It makes me sick when all these people fight over who is the best "life saver" but they are only pranksters.

SETH S. PATINKIN, by and through his attorney, Joe Frankus, bring forth this cause of action against the above – named Defendants:

 

INTRODUCTION

1. Seth S. Patinkin (“Patinkin”) is a noted alumnus of Indiana University who resides in Chicago, Illinois.
2. Patinkin, who is Jewish, has owned rental properties since he graduated from Indiana University (“IUB”) in 1998. Patinkin currently owns and/or is the agent for four (4) properties in Bloomington located at: 414 E. 1^st Street, 816 E. 2^nd Street, 709 South Anita and 319 E. 12^th Street.
3. In December of 2004, Patinkin entered into a business partnership with Defendant Jan P. Szatkowski (“Szatkowski”) for the purpose of purchasing student rental properties in Bloomington.
4. Szatkowski would soon reveal his anti – Semitic sentiment.
5. In July of 2005, Patinkin brought suit against Szatkowski for breach of contract relating to their business partnership. That suit, Patinkin v. Szatkowski (Cause No. 53C04 0507 PL 01424), is currently pending in the Monroe Circuit Court of the State of Indiana.
6. Shortly after being sued, Szatkowski's attorney, William J. Beggs (“Beggs”) launched into a series of judicial and extra – judicial measures to force Patinkin to abandon his legitimate claims.
7. Beggs enlisted the help of the City of Bloomington in an attempt to destroy Patinkin's student rental property business and to secure a favorable outcome in the Patinkin v. Szatkowski lawsuit.
8. The City has used the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance (“Title 20”), a regulation that limits occupancy in certain non – grandfathered houses to three (3) unrelated adults, as a pretext to deprive Patinkin of his civil rights under law.
9. The City has told Patinkin's student lessees that they were violating Title 20 when in fact they were not. The City further suggested that the student lessees vacate the premises in violation of valid leases between Patinkin and his student lessees.
10. The City's Title 20 enforcement policies have resulted in multiple student lessees vacating Patinkin's student rental properties in violation of valid leases.
11. City employee, Neighborhood Compliance Officer (“NCO”) Kevin Bowlen (“Bowlen”), told Patinkin during an official rental home inspection of Patinkin's property that:

“We do not like your kind of people around here. You are going to be fined a lot and there is nothing you Jews can do about it. Your kind of people have no business owning property around here.” Bowlen muttered “F------ Jews” as he exited the home.

 

Bowlen's comments were made in the presence of Pamela Koszut (“Koszut”),

 

Patinkin's fiancée.

 

1. Bowlen has falsified documents relating to Patinkin's rental properties.
2. In response to Patinkin's pleas, the City reluctantly investigated Bowlen's targeted actions towards Patinkin. The City determined that there was no improper conduct by Bowlen.
3. The City has employed Title 20 to direct unannounced late night Police visits to student lessees residing in Patinkin's rental homes. Police entered a home without permission and threatened “possible jail time” for alleged Title 20 over – occupancy violations.
4. The City has continued to demonstrate that it has an interest in forcing Patinkin to discontinue his student rental property business in Bloomington.
5. To this end, the City has additionally enlisted the help of permanent residents unhappy with rental homes in their neighborhoods, IUB via its legal clinic, Student Legal Services (“SLS”), and cooperated with Beggs and his associates.
6. Szatkowski, his attorney Beggs, and RE/MAX realtor Andrew Walker (“Walker”), have attempted to have Patinkin's student lessees sign a false certification document drafted by Beggs (“Beggs Release”) in direct conflict of an existing Court Order relating to the Patinkin v. Szatkowski case.
7. SLS has advised Patinkin's student lessees to sign false statements and breach valid rental leases.
8. Permanent residents, unhappy with student rental homes in their neighborhoods, have cooperated with the City in their attempt to oust Patinkin from the student rental business in Bloomington.
9. Patinkin has made numerous attempts to try to work out an amicable arrangement with the City to no avail. These attempts have included: copies of valid leases, affidavits from Patinkin's property managers and student lessees, rent receipts and countless letters and e – mails to City agents and employees.
10. Patinkin has and continues to suffer an illegal and unjustified attack on his civil rights, property rights and reputation as a result of the defendants' ongoing conspiracy to cause Patinkin's student rental business to fail.
11. The net effect of this conspiracy between the defendants is that Patinkin's student rental property business has been nearly ruined and Patinkin's personal and professional reputation in Bloomington has been permanently harmed.

 

PARTIES

1. The City of Bloomington (“City”) is a city in southern Indiana.
2. Jan P. Szatkowski (“Szatkowski”) is Patinkin's estranged business partner with residences in Rochester, Minnesota and Chicago, Illinois.
3. Kevin Bowlen (“Bowlen”) is employed by the City in the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department (“HAND”) as a Neighborhood Compliance Officer (“NCO”).
4. Carol Jack (“Jack”) is employed by the City in HAND as a NCO.
5. Susie Johnson (“Johnson”) was the Director of HAND during 2005.
6. Lisa Abbott (“Abbott”) is the current Director of HAND.
7. Mayor Mark Kruzan (“Mayor Kruzan”) is the Mayor of the City.
8. Barbara McKinney (“McKinney”) is the Human Rights Attorney and Contract Compliance Officer for the City.
9. Daniel Grundmann (“Grundmann”) is the Director of Employee Services for the City.
10. Kevin Robling (“K. Robling”) is Corporation Counsel for the City.
11. Patricia M. Mulvihill (“Mulvihill”) is an Assistant Attorney for the City.
12. Sarah Webber – Liu (“Liu”) is an Assistant Attorney for the City.
13. Indiana University (“IUB”) is a Big Ten University located in the City.
14. Stacee Evans (“Evans”) is a Staff Attorney at SLS.
15. William J. Beggs (“Beggs”) is a licensed attorney at the law firm of Bunger & Robertson in the City.
16. RE/MAX Acclaimed Properties (“RE/MAX”) is an independently owned and operated franchisee of RE/MAX of Indiana.
17. Andrew Walker (“Walker”) is a RE/MAX Acclaimed Properties realtor in the City.
18. Virginia “Jenny” Southern (“Southern”) is president of the Elm Heights Neighborhood Association in the City.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment, the laws of the United States, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1988, and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Article I, Section 12.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343.
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the relevant actions taken by these defendants occurred within the State of Indiana.
4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
5. Venue is proper in this Court as Defendants reside in this judicial district and the claims arose in this judicial district.

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

The Patinkin - Szatkowski Partnership

1. On 14 February 2005, Patinkin and Szatkowski entered into two (2) signed partnership agreements for the purposes of purchasing and maintaining two (2) student rental properties in the City.
2. Subsequently, the partnership purchased rental properties located at 414 E. 1^st Street and 816 E. 2^nd Street in the City.
3. The business relationship between Patinkin and Szatkowski deteriorated when Szatkowski failed to (a) make requisite capital contributions; and (b) to transfer the deeds for these properties to the partnership.
4. Szatkowski threatened to sell their properties in the open market without Patinkin's consent. When Patinkin complained, Szatkowski referred to him as “jewish.” A copy of Szatkowski's e – mail message is attached as Exhibit A and made part of this Complaint.
5. When it became apparent that the 816 E. 2^nd Street property required major improvements following their purchase, Szatkowski referred to the property as “jewish.” A copy of Szatkowski's e – mail message is attached as Exhibit B and made part of this Complaint.
6. On or about 21 June 2005, Patinkin purchased 816 E. 2^nd Street from Szatkowski.
7. The 414 E. 1^st Street property remains in Szatkowski's name with Patinkin as property manager and landlord.
8. On 22 July 2005, Patinkin filed Patinkin v. Szatkowski in the Monroe Circuit Court of the State of Indiana for breach of contract pertaining to 414 E. 1^st Street.

