Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Slumlord Keith Reitman's Feline, "Bucket The Cat," Dishes Up Insider Info About The Mortgage Fraud At 1564 Hillside Ave. N., The Police Investigation, And Jerry Moore's Purported Role, This Is PART 6 Of Jerry Moore v. John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside, Blogger Defamation Case Is On Appeal While Civil Suit Naming Moore Heats Up...

Keith Reitman stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

For three years I tried to get my hands on Keith Reitman's statement to police investigators in regard to 1564 Hillside Ave. N. I asked for it, I begged for it, I made verbal "Minnesota data practices act" requests.

Recently, the statute of limitations passed for criminal prosecution of crimes that took place during the "Golden Era of Mortgage Fraud," 2005 to 2007. The long-sought, much-coveted document casually fell into my hands after all this time.

And I discovered it was typed by a cat.

Quite seriously, the top of the statement reads as follows:

Statement of Keith Reitman taken over the phone on 1/25/08 at 9:30 hours. Questioning by Detective Cardenas. Typing by cat.

(Parody font)

The back story of Bucket the Cat is complicated, and, strictly speaking, not relevant to the content of Reitman's transcribed interview with the Bloomington Police Department. Suffice to say while the cops were taking down Keith Reitman's statement slash confession, good ol'Reitman was making sure he could prove what was said later, that cops wouldn't put words into his mouth. So Reitman recorded the police recording Reitman. Later, when Reitman wanted a transcript of the conversation, the task of typing it fell to Bucket the cat.

Which is fine, because Bucket LOVES typing things, like this cat on Youtube, click here.

Bucket left the Reitman empire in a fit of conscience over small children falling from windows, but took certain documentation with him. Bit by bit, in exchange for treats, ridiculously prolonged scratches and the opportunity to finish his memoirs on my computer, Bucket has been dishing document dirt by, well, the bucketful.

(End parody font)

Q: Hey Keith Reitman how are you?

A: Oh, pretty good, um...

Q: Always fun to get a call from the Police, isn't it?

A: Yes, it's...that's weird. Bloomington, I...what did I do?

Q: I don' didn't do anything. I just want...

A: Okay

Q: I'm investigating you, you know a guy named Larry Maxwell?

A: Larry Maxwell.

Q: Yeah.

A: Boy the name sounds vaguely familiar. me out.

Q: How about Tynessia Snoddy(?)

A: Tynessia Snoddy is a realtor.

Q: Okay. Oh, okay. Well they both work together, or they did at REAPG, which is Realty Executives Advantage Plus Group.

A: Yep.

Q: Specifically the case I'm investigating...I don't know if you, I don't know if you saw that Larry Maxwell was arrested or if you remember who this guy is, but, anyway, that sale of your property there, 1564 Hillside...

A: Yes.

Q: Does that ring a bell to you?

A: Sure.

Q: What, what do you remember about this(?) That's why I'm calling, basically, regarding the sale of that property.

A: Okay.

Q: Did everything go okay with that property, as far as you know?

A: Yeah.

Q: It did(?)

A: Yup. Yeah, because, uh, well I bought it in oh, in have to pardon me...

Q: It's okay.

A: I woke about 20 minutes ago.

Q: That's alright.

A: But, uh, I bought it the...let's see, in the mid 90s.

Q: Okay.

A: And I operated for years, it definitely had its ups and downs etc as a rental property.

Q: I can only imagine.

A: And, um, we, when I say we, I mean I had a partner, uh, a guy named Jim Lang.

Q: (Unintelligible)

A: And, uh, we operated for years and then, uh, sold it. Got good money and away we went.

Q: Away you went. Can I ask you this. (Unintelligible) Obviously I'm, I'm more concerned about not really you, just the people that were involved. But, how did you get to meet Tynessia Snoddy?

A: Um, well...

Q: How did you get to have her used as realtor, I guess?

A: Yeah. Uh, she was referred to me by, uh, a guy named Jerry Moore.

Q: Okay.

A: Who, who, um, trying to think, or at, at the time, I mean, I...I've...I, I know him pretty well now. Um but I'm trying to think how I met Jerry back...what was that three, four years ago?

Q: Yeah, well, the closing, the closing was, just happened summer of '06. Late June of '06.

A:  Late June of '06. So, that's what, 2 1/2 years?

Q: Yeah. Yup.

A: Okay. Um, well, let's see. Well, I knew Jerry from...I guess some capacity from North Minneapolis where I operate rental property.

