Sonia Moreno-Avalos Vs Jr's Criminal Enterprise?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Matt,

Thanks for sharing your experiences in detail. The only point being made by my comments (about you) is that you went thru some difficult economic times and should be able to relate. No many people have had the resources you had, most due to your intellect.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

sparks wrote:

551 Gostlin is the worst looking building on Gostlin in between Calumet Ave and Hohman. The roof is shot. On the east side of the roof there are missing shingles and the gutter is falling off the building. On the west side, the sheathing has rotted and parts of the roof are caving in. The gutters have completely detached because the rafter tails have rotted away. One window on the west side is covered with plywood and another window on the north side of the building is missing completely, allowing rain to pour in the structure. Blighted buildings like this are an eyesore and discourage other property owners from investing in their properties. There isn't a judge in the country who would rule in favor of the plaintiff after seeing pictures of how she has allowed this building to rot away like this.

I guess then what you describe makes it, more of a value to the plaintiff, to use have used the rite contractor, so code enforcement wouldn't bother her any more? Rite Mr. City Official?

And I guess, the following properties is another outstanding example of how Tom McDermott Jr has used HUD - Federal Tax dollars to strike a blow to community blight, rehabbing eyesores, adding value to the community.

They are move in ready, waiting for a College Bound family to move right in.

The above five pictures were taken a few months ago, this property which proudly displays how Mayor Tom McDermott Jr used federal tax dollars to address blight in the community, decreasing property values, rehab the property so someone could move into it.

This is another fine property where Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr displays the quality work done, making it move in ready, again striking a blow at community blight in Hammond.

How does Tom makes this city work? Sorta like the magic Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr's did with Snake Fest which collected $66,000 in parking fees from 4,400 cars @ $15 a car. It is that magic of packing 22 people in each of the 4,400 cars who paid a parking fee! But this is another subject.

The following properties haven't met the standard you describe Sparks, that standard of blight on the community. Maybe it was because of a special relationship with a member of code enforcement? It's a question fairly asked.

Apparently that community blight standard, is a fluid baseline. For years the above property was not a concern, allowing Hammond residents to live in it, not meeting the Hammond's standard of blight. Apparently after a picture shows up in a blog, questioning the blight standard, several months later the property gets torn down, up untill that point, well it was ok for human beings to occupy. Go figure.

Apparently the standard of blight seems a bit transient.

Or was it the owner wasn't hispannic?

Or was it the owner made sure Tom's Campaign got a few scheckles?

Or was it the bribe wasn't enough?

Or was it someone in city employment, referred the rite contractor and hence code enforcement wouldn't bother them any more?

833

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Sparks,

you conveniently neglect to focus on the plaintiff's major complaint...someone appears to have presented a bribe to address code enforcement relief.

you conveniently neglect to focus on permits request by qualified licensed contractors were denied. I wonder if that permit would have been denied if the rite contractor had gotten the nod?

What is described by the plaintiff is criminal. people go to jail for that.

It leaves speculation, some may say with certainty, more of this type of exchange has happens.

It reverts back to what Rick Diombala said on wjed. I have searched and searched for that show. It seems to for some reason or another not on line.

mattlap · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:24 am **Posts:** 2529

justcallmetommy wrote:

Matt,

Thanks for sharing your experiences in detail. The only point being made by my comments (about you) is that you went thru some difficult economic times and should be able to relate. No many people have had the resources you had, most due to your intellect.

Able to relate? She doesn't even live in the City and at the time had at least 2 rentals here and one more in East Chicago.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Whether she lives in the city or not, does not preclude her from filing a lawsuit.

Whether she does or does not have 1 or 500 rental properties, whether or not she does have a homestead or illegally have a homestead, or 5 homesteads, (as recently reported for one lake county politician), a chicago address, a new york address, or in court for code violations, it does not give entitlement to an individual who reportedly works for the city, holding any specific business license to offer an inducement, as described by the plaintiff, the exchange between plaintiff, kimmie and the contractor/person/business who worked in the city court, to be reportedly introduced by code enforcement, and working for the court clerk, to imply/offer per the plaintiff, Per plaintiff, Mr. Taylor told me, if you let me do your roof for the $5,000, I promise you I will take care of Ms. Kim Nordhoff, I will take her off your back. I promise you she will not bother you anymore, you will not have any more problems with her. That very well may be criminal, not just unethical.