 

Beggs, Szatkowski and Walker's Judicial and Extra – Judicial Activities

1. On or about 22 September 2005, Moshe Berman (“Berman”), Ryan Dumas (“Dumas”) and Tom Byrd (“Byrd”) were Patinkin's student lessees at the 414 E. 1^st Street property.
2. On or about 22 September 2005, Beggs wrote to Patinkin's student lessees at the 414 E. 1^st Street property indicating that Patinkin was not the property manager, and instructed the student lessees to pay their rent to Szatkowski. This letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C and made part of this Complaint.
3. On or about February 2006, the Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff, the Judge presiding in the Patinkin v. Szatkowski case, issued an order (“Diekhoff Order”) that preserved Patinkin's role as landlord and property manager for the property located at 414 E. 1^st Street.
4. On or about 15 August 2006, Ryan Rieff (“Rieff”), Bryan Haney (“Haney”) and Robert Tokars (“Tokars”) began the school semester at IUB as Patinkin's student lessees at the 414 E. 1^st Street property.
5. Upon information and belief, Szatkowski has listed 414 E. 1^st Street for sale with Walker as the real estate agent.
6. Upon information and belief, Walker showed Rieff, Haney and Tokars possible housing for them to occupy if they would move out in violation of their lease with Patinkin.
7. On or about 27 December 2006, while the Diekhoff Order was in effect, Beggs wrote to Rieff, Haney and Tokars requiring that they must vacate or face eviction. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D and made part of this Complaint.
8. On or about January 2007, Beggs drafted an agreement (“Beggs Release”) while the Diekhoff Order was in effect. The Beggs Release alleged that: (a) the student lessees entered the lease with Patinkin with the understanding they could violate Title 20 by allowing more than three people to live there, (b) that Szatkowski would have no objection to the tenants vacating the leased premises, and (c) that Szatkowski would not institute eviction proceedings if the student lessees vacated the premises on or before January 17, 2007. A copy of the Beggs Release is attached hereto as Exhibit E and made part of this Complaint.
9. Upon information and belief, Walker made repeated attempts to have Rieff, Haney and Tokars to sign the Beggs Release.
10. SLS advised the student lessees to sign the Beggs Release. A copy of the e – mail message sent by SLS is attached hereto as Exhibit F and made part of this Complaint.
11. Upon information and belief, on or about 02 February 2007, Szatkowski appeared at 414 E. 1^st Street in an attempt to get the student lessees to sign the Beggs Release and vacate the house.
12. Rieff, Haney and Tokars have held steadfast in their position regarding their assertion that they have never over – occupied 414 E. 1^st Street in violation of Title 20 as of the filing of this case. A copy of Rieff's Motion in a related legal proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit G and made part of this Complaint
13. On or about March 2007, Beggs filed an eviction lawsuit against the 2006 – 2007 student lessees of 414 E. 1^st Street, Szatkowski v. Rieff et al.(Cause No. 53C 04 0702 SC 00895), despite the fact that Szatkowski is not a party to the lease and the student lessees were performing their obligations under the existing valid lease.
14. Beggs filed the suit, Szatkowski v. Rieff et al. without providing a notice of the filing of the lawsuit to the Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff, the presiding Judge in the case of Patinkin v. Szatkowski.

 

Mulvihill's Harassment and Bowlen's Anti – Semitism (414 E. 1^st Street & 816 E. 2^nd Street)

1. Patinkin manages the properties located at 414 E. 1^st Street and 816 E. 2^nd Street.
2. On or about 15 August 2005, Berman, Dumas and Byrd moved into 414 E. 1^st Street.
3. On or about 15 September 2005, Adam Mikos (“Mikos”) and Ankit Bhargava (“Bhargava”) moved into 816 E. 2^nd Street.
4. The City claimed that Dumas, Berman, Byrd, Mikos and Bhargava all lived together at 414 E. 1^st Street and initiated the use of Title 20 enforcement tactics.
5. On or about 13 October 2005, NCO Bowlen submitted a memorandum to HAND Director Johnson indicating that the 414 E. 1^st Street property was over – occupied because he allegedly conducted a interview with Patinkin's student lessees. A copy of Bowlen's memo and the alleged interview is attached hereto as Exhibit H and is made part of this Complaint.
6. Berman, Dumas and Byrd have denied participating in any type of interview with Bowlen. A copy of Berman's affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit I and is made part of this Complaint. Dumas and Byrd submitted similar affidavits.
7. There is no evidence of any tenant interview having taken place on 05 October 2005 at 414 E. 1^st Street in the official records. A copy of official HAND file #8062 is attached hereto as Exhibit J and made part of this Complaint.
8. Upon information and belief, Bowlen did not perform an inspection at 414 E. 1^st Street until on or about 28 October 2005, during a cycle inspection with Patinkin.
9. This first inspection on or about 28 October 2005 of 414 E. 1^st Street is where Bowlen made derogatory comments to Patinkin in the presence of his fiancée, Pamela Koszut (“Koszut”), and subsequently muttered “F------ Jews” as he exited the home. A copy of Koszut's affidavit attesting to the derogatory behavior by Bowlen is attached hereto as Exhibit K and is made part of this Complaint.
10. On or about 28 October 2005, City Attorney Mulvihill wrote to Dumas, Berman, Byrd and Patinkin indicating that the 414 E. 1^st property was over – occupied in violation of Title 20. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit L and made part of this Complaint.
11. On or about 07 November 2005, Berman, Dumas and Byrd sent a letter to City Attorney Mulvihill stating that they were not over – occupying the property and that they had never spoken to Bowlen. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit M and is made part of this Complaint.
12. On or about 16 November 2005, Mulvihill wrote back to the student lessees, copying Mikos and Bhargava, declaring that their letter did not constitute sufficient proof of compliance with Title 20, citing the alleged tenant interview conducted by Bowlen with Berman, Dumas, Byrd and Bhargava. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit N and made part of this Complaint.
13. Around the same time, leases were also provided to the City showing that Berman, Dumas and Byrd resided at 414 E.1^st Street, and Mikos and Bhargava resided at 816 E. 2^nd Street.
14. On or about 30 November 2005, Berman, Dumas and Byrd sent a second letter to City Attorney Mulvihill stating that they were not over – occupying and have never spoken to or met Bowlen in response to a 16 November 2005 letter sent by Mulvihill. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit O and is made part of this Complaint.
15. On or about 01 December 2005, in an e – mail message to 414 E. 1^st Street neighbor K. Gutowsky, Mulvihill indicated that Mikos and Bhargava lived at 816 E. 2^nd Street and it appeared that there was no over – occupancy in violation of Title 20. These statements are attached hereto as Exhibit P and made part of this Complaint.
16. On or about 09 December 2005, Mulvihill reversed her stance by writing a letter to the 414 E. 1^st Street student lessees stating that: (a) the leases of 414E. 1^st Street and 816 E. 2^nd Street were fictitious, (b) Patinkin had declared that Mikos and Bhargava did not reside at 816 E. 2^nd Street, and (c) the City was “extremely displeased”. The letter additionally threatened fines and legal action for the alleged over - occupancy. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit Q and made part of this Complaint.
17. On or about 26 January 2006, Berman, Dumas and Byrd submitted affidavits stating that they had never spoken to Bowlen and that only Berman, Dumas and Byrd lived at 414 E. 1^st Street. Dumas and Byrd submitted similar affidavits. (See Exhibit I)
18. On or about January 2006, Mikos and Bhargava submitted affidavits stating that they were living at the 816 E. 2^nd Street property.
19. On or about 22 March 2006, Assistant City Attorney Liu sought a payment of $2,500.00 from Patinkin to settle alleged Title 20 violations at 414 E. 1^st Street. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit R and made part of this Complaint.
20. On or about 28 October 2005, Bowlen also conducted his initial inspection of the property at 816 E. 2^nd Street. Bowlen thereafter submitted an affidavit that Patinkin told him that Patinkin and Koszut resided at 816 E. 2^nd Street. A copy of Bowlen's affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit S and made part of this Complaint.
21. On or about 28 October 2005, Koszut resided at 5539 W. Cullom in Chicago, Illinois and worked for the law firm of Katz, Friedman in Chicago while attending DePaul College of Law also located in Chicago. (See Exhibit K)
22. On or about 28 October 2005, Patinkin maintained two (2) residences: one residence was at 319 E. 12^th Street in Bloomington, Indiana and the other with his brother at 1227 W. Wellington in Chicago, Illinois.
23. On or about March 2006, NCO Jack told Patinkin: “We don't like your kind around here” during a visit to the property located at 816 E. 2^nd Street.

