stipulated record

Sun 10.23,22

So what happened with the summary judgment motion my opponents presented?  Judge had three choices. I thought he had only two, either they had delivered the goods and were immediately given their wish and the court ruled to dismiss the case, or we went to the next step which was a hearing.  But turns out there’s a third choice.  More documentation.  The court wants to see the evidence to be submitted or the stipulated record and statements of fact of which I’m allowed 50 facts (seems like a lot but I haven’t really looked into yet) and we’re allowed 20 pages to fulfill the demand.

All week, I’ve been shuffling through my documents to choose my most appropriate, and elucidating evidence.  It’s a collating process in which I must focus on what most clearly demonstrates disability discrimination, harassment, and maltreatment.  Landlord’s agent company was given a free hand to do as they  wished with no supervision as to how they should treat the tenants.  these were not nice folks.  It took me all day from 10 in the morning till midnight to finish my stipulated document, and here it is below.  I moved to this apartment in february of 2019.  I could tell from the start that management were unscrupulous.  At first I had just moved in which is a lot of work and expensive; I was not looking into leaving shortly.  I overlooked some of their boorish behavior, but they went too far and I named my boundaries.  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

Cumberland County

COMPLAINT

2:21-cv-00300-GZS

LORRAINE SAINT PIERRE, PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

NFG HOUSING PARTNERSHIP LP, &

PRESERVATION MANAGEMENT, INC.

DEFENDANTS

Ω     Ω     Ω     Ω

STIPULATED RECORD

January 8, 30 2020

1. Plaintiff’s first mold complaint:  Preservation Management Inc. (PMI, Agent) responds, with a formulaic answer, and when rebuffed as inappropriate,  seeks superior’s advice.

May 11, 2020

2. HUD Handbook 4350.3 House Rules: attached to lease must be created by Landlord; House rules are not reason for eviction; their key requirements must be related to safety, care and common sense.

March 4, 2021

3.  Fire Department Incident Report: Fire and Police department respond to a 911 call in which 8 police and fire personnel arrive at Plaintiff’s door citing that PMI believes she has been injured and are responding to check on her well-being.  Maintenance asserts there may be fire in unit.  It is harassment, part of their attempt to evict her.

March 8, 2021

4. First eviction ruled in Saint Pierre’s favor:  In footnotes 3, 8 and 9 the court casts aspersion on witness testimony relating to noise complaints, points to Saint Pierre’s efforts to alleviate  noise.

May 31, 2021

5. Plaintiff discovers  a notice indicating she has moved out in her mailbox:  Mailman tells her that PMI has informed him the unit is now empty.  Throughout case, Plaintiff has had mail disappear from the mailroom at Northfield Green and has reported it to the court on several occasions, see Sanctions motion February 1, 2022.

August 17, 2021

6. Place in File email to Northfield Green Manager Rivera:  Plaintiff requests that four emails sent to her by upper management be placed in file so her response to the emails, which are false and disproved by evidence on file with the court.  Plaintiff is accused of  “slamming door.”  See exhibit 19  of Complaint in a letter to Landlord  to which she has attached a letter to PMI requesting noise deafening assistance.  In it she informs management that she herself has insulated the door to her unit.

October 1, 2021

7. Agent will not furnish password:  Management denies there is internet service for residents and will not give Plaintiff its password.  Attached is PMI’s website for Northfield Green with its proclamation of a computer center on the premises.  Plaintiff herself has seen other tenants working on its dining hall computer.

October 7, 2021

8. Notice of Annual Unit Inspection:  Manager Rivera not only gives notice that the inspector will come on appointed day, but she along with Residence Services Coordinator (RSC) Wendy Akerlind are to accompany him and she requests that Plaintiff step out of her apartment while the inspection is performed.  Plaintiff responds that she prefers, as was done on the previous year, that only the inspector perform the job.  This email is sent and received, but with a notice that further emails are to be spammed.  Plaintiff can no longer contact site manager.

October 11-15, 2021

9. Violation Notice: Continuously leaves unit Entry Door Opened.  This violation is to a PMI house rule.  Plaintiff leaves her entry door partially opened when the mold spore count gets dangerously high, otherwise she will be overwhelmed and returned to the hospital emergency room.

October 25, 26,27, 2021

10.   Late evening, a bucket of water tumbles to the floor in Plaintiff’s apartment, she wipes it up as best she can, turns on a couple of box fans to dry the carpet, as is done by management when shampooing hall rug, and goes to bed .  On the next few days she is served with a number of complaints and violations; a) Plaintiff has not given management prompt notice of any defects to plumbing, appliances, heating and cooling equipment, (there was nothing wrong with any of the named items) b) violation issued for damage to unit (maintenance testified at eviction trial there had been no damage, and no request was made for compensation; c) violation: Plaintiff failed to allow Landlord or his agent to enter premises, (PMI entered her unit while she slept; at no time did Plaintiff refuse to allow management  to enter her apartment;) d) violation issued by RSC Wendy Akerlind: her position is financed by HUD for the sole purpose of being of service to tenants. It prohibits the taking on of supervisory positions by Residence Services Coordinators..  In this instance Akerlind has taken a photo of Plaintiff’s  opened door with her cell phone.  The door is partially opened because of the high mold count that day.  Management rules do not allow for open doors

October 27, 2021(?)

11.   Although photo in this exhibit has several dates and times (7.28.21 and 7.21.21)  the photo depicts Plaintiff’s arrangement of fans to dry carpeting before she went to bed on the evening of October 25, 2021 and were undoubtedly taken the next morning:  The photos were sent to Plaintiff when PMI attorney initiated the second eviction.  These photos were not presented at trial.

PMI noticing the wet carpeting at her open door and knowing she would not hear them had entered her apartment while she slept and took the pictures.  Obviously, Plaintiff had not refused them entry; they took it upon themselves to enter her home.  A  number of stories have been told of what happened that morning, none were plausible.   The police were summoned because she wouldn’t allow PMI into her home.  There was no police, no report and no police testified at eviction.  The water had seeped into neighbor’s apartment.  No neighbor appeared at trial to testify to that fact.

January 6, 2022

12.   From the transcript of eviction trial: Randy Ketchum the maintenance man has difficulty piecing the story together,  did Plaintiff let him in, did she refuse to let him in?  Where was she while he was taking his pictures?  He didn’t know, in what is essentially a one bedroom and a main living area where she could be.  But there was no damage, he said, save for the buckling of the countertop.  He could not testify when the buckling occurred, what exactly happened.  Ultimately, it did not matter because Plaintiff was evicted, not for for any of it but rather  because she would not allow manager and RSC Akerlind to enter her apartment with  the inspector to perform his task.  Saint Pierre at the trial pointed out that she did not have to let them in, see CFR subtitle A § 5.705, Uniform Physical Inspection Requirements, but it did not hold

September 14, 2022

13.   PMI refuses to return part of Plaintiff’s rent deposit: The court has charged PMI a safekeeping fee for holding their  rent payments.  Therefore they are passing  the fee on to Tenant.