They are separate legal issues. Considering Lake County's history on exemptions and Tom does have a history of being able to play with exemptions, removing homestead exemptions and triggering audits to fit his own political vendetta.

As to the $5,000 bid reportedly presented, and the other bids coming in much higher. Haven't spent much time on this one, but I saw one ROOFING contract for $14,000. If what Spunfcuk said is correct about the roof, it appears either someone did not have the skill to bid a job.....

Or, many unscrupulous contractors, and of course I am not saying Taylor made Rite Contracting is unscrupulous, low ball a bid, open up a roof and then come back to the client saying it will be another $10,000. What does a client then do? They either cough up the dough, or being litigation which may last years and the client has an open roof, eventually loosing the property. For another contractor to walk in and finish the job, seldom will any reputable contractor enter such agreement after a project is started.

Now to initiate litigation against an insider, we all have seen how the Lake County Election Board dealt with the allegations against Tom. Is Mr. Taylor a Lake County Insider? Is Kimmie a Lake County Insider? Someone reported no Kimmie works in code, someone else wrote Kimmie left code enforcement over a year ago, hell I don't know.

A common practice of some favored contractors in some cities :smt004

, The contractors low balling a bid on city rehab projects, win the bid in an uncompetitive process, then go in and bump up price. In some communities, the favored contractor gets approval to bump up cost, yet others in the same community, contractors who are not favored eat cost. There are a lot of small contractors who just don't want to do business in Hammond. Bigger firms have legal relationships with law firms to deal with such situations.

Now interestingly enough, Hammond had the feds knock on its door, as a result of an unfavorable SBA audit. Yep Tom got a warning, and his ego got in the way costing Hammond $10,000,000 in funding for a Senior citizen's project. Or is it some believe Tom's campaign fund got in the way? Hell, you answer that for your self.

Someone in Tom's administration over at the Redevelopment Commission was approving bump ups above 25%. They had the authority, by federal guidelines, to increase bids up to 25% above the bid, but anything above that amount required full Redevelopment Commission Board approval. Full Board Approval didn't happen, some wonder why?

HUD came to town, audited the books because of a SBA audit and suspended/disbarred Hammond from participation in the program until things were refunded, explained and resolved. Tom on WJED minimized it saying it was an accounting problem, no big deal. Yea and pigs do fly!

http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit_Reports/2012-CH-1009.pdf,

Was someone following Tom's pay book on this? Did someone have enough influence in Hammond City Court to negate any legal action taken against a unscrupulous contractor? Valid questions.

HUD's Audit letter:

Quote:

http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit_Reports/2012-CH-1009.pdf
Issue Date: August 3, 2012
Audit Report Number: 2012-CH-1009

TO: Forrest Jones, Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, 5HPH
//signed//

FROM: Kelly Anderson, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 5AGA

SUBJECT: The[color=#800000] Hammond Housing Authority, Hammond, IN, Did Not Administer Its Recovery Act Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUDâ€™s, and Its Own Requirements

Enclosed are the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector Generalâ€™s (OIG) final results of the audit of the Hammond Housing Authorityâ€™s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund stimulus formula and competitive grants.

HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on recommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.

The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8L, requires that OIG post its publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at http://www.hudoig.gov.

If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at (312) 913-8684

I believe there were more than just one of these findings by the SBA.

I am as well especially fond of those one word responses, Corrected!912

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

My own personal opinion, given the history, set of circumstances, the unbridled, unchecked influence/power some of these people toss around, it is a pattern of behavior which is learned, encouraged, endorsed.

It is just a matter of how high up the food chain the money travels.

There are a couple of people who have left code enforcement, and I have had conversations with some, both deceased and alive. They were very clear they were instructed to do things which were illegal.