 

City Investigates Bowlen

1. On or about 24 March 2006, Patinkin notified the City's Human Rights Attorney McKinney about Bowlen's derogatory behavior and Mulvihill's unsubstantiated allegations of Title 20 violations and related harassment. A copy of Patinkin's e – mail message to McKinney is attached hereto as Exhibit T and made part of this Complaint.
2. On or about 24 March 2006, Patinkin forwarded the above – mentioned e – mail to Mayor Kruzan and requested a meeting to discuss the relevant situation. A copy of Patinkin's e – mail message to Mayor Kruzan is attached hereto as Exhibit U and made part of this Complaint.
3. On or about 18 April 2006, McKinney, City Director of Employee Services Grundmann, Rabbi Sue Laikin Shifron (“ Rabbi Shifron”) and Patinkin met in City offices to discuss the issues raised by Patinkin.
4. Upon information and belief, Mayor Kruzan appointed McKinney and Grundmann to investigate Patinkin's grievances.
5. Upon information and belief, McKinney and Grundmann did conduct an investigation and concluded the investigation by determining that the City would have their NCOs attend an upcoming seminar on how better to deal with the public. A copy of McKinney's letter to Patinkin dated 01 May 2006 concluding the investigation is attached hereto as Exhibit V and made part of this Complaint.
6. Patinkin and Rabbi Shifron requested information about how the investigation was conducted. McKinney refused to provide any information citing the privacy rights of Bowlen.
7. Upon information and belief, Bowlen continues to work as a NCO for the City as of the filing of this case.

 

 

 

New school semester - new student lessees

 

1. On or about 15 August 2006, Berman, Dumas and Byrd moved out of 414 E. 1^st Street and Ryan Rieff (“Rieff”), Bryan Haney (“Haney”) and Robert Tokars (“Tokars”) moved into 414 E. 1^st Street.
2. On or about 15 August 2006, Mikos and Bhargava moved out of 816 E. 2^nd Street and Stephany Goldzband (“Goldzband”), Neha Sharma (“Sharma”) and Jessica Leary (“Leary”) moved into 816 E. 2^nd Street.
3. On or about 15 August 2006, Eric Quebbeman (“Quebbeman”), Brian Faires (“Faires”) and Chris Lott (“Lott”) moved into Patinkin's student rental property located at 709 South Anita.
4. On or about 15 August 2006, Evan Gerard (“Gerard”), Ben Kreinbrink (“Kreinbrink”) and James Stucky (“Stucky”) were scheduled to move into Patinkin's student rental property located at 319 E. 12^th Street. The student lessees did not move in because they did not submit their required security deposit.
5. These student lessees have experienced unannounced late night police visits and the City's continuing threats of fines and legal action for alleged violations of Title 20.

 

414 E. 1^st Street

A New Tactic: Unannounced Late Night Police Visits

1. Upon information and belief, Liu wrote letters and sent e – mail messages to Patinkin and to Patinkin's student lessees at 414 E. 1^st Street threatening legal action for alleged Title 20 violations.
2. On or about 05 December 2006, Lieutenant Anthony Pope (“Officer Pope”) made an unannounced late night visit to 414 E. 1^st Street to investigate for alleged Title 20 violations.
3. K. Robling, Corporation Counsel for the City, instructed Officer Pope to make the unannounced late night visit to 414 E. 1^st Street. A copy of the Police Department Case Report is attached as Exhibit W and made part of this Complaint.
4. Upon information and belief, the unannounced late night visit by the Police frightened and intimidated the student lessees.
5. Officer Pope informed the student lessees that “jail time” was possible in relation to these alleged Title 20 violations.
6. Upon information and belief, Officer Pope entered the home uninvited and proceeded to sit in the living room for a period of time demanding the names of the “over – occupying tenants”. Rieff, Haney and Tokars denied any violation and did not provide any names.
7. On or about 12 December 2006, Liu wrote to Rieff in regards to the unannounced late night Police visit: “The City is currently undetermined as to whether or not it will inform the Dean of Students at Indiana University”. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit X and made part of this Complaint.

 

Discriminatory Treatment by City

1. Upon information and belief, Mulvihill and the City were aware that Szatkowski was the deed holder of 414 E. 1^st Street and of the Patinkin v. Szatkowski case during the time Patinkin and his student lessees were threatened with fines and legal action for alleged Title 20 violations. A copy of Mulvihill's hand written notes from a meeting in December 2005 with Patinkin and his attorney is attached hereto as Exhibit Y and made part of this Complaint.
2. Upon information and belief, Szatkowski was not threatened with fines and legal action until on or about December 2006 when the City decided to pursue litigation against Patinkin for alleged violations of Title 20.
3. When Patinkin expressed concerns that his student lessees were being unjustly harassed, Robling responded in part:

“Please be advised that Ms. Liu, my Assistant City Attorney in charge of enforcement actions, has not threatened your tenants in any manner. Any action that she has taken to date, she has taken at my direction.”

 

A copy of this e – mail message is attached hereto as Exhibit Z and made part of this Complaint.

1. On or about 15 December 2006, Patinkin again sought the assistance of Mayor Kruzan to help him address the issues he and his student lessees were having with the City. A copy of the e – mail message is attached hereto as Exhibit A1 and made part of this Complaint.
2. Patinkin has not received a response from Mayor Kruzan as of the filing of this case.

 

SLS Becomes Involved

1. On or about January 2007, the City filed a lawsuit, City v. Rieff et al. (Cause No. 53C 08 0701 OV 00049), against Rieff, Haney and Tokars for alleged violations of the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance.
2. Shortly after being served with the City lawsuit, the student lessees completed an Intake Form in the offices of SLS, the legal clinic which provides legal representation to IUB students.
3. Stacee Evans (“Evans”), SLS Staff Attorney, subsequently took on the representation of Rieff, Haney and Tokars.
4. During one of their first meetings at the offices of SLS, the Department Secretary, Dorothye Robling, relative of K. Robling, told the student lessees:

“Just bring us everything you can on [Patinkin]. What is good for the City is good for you”.

