaintiffs' older rental buildings, yet only privately owned rental properties are subject to
Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity.
220. PHA's rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems, including
those that require frequent calls for City police protection, that are similar to the tenant and guest
behavior problems of Plaintiffs’ properties and those rental properties owned by other similarly
situated property owners in the City. Nevertheless, Defendants have targeted the properties of
Plaintiffs and other property owners who are in direct competition with PHA for the same low
income, predominately minority tenants, based upon claimed tenant behavior problems that also
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 49 of 79

50
exist in PHA properties.
221. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its provisions
and Defendants cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against themselves.
222. Said Defendants' code enforcement operations had a discriminatory impact upon
members of the "protected class" living within the City of St. Paul, and upon Plaintiffs and other
property owners providing housing services to "protected class" members.
223. Defendants' discriminatory policy, custom and practice of interference and retaliatory
conduct continued at all times set forth herein and continues presently in the City.
224. As a direct result of said Defendants' discriminatory policy, custom and practice of
interference and retaliatory conduct directed at Plaintiffs and others, Plaintiffs have sustained loss of
rental income and damage to their rental businesses, including lost profits and investments, have
been forced to sell rental properties, and incurred other damages, included increased tax burdens,
and have incurred unnecessary expenses and fees, and attorney and accounting fees and costs.
225. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Martin, Koehnen,
Dawkins and Kelly.
226. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act
by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and others
unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
227. Plaintiffs seek pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 permanent injunctive relief to
prohibit Defendants from continuing their wrongful conduct, as Defendants' discriminatory code
enforcement policy, custom and practice, as described above, has existed and continued and
presently continues, within the City over an extended period of time.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 50 of 79

51
COUNT IV
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981
228. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 227 as set forth
above.
229. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly,
John Doe and lane Doe, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, have intentionally denied
Plaintiffs, on account of race, the same right to make and enforce contracts, and to have the full and
equal benefit of all laws or proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by
white citizens, all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
230. Defendants, with racially discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs' contracts,
and right to make and enforce contracts with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs' right to
enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of Plaintiffs' contractual relationships
with their non-white tenants.
231. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and
investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs, and damages for deprivation of their civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and
embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
232. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Martin, Koehnen,
Dawkins and Kelly.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 51 of 79

52
233. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and
others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT V
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
234. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 233 as set forth
above.
235. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, have denied Plaintiffs, on account of race, the
same rights as are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and
personal property, all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
236. Defendants' discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as more
fully described above, impaired Plaintiffs' property rights and those of its tenants.
237. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and
investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs and damages for deprivation of their civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and
embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
238. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Martin, Koehnen,
Dawkins and Kelly.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 52 of 79

53
239. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and
John Doe and Jane Doe.
240. Plaintiffs also seek permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from
continuing their pattern of discriminatory code enforcement as described above.
COUNT VI
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
241. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 240 as set forth
above.
242. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly
and other employees of Defendant City, unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, all in their official
capacities, did wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs and their tenants of rights secured by the Constitution
and laws of the United States, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,
the right to be free from taking of their property without compensation, the right to due process of
law, the right to equal protection of the laws, and the right to pursue an occupation, business or
profession free from governmental deprivation or undue interference, or government imposed
monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments and rights
established by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
243. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly
and other employees of City unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, all in their official capacities, were
following an unconstitutional City policy, custom and practice of discriminatory code enforcement
at the time of said deprivation of rights, all as fully described above.
244. The policy, custom and practice described above proximately caused the injury
to Plaintiffs.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 53 of 79

54
245. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs' damages as a result of the policy, custom
and practice set forth herein.
246. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Kelly, Dawkins,
other employees of Defendant City of St. Paul unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, in their individual
capacities, acting under color of state law, intentionally and maliciously subjected to harm the
Plaintiffs in occupations and/or professions to deprivation of their rights and undue interference on
account of Plaintiffs' tenants being “protected class” members.
247. Said Defendants intentional and malicious conduct was a violation of Plaintiffs' rights
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be free from taking of property without
compensation, the right to due process, the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to pursue
an occupation, business or profession free from deprivation or undue interference, or government
imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments and rights
established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
248. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss and deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights.
249. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Martin, Koehnen,
Dawkins and Kelly.
250. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and
John Doe and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 54 of 79

