From Experience, Constitutional Issues Go Nowhere And Are Largely Ignored In The SD State Court System Including The South Dakota Supreme Court.
Likely Will Have To Be Followed By Constitutional Issues Presented IN and To Federal Court For Much Of Any Chance Of Upholding Citizen Rights.
Harlan L. Jacobsen

Defendant is entitled to "Due Process" rights to both procedural and substantive of full independent "judicial" review of the actions taken and the legitimacy, constitutionality, or the need for the ordinances themselves.

The hearing judge of the "administrative hearing" was "chosen", hired and paid by the prosecution:

• Was in the pay of the prosecutors office.
• Served at the pleasure of the prosecutor
• Subject to not being "hired" again for any subsequent hearing if made findings against the prosecutor and for the defendant.
• Therefore defendant was denied a fair and independent "judicial" hearing.

Defendant has a basic constitutional right to be heard.

• The city agents made several unannounced visits to the property and never identified themselves..
• Visitation city people never spoke to or had any conversation with defendant property owner.
• Never spoke to or had any conversation with any property owner employee.
• A "ticket" was written with no "input" from defendant whatsoever.
• Never heard nor were they interested in defendant's side of the use of his property in a reasonable manner.
• No opportunity was offered to do so.
  

The City Inspectors entered upon defendant's property without a search warrant.

The inspectors were seen in at least two occasions on the property. Their very own photographs entered into evidence were taken from atop the "not open" to the public ELEVATED "loading" dock at the rear of the buildings. Part of the "yard" in question. To get this angle looking down would have had to have been taken from a raised position and at this angle would have been photographed the parking lot would have been looking "through" a tree with large number of branches in the picture.

Photographs taken by the city "inspectors" themselves, therefore are evidence of invasion of plaintiff's private property to inspect without a warrant.

Cause of "action" a result of and is based on an "unidentified citizen complaint", with defendant left no ability to confront or challenge the legitimacy of His accuser that the City basis the legitimacy of this action on.

• City has neither recorded nor retained any evidence this party's phone call even originated "in state" or that "complaint" even came from a citizen or even a resident of the state, let alone Sioux Falls or that the call itself even originated "in state".

  Defendant is denied the right to defend himself from such complaint when there is even no evidence a call existed and it was not perhaps just a city employee taking personal inspired harassment action against a defendant.

  Defendant has right to examine records to establish whether that has happened but can not because nothing exists in records etc.

• City is not prosecuting on an established fact that someone considers defendant's property a nuisance. it has not been established nor does it even exist.

• The city does not identify if they ever had such a complaint, who verifies that nor do they identify what the actual "complaint" if any really was.

  Here they are saying something is a public nuisance because a citizen has complained, yet there is no record what the complaint actually was and if it has any connection whatsoever to what the city has now pronounced a public nuisance.

  There is no record available to challenge or verify charges the city has said is because of an alleged citizen "complaint". Was the complaint about the what this action has cited or was it about something else?

• The city uses a "Telephone" call from what well may be from out of state merely from a disgruntled party retaliating against a Sioux Falls business property owner.
• It has used this harassment request as justification to enter his property without a warrant to inspect and find some evidence of unspecified unannounced "wrong doing".

• Subsequent complaint and ticket not necessarily based in any way by the actual original complaint yet the city claims they are acting on behalf of the publics called in concern and defendant has no access to what the publics actual concern was if any.

Defendant alleges the action is not motivated or taken on behalf of a legitimate complaint but merely an extension of the city acting as a free harassment service for a disgruntled party and is therefore a violation of defendants basic rights.

Defendant by not having access to the accuser does not have an opportunity to defend charges made against the use of his property in a reasonable manner nor even verify they exist.

Enforcement and the ordinance are unconstitutionally vague and ever changing.

Yard needed to be fenced according to the city and later changed that requirement to it must be with a no see through 6 foot fence. This was complied with to city satisfaction.

New complaint –this year, with that same fence, same padlocked yard started with the remaining 30 machines still scattered over the large lot as used.

On receipt of this years phoned in complaint write up delivered to defendant, machines were at great effort lined up neatly and condensed down to ten percent of the area

After that defendant employees spent two days carefully and diligently removed all paper or cardboard trash and anything actual junk removed and disposed of.