 

1. SLS subsequently “strongly advised” the tenants to sign the Beggs Release. (See Exhibit F)
2. Rieff, Haney and Tokars have repeatedly denied over – occupying the property at 414 E. 1^st Street. (See Exhibit G)
3. SLS corresponded a second time with the student lessees that in part informed the students to provide additional identities of alleged over – occupiers or expect SLS to withdraw from representation. The e – mail message is attached hereto as Exhibit B1 and made part of this Complaint.
4. Rieff, Haney and Tokars denied over – occupying the property and did not provide the alleged over – occupier's identities.
5. Upon information and belief, SLS soon thereafter withdrew its legal representation of the student lessees.
6. Rieff, Haney and Tokars have continued to deny that they violated Title 20 by over – occupying the property at 414 E. 1^st street.

 

709 South Anita

Another Unannounced Late Night Police Visit

1. On or about 15 August 2006, Quebbeman and Lott signed a move – in inspection agreement accepting the condition of the property.
2. On or about 05 December 2006, Officer Pope made an unannounced late night visit to 709 South Anita Street to investigate alleged over – occupancy violations at the request of City Corporation Counsel K. Robling. A copy of the Bloomington Police Department Case Report is attached hereto as Exhibit C1 and made part of this Complaint.
3. Upon information and belief, shortly after Officer Pope's visit, the student lessees sought and located alternate and less expensive housing.
4. Upon information and belief, the student lessees contacted SLS.
5. SLS advised Quebbeman, Faires and Lott to enter plea agreements with the City stating that: 1) they over – occupied the property, and 2) that the living conditions were uninhabitable. The agreement further stated that the City would reduce the total fine by ninety - five (95%) percent. A copy of the Plea Agreement signed by Lott is attached hereto as Exhibit D1 and made part of this Complaint.
6. In addition, on or about 14 December 2006, Rabah Rahil (“Rahil”) identified himself as a tenant of 709 S. Anita and requested an inspection of the property.
7. Rahil's address during the period he claimed he was living at 709 S. Anita was 2711 E. 10^th Street as confirmed at the IUB Registrar's Office. A copy of the IUB Registrar's contemporaneous record for Rahil is attached hereto as Exhibit E1 and made part of this Complaint.
8. Patinkin only learned of Rahil on or about December 2006.
9. Quebbeman, Faires and Lott signed the City plea agreements and moved out of the 709 S. Anita property on or about 15 December 2006 in violation of their lease with Patinkin.
10. Patinkin was able to re – rent the property effective 15 January 2007 for six hundred ($600) dollars less per month than the rent contractually agreed by Quebbeman, Faires and Lott.

 

The City and SLS Abuse Title 20

816 E. 2^nd Street

1. On or about 16 August 2006, Goldzband, Sharma and Leary moved into Patinkin's rental property at 816 E. 2^nd Street.
2. Southern stopped to talk to the new student lessees and advised them to go to SLS if they wanted to get out of their lease with Patinkin. A copy of Southern's e – mail message is attached hereto as Exhibit F1 and made part of this Complaint.
3. On or about 17 August 2006, an alleged fourth tenant, Megan Cangelosi (“Cangelosi”), met with NCO Jack to complain about the living conditions at 816 E. 2^nd Street. A copy of the Request Order signed by Cangelosi and received by Jack is attached hereto as Exhibit G1 and made part of this Complaint.
4. On or about 17 August 2006, Jack performed a complaint inspection of 816 E. 2^nd Street. Defects were recorded by Jack that were not noted in a subsequent move – in inspection signed by Sharma three (3) days later.
5. On or about 20 August 2006, Sharma completed a walk – through inspection, accepting the condition of the property. A copy of the signature page of the walk – through inspection is attached hereto as Exhibit H1 and made part of this Complaint.
6. Upon information and belief, around this time period, the student lessees located alternate and less expensive housing and were informed that SLS could help them get out of the lease with Patinkin.
7. Upon information and belief, SLS advised the student lessees and Cangelosi to assert that: 1) they over – occupied the property in violation of Title 20, and 2) that the living conditions were uninhabitable.
8. On or about the dates of 19 August 2006 and 22 August 2006, respectively, Goldzband and Leary placed stops on their rental checks to Patinkin. Copies of these checks are attached hereto as Exhibit I1 and made part of this Complaint.
9. On or about 24 August 2006, SLS wrote to Patinkin informing him that SLS represented the student lessees and Cangelosi and that Patinkin should return the student lessees security deposit in part because there was a violation of Title 20. The correspondence further stated that Patinkin was violating the law by allowing four (4) residents to live there. A copy of SLS's e – mail message is attached hereto as Exhibit J1 and made part of this Complaint.
10. Patinkin entered into a lease with Goldzband, Sharma and Leary and was not aware that Cangelosi allegedly resided at 816 E. 2^nd Street.
11. Patinkin responded by denying any knowledge of alleged Title 20 violations and detailed his attempts to address concerns the student lessees had. A copy of Patinkin's e – mail message is attached hereto as Exhibit K1 and made part of this Complaint.
12. The City Planning Department had approved an occupancy load of four (4) unrelated adults in 1998, prior to Patinkin owning the property. A copy of official findings are attached hereto as Exhibit L1 and made part of this Complaint.
13. Goldzband, Leary and Sharma subsequently vacated the premises on or about 30 August 2006.
14. Despite diligent efforts, Patinkin has been unable to re – rent 816 E. 2^nd Street.

 

319 E. 12^th Street

1. On or about 15 August 2006, Gerard, Kreinbrink and Stucky were scheduled to move into Patinkin's student rental property located at 319 E. 12^th Street.
2. The student lessees did not move in because they failed to submit the total funds required to move in.
3. Upon information and belief, Gerard, Kreinbrink and Stucky became aware of alternate and less expensive housing.
4. Upon information and belief, on or about 15 August 2006, the student lessees moved into 403 S. Jordan Avenue in the City instead of honoring the lease they signed with Patinkin.
5. Upon information and belief Gerard, Kreinbrink and Stucky went to the SLS offices to ask for assistance in breaking their lease with Patinkin.
6. Upon information and belief, SLS advised Gerard, Kreinbrink and Stucky to meet with NCO Jack and state that: 1) they over – occupied the property in violation of Title 20, and 2) that the living conditions were uninhabitable.
7. NCO Jack did meet with a student lessee and indicated to him that he would be violating Title 20 if five unrelated adults were intending to reside at 319 E. 12^th Street. A copy of NCO Jack's “Interdepartment Memo” from this meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit M1 and made part of this Complaint.
8. The zoning for 319 E. 12^th Street allows an occupancy load of five (5) unrelated adults. A copy of the Certificate of Nonconforming Use is attached hereto as Exhibit N1 and made part of this Complaint.
9. Despite diligent efforts, Patinkin has been unable to re – rent 319 E. 12^th Street.

 

The Manipulation of Neighbor Sentiment

1. In the summer of 2006, City Attorneys Mulvihill and Liu had numerous communications with permanent residents who lived near Patinkin's student rental properties.
2. On or about 19 June 2006, Mulvihill stated that she thought it would be a good idea to meet with permanent resident Southern to discuss the alleged Title 20 violations by Patinkin and his student lessees. Mulvihill stated:

“Jenny, I copied Sarah Liu on this e – mail. Sarah is one of the new City attorneys and she is actually taking over the over – occupancy caseload…. We think a lunch meeting would be most cost effective; this way no [one] has to starve the rest of the day…. Thanks, Patty.”

 

A copy of Mulvihill's e – mail message is attached hereto as Exhibit O1 and made

 

part of this Complaint.