55
COUNT VII
CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1985
251. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 250 as set forth
above.
252. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly
and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and other employees of Defendant City
unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, conspired together with certain third parties, also unknown to
Plaintiffs at this time but who were not employees or agents of said City, to deny Plaintiffs and their
tenants their federal civil rights as set forth above.
253. Said individual Defendants and their third-party conspirators conspired to deprive,
either directly or indirectly, Plaintiffs and their "protected class" tenants of their rights under the
United States Constitution, including their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,
right to compensation for taking of their property and to due process, right to equal protection of the
laws, right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from deprivation or undue
interference or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and
Fourteenth Amendments, as well as their rights under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983, and
Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 3601, et seq.
254. Said Defendants did act in furtherance of the conspiracy as more fully set out above.
255. Said conspiracy was motivated by racial and other class based, invidious
discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' action.
256. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, and deprivation of their civil
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 55 of 79

56
and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation
and embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
257. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities and punitive damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Martin, Koehnen,
Dawkins and Kelly.
STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT VIII
ABUSE OF PROCESS
258. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 257 as set forth
above.
259. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were owners of rental properties located within
the City.
260. Plaintiffs rented their properties to individuals protected under the constitution and
laws of Minnesota and the United States.
261. Defendants, in a coordinated effort to rid the City of "bottom of the barrel,"
"undesirable" and "low income" individuals, and those private owners of rental properties providing
housing services to “protected class” tenants, targeted Plaintiffs' rental properties and their tenants
for discriminatory and selective code enforcement.
262. Defendants, as part of this illegal scheme, unlawfully and maliciously created false
entries in City code enforcement documentation, including, but not limited to, in Correction Orders,
Notices of Condemnations and Orders to Vacate, and other code enforcement documents, all as set
forth above, in an effort to shut down the rental businesses of Plaintiffs, increase their costs, force
sale of rental properties, increase their tax burdens, force tenants from their homes and reduce the
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 56 of 79

57
available housing for those whom Defendants considered "bottom of the barrel," "undesirable" and
"low income" individuals.
263. Defendants used the false entries in code documentation to maliciously condemn
certain of said Plaintiffs' rental properties and to order tenants and all other occupants to vacate their
homes, all without adequate notice or opportunity for hearing.
264. Additionally, Defendants, as part of the continuation of their illegal schemes,
unlawfully and maliciously used the false code enforcement documentation in court filings against
Harrilal and Vues, and against other St. Paul landlords as set forth above.
265. Defendant City's court filings prepared by Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen and Magner,
with assistance from other city employees and the City Attorney's office, against Harrilal and Vues,
and other landlords as set forth above, included reference to falsely stated code violations;
Defendants attached the false City code documentation as attachments to the Court Complaints;
Dawkins provided sworn Verifications as to truth of the false claims; said Defendants' malicious
actions were made in an attempt to shut down the rental operations of Harrilal and Vues and other
St. Paul landlords, increase their costs, and thereby force out of the City the “protected class”
individuals renting from said Plaintiffs and others in the City.
266. In perpetrating the above wrongful acts, said Defendants acted maliciously and
wrongfully and with the intent, design, and purpose to specifically injure each Plaintiff and their
tenants.
267. Defendants' malicious and wrongful conduct directly caused severe damage to each
Plaintiff and to their tenants. Defendants malicious and wrongful conduct condemned certain of the
rental properties of Plaintiffs, and/or eliminated the source of rental income to Plaintiffs through
wrongful conduct by Defendants set forth herein. Defendants’ wrongful conduct also directly caused
a loss of profits and investments to Plaintiffs, forced Plaintiffs to sell rental properties, and forced
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 57 of 79

58
Plaintiffs to incur unnecessary costs, fees and expenses, including attorneys fees, in attempting to
protect their rights, and to incur unnecessary expenses and fees in needless repairs demanded by
Defendants.
268. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
269. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Defendants
Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and others
unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT IX
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
270. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 269 as set
forth above.
271. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between Plaintiffs and their
respective tenants for lease of private housing in the City of Saint Paul.
272. Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ leases with its tenants.
273. Plaintiffs’ leases on said rental properties included, but were not limited to, leases
with those individuals who were members of the “protected class”.
274. Defendants intentionally procured breach of the contracts through illegal and
malicious condemnations of Plaintiffs’ rental properties and orders for tenants to vacate rental
properties and through other intentional wrongful conduct, all as more fully described above.
275. Defendants’ intentional interference with Plaintiffs’ contracts was without any
justification.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 58 of 79