This complaint or proceeding never had a word about "visual" pollution nor does the NEW complaint and $200 fine "notice" while the first one is under appeal.

• City has no evidence of who this call was made from, or even a record made of the call at all.
• Defendant has not access to City records showing it has no evidence this party phone call even originated "in state".
• Defendant has no access to City records to prove it has no evidence this complaint was filed by phone by a Sioux Falls Citizen.
• Defendant does not have access to accuser or motivation or what complaint consisted of.

New complaint this year, (new phone call apparently from same party. now on 3rd complaint), separate and distinct from two years ago complaint,

That complaint was settled when defendant complied with all of city demands regarding use of the property to "City satisfaction". This time– 30 machines remaining were still scattered all over of the lot, and at this complaint they were then organized and lined up neatly in ten percent of area, leaving 90%of the lot empty except for the duly licensed bus. All trash cardboard and anything we deemed junk promptly removed so all that was left was working material used in the operation of newspaper vending machine routes.

Now – it appears from documentation any metal etc. is not allowed.

Any machines not moved regularly are "abandoned" and anything not new – or are necessary scarce, impossible to replace, and are valued highly, cost hundreds to manufacture replacement parts and in our view are far far from Junk..... and in their view insult our intelligence when they site them as. "junk" according to their casual visual assessment. 

The City witness displays photos of our equipment and says that it "looks like junk" to him. The Administrative judge looks at the same photo and says: it IS "junk".

Never mind the small metal coin mechanism boxes cost $125 each as "rebuilt by the factory" and new at $225.00. Either one the judge looks at and it will say it looks like "junk".

You have to prove it does not LOOK LIKE junk. Not that it is not junk from your view but you have to prove that it does not "look like" junk.

Anything else in this yard they may decide (at their whim and discretion) –is– one of the following:

• Abandoned property
  
• Consists of Metal, "which seems to be" outlawed
  
• Is "junk"
  
• Will attract rodents
  
• Is a danger to children

What is a public nuisance? It is whatever they say it is.

If defendant can not somehow prove that ALL of the above are untrue, the ticket STANDS.

CONVICTED AND UPHELD BY THE CITY HIRED HEARING OFFICER.

THE CITY CAN AND WILL:

Remove all of the offending material from your property. (EVERYTHING EXCEPT LICENSED VEHICLES)

They will seize it and dispose of it and charge you for disposing of it.

All of these charges are shadows that can not be identified or defended against since they are speculative and subject to whims or "opinions" and are whatever they say they are.

Right Off at the Administrative Hearing the city prosecutor hired and paid Judge starts The Administrative Hearing By Notifying the Defendant "the Burden of Proof is on You."

GUILTY& UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT

On defendant statement that "this is not the way "justice" is supposed to work!

The city attorney chimes in that this system is "okay" in this type of matter because "this is not a criminal trial:."
Defendant maintains and charges this "administartive hearing" is a sham to make citizens think they have recieved "judicial" review

That the city acts as "inspector", as prosecutor, the so called judge is chosen, hired and serves at the prosecutors discretion and is paid by the city. This same city "hired' party also acts as the judge, the jury and the executioner.
1. Inspector, 2. Prosecutor 3. Judge 4 The Jury 5. . Executioner, all under one control, the "City".

Defendants research indicates NO ONE has ever had one of these property "sham" so called "administrative hearings" ticket overturned.

This UPHOLDS the cities power to do anything they like to keep these "unruly" citizens in line.

Note: The following is just a jumble of notes on points mentioned in the above etc. and is of value only to those looking for additional points to defend themselves.

In defendants view it is impossible to prevail in an administrative hearing "stacked" deck.

That state court appeals are unlikely to prevail with any expectation of any upholding of constitutional rights.

Check This Site regularly and will have new article on State Constitutional issues in near future.

Notes on Constitutional Issues To Be Brought UP

#8

The defendant alleges here that this ordinance on its face and as it has been applied in this matter is unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the use of defendants property to an unascertainable standard, and unconstitutionally broad because it authorizes the punishment of what has been traditionally considered constitutionally protected use of property.

Defendant cannot be held to be violating the ordinance because it is vague and indefinite, totally unclear not only on its face as written but also in its application here.

Therefore unconstitutional because a reasonable person is unable to ascertain what is allowed and what is not.