 

1. In earlier e-mail, Southern represented to several individuals that

Patinkin was not honest in his student rental business. (See Exhibit F1)

1. K. Gutowsky, who lives next door to the 414 E. 1^st Street property, wrote on a webblog in regards to Patinkin, on or about 01 December 2006:

“It's time to stop the decay and save Bloomington from shameless, greedy, out – of – town landlords”.

 

1. The student lessees at 414 E. 1^st Street were aware of K. Gutowsky and her husband Chris Gutowsky (”C. Gutowsky”) from prior experiences.
2. For example, on or about 28 October 2005, a loud pounding on the front door by C Gutowsky awakened student lessee Berman. When he opened the door Berman noticed that the front wooden panel on the door was kicked in. (See Exhibit I)
3. C. Gutowsky subsequently demanded that a car be moved. Student lessee Byrd went outside and moved the car. C. Gutowsky then told Berman that he and his roommates were going to be kicked out of their home by the City.
4. On or about 07 December 2005, K. Gutowsky walked through the front door of 414 E. 1^st Street and asked Berman if he was Adam (Adam Mikos – City alleged 414 E. 1^st Street over – occupier that resided at 816 E. 2^nd Street). Berman responded that he was not Adam and K. Gutowsky then requested that a car be moved. (See Exhibit I)
5. On or about 21 November 2006, Assistant City Attorney Sarah Webber - Liu wrote to Southern:

“Jenny – are you acquainted with Theodore Miller? [Mr. Miller is a neighbor of 414 E. 1^st Street]. I would like to get him to come in and sign an affidavit regarding over occupancy at 414 E. 1^st Street, but am having a hard time getting him on the phone…. Thank you SO much, S.”

 

A copy of this e – mail message from Liu is attached hereto as Exhibit P1 and made part of this Complaint.

1. Later that day, K. Gutowsky responded to Southern:

“Jenny, here is Ted's e – mail address…. I put a print out of this e – mail on his doorstep”.

A copy of this e – mail message from K. Gutowsky is attached hereto as

Exhibit Q1 and made part of this Complaint.

1. On or about 18 November 2006, Southern wrote to Liu:

 

“…. As for Seth [Patinkin], I noticed that his property on 414 1st has had trash bags in the front yard for the last 2 weeks – care to sic HAND on them?”

 

A copy of this e – mail message from Southern is attached hereto as Exhibit R1

 

and made part of this Complaint.

 

1. Since on or about August 2005, the City has been responsible for initiating forty – one (41) unannounced visits to Patinkin's student rental properties on the pretext to check for alleged ordinance violations.
2. Since on or about August 2005, the City has been responsible for issuing approximately seventy – eight (78) citations regarding Patinkin's student rental properties for alleged ordinance violations.

 

COUNT I

Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Fourteenth Amendment against City of Bloomington, Mayor Kruzan, Bowlen, Jack, K. Robling, McKinney, Grundmann, Johnson, Abbott, Mulvihill & Liu

1. Patinkin repeats each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if such allegations were specifically set forth herein at length.
2. Count I defendants utilized the Title 20 Ordinance as a pretext to intimidate and harass Patinkin which violated his rights to due process and to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States.
3. Count I defendants enforced the Title 20 Ordinance in a discriminatory fashion against Patinkin by unjustly targeting Patinkin and his student lessees.
4. Count I defendants did not adequately address Patinkin's repeated pleas to investigate and stop the unequal treatment he was receiving under the law and therefore deprived him of the equal protection of the laws.

 

WHEREFORE, Patinkin requests the following relief against the Count I defendants, each in their official and individual capacities and pray that the Court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Count I defendants misuse of Title 20 deprived Patinkin of “his property rights without due process of law;”

B. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Count I defendants misuse of Title 20 and negligent investigations denied Patinkin the “equal protection of the laws;”

C. Award Patinkin judgment against each of the Count I defendants, jointly and severally, for actual compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

D. Award Patinkin the costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and,

E. Grant such other and further relief as deemed appropriate by the Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT II

Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (Equal Rights under the Law) against City of Bloomington, Bowlen, Jack, K. Robling, McKinney, Mulvihill, Liu, IUB, Evans, Southern, RE/MAX, Walker, Beggs & Szatkowski

1. Patinkin repeats each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if such allegations were specifically set forth herein at length.
2. Count II defendants utilized the Title 20 Ordinance to discriminate against Patinkin, based in whole, or in part, because he is Jewish.
3. Count II defendants violated Patinkin's civil rights by their practice and policy of using Title 20 to interfere with his right to make and enjoy the benefits of making contracts with student tenants.

 

WHEREFORE, Patinkin requests the following relief against the Count II defendants, each in their official and individual capacities and pray that the Court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Count II defendants' misuse of Title 20 denied Patinkin the “same right… To make and enforce contracts… as is enjoyed by white citizens” as provided by 42 U.S.C. Section 1981;

B. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Count II defendants were “acting under color of State law” when they misused Title 20 to deny Patinkin's civil rights;

C. Issue a declaratory judgment that Count II defendants repeated misuse of Title 20 amounted to a City policy or custom;

D. Award Patinkin judgment against each of the Count II defendants, jointly and severally, for actual compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

E. Award Patinkin the costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and,

F. Grant such other and further relief as deemed appropriate by the Court.

 

COUNT III

Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 (Property Rights of Citizens) against City of Bloomington, Bowlen, Jack, K. Robling, Mulvihill, Liu, IUB, Evans,

Southern, RE/MAX, Walker, Beggs & Szatkowski

1. Patinkin repeats each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if such allegations were specifically set forth herein at length.
2. Count III defendants utilized the Title 20 Ordinance to discriminate against Patinkin, based in whole, or in part, because he is Jewish.
3. Count III defendants' violated Patinkin's civil rights by their practice and policy of using Title 20 to interfere with his right to lease his student rental properties;

 

WHEREFORE, Patinkin requests the following relief against the Count III defendants, each in their official and individual capacities and pray that the Court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Count III defendants' misuse of Title 20 denied Patinkin the “same right… as enjoyed by white citizens to… lease… real and personal property” as provided by 42 U.S.C. Section 1982;

B. Issue a declaratory judgment that Count III defendants repeated misuse of Title 20 amounted to a City policy or custom;

C. Award Patinkin judgment against each of the Count III defendants, jointly and severally, for actual compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

D.

Reply this comment

Hello. It seems to me a very interesting article follow thus.

Rights? Who needs them? Our ancestors came to this country without the Constitution. Therefore, why should we pass the rights America has so long worked for over to immigrants? Especially the children who are born in this great country. Maybe, according to how I have read your blog, we should just round 'em up and put them in tents until we can ship them back to where they came from. That certainly would be civil. After all, we do support "civil rights."

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, their country "sucks?" We wouldn't run from America. Why is that? Maybe it's because we have been afforded the "rights" you have suggested be taken away from people. Should the rights be afforded to only blonde haired blue eyed people who are 5'6" tall? If we take away civil rights from one group of persons, there will be more to come. In no way, should The United States of America ignore human rights regardless of legal status. That would only put us down to a level equal to the country from which they flee.

My suggestion is to block off the border, assimilate the illegal immigrants who are here and then create a system which allows the opportunity to become American citizens through a more expedient system.

Rights? Who needs them? Our ancestors came to this country without the Constitution. Therefore, why should we pass the rights America has so long worked for over to immigrants? Especially the children who are born in this great country. Maybe, according to how I have read your blog, we should just round 'em up and put them in tents until we can ship them back to where they came from. That certainly would be civil. After all, we do support "civil rights."