Diombala even said so on air in a WJED tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olh9Ldy0HJk

mattlap · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:24 am **Posts:** 2529

justcallmetommy wrote:

My own personal opinion, given the history, set of circumstances, the unbridled, unchecked influence/power some of these people toss around, it is a pattern of behavior which is learned, encouraged, endorsed.

It is just a matter of how high up the food chain the money travels.

There are a couple of people who have left code enforcement, and I have had conversations with some, both deceased and alive. They were very clear they were instructed to do things which were illegal.

Diombala even said so on air in a WJED tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olh9Ldy0HJk

Rich Diombala was a prime example of a government employee scumbag. He is the epitome of exactly what is wrong with government employees. He just hitched himself to the wrong star and came up on the wrong side of the coin. He was Dedelow's boy and the same games were played under Dedelow that are played under McDermott. The players are just different ......

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

mattlap wrote:

sparks wrote:

The reason the property owner is in court is because she refused to maintain her property. The city wants property owners to maintain their properties and improve them. Any licensed contractor who put a new roof on the building would "get code enforcement off her back" because the new roof would fix the issue that landed her in court. I'm having trouble following your logic that he uses his position to undercut other contractors. His costs are the same as every other contractor. He has to buy materials, pay his workers,provide tools,trucks and rent dumpsters. As a licensed contractor, he is required to pay for workmen's comp., unemployment insurance, license,bond and liability insurance. In this particular case, no work was performed so the time and energy he spent looking at the job and making a bid resulted in a loss.

Every other quote was 80% or more higher than his with 4 different quotes shown. Darren quoted $5000, and the other quotes ranged from $9500 to what looks like over $20,000 from Gluth (hard to read but it is 5 digits and looks to start with a 2).

So tell me how the next nearest quote is almost double? Either the other contractors are price gouging or Mr Taylor has found a way to cut corners.

In economics R= P*Q (Revenue = Price * Quantity). Is he receiving enough leads through his code enforcement sources or the clerks office that he can reduce price and still attain revenue? That is where he is likely using his position to further his business over other contractors.

Are other contractors allowed to drive along with code enforcement? My guess is probably not ........and that alone creates an unfair and unethical situation.

Matt, where in the documents did you see something that said a contractor was driving along with code enforcement? I did see a document that referred to incident that happened when Mrs. Moreno-Avalos was in court after pressing criminal charges against her former tenants. She expressed concern for her personal safety and an officer of the court escorted her to her car.
There are always property owners whose business model is to acquire properties and rent them out without repairing and maintaining them. They believe it is less expensive to pay fines than to make capital improvements on their rental properties. Eventually, after years of neglect, they can no longer be rented and the owners walk away from them, forcing the neighbors to live next to an abandoned,blighted building. You can see some of these "investors" every thursday at 2:00 pm in Hammond City Court. It is the job of the building department to force these people to bring their buildings up to code so they don't represent a hazard to the community.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

sparks wrote:

mattlap wrote:

sparks wrote:

The reason the property owner is in court is because she refused to maintain her property. The city wants property owners to maintain their properties and improve them. Any licensed contractor who put a new roof on the building would "get code enforcement off her back" because the new roof would fix the issue that landed her in court. I'm having trouble following your logic that he uses his position to undercut other contractors. His costs are the same as every other contractor. He has to buy materials, pay his workers,provide tools,trucks and rent dumpsters. As a licensed contractor, he is required to pay for workmen's comp., unemployment insurance, license,bond and liability insurance. In this particular case, no work was performed so the time and energy he spent looking at the job and making a bid resulted in a loss.

Every other quote was 80% or more higher than his with 4 different quotes shown. Darren quoted $5000, and the other quotes ranged from $9500 to what looks like over $20,000 from Gluth (hard to read but it is 5 digits and looks to start with a 2).

So tell me how the next nearest quote is almost double? Either the other contractors are price gouging or Mr Taylor has found a way to cut corners.

In economics R= P*Q (Revenue = Price * Quantity). Is he receiving enough leads through his code enforcement sources or the clerks office that he can reduce price and still attain revenue? That is where he is likely using his position to further his business over other contractors.