59
276. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendants’ tortuous interference with
Plaintiffs’ contracts, as Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and have lost profits,
incurred costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs and have incurred attorney’s fees, other fees
and court costs in defending against Defendants’ malicious conduct.
277. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
278. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Magner,
Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and others unknown
to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT X
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
279. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 278 as set forth
above.
280. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had rental businesses in the
City. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were "protected class" members.
281. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from their
rental businesses and relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
282. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly
and John Doe and Jane Doe engaged in wrongful conduct, as more fully described above, that
wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs' reasonable business expectation and which had an adverse
effect on Plaintiffs' rental businesses.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 59 of 79

60
283. Said Defendants' wrongful interference was without justification and was maliciously
intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental relationships and reasonable
business expectation.
284. Said Defendants' wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of, or
harm to, Plaintiffs' rental businesses and business expectancy and the damages suffered by each
Plaintiff.
285. Without Defendants' wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.
286. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendants' wrongful
interference with Plaintiffs' rental businesses; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and
profits, have been forced to sell rental properties, had increased tax burdens, incurred costs, fees and
expenses in needless repairs, and have incurred attorney's fees and court costs in defending against
Defendants' wrongful conduct.
287. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
288. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Magner, Kalis,
Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and others unknown to
Plaintiffs at this time.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1. A judgment pursuant to Count I of this Complaint as set forth therein.
2. A judgment pursuant to Count II of this Complaint as set forth therein.
3. A judgment pursuant to Count III of this Complaint as set forth therein.
4. A judgment pursuant to Count IV of this Complaint as set forth therein.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 60 of 79

61
5. A judgment pursuant to Count V of this Complaint as set forth therein.
6. A judgment pursuant to Count VI of this Complaint as set forth therein.
7. A judgment pursuant to Count VII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
8. A judgment pursuant to Count VIII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
9. A judgment pursuant to Count IX of this Complaint as set forth therein.
10. A judgment pursuant to Count X of this Complaint as set forth therein.
11. A judgment for Plaintiffs' compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this
matter on all Counts herein.
12. A judgment for Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees, costs and disbursements
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.
13. A judgment for punitive damages against Defendants Magner, Kalis,
Lippert, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins and Kelly, in an amount as may be just and equitable
under Counts III through VII herein.
14. A permanent injunction restraining Defendants from violating 42 U.S.C. Section
3601, et seq. and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 and/or 18 U.S.C.. Section 1961, et seq.
15. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the
premises.
16. For trial by jury on all issues so triable.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: By: s/John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal
and Steven R. Johnson
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 61 of 79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
_____________________________________
Sandra Harrilal; Bee Vue; Court File No. 05-461
Lamena Vue; Steven R. Johnson, JNE/SRN
d/b/a Market Group and Properties,
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ INITIAL
DISCLOSURES
vs. PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. PRO. 26(A)(1) (A)
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor
of City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement; Michael
Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement
officer of City of St. Paul; Dick Lippert, individually
and as a code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul;
Kelly Booker, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Jack Reardon,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of City
of St. Paul; Paula Seeley, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Lisa Martin,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of City
of St. Paul; Dean Koehnen, individually and as a law
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Andy Dawkins
individually and as Director of City of St. Paul's
Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement; Randy Kelly individually and as Mayor
of City of St. Paul; John Doe and Jane Doe, individually
and in their official capacities as code enforcement
officers of City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement, law enforcement
officers or other officials or employees of the City of St.
Paul; individually, jointly and severally; and City of St.
Paul, a municipal corporation,
Defendants.
________________________________________
TO: DEFENDANTS noted above and their attorneys, John J.Choi, Saint Paul City Attorney,
Frank E. Villaume III and Louise Toscano Seeba, Assistant Saint Paul City Attorneys, 550
City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102:
Plaintiffs, for their Initial Disclosures pursuant to Rule 26 (a) (1), Fed. R. Civ. P., state as follows:
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 62 of 79