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, their country "sucks?" We wouldn't run from America. Why is that? Maybe it's because we have been afforded the "rights" you have suggested be taken away from people. Should the rights be afforded to only blonde haired blue eyed people who are 5'6" tall? If we take away civil rights from one group of persons, there will be more to come. In no way, should The United States of America ignore human rights regardless of legal status. That would only put us down to a level equal to the country from which they flee.

My suggestion is to block off the border, assimilate the illegal immigrants who are here and then create a system which allows the opportunity to become American citizens through a more expedient system.

We may be able to partially fund this program and have it take place on Mexican land until the immigrants have their Green Cards. Mexico may be able to benefit from or copy these training programs ad establish training factory settings near the American border for workers to participate in until they can acquire American licensures and Green Cards. This is an excellent alternative to any anti-associative immigration measures.
-------------
software

This is nonsense if the legal american students are good students it doesn't matter wethere their surrounded by esl students or not, think about the young illegal children crossed over who get exceptional grades and find out that even though they have the grades to go to a competative college or univerisity they can't , and it wasn't even their fault.  They can't control the fact that their parents brought them over.  Dont we want to better society, create more educated people? well arent' we depriving the American public of future generations of intelligent learned folk? Its completely unfair to generalize.

PHILIP RUDDOCK is now Australia's Attorney General.Philip Ruddock is also known as the "Walking Cadaver."
—————————
AUSTRALIA HAS AN OVERSEAS SPOUSE QUOTA FIXED AT 30,000 A YEAR
—————————————
The following is an article from the "Sydney Morning Herald"September, 17th, 1996.

"MIGRANT LAW MAY SEPARATE MARRIED COUPLES

The Government will cap and kill applications by Australians to bring their overseas spouses into Australia a move which would see long-term separations of married couples unless the Opposition allows through the Senate tough new measures to curb applications.
The Minister for Immigration, Mr Ruddock,said the draconian move,allowable under present law but never used in relation to spouses, would help curb huge increases in applications for spouses, some of which were shams, but others 'a fraud on Australians'.
Under present practise,applications for offshore spouses to come are allowed regardless of the quota set.Mr Ruddock wants to enforce his quota by a cap and queue regulation, making applicants after the qouta is reached to wait, possibly for months, until heading the queue for next years intake.
But in the face of Labor opposition in the Senate, he threatened to use his general cap and kill power to terminate applications made post-qouta.This would force Australians to apply again next year on equal terms with next year's applicants, causing indefinite separations.
Mr Ruddock's threat, which contradicts the Coalition's strong pro-family rhetoric but is part of a clampdown on migration numbers,was denounced by Labor's immigration spokeman, Mr Duncan Kerr, as social engineering.
The Opposition last week knocked off in the Senate one of several changes to regulations to tighten elegibility for 'preferential family' migration,available to spouses and aged parents.Mr Kerr told the Herald Labor would also disallow Mr Ruddock's 'cap and queue' regulation.
Mr Ruddock told the Herald that if people who had already applied were allowed in,the progam would overstep this year's 36,700 quota by about 13,000.Rather than allow an overshoot, he would use his general power under current law to cap and kill,unless Labor stopped trying to micro-manage his immigration program by disallowing regulations in the Senate.
Mr Kerr said that 'Australians have always exercised their own choice on who they'll marry,and I don't believe any red-blooded Australian will allow the Government to force couples to queue up to live together.Now he's saying if he can't queue them he'll cut them off.
'If you meet and marry in January,thats OK,but if you're a December bride or groom you mightn't be able to get your spouse in for years.'
Mr Ruddock said he did not regard cap and terminate as the best outcome, but if it is necessary I will be applying it.
He said Labor had maintained a steady 37,000 quota for four years,before lifting it last year to 50,000.Many people had reported partners 'walking out the door as soon as they arrive in Australia.' 'The fraud is being occasioned on Australians by people seeking to migrate,' he said.
Mr Kerr blamed the increase on the wash-up of the Tiananmen Square massacre,under which Labor granted 40,000 Chinese people refugee status.But Mr Ruddock said there rises in applications accross the board, and the percentage increase was as great in England."
------------------------------
JOHN HOWARD-The Lying Rodent.John Howard wants free trade but not the free movement of people.He thinks Australias biggest assets are its sheep, coal and uranium not people.He says he has the final solution to our problems "Too many people."
------------------------------

The Blacklist

"Philip Ruddock gazetted regulations when he was Australia's immigration minister[number S241 of 1997] to stop visitors from many countries coming to Australia and among them is Poland.[Israel is also on the list as well as the following countries-Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam and Yugoslavia]."

More at
http://nowhiteaustralia.blogspot.com/
And
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Let-Them-Drown.html
And
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/LetThemLand.htm
And
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Child-abuse.htm

And

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/immi-j20.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/imm2-j22.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/imm3-j26.shtml

Yes, the Republican elitist-capitalists are the root of the problem.Since Reagan, they've been destroying unions.The US unionization rate is a minute fraction of what it is in the Scandinavia/Nordic region, and the correlating poverty rates are showing.In Finland, Sweden and Norway, poverty is at 2-5%, but in Detroit for eg., it is 33% (yes, 1/3rd earn under $20,000/yr.).On top of insanely increasing US poverty rates under Bush, health care and education certainly aren't free as they are in social-democratic societies, and those are 2 massive poverty inducers when you have to pay for them in an elitist-capitalist system. Unions prevent brutally low wages, and help to lift people out of poverty. If one is a left-hating union-basher, one can always express philosophical glee over a Billionaire CEO writing himself a $400,000,000 bonus check, while expressing hatred for the 'parasitic' worker, who deserves $1/hour if the company desires it. (For the CEO, 8 yachts are not enough !). In social democracy, the capitalist engine is equipped with valves, syphons and filters to benefit the entire populace, *including* the top 10% of income earners. And Finland was rated the least corrupt, most competitive economy, ahead of the US, with little or no national debt. So all the right-wing theoretical jargon is simply book theory, not empirical reality. (The Neo-Con cult faithfully embraces dogma again, not just in foreign policy, but in domestic economics as well...) Remember, folks, the MIPPC (military-industrial-prison-pharmaceutical-complex) and their media mouthpiece demands that you accept pitifully low minimum wages and a flood of poor foreign workers.It exponentially increases the MIPPC's power-ratio (stranglehold), and who in their right mind could be against that ! Infinite increases in CEO's exorbitant salaries, and respective decreases in worker-ant wages are the hallmark of a perfect society !!! (Neo-Fascist Dogma 101)

 

lafayette should had liberated the spanish instead of liberating white english supremacists.. that is where the historic mistake was made.. may be we should liberate america of republicans and people whom have corrupted the american dream.. Vive l"Amérique Espagnole...

America has the 14th constitutional amendment as a reference point, and should annotate it to state the obvious.

If you come to America, become an American.

If you want a handout, go back where you came from.

If you come to America as an illegal immigrant, you have NO rights, and the kids you create in America have NO rights...simple.

No spanish advertising in America, no spanish infiltration to mainstream America (no one is stopping you from catering to your own, just speak and communicate in English).

This is the way America needs to handle immigration going forward, how they deal with the past can also be easily massaged - yet some will win and some will lose. Get over it. Welcome to America.