Are other contractors allowed to drive along with code enforcement? My guess is probably not ........and that alone creates an unfair and unethical situation.

Matt, where in the documents did you see something that said a contractor was driving along with code enforcement? I did see a document that referred to incident that happened when Mrs. Moreno-Avalos was in court after pressing criminal charges against her former tenants. She expressed concern for her personal safety and an officer of the court escorted her to her car.
There are always property owners whose business model is to acquire properties and rent them out without repairing and maintaining them. They believe it is less expensive to pay fines than to make capital improvements on their rental properties. Eventually, after years of neglect, they can no longer be rented and the owners walk away from them, forcing the neighbors to live next to an abandoned,blighted building. You can see some of these "investors" every thursday at 2:00 pm in Hammond City Court. It is the job of the building department to force these people to bring their buildings up to code so they don't represent a hazard to the community.

And in this case, I haven't checked when the plaintiff first purchased this property, but she spent $5,500 in electrical work March 14th, 2000 and $8,500 in drywall, floor, bathroom, doors, December 14th, 2000.

Yes Sparks some property owners have such a business model, but it appears in this case this woman spent just under $15,000 in repairs in 2000.

She also wanted to put on a roof, but the licensed hammond roofing contractor was denied the permit.

As to the notation when city officials came together to the plaintif's house, I believe there is more than one notation. the easiest one to find is found in the above document, found in the plaintiff's federal court filing, one of the submitted documents. The case number, document number and page number are in blue sparks.

So per the plaintiff, they came to the house together. Hmmmmm.

We know Ms. Kimmie worked for code enforcement. What is Mr. Taylor's position? Code enforcement assistant, as the plaintiff believed him to be or city employee, or court employee?

Per plaintiff, Mr. Taylor told me, if you let me do your roof for the $5,000, I promise you I will take care of Ms. Kim Nordhoff, I will take her off your back. I promise you she will not bother you anymore, you will not have any more problems with her.

Is Ms. Kimme a licensed attorney? Did she help plaintiff's tenants fill out paperwork acting as a licensed attorney?

What ever happened to the legal clinic?

Unethical?

Criminal?

or Both?

Isolated incident only with this contractor?

Or is this happening on a broader scope with other contractors who have this reported close connection?

mattlap · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:24 am **Posts:** 2529

sparks wrote:

Matt, where in the documents did you see something that said a contractor was driving along with code enforcement? I did see a document that referred to incident that happened when Mrs. Moreno-Avalos was in court after pressing criminal charges against her former tenants. She expressed concern for her personal safety and an officer of the court escorted her to her car.
There are always property owners whose business model is to acquire properties and rent them out without repairing and maintaining them. They believe it is less expensive to pay fines than to make capital improvements on their rental properties. Eventually, after years of neglect, they can no longer be rented and the owners walk away from them, forcing the neighbors to live next to an abandoned,blighted building. You can see some of these "investors" every thursday at 2:00 pm in Hammond City Court. It is the job of the building department to force these people to bring their buildings up to code so they don't represent a hazard to the community.

The court papers reference Kim and Darren Taylor going to her house together to "inspect" her roof in September, 2010. He then comes back in October, 2010 to see if she wants to go forward with the repairs.

So you never answered my questions about his quote being so low? Instead you go off on a rambling diatribe about the need for code enforcement. The rightful need for code enforcement has nothing to do with abusing his city position for the profit of his business.

lubu · **Joined:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:19 am **Posts:** 401

Matt mentioned earlier the wide dollar range given by contractors to do the roof. I haven't looked at all these docs but maybe they aren't for comparable work. Do we have a document from the court clerk employee to show what work he proposed doing, or just the verbal estimate from him that would satisfy the inspector? That leads to the "What's it gonna take to make this go away?" question the property owner might ask. Does it take ten grand to satisfy the inspector with a complete reroof by a non-favored contractor, when an overpriced five grand patch job by a favored contractor would suffice to "get them off your back"?