Q: Okay.

A: And at the time, I mean, I don't remember how exactly I met Jerry Moore.

Q: Okay.

A: But, Jim Lang and I were interested in selling a number of properties that we own.

Q: Okay.

A: And, and, um, we had listed them with a realtor that Jim Lang knew and we didn't have any luck and Jerry Moore said, uh, well you know, I can get these properties sold. I think he was a mortgage consultant or a mortgage broker or something or other.

Q: Okay.

A: I don't, quite honestly, I don't have too much experience in mortgage.

Q: Right.

A: Cause I pretty much (unintelligible) for cash and uh, have operated and never, never had a mortgage, basically, in my 25 year career, I've had a few contracts for deeds with sellers. That's about it.

Q: That's alright.

A: Uh, he said, uh, he introduced me to Tynessia Snoddy.

Q: Okay. So then you had Tynessia list your property?

A: That's true.

Q: Okay. Did it ever go on MLS?

A: I think so.

Q: Okay. See, how about this, do you recall how a buyer...did, did you ever meet the buyer?

A: No.

Q: You never did. Did you know who the buyer was?

A: No.

Q: Okay. Did you ever sit at closing? When the house was sold, were you at the closing or was it a pre-sign?

A: I was, I was at the closing and never met the buyer. I sat, in, um a room and that, and I sat in a room with um, with uh...well, I, I tell you who I took along.

Q: Okay.

A: Um, I took along, um, this gal, this one woman, um, the former realtor that we had.

Q: Who was that? Do you remember that?

A: Yeah. Uh, because uh, she, she assisted me uh, on the uh...I'm trying to think what, what we called, she did uh, oh yeah...she was like my closer for just, just to make sure the numbers were right and uh...Cause their closer, that, that, there were sorta sloppy deal. (Sic)

Q: Ok, where was it (unintelligible)? Was the closing at First USA?

A: Well, it was in Brooklyn, it was over...on Brooklyn Blvd. Um, we drive out.

Q: I know where you're talking about. County Road 10?

A: Modern office building across from a shopping center.

Q: Gotchas.

A: Yes.

Q: Yep. So, this woman you brought with you was just there for as like a consultant for you, just to make sure everything went okay.

A: Yes. Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

Q: Okay. Do you remember her name?

A: Yeah. I, I have her in my phone, under, let's see, like Jim's Realtor or something.

Q: Okay.

A: See, if I push a few buttons here I can.

Q: Fine. Okay.

A: Pull that information.

Q: I'd appreciate it.

A: Sure. Let's see, hold on.

Q: Okay.

A: I'm pushing buttons.

Q: Okay.

A: And she's an attorney, too.

Q: Oh, good. That would be great. That's help...that's helpful.

A: Okay. Um, Amy. I can't think of her last name.

Q: Okay.

A: Very nice woman.

Q: Okay. Do you trust her.

A: Oh yeah.

Q: Okay.

A: Um. Uh, let's see. Her work number is 651-

Q: Okay.

A: 653

Q: Okay.

A: 8000.

Q: Do you know what the name of the law firm she works for? (Sic)

A: Well, she, she operates um...

(Johnny Northside notes: The phone number belongs to SPARA Realty at 1050 Centerville Cir, St. Paul, MN, 55127.

Q: Her own busi...or...

A: I'm trying to...She operates a closing company.

Q: Oh, gotcha. Okay.

A: And, and she...I mean truly, uh, had, was, was independent of virtually everything. I brought her along to make sure that interests were, you know...

Q: Heck yeah.

A: Covered, whatever. Yeah. Alright. You know, I'm trying to think. She...this, I paid her for the closings, maybe, I don't know, might've been two or three hundred dollars or something.

Q: Okay.

A: And she caught math errors and you, you can ask her what she did. She, you know, it was, it was very helpful.

Q: No, that's good that she was, in fact, that's, actually I'm glad to hear that. The...before you sold  the property, was there a renter that you had in the property or was it vacant?

A: Uh, let's see. I would say it was vacant.

Q: It was vacant?

A: But I'm not positive. I mean, it's been vacant, it's been rented. It's...

Q: Right.

A: Ten years of both. Um, and it's, it's been remodeled.

Q: Do you know when it was remodeled?

A: Well.

Q: I mean, did you remodel it before closing?

A: We

Q: Or sold it, I'm sorry.

