Missouri House Bill 1510 - New Developments
No city or county shall adopt, enforce, or maintain a residential property licensing ordinance or resolution that includes a requirement for periodic interior inspections of privately owned residential property for city or county code violations unless the lawful occupant has consented to such interior inspections. This subsection shall not apply to inspections of mixed-use residential and commercial property. This subsection shall not prohibit a city or county from conducting plan reviews, periodic construction inspections, or final occupancy inspections as required by building permits. No city shall adopt, enforce, or maintain an occupational permit requirement regarding interior spaces, other than safety-related requirements, that are more stringent or restrictive than county ordinances or state statutes.
Any lawful occupant residing in privately owned residential housing located within the corporate limits of a city may request an inspection at any time by the city or, if the property is located in the unincorporated area of the county, by the county to determine code violations.
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no political subdivision can require a seller or transferor of real property to obtain an inspection or permit of the real property in order to sell or transfer the property.
This Bill Has No CoSponsors, let’s change that. Please reach out to your Own Representative and ask them to support Representative Cross in his efforts and to possibly co-sponsor this bill. (Find Your Legislator Here)
Talking Points in Support:
ONE: The 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects all citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. This includes owner-occupants of homes they own as well as tenants in rental homes. Having a Mandatory Interior Inspection on all rental properties violates the tenant’s 4th Amendment Rights and has been struck down by courts in other states as Unconstitutional. HB1510 would give the Tenant the right to say no.
TWO: Having a License for the Rental Property Owner that is dependant on the Lawful Occupant in a Rental Property allowing City Inspectors into their home puts the Property Owner In a bad position. If the tenant refuses the inspection, the property owner is left with two options in many cities, evict the tenant and find a new one or operate the rental unlawfully without a license. HB1510 would allow the Property Owner to maintain a business license for rental property, even if the Lawful Occupant Refuses Inspection.
THREE: House Bill 1510 would not prohibit inspection programs of any kind, it would just afford the Lawful Occupant their right to choose.
Any lawful occupant residing in privately owned residential housing located within the corporate limits of a city may request an inspection at any time by the city or, if the property is located in the unincorporated area of the county, by the county to determine code violations.
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no political subdivision can require a seller or transferor of real property to obtain an inspection or permit of the real property in order to sell or transfer the property.
This Bill Has No CoSponsors, let’s change that. Please reach out to your Own Representative and ask them to support Representative Cross in his efforts and to possibly co-sponsor this bill. (Find Your Legislator Here)
Talking Points in Support:
ONE: The 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects all citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. This includes owner-occupants of homes they own as well as tenants in rental homes. Having a Mandatory Interior Inspection on all rental properties violates the tenant’s 4th Amendment Rights and has been struck down by courts in other states as Unconstitutional. HB1510 would give the Tenant the right to say no.
TWO: Having a License for the Rental Property Owner that is dependant on the Lawful Occupant in a Rental Property allowing City Inspectors into their home puts the Property Owner In a bad position. If the tenant refuses the inspection, the property owner is left with two options in many cities, evict the tenant and find a new one or operate the rental unlawfully without a license. HB1510 would allow the Property Owner to maintain a business license for rental property, even if the Lawful Occupant Refuses Inspection.
THREE: House Bill 1510 would not prohibit inspection programs of any kind, it would just afford the Lawful Occupant their right to choose.
The US Census statistics of Ghettoville, USA
By Jeff Spradling
Ghettoville USA Contributor
Rolla has a relatively low owner occupancy rate for housing units. For 2016, the Census Bureau estimates the total number of housing units at 8,397, but only 40.6% of those were owner occupied. That compares to 61.1% for Phelps County, 67.2% for Missouri as a whole, 58.4% for the state’s capital of Jefferson City, and 63.9% for the nation. Even in very poor locales, the owner occupancy of housing units is much higher. For instance, Owsley County, Ky., which traditionally ranks as one of the 10 poorest counties in the nation, has a 75.5% owner occupancy rate. Some argue that non-resident landownership is a problem for the economy of communities. That was certainly a theme of arguments in the Appalachian coalfields, especially in the early 20th century, where coal companies owned huge swaths of land that were depleted of their natural resources and then abandoned.