Definition of nuisance, abandonment, what transforms something useful, valuable and part of the ongoing daily business into "junk" for example seem to be in the eye of the beholder and are whatever the city rep today say it is, a moving target that changes.

Therefore due to the vague nature of the ordinance and how the city applies it, makes it impossible for a property user to ascertain what today he can use his property for, and what is taboo today and he can not.

In addition, what is allowed today may be changed tomorrow at the whim of the city and totally unknown is how will it change if someone calls and complains about it.

This is evidenced by two years ago the complaint with 120 machines scattered thru out the yard resulted in a request for a no see thru fence which was supplied and satisfied the department.

This time with 30 machines, which were subsequently moved to neat rows affecting less then ten per cent of the yard area, it was determined they had now become a nuisance and had to go.

Therefore this is unconstitutionally vague because no matter what defendant does or puts in his yard he can not be certain what is allowed or what will be allowed after the next hostile neighbor triggering phone call.

You can not run a business or conduct your life when it is at the whim of the city.
A civilized society is based on definite and clearly ascertained rules.

This is unconstitutionally vague and is insanity and needs to be reversed.

#7

The Administrative hearing finding was not rationally based on evidence that indicated a finding of a public nuisance for newspaper vending machines held for "good weather and temperature" refurbishing was warranted.

There was no evidence nor was it argued the public had or could in reality be harmed by this use to hold these common, on the street everywhere machines held on private fenced locked commercially zoned property.

Administrative Hearing Afforded Does Not Meet Constitutional Protections

Defendant alleges this matter rises to the level of a constitutional violation of "due process' in as much as it does not "afford defendant a fully constitutional judicial mechanism" with which to challenge the administrative decision" in question.

That this administrative hearing being appealed here is conducted by a person hired and on the pay of the prosecutor.

Any finding against the defendant would mean the hearing administrator, a local attorney hand selected, to his liking, hired and paid for by the prosecutor city, would indeed not be rehired for further hearings if found issuing rulings against the city prosecutor that hired him..

Thus this "administrative hearing" procedure afforded defendant in this matter is merely a sham, a "pretend" that defendant has been given his day in court, a mere ritual that is not a constitutionally independent valid mechanism for defendant to challenge the decision in question.

The government must provide adequate procedural due process, which is not the case here and defendant here spells out allegations of violations of procedural due process, substantive due process and an unlawful taking of his property with evidence that this does rise to the level of constitutional violation of his due process rights and should be reversed.

Defendant through the ownership of a parcel of land in Sioux Falls with a whole bundle of rights, has a property interest that merits due process protection.

Defendant claims a property interest, the lawful use of which for 18 years generated no problems.

Here the threshold for city interference has been set so low a mere phone call from a party even out of state results in the city to use its police power ability to eradicate all utility this property was intended to have and was purchased for resulting in the equivalent of a "taking of the property" without compensation.

#6

Defendant alleges that his property with newspaper vending machines present does not threaten or endanger public safety or welfare nor does it appear to threaten or endanger public safety or welfare to a reasonably objective person observing such equipment from a public vantage point.

That plaintiffs newspaper vending machines are not generally visible and are behind an enclosed 360 degrees by a fence exactly as the city two years ago previous complaint specified that needed to be installed with inserts to block any views of "ugly" machines.

This shielding fence installed as demanded by this same city department ordered to be installed after the same "complaint" was filed two years ago by the same "triggering" party.

In addition 9 trees were planted and have grown nicely and by one more growing season block almost half the area from any public view. These trees plus six spirea bushes planted were not regured and are over and above what was required by the city.

Further shielding from public view could have been easily fixed by installing a higher fence and/or simply defendant placing them behind where the building shields them totally from view if "visual" pollution was the problem.

No notice of any kind was received that defendants machines caused any visual blight whatsoever.

There was no discussion or information supplied that indicated defendants newspaper distribution was a "visual blight" was creating a visual blighting influence upon the neighborhood wherein the large yard exists.

The city seems to be hanging in there with the old "attracts rodents ploy" which supposedly "works every time" and is almost impossiable to disprove, which was required in this matter with the to be considered 'true" unless defendant can "prove" otherwise standard.