2
Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures
A. Provide the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual
likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in
the pleadings, identifying the subjects of the information.
Response to Disclosure A: Plaintiff identifies the following persons as being responsive to
Disclosure Rule A:
Plaintiffs will testify concerning all subjects referenced in the Complaint. Additionally, the
plaintiffs in the related cases before this Court in Steinhauser, et al. vs. Randy Kelly, et al. and
Gallagher, et al. vs. Magner, et al., have discoverable information relevant to the disputed facts
contained in the pleadings herein.
Individual Defendants and other officials and employees of Defendant City of St. Paul
have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the
pleadings herein.
Third parties yet to be identified by Plaintiffs may have discoverable information relevant
to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings herein.
The following additional individuals have, or are likely to have, discoverable information
relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings related to Plaintiffs’ claims:
1. Douglas E. Turner, Esq., 401 North Third Street, Ste 600, Minneapolis, MN, 612-338-
7770 - code enforcement, tenant remedies actions and retaliation by Defendants against
Ms. Harrilal.
2. Rev. Ronnie Jackson, St. Paul, MN, 651-274-5084 - code enforcement and tenant
remedies actions by Defendants against Ms. Harrilal and condition of her properties.
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 63 of 79

3
3. Doneva Williams - 7012 Halifax Ave., N., Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (763) 560-0625 -
condition of Ms. Harrilal’s properties and sale of said properties.
4. Jerry Fischer - 2200 Midlothian Road, Roseville, MN - independent contractor -
maintenance/repairs required by City through code enforcement actions against Harrilal .
5. Ray Hessler and Katie Hessler - previous owner of 704 Lawson rental property
purchased by Harrilal - history of code enforcement operations against the property,
condition of property, maintenance and repair of property
6. Katherine Keller - tenant in 704 Lawson, St. Paul rental property - condition of rental
property.
7. Gregory Collins, tenant in 704 Lawson, St. Paul rental property - condition of rental
property.
8. Frank Steinhauser, 8760 Bacardi Ave., West, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077, condition
of Ms. Harrilal’s rental properties, and those of other Plaintiffs; discriminatory code
enforcement actions against landlords providing housing to “protected class” tenants,
tenant remedies actions, removal of grand fathering protections for rental homes, code
compliance certifications, costs of attempting to comply with Defendants’ demands,
retaliation by Defendants and business necessity of selling rental properties in St. Paul in
order to survive financially following oppressive targeting by Defendants.
9. Ken G. Johnson, 309 Harrison Ave., St. Paul, MN, 55102, 651-485-7201 - code
enforcement actions, retaliation and discriminatory conduct by Defendants, and
maintenance of Johnson’s properties.
10. Kevin R. Johnson, 967 Kettle Creek Road, Eagan, MN, 651-216-4944, code
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 64 of 79

4
enforcement actions, retaliation and discriminatory conduct by Defendants, and
maintenance of Johnson’s properties.
11. Jolene Johnson, 1302 Forest Street, St. Paul, MN 55106 - administration of Johnson’s
rental properties.
12. Joleen Johnson, 3875 - 89th Street, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 , 651-455-1603,
administration of Johnson’s rental properties.
13. Barabara M. Johnson, 1302 Forest Street, St. Paul, MN 55106, 651-592-2210,
maintenance of Johnson’s properties.
14. David Whitney, 1607 West 7th Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, 651-230-7566, maintenance
of Johnson’s properties.
15. Mike Ellman, Osceola, Wisconsin, 715-417-1600, maintenance of Johnson’s properties.
16. Ed Meyers, 309 Harrison Ave., St. Paul, MN 55102, maintenance of Johnson’s
properties.
17. Joe Cuskey, 2021 E. Hennepin Ave., #320, Minneapolis, MN 55413, 612-227-5748,
realtor - sale of Johnson’s properties.
18. Barb Wildenauer, d/b/a Accurate Tax Accounting, 750 East 7th Street, St. Paul, MN
55106, 651-772-2217, accounting for Johnson’s rental business.
19. Nick Smith, Heartland USA, Inc., 4444 West 76th Street, #300, Edina, MN 55435, 952-
835-7700, sales of Johnson’s properties.
20. Andy Morton, 605 Waterford Park, #101, U.S. Highway 169, Plymouth, MN 55441, 763-
746-3800, sales of Johnson’s properties.
21. Dave Hall, 612-221-5148, sales of Johnson’s properties.
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 65 of 79