Rolla’s other housing statistics are not greatly different from Missouri medians. Median rent (meaning that exactly half pay less and half pay more) in Rolla is $652, the median mortgage payment is $1,060, and median home value is $118,700. However, when we look at other details about housing units we can begin to understand a common anecdotal complaint about the poor condition of properties in Rolla. Census Bureau estimates show an aging housing inventory in the town. More than 57 percent of Rolla’s homes were built before 1990, and 3.5 percent (almost 300 structures) were built in 1939 or earlier. Only about 24 percent of Rolla’s homes were built since the year 2000 (Census notes a .28% error for housing counts after 2008), and nearly 11 percent of that total is mobile homes, which tend to lose value quickly (from the American Community Survey, available at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml).
For renters, an interesting statistic is that 41.6% (+/-6%) of occupants pay 35% or more of their monthly income for rent. This compares with only 13.8% (+/-5.2%) of homeowners who pay 35% or more of their monthly income in owner costs. If we take into account that the median rent of $652 a month in Rolla is likely how much someone will pay to get a decent place we begin to get a picture of the perceived housing problem for low-income renters who are searching for affordable and livable homes. In Phelps County, nearly 18% of residents make $15,000 or less per year. According to Census estimates, about 19.4% of people in Phelps County live in poverty. That is an economic status definition determined by a federal poverty measure (https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). It is interesting to note, how starkly that race figures into this number. While whites have a 17.7% poverty rate – a few points above the national average – minorities suffer disproportionately. Census estimates that 61.7% of blacks in Phelps County are under the federal poverty level (+/-14.5%). Add to that another 35.1% of mixed race people who are in poverty, 26.4% of Asians, and 22.9% of Hispanics, and we can see a toxic mix of unaffordable housing, an aging inventory of properties, and poverty concentrated among minorities.
Perhaps factors such as these are why people draw a gut level picture of hard times in middle America. I was informed that a big blow to Rolla was the closure of the Briggs & Stratton plant and the loss of nearly 500 well-paying jobs in 2008. However, a closer look at income brackets in 2010 after the B&S plant closure shows some shifting to higher paying jobs in Phelps County, in addition to small shifts to lower wage brackets; so, it is difficult to say if the loss of Briggs jobs had a big impact, overall. Rolla doesn’t seem much different that other towns around the country that are suffering from economic malaise. In the county where I live – Montgomery County, Ky., we saw the loss of high paying jobs at A.O. Smith and Whirlpool due to factory closings, and a shift to lower paying factory jobs where good pay and benefits are hard to come by. Phelps County is right in the middle of the U.S. economic picture, as well as being right in the middle of the country, geographically. A June 2014 article in the New York Times ranked the hardest places to live in the country. Their rankings showed Phelps County, Missouri, at 1,408 of 3,135; so, about the 45th percentile in terms of standard of living measures such as education attainment, median income, and longevity (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?_r=2). By comparison, my home county is at 2,556 or in the bottom 15 percent of living standard in the country. Certainly, though, Phelps County’s ranking in the middle of the pack is no comfort for those who are poor or even for those who are doing well and hold Phelps up as a personal gold standard.