Defendant maintains that in the over 18 years he has occupied the property with newspaper machines, not one rodent has been observed or reported and has no reason to suspect that will change.

Defendant alleges the property is not now, nor has it been, nor is it reasonable to expect with the same type of machines for 18 years now to somehow become infested or inhabited by rodents, vermin or animals; nor is said property reasonably expected to become infested or to furnish a breeding place so long as the defendants maintain their property in a reasonable manner.

Defendants newspaper vending machines, many of which are there waiting for the spring season to warm to painting temperature for touch up and reinstallation on the six state route, are currently inoperable, perhaps awaiting fabrication of one small part on arrival of warmer "no mitten" weather. There are absolutely no "useless" or junk machines.

There are no substantial parts thereof that have been removed, and which: threatens or endangers public safety or welfare, or creates a blighting influence upon the neighborhood where the currently idle machines rest.

No evidence exits nor has any pretense been made that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that even one of these newspaper machines or standard parts threatens or endangers public safety or welfare; or creates a blighting influence upon the neighborhood where the machines rest; or is, or may reasonably become, infested or inhabited by rodents, vermin or animals, or may furnish a breeding place for such rodents, vermin or animals.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, reh. den., 368 U.S. 871 (1961), guarantees to all persons the right of privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion.

Absent exigent circumstances, a municipal code enforcement officer is without authority to enter onto any private, commercial or residential property to assure compliance with or obtain evidence and photographs to enforce the various codes of the municipality or to conduct any administrative explorations inspections or searches without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of such premises or without a duly issued search or administrative inspection warrant.

City inspectors were reported sneaking around and on the property several times in the back yard area by employees. Further evidence of this became apparent when the city presented as evidence pictures, at the administrative hearing, digital photographs taken of defendants back yard obviously from the angle, taken from and by standing on the property's elevated back loading dock looking down into the back yard. Not from the far side of the fence view seen by the public.

A reasonably well-trained city inspector presumptively knows the law governing his conduct and maintains respect for basic constitutional rights of the people.

A reasonably well-trained officer would also know that a city ordinance cannot trump the Fourth Amendment and that the search conducted on the Plaintiffs property to take those angled pictures looking down into the yard from the elevated loading dock was illegal.

Notice that a case against the person in jeopardy of loss is insufficient if that notice does not afford the person in Jeopardy the opportunity to voice his objections or otherwise participate.

This is defined by the fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard."
Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 .

This right to be heard has little reality if defendant has no contact from the ticket writer, afforded no input in any way to defend use of his property or to challenge the legitimacy of the action.

Notice that a case against the person in jeopardy of loss is insufficient if that notice does not afford the person in Jeopardy the opportunity to voice his objections or otherwise participate.

This is defined by the common holding that "The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard."

#5

To meet constitutional muster, ordinances regulating nuisances must be phrased in such a way as to require the municipality to affirmatively establish that a nuisance in fact exists.

Here, the usual comprehensive "attracts rodents" and "might harm children" without any evidence of over 18 years with often over 100 machines, no employee of defendant has ever seen a rodent in this yard nor have their been any children to harm or were harmed in the yard. Nor has defendant in 32 years with over 800 such machines and parts in 9 state ever seen or had a rodent anywhere near them or harmed any children who had access to them on the sidewalks in all that time.

Yet the city makes this claim with no evidence whatsoever and in fact there is nothing that could be put in this yard including automobiles, that they could not make those "attracts rodents" or "may harm children" charge since they apparently need not have any evidence whatsoever, just make the charge..

Especially "unlicensed" automobiles.

The city has only alleged and had not proven, that anything in defendants yard in fact, adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community.

The cities goal here seems to be solely based on "not attracting rodents" or not maintaining something children may be harmed on is in reality what they are hanging their hat on here.

There is no evidence whatsoever that either are happening in defendants property.

Therefore the city action is arbitrary, unreasonable and unrelated to public health, safety, morals or general welfare.

Any ordinances controlling nuisances can not be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can be otherwise more "reasonably achieved."

Here, defendants use of his property that has existed and been conducted for over 18 years and has harmed no one, is allowed to be destroyed by city action fermented solely by one phone call from a hostile party unidentified person who may not even reside or placed his triggering phone call in South Dakota.

Defendant in this matters maintains this ordinance and the action taken under it allowed for the taking of property without just compensation.