5
22. Roger Tollas, St. Paul, MN - purchase by Vues of rental properties; sale of Johnson’s
properties; marketing and sale of Steinhauser’s properties; and condition of those
properties owned by those Plaintiffs.
23. Soderlin Plumbing and Heating, Mpls - St. Paul, 651-644-4421, work on Vues’
properties.
24. Murr Jim Plumbing, Inc., South St. Paul, work on Vues’ properties.
25. Warren G. Burger, 428 Northland Ave., Stillwater, MN 55082, accounting for Vues.
26. Thomas C. Plunkett, Esq., 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101,
651-222-4357 - retaliation by Defendants against Steve Johnson and Ken Johnson, and
against Frank Steinhauser in 2004 after filing of Steinhauser, et al vs. Kelly, et al.
Complaint.
27. Patricia A.E. Whitney, Esq., 878 Payne Ave., St. Paul, MN 55101, 651-776-8034 - Code
enforcement, tenant remedies actions and criminal prosecutions against low-income
landlords in 2002 -2005; retaliation by Defendants against Frank Steinhauser, and
Lamena Vue and Bee Vue after the filing of the Complaint in Steinhauser case.
28. Chris Johnson, Esq., Minneapolis, MN 55102, City targeting Bee Vue for criminal
citation based on claim violation of codes.
29. Representative Phil Krinkie, (651) 646-7381, City code enforcement and selective,
retaliatory criminal prosecution by City code enforcement personnel for alleged violation
of City codes.
30. Ron Staeheli, American Central Inspections, 358 Arbor Street, St. Paul, Mn - condition
of Steinhauser rental properties, code enforcement operations and retaliation by City code
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 66 of 79

6
enforcement personnel.
31. Bill Cullen, President of St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords (“SPARL”) -
inspection of Steinhauser’s 1024 Euclid property immediately following code
enforcement actions by Defendants, City code enforcement policies and operations
directed against low-income “protected class” rental properties.
32. Mark Meysembourg - discriminatory code enforcement actions against landlords
providing housing to “protected class” tenants, tenant remedies actions, removal of grand
fathering protections for rental homes, code compliance certifications, costs of attempting
to comply with Defendants’ demands, retaliation by Defendants, and business necessity
of selling rental properties in St. Paul in order to survive financially following oppressive
targeting by Defendants of his rental business.
33. Kelly Brisson - discriminatory code enforcement actions against landlords providing
housing to “protected class” tenants, tenant remedies actions, removal of grand fathering
protections for rental homes, code compliance certifications, costs of attempting to
comply with Defendants’ demands, retaliation by Defendants, and business necessity of
selling rental properties in St. Paul in order to survive financially following oppressive
targeting by Defendants of his rental business.
34. Thomas Gallagher - discriminatory code enforcement actions against landlords providing
housing to “protected class” tenants, removal of grand fathering protections for rental
homes, code compliance certifications, costs of attempting to comply with Defendants’
demands, retaliation by Defendants, and business necessity of selling rental properties in
St. Paul in order to survive financially following oppressive targeting by Defendants of
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 67 of 79

7
his rental business.
35. Joe Collins - discriminatory code enforcement actions against landlords providing
housing to “protected class” tenants, removal of grand fathering protections for rental
homes, code compliance certifications, costs of attempting to comply with Defendants’
demands, retaliation by Defendants, and business necessity of selling rental properties in
St. Paul in order to survive financially following oppressive targeting by Defendants of
his rental business.
36. Troy Allison - discriminatory code enforcement actions against landlords providing
housing to “protected class” tenants, removal of grand fathering protections for rental
homes, code compliance certifications, costs of attempting to comply with Defendants’
demands, retaliation by Defendants, and business necessity of selling rental properties in
St. Paul in order to survive financially following oppressive targeting by Defendants of
his rental business.
37. Jeff and Sara Kubitschek - discriminatory code enforcement actions against landlords
providing housing to “protected class” tenants, removal of grand fathering protections for
rental homes, code compliance certifications, costs of attempting to comply with
Defendants’ demands, retaliation by Defendants, and business necessity of selling rental
properties in St. Paul in order to survive financially following oppressive targeting by
Defendants of his rental business.
38. Leroy Miller, 1491 Third Street, St. Paul, Mn - code enforcement actions, tenant
remedies actions and retaliation by Defendants related to rental property located 12
Oakley Avenue, St. Paul.
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 68 of 79