On my first visit to Rolla on June 11, 2017, I heard from several residents who say they like living in the area and want to stay for reasons such as a reasonable cost of living, low crime rate, and rural lifestyle. I live in Montgomery County for the same reason. It is encouraging that people want to stay in a community in the face of complaints about run-down rental properties, sometimes strained tenant-owner relations, and the relatively high price one must pay for a decent place to live. What I saw in my first unofficial tour of Rolla and Phelps County was a mixed bag. Sure, there are eyesores and well-kept properties, but more importantly, I met some decent, hard-working people who do care about their community and want to see it do better. That is the real strength of any community, people who care enough to make a stand and put their efforts into improving it for everyone. A quick survey of the Rolla Area Chamber of Commerce Web site shows a fairly active community. Of course, it is the Chamber’s job to put the community’s best foot forward, but there are good things to tout. If Rolla has enough people who care about it, then solutions to these problems will emerge. I look forward to delving farther into the issues that are important to Rolla’s residents.
A note from the author: I have worked in higher education as an English teacher and administrator for 25 years. I am from eastern Kentucky, which is among the nation’s poorest regions. I have a strong personal interest in social justice and race relations, since our national history in this area is checkered and the work is far from complete. My impetus for writing for Ghettoville USA stems from a shared belief in the need for advocacy for the poor and overlooked populations. I am guided by my experiences growing up as a poor mountain kid and by my work as a newspaper reporter and educator in eastern Kentucky.
Ghettoville USA Contributor
Rolla has a relatively low owner occupancy rate for housing units. For 2016, the Census Bureau estimates the total number of housing units at 8,397, but only 40.6% of those were owner occupied. That compares to 61.1% for Phelps County, 67.2% for Missouri as a whole, 58.4% for the state’s capital of Jefferson City, and 63.9% for the nation. Even in very poor locales, the owner occupancy of housing units is much higher. For instance, Owsley County, Ky., which traditionally ranks as one of the 10 poorest counties in the nation, has a 75.5% owner occupancy rate. Some argue that non-resident landownership is a problem for the economy of communities. That was certainly a theme of arguments in the Appalachian coalfields, especially in the early 20th century, where coal companies owned huge swaths of land that were depleted of their natural resources and then abandoned.
Rolla’s other housing statistics are not greatly different from Missouri medians. Median rent (meaning that exactly half pay less and half pay more) in Rolla is $652, the median mortgage payment is $1,060, and median home value is $118,700. However, when we look at other details about housing units we can begin to understand a common anecdotal complaint about the poor condition of properties in Rolla. Census Bureau estimates show an aging housing inventory in the town. More than 57 percent of Rolla’s homes were built before 1990, and 3.5 percent (almost 300 structures) were built in 1939 or earlier. Only about 24 percent of Rolla’s homes were built since the year 2000 (Census notes a .28% error for housing counts after 2008), and nearly 11 percent of that total is mobile homes, which tend to lose value quickly (from the American Community Survey, available at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml).
For renters, an interesting statistic is that 41.6% (+/-6%) of occupants pay 35% or more of their monthly income for rent. This compares with only 13.8% (+/-5.2%) of homeowners who pay 35% or more of their monthly income in owner costs. If we take into account that the median rent of $652 a month in Rolla is likely how much someone will pay to get a decent place we begin to get a picture of the perceived housing problem for low-income renters who are searching for affordable and livable homes. In Phelps County, nearly 18% of residents make $15,000 or less per year. According to Census estimates, about 19.4% of people in Phelps County live in poverty. That is an economic status definition determined by a federal poverty measure (https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). It is interesting to note, how starkly that race figures into this number. While whites have a 17.7% poverty rate – a few points above the national average – minorities suffer disproportionately. Census estimates that 61.7% of blacks in Phelps County are under the federal poverty level (+/-14.5%). Add to that another 35.1% of mixed race people who are in poverty, 26.4% of Asians, and 22.9% of Hispanics, and we can see a toxic mix of unaffordable housing, an aging inventory of properties, and poverty concentrated among minorities.