That this is a taking of property on the basis of one phone call from an "unidentified party" not proven to be even a citizen who has a personal animosity with defendant who may not even be in or reside in South Dakota is an invalid exercise of police power violating the plaintiffs' Constitutional right to due process."

Defendant requests that this action that results in the "taking" of defendants property in effect by the city, to be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and unrelated to public health, safety, morals or general welfare and asks that it be reversed..

#4

Another dictionary says the definition of "junk" is discarded material, something useless or old. The city determines by looking at it that the defendant's newspaper vending machines are discarded material and useless and the administrative judge can also determine from looking at photos that these newspaper vending machines in a locked fenced yard, and associated parts are (junk) discarded, abandoned, useless, attract rodents, may harm children and are declared by a city "expert" and the administrative judge looking at photos of valuable unreplaceable machines and parts to be a "public nuisance."

These are all just their prejudiced opinions and none are based on fact.

Constitutional property rights are based on fact. There has been no finding of fact.

The entire matter has evolved from "first glance" police powers, opinions.

Defendant was never told when notified of in advance that the administrative hearing was pre set up as a 100% guilty conclusion, and you have total responsibility (your burden of proof) is to somehow disprove "all of the following"

Even though the entire matter is unconstitutionally vague and is impossible for the most experienced legal expert to disprove the following:

Defendant's back yard is:
• A public nuisance. No definition of what this constitutes, it is whatever the city says it is.
• The yard has "Metal" which is a "banned item" not allowed. We can put nothing in our back yard that is not metal. Leaving nothing other then wood, plastic. and concrete. No machines. We can not argue this. We have metal.
  Contains newspaper vending machines. We distribute newspapers with newspaper vending machines for 34 years Our Arizona newspapers have had more newsracks then this in a Scottsdale residential back yard for 29 years without a complaint.

  They are right. We are guilty, we do have "ugly" newspaper vending machines.

  The ticket said defendant had a bus in the yard unlicensed. It was always licensed and that was dropped only at the administrative hearing when a license was produced

• That defendant has junk abandoned property in the yard. Under their definition, anything not new is useless junk and if not moved or used in 90 days is obviously abandoned. Junk and abandoned can not be argued since it is whatever they say it is.
• May harm and is hazardous to children. Fenced padlocked newspaper vending machines may get lose therefore become a hazard undefined or entirely unclear so can not be defended how these are going to be able to harm children when there are hundreds of thousands of these on the sidewalks all over U.S.
• Illegal Metal composition newspaper vending machines somehow attract rodents, if in a yard, which is entirely unexplained so cannot defend as untrue.

#3

The city here has abused its power to create laws that promote the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and violated the guarantee of due process before property is taken.

The City has not and can not provide relevant evidence that these ordinances as written are needed.

There is no evidence that defendants property adversely affected the health, safety and welfare of the community or that there has even been a single complaint by a qualified or identifiable citizen of the city.

Ordinances controlling a nuisance can not be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can be otherwise more reasonably achieved."

Nuisance here is not defined and is vague and unconstitutional. If is whatever the city says it is.

There has been nothing established that metal newspaper vending machines or metal parts and plastic windows on the street or in defendants yard attract rodents and there is no logical reason to think that they would.

To claim a nuisance there must be a nuisance in fact and there is no evidence here and the city can and has not provided any that defendants property as maintained is a nuisance in fact.'

To be constitutional, the city has the burden of proving that activities and normal use of this fully fenced, sight shielded and padlocked property constituted such a nuisance.

Ordinances regulating nuisances to meet constitutional muster must be phrased in such a way as to require the municipality to affirmatively establish that a nuisance in fact exists.

The administrative hearing judge looks at the pictures of the newsracks in the yard to be refurbished when weather permits. and pronounces them junk.

Brand new newsracks cost several hundred dollars. In the picture are several coin mechanisms the size of a graham cracker box that cost $167 rebuilt from the factory. $225.00 new. Both appear to be junk apparently.

Junk defined by the dictionary... debris: the remains of something that has been destroyed or broken up

There is no junk according to this definition in defendants yard. There is nothing in the yard that has been destroyed and broken up.