8
39. Muhannah Kakish, 1491 Third Street, St. Paul, Mn - code enforcement actions, tenant
remedies actions and retaliation by Defendants related to rental property located 12
Oakley Avenue, St. Paul.
40. Mark Erjavec, 110 Virgina St., St. Paul, Mn - code enforcement actions, tenant remedies
actions and retaliation by Defendants related to rental property located 12 Oakley
Avenue, St. Paul.
41. Steve Mark, 5110 Division Avenue, White Bear Lake, Mn, 651-426-8906 - code
enforcement actions, retaliation and discriminatory conduct by Defendants.
42. Kenneth Krahn, 6586 48th Street Place North, Oakdale, Mn, 651-748-2819 - code
enforcement and tenant remedies actions by Defendants.
43. Jerome A. Ritter, Esq., 461 University Avenue, St. Paul, Mn 55103, 651-222-6700 - code
enforcement operations and tenant remedies action against landlord Kenneth Krahn on
263 LaFond Avenue, St. Paul.
44. Gregory Luce, Esq., Project 504, 1113 East Franklin Ave., Ste 212, Minneapolis, MN
55404 - emergency tenant remedies action by Defendants against Mr. Krahn on 263
LaFond Avenue, St. Paul.
45. Akinwale A. Akinropo, 1980 Beckenham Place, Dacula, GA 30019 - code enforcement
actions by Defendant City against 321 Bates Avenue, St. Paul.
46. Ira Kipp, St. Paul, Mn, 651-283-3501 - code enforcement actions by Defendant City.
47. Norma and Ken Ostlie, 465 Old Farm Rd, Shoreview, Mn 55126, 651-624-3790 - code
enforcement actions by Defendant City against their rental properties.
48. Calvin Burton, 362 Ruthie lane, Hudson, Wisconsin 54016, 651-274-1590, code
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 69 of 79

9
enforcement actions by Defendant City against his low-income “protected class” rental
properties.
49. Ed Reyes, 8525 Ivywood Avenue South, Cottage Grove, MN 55016, 651-235-5907, code
enforcement actions by Defendant City against his low-income “protected class” rental
properties.
50. Julian Jayasuriya, 8845 Medley Lane, Golden Valley, MN 55427, 763-913-5668, City
code enforcement operations against his low-income “protected class” rental properties,
his purchase of the property at 14 East Jessamine, St. Paul, and Steve Magner’s threats
against him.
51. Nancy Osterman, Ham Lake, City code enforcement operations against her property
located at 14 East Jessamine, St. Paul, and Steve Magner’s threats and coercion against
her and threats against Julian Jayasuriya.
52. Katie Royce, Community Stabilization Project, St. Paul, Mn - code enforcement
operations, condemnations of rental properties and tenant remedies actions in St. Paul.
53. Pam James, Community Stabilization Project, St. Paul, Mn - code enforcement
operations, condemnations of rental properties and tenant remedies actions in St. Paul.
54. Kelly Brown, Community Stabilization Project, St. Paul, Mn - code enforcement
operations, condemnations of rental properties and tenant remedies actions in St. Paul.
55. Members of Saint Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA), related to rental properties owned
and managed by PHA, and Section 8 rental properties.
B. Provide a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 70 of 79

10
compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are
relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings.
Response to Disclosure B:
Documents generally categorized as follows are in the possession or control of Plaintiffs, their
counsel herein, or their former counsel including Attorneys Doug Turner, Patricia Whitney,
Chris Johnson or Thomas Plunkett. Plaintiffs do not intend to waive their attorney-client
privilege and expressly reserve their rights to said privilege.
1. City code enforcement inspection records, including, but not limited to, correspondence,
notices, abatements, computer generated reports, for Plaintiffs’ properties, for properties
owned by the plaintiffs in the related cases of Steinhauser, et al., and Gallagher, et al.,
and for other properties in the City;
2. Tenant Remedies Action court file materials related to Plaintiffs’ properties and
properties of other landlords;
3. Criminal housing citation files against owners of low-income rental properties;
4. Criminal court file documentation for Defendant City searches of low-income rental
properties, including applications for warrants and the warrants;
5. Audio Tapes and transcripts of legislative hearings related to Plaintiffs’ properties and
other properties in City;
6. Video Tapes of City Council Hearings related to Plaintiffs’ properties and other
properties in City;
7. Minutes and other documents related to City Council Hearings;
8. Documentation related to permits and fees;
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 71 of 79