Perhaps factors such as these are why people draw a gut level picture of hard times in middle America. I was informed that a big blow to Rolla was the closure of the Briggs & Stratton plant and the loss of nearly 500 well-paying jobs in 2008. However, a closer look at income brackets in 2010 after the B&S plant closure shows some shifting to higher paying jobs in Phelps County, in addition to small shifts to lower wage brackets; so, it is difficult to say if the loss of Briggs jobs had a big impact, overall. Rolla doesn’t seem much different that other towns around the country that are suffering from economic malaise. In the county where I live – Montgomery County, Ky., we saw the loss of high paying jobs at A.O. Smith and Whirlpool due to factory closings, and a shift to lower paying factory jobs where good pay and benefits are hard to come by. Phelps County is right in the middle of the U.S. economic picture, as well as being right in the middle of the country, geographically. A June 2014 article in the New York Times ranked the hardest places to live in the country. Their rankings showed Phelps County, Missouri, at 1,408 of 3,135; so, about the 45th percentile in terms of standard of living measures such as education attainment, median income, and longevity (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?_r=2). By comparison, my home county is at 2,556 or in the bottom 15 percent of living standard in the country. Certainly, though, Phelps County’s ranking in the middle of the pack is no comfort for those who are poor or even for those who are doing well and hold Phelps up as a personal gold standard.
On my first visit to Rolla on June 11, 2017, I heard from several residents who say they like living in the area and want to stay for reasons such as a reasonable cost of living, low crime rate, and rural lifestyle. I live in Montgomery County for the same reason. It is encouraging that people want to stay in a community in the face of complaints about run-down rental properties, sometimes strained tenant-owner relations, and the relatively high price one must pay for a decent place to live. What I saw in my first unofficial tour of Rolla and Phelps County was a mixed bag. Sure, there are eyesores and well-kept properties, but more importantly, I met some decent, hard-working people who do care about their community and want to see it do better. That is the real strength of any community, people who care enough to make a stand and put their efforts into improving it for everyone. A quick survey of the Rolla Area Chamber of Commerce Web site shows a fairly active community. Of course, it is the Chamber’s job to put the community’s best foot forward, but there are good things to tout. If Rolla has enough people who care about it, then solutions to these problems will emerge. I look forward to delving farther into the issues that are important to Rolla’s residents.
A note from the author: I have worked in higher education as an English teacher and administrator for 25 years. I am from eastern Kentucky, which is among the nation’s poorest regions. I have a strong personal interest in social justice and race relations, since our national history in this area is checkered and the work is far from complete. My impetus for writing for Ghettoville USA stems from a shared belief in the need for advocacy for the poor and overlooked populations. I am guided by my experiences growing up as a poor mountain kid and by my work as a newspaper reporter and educator in eastern Kentucky.
Landlords and local government have known of problems rental properties have and had,
injuries, incidents, loss of lives accrued,considering prior problem knowledge, is the epitome of sad.
"You know, unlawful detainer, using rent and possession actions, they're not supposed to be a legal battering ram against somebody who is making complaints and trying to make the landlord aware of the problems with the house," said attorney, Sharie Hahn April 17, 2014 during trial closing statements.
Making the distinction that a rental property that has severe defects that affect health or safety are supposed to be governed and enforced to protect the consumer. However, citizens are being assessed rent of a substandard rental property of SERIOUS defects and safety concerns as the same as an habitable property without defects and concerns. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) forbids advertisement of false and deceptive practices. The local prosecutor and Missouri Attorney General are responsible for MMPA enforcement. Citizens, tenants specifically, however, are denied MMPA representation and told it's a "civil" matter. Of course the tenant thought of "just moving" as most people easily cite as a solution.
However, realistically, 1) the apartment complex would be used as history and the reference would obviously not be great; 2. the amount of money it would cost to move; 3. the time to look again for a "decent" place was nonexistent; 4) the reluctant fear of going through the same buffoonery somewhere else, and 5) seeking compensation for the current debacle.
Atop of being duped into a breached contract for a substandard rental property, citizens also endure other concerns.