MoretoIt wrote : The only problem I have with this whole issue is that "illegal" immigrants are hurting unions. My brother is a union (residential) carpenter in the chicago vicinity and he tells me all the time how the company he works for has "illegal" immigrants. The problem is they are willing to do the job for less , which includes overtime for regular wage rate, and they are willing to it in an unsafe manner. The foremen expoit this and beat their deadlines to collect bonuses. This shows you that your union rep has become fat and a profeeterer, it is sitting on his ass and is probably stealing union properties.

"As Chomsky rightly pointed out, immigration is really a dollars and cents issue for republicans and democrats alike, who are pressured by corporations to increase profits by employing immigrants at sub-human wages."

The only problem I have with this whole issue is that "illegal" immigrants are hurting unions. My brother is a union (residential) carpenter in the chicago vicinity and he tells me all the time how the company he works for has "illegal" immigrants. The problem is they are willing to do the job for less , which includes overtime for regular wage rate, and they are willing to it in an unsafe manner. The foremen expoit this and beat their deadlines to collect bonuses.

All nations cope, in one way or another, with immigration.  And it's never easy.  Be careful not to get sucked into the notion that controlling immigration is 'xenophobic' or 'racist'.  This comparison echos the 'anti-semitic' slandering of people like me who criticize Israel and the U.S. support for imperialist domination in the middle east.

As Chomsky rightly pointed out, immigration is really a dollars and cents issue for republicans and democrats alike, who are pressured by corporations to increase profits by employing immigrants at sub-human wages.  As far as I know, the U.S. has a defined immigration policy and, unlike other nations where immigration to naturalization only takes three years, we require around 7 years.  Allowing immigrants to become citizens in order to 'deal with things' would be totally unfair to those who have followed the defined channels.

 The only solution to immigration problems is the one that has always existed:  define clear rules and help instead of hinder neighboring economies so that it will not be such a problem.  NAFTA signalled the beginning of the end for some potentially very rich economies in the rest of the Americas.  We have to pressure the government to allow for nations small and large to gain greater self-determination in this area.  As always, corporate and private greed is hard to fight.

 

Email me back if you are interested in organizing.

 

Noam Chomsky really is a wack-job kook.  How can anybody take his crazy rambling comments seriously?  "A Mexican doctor, journalist, professional can come to the US to be a dishwasher or pick fruit, but not to pursue his/her profession at much lower wages; various barriers against that."  Maybe Chomsky should go to Mexico for his healthcare if Mexican doctors are so good.  Or maybe go to Mexico when he needs a lawyer.  Actually I would rather read a Mexican journalists crazy comments in Spanish which I do not read nor speak than read Chomsky's lunatic rantings.  So he has a good point there.   Then there is this beautiful bit of paranoid conspiracy, "The media constantly claimed that the labor movement was crude, nationalist, backward, etc. (Anthony Lewis and others), but were very careful to suppress -- entirely I think -- the actual proposals of the labor movement, which issued a detailed study in favor a "North American Free Trade Agreement", but not the executive version -- the only one allowed to be mentioned -- which, they plausibly argued, would lead to low-wage low-benefit economies for all three countries."  Noam Chomsky's paranoid, wack-job ideas should be suppressed.  Maybe he could just keep them in his deranged mind instead of writing them down or speaking them.  

Where exactly do people expect immigrant children to learn Enlgish if not in school? Immigrant parents who care barely speak it, let alone teach it?

I agree with the comment earlier. People keep electing warmongering scum into office who waste hundreds of billions of tax dollars on war and complain about a few billion being used to teach ESL classes. Then they continure to complain about people not speakinging English. They want some magical answer that doesn't exist.

Fix the school system, in general, and you won't have American children given less attention for immigrants. There are plenty of resources for all.

Why do we think educating people is a burden?

Why do conservatives want to get rid of ESL programs while telling immigrants to assimilate?

There's a lot of insight into the immigration issue here: http://viktorfrankl.livejournal.com/tag/immigration

I cannot understand why there is so much chest beating and gnashing of teeth on the subject of immigration .in the United States The question is why do Latinos want to enter the U.S.?Presumably to get jobs right? So if they could not get jobs in the U.S. would they still migrate? Of course not!no jobs = no migrants  Right? I hate to quote "The bleeding obvious"  but this stands out like the proverbial dogs whatsits  to my simple mind, or am I missing something?   Doh!  (apologies toHomet Simpson) Dubya, Condi et al presume to know how to implement the rule of law in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and North Korea in particular and in the rest of the world in general, but their administration seems to go into a state of suspended animation when it comes to dealing with rogue U.S. employers within the existing home law enforcement and judicial agencies They also do not seem to have the wit or the wisdom to organise the minting and issuance, of hard to counterfeit, fraud free employment documents.  If employers are part of the problem by exploiting immigrants illegally to undermine the wages and conditions of American workers, why could they not be threatened with "Regime Change"?(Even if they do give financial support to many Congressional Representatives via their lobbyists) Would not these two simple measures not only stop the flow of illegal migrants across the southern U.S. land border but also from air and sea ports from where 40% of illegal immigrants enter the U.S.? Furthermore the U.S authorities appear to be able to print fairly reasonably secure dollar notes (or are these printed in Korea?) so why not have secure employment documents printed? And again, the C.I.A. is quite adept at kidnapping people from all over the world to send them to various countries more skilled in interrogation/torture methods than those in Abu Graib. Why not do the same with those reprobate U.S.  employers who are not able to out source jobs but who are exploiting illegal migrants to the detriment of the U.S. economy and way of life, after all, the entire “American  Dream” is under threat here! THE FINAL SOLUTION(With due apologies to Hitler and all anti-semites) The U.S. administration  using their unconstitutional wire tapping skills should be utilized for the purpose of detecting these miscreant employers, why not? They could then be held without trial and incommunicado indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. My solution would be most cost effective and would relieve the administration of much time and effort enabling them,  (with middle class taxes,)  to concentrate more productively in spreading global Peace, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Thus the number of U.S. bases around the world could be expanded from the miserly 120 at present and the score of the number of countries bombed by the U.S. from the low figure of 40 since the end of World War II to more respectable figure and higher body count. The above policy would be a "Slam Dunk" with the prayers of the millions of fundamentalist Christians in the United States, especially if they were led by the intrepid, “I cannot tell a lie” (apologies to George Washington)  “Born Again"  crusading Christian leader of the free world, George Dubya Bush.  JACK REDMANNorthern HighwayBindoyNegros OrientalPhilippines  

Agreed to a certain extend, we should start taxing corporations a litlle bit more specially if these corporations are engaged into exploitive shemes against latinos of the US or the south continent. In insight, for the latinos being accused of not paying taxes is somewhat of an insult; being exploited for its kind without benefits constitutes somewhat of a tax burden by itself.. make sure before you tax immigrants you give them an equal raise of salary ,ok? Truly, I can't see why you american people should complain about immigration, unequal education and fraud when you keep electing the biggest welfare recipients and social parasites to the White House.

What you are proposing is a ghetto and/or concentration camp meant to keep the "lowest" of society away from the "decent" segmant of "true Americans." They work (for low pay), live, and study in their cement homes in hopes that "hard work will make (them) free," something that was posted above the entrances in German run concentration camps located in Poland. In addition, it is quite a reversal from previous immigration policies of coming first then learning the language and any skills later. Something that my ancestors did not and present day immigrants do not need to do.

reply to TrueLife: They pay federal and state income taxes as well as property taxes through either home ownership or rent (landlords simply pass th cost onto their tenants). There is a misconception that an SSAN (Social Security Account Number) valid for working in the US (there are SSANs which are valid numbers but not for working) is required to file federal or state income taxes. The IRS issues a temporary taxpayer ID number for which the worker may file a return using the documents that they have even if the name is not the same as on the return or the SSAN on the documents is not theirs or is bogus. Most communities with a large immigrant population have these kinds of businesses that assist in filing govt forms and they make a lot of money doing this tax preparation. If there is a problem of the schools being underfunded, it is hardly a fault of the us citizens (children) who are not voters on local referendums to increase the property levies to fund teh schools in the first place.