The city did not discuss or ask what any of the parts in the yard were. Most machines are there waiting for 50 degree weather were and when they can be repainted and new windows etc installed and redelivered back out to wherever or which state they are needed.

The city says defendants newspaper machines are junk and abandoned. The definition of anything "abandoned" is anything not moved or used in 90 days.

Defendant does indeed have items unmoved and unused for over 90 days. This is a normal pattern and is not a hazard to children, rodents or the public.

Defendants large unlicensed snow blower is in the back yard from March thru November unmoved and unused. It is not abandoned and not using it does not make it junk. City findings need to be factual and rational. They are not.

Newspaper vending machines have their season and are waiting for summer and are not abandoned and are not junk.

The yard will hold 18 automobiles. It has a two foot high stack of concrete ballast pieces placed in an area about six foot by six foot.

These are concrete ballast removed from machines when moving and working on them and replaced back in the machines (20 to 80 pounds each) placed in the inside bottom to keep them stable from blowing over or being knocked over when reinstalled on the sidewalks.

They are not junk and this ballast has not been abandoned. It is an essential part and goes back out as the machines are loaded for distribution after refurbishing.

The city definition of junk and abandoned are vague and unconstitutional and can be used to describe anything in the back yard and is totally unknown as to what could be in the back yard other then "licensed" vehicles.

Defendant does not need to be punished and discriminated against because he is not in the auto business and therefore his $75,000.00 yard is unusable for another business.

Plaintiff has used this yard for newsracks for 19 years. He bought this property for this use. It was zoned commercial and represented as being able to continue to use it as such when purchased.

The previous harassment triggering complaints two years ago etc., (set off by the same party) were complied with to the city satisfaction.

Nothing changed. Went from 120 machines in this large yard down to 30 over in one corner under one tree..

This time it is harassment pure and simple.

#2

What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by writing a ticket.

The municipality here has not in any way established affirmatively that a "public" nuisance in fact exists.

The defendant is challenging the constitutionality on its face and as applied here, of a police power measure and is establishing that it and the action itself is arbitrary. unreasonable and unrelated to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.

A citizen can be made to pay a fine and in most cases coerced in to give up normal and full use of his property by such city harassment.

Not all. a few correctly or incorrectly believe that they have property rights as a result of such protections written into the US constitution.

However, if the court system says these rights are worthless and mean nothing. they do in fact then "mean nothing" and are a cruel hoax fostered on the citizens.

#1

Defendant files a claim that this action by the city is a violation of his right to procedural and substantive due process,

That a city employed person acting under color of a city ordinance has deprived defendant of a protected property interest, and that the city procedure for challenging the deprivation does not satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.

That the city has deprived defendant of property without due process of law in violation of the procedural and substantive components of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. That this is a taking of property without compensation.

That the city has used deliberate and arbitrary abuse of government power to violates defendant's right to procedural and substantive due process."

That the city action and procedure of taking this action was controlled by a hostile neighbor. That the city use of this triggering requirement of one anonymous phone call, allows the hostile neighbor to hold defendants property hostage.

These have been repeated actions of "triggering" city harassment year after year.

That defendant is in effect put in the position of being "blackmailed" in to agreeing with neighbor's financial demands or 'being run out of town" by repeatedly triggering city harassment,

This is the third year, thereby denying defendant normal and protected uses of his property.

That this city anonymous triggering "harassment on demand" procedure and process deny defendant constitutionally protected rights.

That the city has no means for defendant to face his accuser. In fact the city has no means and can not identify that the complainer was even in Sioux Falls or a citizen of Sioux Falls with legitimate status to file a complaint of a "nuisance."

A party from Phoenix, Arizona, could have made the "complaint" and the action triggered. The complainer is not identifiable and is not even identified as a citizen with a legitimate interest.

The entire matter is triggered on the basis they had a "citizen" complaint but can not identify that the complainer was indeed a Sioux Falls citizen.

The charge is this property is a public nuisance, that they have had a single complaint (anonymous phone call) which one call, is not a public, it is but one, making it a private nuisance and they have not even identified if this one is even a citizen of or even located in Sioux Falls.

Defendant has a right to know who or where the accuser is and status of the party that is holding his property in hostage to such regular harassment by triggering the city to repeatedly at no charge or obligation, to do his "dirty work" for him.

top of page  II  Back to Sioux Falls Class Action