11
9. Documentation related to abatement charges and excessive consumption fees and
assessments of same;
10. Documentation related to the office of LIEP, including Code Compliance documentation
and related documentation;
11. Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement documentation;
12. City Council Research Reports and Studies;
13. City of St. Paul website documentation;
14. St. Paul Human Rights Dept. documentation;
15. Saint Paul Public Housing Agency documentation;
16. Department of Housing and Urban Development documentation;
17. Real estate records;
18. Tax records;
19. Estimates, contracts, invoices, statements, receipts and payment documentation for
building materials and labor related to Plaintiffs’ properties;
20. Photographs of Plaintiffs’ properties;
21. Photographs of other properties in the City;
22. Damage documentation including, but not limited to, property purchase and sale
documentation, including listing contracts for sale, and closing documentation, truth in
sale housing inspection reports, rental agreements and related documentation, tax
information, other invoices, statements, billings, receipts, cancelled checks, bank
statements and payment documentation generally related to Plaintiffs’ properties,
documentation related to materials and labor contributed to Plaintiffs’ properties;
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 72 of 79

12
comparable sales analysis; appraisals of properties;
23. Affidavits related to the allegations described in the pleadings;
24. Correspondence related to the allegations described in the pleadings;
25. Notices and postmarked envelopes from the City to property owners;
26. Audio tapes of meetings with City officials and tenants;
27. Cell phone records;
28. Police reports; and
29. Civil and Criminal Court filing documentation related to Defendants’ retaliation against
Steve Johnson, Ken Johnson, Lamena Vue and Bee Vue, and Steinhauser following the
filing of the Steinhauser, et al. action on May 5, 2004, including all filed documentation,
and transcripts of said hearings.
Documents and tangible items responsive to Disclosure No .2 that are in the possession or under
the control of Plaintiffs will be produced in response to a Request from Defendants pursuant to
Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P.
C. Provide a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing
party, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or
other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such
computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of the injuries
suffered.
Response to Disclosure C:
SANDRA HARRILAL:
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 73 of 79

13
704 Lawson Ave.: $11,427.00 Materials and Labor contributions
$ 4000.00 Rent loss (upper unit) from 9-04 to 1-05
$9,350.00 Rent loss (lower unit) from 3-04 to 1-05
$ 7,281.00 Selling costs
$ 5,000.00 Seller paid closing costs
$20,000.00 paid to buyer in order to close deal
476 Lawson Ave. $ 5,900.00 Rent loss from 5-04 to 10-04
$ 2,288.48 Selling costs
$ 6,900.00 Seller paid closing costs
Loss of profit from Harrilal’s real estate rental properties after sale of properties:
Harrilal was forced to sell rental properties located in St. Paul with an estimated total
value at $335,000.00. She had estimated equity of $56,000 in those properties. As a result of
the liquidation of rental properties, Harrilal’s investment return has been drastically reduced.
Part of this loss of profit includes loss of appreciation in Harrilal’s former rental properties
following her sale of each of those properties. Harrilal’s experts are currently estimating the
extent of the damages from loss of investment income.
Loss of value on expedited sale of properties:
Harrilal’s experts are currently determining the amount of Harrilal’s loss on her
investment due to the expedited nature of sale of her properties in the market.
Adverse tax consequences from accelerated sale of rental properties:
Harrilal’s experts are determining what additional state and federal tax obligation has
resulted from the accelerated sell off of rental properties.
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 74 of 79

14
Attorney’s fees:
Additional damages include attorney’s fees paid to Attorney Doug Turner in defending
Harrilal in the City’s initiated tenant remedies action.
Additional damages:
Additional damages will be sought, including punitive damages, damages for anguish,
emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and loss of reputation.
Attorney’s fees will be sought as allowed by statutes.
At this time, the exact nature and amount of Harrilal’s damages have yet to be fully
determined.
STEVE JOHNSON:
Steve Johnson has incurred approximately $220,000 in lost rents, over $134,000 in refinancing
costs, approximately $905,000.00 in selling costs, $13,370 in City assessed fines, in
excess of $180,000.00 in costs for code compliance repairs.
Loss of profit from Johnson’s real estate rental properties after sale of properties:
Johnson was forced to sell rental properties located in St. Paul with an estimated total
value at $8,000,000.00. As a result of the liquidation of rental properties, Johnson’s investment
return has been drastically reduced. Part of this loss of profit includes loss of appreciation in
Johnson’s former rental properties following his sale of each of those properties. Johnson’s
experts are currently estimating the extent of the damages from loss of investment income.
Loss of value on expedited sale of properties:
Johnson’s experts are currently determining the amount of Johnson’s loss on his
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 75 of 79

