Northwest Indiana Discussion

Munster has a rental inspection ordinance which requires landlords to have every one of their units inspected by town officials every three years. Hammond has tried to pass a similar ordinance, but it has been blocked by several councilmen who put the interests of their slumlord buddies above the interests of the city.

http://www.ci.munster.in.us/egov/apps/directory/list.egov

No Sparks, thank you for the information you gave me.... again, no matter how things change, they stay the same.

Who would have an interest in assuring someone had a soft landing?

Who had the juice to arrange such a landing?

Why would someone arrange such a landing?

Unless.... do they had skin in the game?

Interesting reading as I re-read some of the legal filings.

She claims to be unemployed yet is seeking 42 days of salary for days taken off of work in her damages claims.

In her filing of the lawsuit she admits that one such lawsuit has been tossed out earlier this year. and another is pending on the same incident.

All of these lawsuits are going to be dismissed. Suing the building department because they cited her building is like suing the police department because they wrote you a speeding ticket. State law couldn't be any clearer on the subject that the Hammond Building has the legal authority to order property owners to repair or demolish their buildings.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/36/7/9/36-7-9-4.5
5. (a) In Indiana, especially in urban areas, there exist a large number structures that are not maintained and that constitute a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare.(h) Vacant structures often continue to deteriorate to the point that demolition of the structure is required, thereby decreasing available housing in a community and further contributing to the decline of the neighborhood.
(i) The blighting influence of vacant, deteriorated structures adversely affects the tax revenues of local government.
(j) The general assembly finds that vacant, deteriorated structures create a serious and substantial problem in urban areas and are public nuisances.
(k) In recognition of the problems created in a community by vacant structures, the general assembly finds that vigorous and disciplined action should be taken to ensure the proper maintenance and repair of vacant structures and encourages local governmental bodies to adopt maintenance and repair standards appropriate for the community in accordance with this chapter and other statutes.

Matt, I pulled the plaintiff's is information off the federal Pacis web site. It is filed in a federal Civil Rights action. It was the only litigation filed with the named participants I found. Pacis is a federal court record keeping system, keeps a record of all FEDERAL (criminal, civil and bankruptcy) court filings, I saw no other Federal Action filed.

The odds of success filing a Pro Se (representing yourself) Federal lawsuit are slim, especially given an opposing attorney, and with McDermott, it will be several individual attorneys, a Pro Se plaintiff can be over whelmed very quickly. Marsha filed two Pro Se lawsuits against McDermott, the first she was successful, the second she was killed in a fire, the day or day before she was due in Federal court in which she levied charges against McDermott, Hamm and others. Had Marsha not been killed, and had successfully dealt with the PRO SE litigation, McDermott may be a citizen working at Petco, as the next step would have been to go after his law license. (By the Way, I've applied @ Petco myself and cant get thru their vetting process ).

In my mind, the issue is the allegations she brings to the table. The implication of soliciting a bribe, behaviors reported in court, a code enforcement department which appears to have increased their actions to a fevered pitch to go after her once she asked for relief from McDermott and others.

I believe if this happened once, this has happened a number of times, and should the case be made more public, others might surface.

To come forward and levy the claims as the plaintiff have in the federal court system is not lightly taken.

& Sparks the issues are the harassment this woman received, especially after, per the plaintiff, code enforcement said she needed a partial roof repair, then a whole roof repair, then someone who reportedly works in city court system, is brought out to a building, the reportedly a month later comes out and solicits a $5,000 roof, when other roof quotes range from 2x to 4x that cost, makes a statement (paraphrasing) they be off your back.

[url]

[url]

[url]

None of this is about a Code Enforcement Department acting in a lawful manner. 1593

Interesting topic in an election year.

The neighbors won't have to look at this eyesore anymore.