Reply to josesanders: One of the things undocumented immigrants who came here do when they achieve "legal" status is..... quit their job and get another, higher paying one. Or they organize and demand higher pay. When (not if) the undocumented workers are given full rights, wages will rise because their employers will not be able to use deportation as a weapon against organizing (and/or striking in) the workplace. President Bush's plan allows them to live in the US while working for the *same* employer that sponsors them, with no hope of ever becoming a Permanent Resident Alien, let alone an actual US citizen. This kind of worker-owner relationship used to be called "indentured servitude," but I shall call it by what it really is: slavery. It forces the worker to accept whatever pay, hours or benefits their sponsoring employer tosses at them "or else," with no freedom to say "take this job and shove it!"

The bottom line is that it costs extra money to educate the children of immigrants due to large percentage of the education budget that has to be spent on bilingual programs. When the children of illegal immigrants attend public school they compromise the district budget because in many cases the illegal immigrants work but don't pay local, state, or federal taxes in order it remain here illegally. I attended a suburban elementary school in Dewitt, NY. There was a ESL program and it only had 5-15 students enrolled with an ESL status per grade. When I moved to Union City, NJ students enrolled in the ESL program represented about 40% of the entire school. In some cases half of an entire grade level were ESL students. This means that the English-speaking students are deprived of a quality education because the district must spend a more than the average amount of money on ESL programs. An unknown amount of those ESL students parents are illegal immigrants who work but don't pay taxes (in order to remain hidden), so in other words their children are getting a free education on the burden of legal tax paying people. Then when it's time to go to college the deprived students get compared to students from other places where all of the money is going where it should which is unfair and indirectly caused by illegal immigration. This is not a racial issue. This is a money issue. The point is, ALL people reaping the benefits of this great country should pay taxes.

The bottom line is that it costs extra money to educate the children of immigrants due to large percentage of the education budget that has to be spent on bilingual programs. When the children of illegal immigrants attend public school they compromise the district budget because in many cases the illegal immigrants work but don't pay local, state, or federal taxes in order it remain here illegally. I attended a suburban elementary school in Dewitt, NY. There was a ESL program and it only had 5-15 students enrolled with an ESL status per grade. When I moved to Union City, NJ students enrolled in the ESL program represented about 40% of the entire school. In some cases half of an entire grade level were ESL students. This means that the English-speaking students are deprived of a quality education because the district must spend a more than the average amount of money on ESL programs. An unknown amount of those ESL students parents are illegal immigrants who work but don't pay taxes (in order to remain hidden), so in other words their children are getting a free education on the burden of legal tax paying people. Then when it's time to go to college the deprived students get compared to students from other places where all of the money is going where it should which is unfair and indirectly caused by illegal immigration. This is not a racial issue. This is a money issue. The point is, ALL people reaping the benefits of this great country should pay taxes.

I think that a national minimum wage would be enough to dissuade the critics who (maybe correctly) fear the lowering of wages and benefits due to legalizing immigrant workers.  If the issue is a fear of the loss of wages and benefits, why not simply address that directly, rather than indirectly by blaming the problem on immigrants?

 

"            California censuses estimate that ~40% of their real population is comprised of illegal immigrants, and that around 13 million illegal immigrants reside there. Californians whom I have known admit that yes illegal immigrants are everywhere and have become part of the society. Some of the chief complaints of illegal immigration is that it uses up employment and that they burden social services such as education and healthcare systems.

            We can reduce these difficulties and improve the quality of life of the average Californian, legal citizen or ‘illegal citizen’, by providing a comprehensive immigration policy. If we make immigration an attractive and beneficial process instead of a burden and a police pass and an invitation to be recorded ad pay taxes, people will line up to receive citizenship instead of cross that line without apparent consequence.

            Potential immigrants can apply to become citizens through a reformed system of education. In order to enter the country, they must receive a kind of work accreditation showing their usefulness in America. Many illegal immigrants come to America to look for employment, so the opportunity to train *for free* to get this employment as part of citizenship will be outstandingly attractive to ~80% of potential immigrants.

            A preliminary test of skills and general knowledge, available in Spanish or their native language will be given to each potential immigrant. Those who pass also prove they are intelligent and diligent enough to fare well in a 2-5 week intensive training course to be provided to each immigrant applicant, in any of a series of easy to learn vocational and technical fields.

            Each applicant will be fingerprinted and their health will be checked and their criminal record inquired. They will be expected to show Mexican papers, or papers from the country of their origin. They will be given one chance to pass the test every five years. During the time of their testing they may be kept and maintained in border houses in secure locations. Their labor may also be very cheaply contracted to build simple cement housing in the region, perform self-sustaining duties, pound wells, teach and learn English, Spanish, and their own language better, and other duties. After the allotted time, if they have passed the tests, they should be given a Green Card or other temporary license to work in America and given a temporary accreditation or licensure to work in their vocational field. These both are stepping stones to move forward in their process of becoming an American citizen and as well to move forward in their vocational training and ability to perform more complex and better compensating jobs.

            This will cheaply produce hundreds of thousands or millions of new American immigrants every year who can provide more meaningful services to the community and who will live in a quality of life that produces more business than the amount of employment they fill. It will work towards solving the problem of illegal immigration by making legal immigration a much more attractive, easy, and productive option.

            By cooperating with Mexico on this procedure and remaining conscious of international trade, travel, and family ties, we can get Mexico’s help in training its own people and benefiting from the process of immigration to America. We may be able to partially fund this program and have it take place on Mexican land until the immigrants have their Green Cards. Mexico may be able to benefit from or copy these training programs ad establish training factory settings near the American border for workers to participate in until they can acquire American licensures and Green Cards. This is an excellent alternative to any anti-associative immigration measures.

            These policies will reduce the number of illegal immigrants in California by replacing them with a high percentage of trained and carded legal immigrants. They will be more able to contribute to society and afford health insurance and benefit from education. Census probabilities have shown that we cannot meaningfully control the number of people who choose to enter America each year. Because of this we should not limit the number of people who can legally enter the country to try to protect economic factors. We are already being flooded, and should attempt to benefit from it and improve the condition of those who clearly will join us. We can do this by placing an educational and legal bar of excellence, above which everyone who cooperates with the system will be encouraged and assisted. [see Education Reform] The costs of this system will be outweighed by reductions in emergency healthcare and educational spending and by increases in cooperation with the immigration policies and increases in employability and skill of the average immigrant."

 We could accomplish this feat and become the envy of the world and receive many more and more skilled immigrants who would acculturate to our society more quickly, improve the reputation of immigrants in the eyes of 'established' Americans, and garner support for their native countries and personal background plights.

 

If they are going to be here despite the law, helping them is helping Americans and will help them help us.

 

Love is the answer.

I think this debate is really centered heavily around economics than anything else

 

Poor people fleeing poverty are doing anything to come here; corporations are wanting their cheap labor while politicians need a good enemy to scare people and xenophobes eat that sort of stuff right up. Others simply are extreme on "law and order" and can't stand the fact that people cross the border without papers, which is a reality.

 

I hope these immigrants will recieve dignity one way or another