I. FORCIBLE ENTRY:
RSMO §534.020. If any person shall enter upon or into any lands, tenements or other possessions, with force or strong hand, or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors or windows or other parts of a house, whether any person be in it or not, or by threatening to kill, maim or beat the party in possession, or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession, or by entering peaceably and then turning out by force, or frightening, by threats or other circumstances of terror, the party out of possession, and detain and hold the same in every such case, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a "forcible entry and detainer" within the meaning of this chapter. "Nonpayment of rent" is not justifiable to enter into a property without consent or judicial order. The June 21, 2016 notice below the property management "excited fear" by forceful demand that the "tenement" would be entered into regardless of the permission of the tenant.
Making the distinction that a rental property that has severe defects that affect health or safety are supposed to be governed and enforced to protect the consumer. However, citizens are being assessed rent of a substandard rental property of SERIOUS defects and safety concerns as the same as an habitable property without defects and concerns. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) forbids advertisement of false and deceptive practices. The local prosecutor and Missouri Attorney General are responsible for MMPA enforcement. Citizens, tenants specifically, however, are denied MMPA representation and told it's a "civil" matter. Of course the tenant thought of "just moving" as most people easily cite as a solution.
However, realistically, 1) the apartment complex would be used as history and the reference would obviously not be great; 2. the amount of money it would cost to move; 3. the time to look again for a "decent" place was nonexistent; 4) the reluctant fear of going through the same buffoonery somewhere else, and 5) seeking compensation for the current debacle.
Atop of being duped into a breached contract for a substandard rental property, citizens also endure other concerns.
I. FORCIBLE ENTRY:
RSMO §534.020. If any person shall enter upon or into any lands, tenements or other possessions, with force or strong hand, or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors or windows or other parts of a house, whether any person be in it or not, or by threatening to kill, maim or beat the party in possession, or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession, or by entering peaceably and then turning out by force, or frightening, by threats or other circumstances of terror, the party out of possession, and detain and hold the same in every such case, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a "forcible entry and detainer" within the meaning of this chapter. "Nonpayment of rent" is not justifiable to enter into a property without consent or judicial order. The June 21, 2016 notice below the property management "excited fear" by forceful demand that the "tenement" would be entered into regardless of the permission of the tenant.
This case is in St. Louis, MO. There are many details to this case that has several concerns that articulate many citizens' complaints. From the advertisement of the rental property, occupancy tenure, and eviction process identify other concerns associated with substandard rental properties that are supposed to be illegal.
II. DECEPTIVE FEE SWITCHING
According to this letter the tenant received, $810 is the total balance instructed to pay to remedy the full balance!
$810 was paid by the tenant in June 2016. The tenant in November 2016 requested a ledger.
There were other fees added since the beginning of the lease that the tenant was unaware of being assessed. Deceptive fees trap tenants into unwarranted payments that are later calculated potentially into the legal petition filed by the property owner. The "illegal" inclusion of false information cited within a "legal" petition by law is prohibitive by Missouri statute. Another case will be articulated that the court participated in illegal activities of tampering, removing court stamped documents from the legal file!
According to this letter the tenant received, $810 is the total balance instructed to pay to remedy the full balance!
$810 was paid by the tenant in June 2016. The tenant in November 2016 requested a ledger.
There were other fees added since the beginning of the lease that the tenant was unaware of being assessed. Deceptive fees trap tenants into unwarranted payments that are later calculated potentially into the legal petition filed by the property owner. The "illegal" inclusion of false information cited within a "legal" petition by law is prohibitive by Missouri statute. Another case will be articulated that the court participated in illegal activities of tampering, removing court stamped documents from the legal file!
The ledger showed the property owner had a balance of $910, a $100 more than specified. "Never catch up" is a complaint many people had. Until the ledger, the tenant had no idea what, how or why late fees were assessed. Deceptively adding fees by the property owner explains how the eviction was caused by the property owner, and not "nonpayment of rent" by the tenant. A clear distinction Rolla Renters Association is making to illustrate tenants rights have been maliciously violated then evicted without just cause!