A: Well, that's, that's a fair question. I'm not quite sure, um, I mean, you, you might...Well, oh, oh yeah. Um, it Jim, Jim did a substantial remodel in there.

Q: Okay.

A: Uh, (unintelligible) because I mean, but not, not immediately before closing. But uh, and I did an exterior power wash, paint job, siding repair. But I'm not sure how many years back that was either. But that place had a new kitchen, granite counter tops, um, I'm trying to think what all Jim did. There, there was a lot of work done in there. Uh, there was floor leveling and um...

Q: Okay.

A: Boiler put in at one point. You know, so...

Q: How about this...when the house was sold, June 27 of '06, would you say that happened like a couple years before or was it like when you went to Tynessia and Tynessia had your, when she listed your property--is that when you did the remodel?

A: No.

Q: It was not? Okay.

A: Oh, no. No.

Q: When do you think that was, just ballpark, I'm not gunna quote you, but just it gives me some reference.

A: When did (unintelligible) well.

Q: Just (unintelligible)

A: It was probably different the different, you know, it's not like we went through from stem to stern and did all these things at one time. But, but the substantial kitchen remodel, that was Jim. Um...

Q: That was Jim.

A: Um, so, I, let's say (unintelligible) maybe, um, for whatever reason I'm getting a lot of phone calls here.

Q: You're a popular guy.

A: That's alright.

Q: Alright.

A: They'll go through.

Q: Okay.

A: Uh, I, uh, I would say um, perhaps at least a year before it was sold.

Q: Okay.

A: I think, I think we, lets see. I'm just, you, you already asked me was it vacant or rented when it was sold.

Q: Right.

A: And I'm trying to think, was it, did...I'm trying to think if you will...

Q: Yep.

A: Um, was it rented after we did this kitchen remodel and I would have to say yes to that. But, so, I'm just, I, I'm not quite sure. But do you have um, a number for Jim Lang?

Q: I, I don't. That would be great.

(Reitman provides the number)

Q: (Repeats last four digits) Well, I do appreciate that. I guess, the only, just so you kinda know what I'm thinking to figure this out know, there's some discrepancies here and it kinda gets back to Larry Maxwell and really Tynessia. But, and as I'm talking to you here, I'm looking through the closing file. Have you ever heard of Gill Construction?

A: No.

Q: You never heard of them. Did they ever do any work on that property that you know of prior to that house being sold?

A: No, absolutely not.

Q: Okay. Alright. Did you, well, since you own the property and you were at the closing, just some of the disbursements that were here, Peter Lang got $56,291.78, does that seem right to you?

A: Yeah. He was the, he was the, um, he's Jim's cousin. He's the um; uh, what do you call that in uh, third party exchange property thing.

Q: Okay.

A: Um, like, like, uh, if you...that was not from my money. That was for Jim's half of the money, like a escrow um, if you're, if you're doing a exchange or reverse exchange in real estate, you have a third party receive the money.

Q: Okay.

A: And then um, you reinvest it and that allows you, you know, have like a tax free exchange. I've never done that successfully.

Q: Like a 10-31, almost?

A: Is that what it's called?

Q: Well here's a 10-31 exchange where it gives the verbiage you have to invest the proceeds...

A: Yep. That's it. That's it.

Q: Okay. Um, how about Jerry Moore receiving, he got $5,000. That was okay, correct?

A: Right. And that was, you know, for his, the fact that he brought Tynessia Snoddy, he introduced us and uh, you know, it was very, very uh, good result that we had. So...

Q: Okay.

A: He was, yeah.

Q: Okay. And, and you said you were at the closing. Did you, were you aware that there was a check for $24,810 written out to Gill Construction? Out of your proceeds?

A: Um, uh, the...I imagine, I guess, I, I guess I would say yes, because I'm presuming that that's the...because of you know, the, the condition of the property or whatever. The idea was that these people were buying it with the intent of fixing it up and that was an accommodation for that.

Q: Oh. Okay. But you've, you don't, you've never heard of Gill Construction?

A: No.

Q: Okay. So at the closing you didn't see a check that went out to Gill Construction or no representative from Gill Construction?

A: No, absolutely not.

Q: Well, would you...for the $24,000, how about the condition of the property, would you say that the property needed work?

A: Oh yes.

Q: It did.

A: Oh, yeah.

Q: So like the granite countertops and the boiler and all that stuff, had that been, what happened to that stuff?

A: Well, that was done, but the, I mean uh, there was, I mean, there, it, it, it was pretty classic rental property.