15
investment due to the expedited nature of sale of his properties in the market.
Adverse tax consequences from accelerated sale of rental properties:
Johnson’s experts are determining what additional state and federal tax obligation has
resulted from the accelerated sell off of rental properties.
Attorney’s fees:
Additional damages include attorney’s fees of $5,200 paid by Johnson to Thomas C.
Plunkett in defense against City initiated restraining orders in 2004, attorney’s fees paid to
Patricia Whitney and to P. Areeanna Coale in defense of City actions against Johnson.
Additional damages:
Additional damages will be sought, including punitive damages, damages for anguish,
emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and loss of reputation.
Attorney’s fees will be sought as allowed by statutes.
At this time, the exact nature and amount of Johnson’s damages have yet to be fully
determined.
BEE AND LAMEN VUE:
241 Front Ave.: $24,000.00 Approximate amount of materials/labor contributions for
code compliance
$36,400.00 Lost rent through 9/1/05
$ 2,000.00 Code compliance bond lost
707 Preble St. $ 1,500.00 Approximate amount of materials/labor contributions
$ 1,600.00 Legal fees
208 Bates Ave. $80,000.00 Approximate amount of extra materials/labor due to code
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 76 of 79

16
compliance requirements.
$105,000.00 Approximate lost rent through 1/1/06 from time building
was condemned by City.
Selling costs: $21,000.00 For sale of properties.
Loss of profit from Vues’ real estate rental properties after sale of properties:
Vues were forced to sell 16 rental properties located in St. Paul with an estimated total
value at $3,000,000.00. Vues had an estimated equity level of $2,500,000.00 in those rental
properties. The Vues were receiving a rate of return on their real estate investment averaging in
excess of ten (10%) percent yearly on the $3,000,000.00 total real estate valuation. As a result
of the liquidation of rental properties, Vues’ investment return has been drastically reduced. Part
of this loss of profit includes loss of appreciation in Vues’ former rental properties following
their sale of each of those properties. Although Vues were able to purchase some alternative
rental properties, those rental properties are not producing the level of profit Vues were receiving
from the properties they sold. Vues experts are currently estimating the extent of the damages
from loss of investment income.
Loss of value on expedited sale of properties:
Vues’ experts are currently determining the amount of Vues’ loss on their investment due
to the expedited nature of sale of their properties in the market.
Adverse tax consequences from accelerated sale of rental properties:
Vues’ experts are determining what additional state and federal tax obligation has
resulted from the accelerated sell off of rental properties.
Attorney’s fees:
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 77 of 79

17
Additional damages include: attorney’s fees paid by Vues to attorney Patricia Whitney in
defense against the City initiated tenant remedies actions in 2004 following the filing of the
Steinhauser case; attorney’s fees paid to attorney Chris Johnson in 2004 in defending Bee Vue
against a criminal action brought by the City on the 208 Bates property following the filing of
the Steinhauser case; and attorney’s fees related to selling properties. These fees total
approximately $15,000.00.
Additional damages:
Additional damages will be sought, including punitive damages, damages for anguish,
emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and loss of reputation.
Attorney’s fees will be sought as allowed by statutes.
At this time, the exact nature and amount of Vues’ damages have yet to be fully
determined.
D. Provide for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 any insurance agreement
under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part of
all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for
payments made to satisfy the judgment.
Response to Disclosure D: Plaintiffs have no information responsive to this
Disclosure.
PLAINTIFFS HEREBY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND/OR
SUPPLEMENT THEIR INITIAL DISCLOSURES.
JOHN R. SHOEMAKER & ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT B
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 50 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 78 of 79

18
Dated: ____________ By__________________________________
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic.#161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, MN 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorney for Plaintiffs Harrilal, Johnson and Vues

1:43 PM


SharonsVideo Bar

Loading...