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

justcallmetommy wrote:

sparks wrote:

The reason the property owner is in court is because she refused to maintain her property. The city wants property owners to maintain their properties and improve them. Any licensed contractor who put a new roof on the building would "get code enforcement off her back" because the new roof would fix the issue that landed her in court. I'm having trouble following your logic that he uses his position to undercut other contractors. His costs are the same as every other contractor. He has to buy materials, pay his workers,provide tools,trucks and rent dumpsters. As a licensed contractor, he is required to pay for workmen's comp., unemployment insurance, license,bond and liability insurance. In this particular case, no work was performed so the time and energy he spent looking at the job and making a bid resulted in a loss.

mattlap wrote:

Every other quote was 80% or more higher than his with 4 different quotes shown. Darren quoted $5000, and the other quotes ranged from $9500 to what looks like over $20,000 from Gluth (hard to read but it is 5 digits and looks to start with a 2).

So tell me how the next nearest quote is almost double? Either the other contractors are price gouging or Mr Taylor has found a way to cut corners.

In economics R= P*Q (Revenue = Price * Quantity). Is he receiving enough leads through his code enforcement sources or the clerks office that he can reduce price and still attain revenue? That is where he is likely using his position to further his business over other contractors.

Are other contractors allowed to drive along with code enforcement? My guess is probably not ........and that alone creates an unfair and unethical situation.

sparks wrote:

Matt, where in the documents did you see something that said a contractor was driving along with code enforcement? I did see a document that referred to incident that happened when Mrs. Moreno-Avalos was in court after pressing criminal charges against her former tenants. She expressed concern for her personal safety and an officer of the court escorted her to her car.
There are always property owners whose business model is to acquire properties and rent them out without repairing and maintaining them. They believe it is less expensive to pay fines than to make capital improvements on their rental properties. Eventually, after years of neglect, they can no longer be rented and the owners walk away from them, forcing the neighbors to live next to an abandoned,blighted building. You can see some of these "investors" every thursday at 2:00 pm in Hammond City Court. It is the job of the building department to force these people to bring their buildings up to code so they don't represent a hazard to the community.

And in this case, I haven't checked when the plaintiff first purchased this property, but she spent $5,500 in electrical work March 14th, 2000 and $8,500 in drywall, floor, bathroom, doors, December 14th, 2000.

Yes Sparks some property owners have such a business model, but it appears in this case this woman spent just under $15,000 in repairs in 2000.

She also wanted to put on a roof, but the licensed hammond roofing contractor was denied the permit.

As to the notation when city officials came together to the plaintif's house, I believe there is more than one notation. the easiest one to find is found in the above document, found in the plaintiff's federal court filing, one of the submitted documents. The case number, document number and page number are in blue sparks.

So per the plaintiff, they came to the house together. Hmmmmm.

We know Ms. Kimmie worked for code enforcement. What is Mr. Taylor's position? Code enforcement assistant, as the plaintiff believed him to be or city employee, or court employee?

Per plaintiff, Mr. Taylor told me, if you let me do your roof for the $5,000, I promise you I will take care of Ms. Kim Nordhoff, I will take her off your back. I promise you she will not bother you anymore, you will not have any more problems with her.

Is Ms. Kimme a licensed attorney? Did she help plaintiff's tenants fill out paperwork acting as a licensed attorney?

What ever happened to the legal clinic?

Unethical?

Criminal?

or Both?

Isolated incident only with this contractor?

Or is this happening on a broader scope with other contractors who have this reported close connection?