The irony of a local St. Louis homeless shelter that has been a news topic of its building expected to comply with city building rules to allow for nonpaying people to occupy the building.
However, unsuspecting paying tenants expect the same compliance of rules to be enforced regarding their rental advertised building are denied this same measure against a paid property owner.
The irony of a local St. Louis homeless shelter that has been a news topic of its building expected to comply with city building rules to allow for nonpaying people to occupy the building.
However, unsuspecting paying tenants expect the same compliance of rules to be enforced regarding their rental advertised building are denied this same measure against a paid property owner.
III. Missouri House Bill 1410 Removing/Denying citizens' rights by law
HB 1410 was enacted by legislators Gary Cross and Lyndell Franker whom are also members of M.A.R.E real estate association. The bill was originally coined to deal with "squatters" specifically. However, every tenant in the state of Missouri is affected by the bill. Tenants now have 24 hrs, instead of 10 days to move. The RIGHT of a tenant to file a trial de novo is now denied. Instead of paying approximately $45 and file a motion under trial de novo, tenants now are assessed appellate attorney fees and transcript fees. The monetary and legal difference could be a minimal 400% increase to seek justice.
February 24, 2014, a trial was held to set aside the December 23, 2013 judgment. This document is the transcript of the trial held on February 23, 2014. Property owner's counsel stated the counterclaim was not in the paper file, approximately 62 days after being filed on December 23, 2013.
Counsel admitted the client had a copy and "read through the counterclaim."
Removing paperwork, tampering, introduced whether paperwork was filed "timely" to give "reason" to deny a claim or procedures.
Citizens have no access to the court file to remove any documents. Tampering prejudices the citizen of accuracy, merit. evidence and justice to prevail!
Counsel admitted the client had a copy and "read through the counterclaim."
Removing paperwork, tampering, introduced whether paperwork was filed "timely" to give "reason" to deny a claim or procedures.
Citizens have no access to the court file to remove any documents. Tampering prejudices the citizen of accuracy, merit. evidence and justice to prevail!
TARGET 8: Tenant battles landlord in court over ‘uninhabitable’ home
Bill would speed up court process in landlord-tenant disputes
IV. Silent cheat of property owners
UNLAWFUL PETITION FILED ON DECEMBER 9, 2013 13PH-CV01874
This is a Rolla, MO rural case. This property owner filed a bogus petition that included $700 November rent payment and $900 December rent payment in December 2013. If it is proven that $700 November rent was not due. the petition states if facts were led to mislead a public official, it is supposed to be a Class A misdemeanor. The facts and actual events in this case will be illustrated with sound recordings, court documents and transcripts. The facts and "evidence" presented will question how the judgment was derived. Did the property owner file a petition with false facts?
The property owner never returned to the property as promised on September 7, 2013. Therefore, the property owner was negligent for failing to be aware of the hours of labor, cost and expenses associated with the power washing and cleaning requests.
The double slope exterior north wall was exceptionally steep and dangerous! As the property owner states a "good job" was done!
The property owner never inquired or offered to pay for any of the work requested until prompted by text messages. The $700 "truce" payment was half of November's rent.
The double slope exterior north wall was exceptionally steep and dangerous! As the property owner states a "good job" was done!
The property owner never inquired or offered to pay for any of the work requested until prompted by text messages. The $700 "truce" payment was half of November's rent.
V. Casenet--Public character assassination
12/29/2014 docket entry was placed a little over a year after the 12/23/2013 trial commenced.
Prior to the docket entry, many appellate attorneys, individuals and organizations were also told no answer nor counter petition was filed, denying and prejudicing justice to be rendered.
However, there was an answer and counter petition filed on December 23, 2013 with the court and the property owner was served in trial.
Kenneth G. Clayton was the presiding judge of the original trial 13PH-CV01874 on December 23, 2013.