Chuck,
most of what you posted on this thread shows up as a question mark surrounded by a small blue box that doesn't open when I click on it. If you are too stupid to post a link like this-
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/complaint-against-hammond-city-attorney%20dismissed/article_3a85d7f7-1e0f-52b4-939d-d857f98eb305.html
that readers can easily view, that's your problem. According to the assessor's site, the property was transferred to Ms. Moreno-Avalos on 3/5/2003 so the work that was done on the property was done by the previous owner. As far as not be able to pull a permit, that is standard procedure for any building that is on the repair or demolish list. By ordinance, any building needing repairs that exceed 50% of the value of the structure can be brought before the Board of Public Works to either be repaired or demolished. If the owner wants to repair the building, they post a bond with the city equal to the cost of demolition and sign a contract where they agree to bring the entire building up to current building codes within a certain time frame,typically 6 months. Once a building is on the repair or demolish list, no building permits are issued until the owner signs the repair agreement and posts the bond. This is done to prevent property owners from wasting their money on a building that the city is going to demolish.
You are on the wrong side of this issue, from my point of view. When the city removes dilapidated buildings, property values rise and crime drops. Does your vendetta against the Mayor prevent you from seeing how important the Inspections department is to the future of the city?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

lubu wrote:

Matt mentioned earlier the wide dollar range given by contractors to do the roof. I haven't looked at all these docs but maybe they aren't for comparable work. Do we have a document from the court clerk employee to show what work he proposed doing, or just the verbal estimate from him that would satisfy the inspector? That leads to the "What's it gonna take to make this go away?" question the property owner might ask. Does it take ten grand to satisfy the inspector with a complete reroof by a non-favored contractor, when an overpriced five grand patch job by a favored contractor would suffice to "get them off your back"?

Interesting question.

Hey lu, do your links work? Mine work. Anyone else link's don't work? Must be the depth of employee Tom hires in some city positions.

People get married, divorced. I really want to know who paid for the Pyramid/Purdue improvements. I thought someone said Tom paid for some of those repairs. Or was it a city program that paid for some of those repairs? I don't recall seeing the repairs on Tom's campaign report. Maybe some other source funded the repairs. And did the appraisal discuss anything about the previous sale? Someone said the previous sale was unrecorded. Was it recorded, was it unrecorded? I haven't had time to bicycle out to crown point to look. If it was unrecorded, and the appraisal didn't .....well....

And I really would like to know about the old walgreens building in old downtown hammond. Didn't that property sell for $1,000,000 and the city had to tear it down. I thought I read someone offered $10,000 for the land and the city refused. Jesus, I understand, hell if the city had accepted $10,000 for a parcel they paid $1,000,000, they would have gotten fleeced.

Someone is interested in these stories.... hell, they just stories.

And now another question arises, given some of the other properties found in http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10556&sid=2a93205bbffd396ef605ff5ad220d24f was this case special because someone didn't want to pay $5,000 to get them off their back, because it was illegal?

Was this person persecuted because she was hispanic?

I find it difficult to believe between 2000 and 2010 or was it 2011 there was no code enforcement action. All of a sudden this property came on a "list?"

Was it because someone found a new way to fund lunch money?

Or is it someone found a way to get HUD moneys to tear down buildings and then get their campaign fund money?

Or both?

Does anyone see Sonia's name on this document?

And is this Sonia's husband's name one this document??

1039

lubu · **Joined:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:19 am **Posts:** 401

Sparks writes a detailed description of the inner workings of a few Hammond city departments. One might think that he is employed there. But he can't be employed there because he is wrong and misstates motive and fact. He said that the city is helping people who will have their home torn down(by the city!) by not letting them waste their money on repairs unless they agree to the city's terms of repair. Yeah, that's why they do it (sarc). He says it's standard procedure to deny permits if a house is on the "repair or demo" list. That demo list is affirmed through procedure. But, a bankruptcy court stayed the demo order and the city eventually and reluctantly agreed. As the order was stayed, the property owner had a right to do work on the property as the outcome of that demo determination was now uncertain. That's what the city wanted right? To get the building repaired? But then they don't sell the roof permit. So what's the motive? The plaintiff offers one in their federal suit.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Geeze, too many visitors at the campfire under the Hohman ave bridge. I am running out of marsh mellows, really!

After a bit of hot chocolate, another visitor began to share how Munster Indiana has followed Hammond's foot steps in code enforcement.

Much thanks for this must go to Sparks.

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

no matter how much things change, they stay the same.
1295

Northwest Indiana Discussion

Sonia Moreno-Avalos Vs Jr's Criminal Enterprise?

Who is online