Prior to the docket entry, many appellate attorneys, individuals and organizations were also told no answer nor counter petition was filed, denying and prejudicing justice to be rendered.
However, there was an answer and counter petition filed on December 23, 2013 with the court and the property owner was served in trial.
Kenneth G. Clayton was the presiding judge of the original trial 13PH-CV01874 on December 23, 2013.
VI. Tampering--Removing court stamped documents from court file!
On 12/23/2013 the docket entry
Rani A Abston never filed nor requested any exhibits to be withdrawn once filed on the same day. The court inclusion of the docket entry is a blatant fabrication of events. The court removed the paperwork filed and made the entry one year later.
On 12/29/2014, depositions were being rendered with Tyce Smith, opposing counsel for 14PH-CV00227, a continuation of the illegal saga of retaliatory eviction. Coincidence? Hmm.
Rani A Abston never filed nor requested any exhibits to be withdrawn once filed on the same day. The court inclusion of the docket entry is a blatant fabrication of events. The court removed the paperwork filed and made the entry one year later.
On 12/29/2014, depositions were being rendered with Tyce Smith, opposing counsel for 14PH-CV00227, a continuation of the illegal saga of retaliatory eviction. Coincidence? Hmm.
The property owner was "SERVED" in court on 12/23/2013.
The "ANSWER FILED: RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO LANDLORD/TENANT ACTION PETITION AND RESPONDENT'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR COMPENSATION, FILED BY: RANI ABSTON" is noted on the docket sheet.
Therefore, #1. HOW could there not be a counterclaim filed and answer in the court file; #2. WHAT happened to the counterclaim and answer filed with the court itself; #3. WHO removed the documents because citizen's have no access to the court file; and #4. WHY would court stamped documents be removed?
The "ANSWER FILED: RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO LANDLORD/TENANT ACTION PETITION AND RESPONDENT'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR COMPENSATION, FILED BY: RANI ABSTON" is noted on the docket sheet.
Therefore, #1. HOW could there not be a counterclaim filed and answer in the court file; #2. WHAT happened to the counterclaim and answer filed with the court itself; #3. WHO removed the documents because citizen's have no access to the court file; and #4. WHY would court stamped documents be removed?
This is the stamped court copy of the
Respondent's Response and Counterclaim filed on December 23, 2013 that the 12/29/2014 docket entry states is not in the paper file.
The court has a responsibility to maintain all documents submitted. Tampering would be an applicable assessment of documents being removed from a court file.
Respondent's Response and Counterclaim filed on December 23, 2013 that the 12/29/2014 docket entry states is not in the paper file.
The court has a responsibility to maintain all documents submitted. Tampering would be an applicable assessment of documents being removed from a court file.
VII. "Establishing" error upon the victim of tampering
This is the transcript from February 24, 2014 hearing of the motion to set aside the December 23, 2013 judgment rendered.
Approximately 62 days later, the counter claim and petition was "missing" from the court file as opposing counsel stated. Although, opposing counsel read a copy the client was furnished.
Counsel then proceeded to question whether objections were made.
"Establishing" for the record "error" occurred casts doubt and depletes arguments of "timely" or "appropriate" for success on the appeal or other resolutions the citizen could argue for justice.
Approximately 62 days later, the counter claim and petition was "missing" from the court file as opposing counsel stated. Although, opposing counsel read a copy the client was furnished.
Counsel then proceeded to question whether objections were made.
"Establishing" for the record "error" occurred casts doubt and depletes arguments of "timely" or "appropriate" for success on the appeal or other resolutions the citizen could argue for justice.
VII. Inappropriate labeling of court documents
The sound recording log sheet has the text messages incorrectly labeled as the "counterclaim." Removing the court, stamped copy from the court file gives the illusion the text messages themselves were the motion.
Inappropriate labeling of the documents intentionally denies accuracy and prejudices the citizen from the truth.
Inappropriate labeling of the documents intentionally denies accuracy and prejudices the citizen from the truth.