Q: Okay.

A: I mean it, Jim, Jim did a nice job with the kitchen. He had a kitchen contractor that he used and had done a number of those. And um, we felt that it was worthwhile to you know, improve. But, I mean, these are old properties and they, they definitely need attention.

Q: Oh yeah. Oh I know that. I just, here's my question cause I know you said Jim did a nice job on the kitchen. I've got, I've got an invoice or an estimate that actually is written by Gill Construction saying that it needs work in the kitchen. So I'm just wondering...

A: Well, I would disagree with that.

Q: Okay.

A: You, you know. Unless some, you know, again if, if a tenant had been in there, uh; you let's say you have a new constructed home.

Q: Right.

A: You, a tenant in there for 30 days it's no longer new. Things can get broken. That's for sure.

Q: Oh, I agree with you 100 percent.

A: But I, I wouldn't imagine, I mean, it was a modern, the kitchen makeover was pretty nice. New cabinets, new countertops.

Q: Okay.

A: Etcetera.

Q: So obviously, obviously when you, when Tynessia Snoddy, you signed a listing agreement with her. You walked through the property and kinda showed her the highlights of the inside of the house?

A: Oh, yes. She had a key.

Q: She had a key. And at that time, when you looked through it, was the kitchen in pretty good shape?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Was there anything in your opinion that needed work?

A: In the house, I'm sure there was, there was, um and the garage. There was, there was the roof. I mean, if you, if you take a used house and you break it down into the components, which I do when I buy a property.

Q: Right.

A: Um, there's, that house had a lot of old components.

Q: Okay.

A: Um, uh, I think we, know, the...I guess guess there's just so many components of a house that you do some and there's others left that need, that need doing.

Q: Okay. Well, when I looked at the truth in, or actually when the last time a permit pulled actually to do some work on this property?

A: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

Q: Was 1999. So, I guess I'm just wondering if there was any work that was done by your friend. Would he have, did he not have to pull permits or how did that work.

A: Well.

Q: I'm just curious. I'm not trying to (unintelligible). I'm trying to figure, cause obviously, like I said it gets back to Tynessia and Larry and there's some inconsistencies here and I'm just...all I'm trying to do is just figure it out. That's all.

A: You, you're're probably trying to figure out then um, what was done by us and what was not done by us so you that you can figure out, you know, whatever your, your concern is.

Q: (Unintelligible)

A: I understand that.

Q: Yep.

A: And I, if, if I told you that we'd rather pull the curtains than pull a permit, you can believe that.

Q: Okay.

A: You know, so. You know, it's, it's not something as, as an ongoing landlord, I generally boast about. But this matter sounds more serious that (sic) whether I pulled or Jim pulled a permit or not.

Q: Okay. What about...

A: Like, like on the boiler. Um, we had, I used the lead, or not lead, asbestos abatement guy to come in to remove the old boiler and uh, I'm not sure about putting in the new boiler for instance. I don't think we pulled a permit.

Q: Okay.

A: For example.

Q: Which a lot of people do, I'm just, like I said...

A: Yes. Yes.

Q: Let's get back to the Gill Construction thing and the $24,000 and obviously the present condition of the property is not indicative of $24,000 of work being done. That's, you know, you probably figured that out.

A: Well, no, I'm not, I'm not sure if, I mean if...if, I imagine, I mean...

Q: That's not your concern, I'm just...

A: Well, I'm just saying if you don't know whether this Gill Construction put the kitchen in or not. Because I mean if, I mean I, I remember newer, I mean, we, we leveled floors, we carpeted. You don't see the level floors cause they're just level. But, you know, the, I'm not sure, I guess if you were sorting out what, what we did versus what whomever all else did.

Q: Yeah.

A: That's what I'm, you know, I...I mean I, I know that we could spend $24,000 pretty easily and probably did. But I don't know if Gill Construction spent $24,000 or anything.

Q: No. Well, we talked to him and he didn't. So...

A: No.

Q: Yeah.  So, that obviously, that's one of the problems.

A: But I mean we, we, like I remember there was a, was a chimney, there was a fireplace that we, redid that somehow to (unintelligible) and carpeted and leveled floors and I'm not sure if Jim sanded floors. Jim, I, I sorta started a remodel there and I think Jim finished, did a lot of stuff, sort of the second round, so. I, I know the kitchen was pretty nice.

Q: It was. Okay. What about, cause obviously in Minneapolis, just like Bloomington, it's the truth in housing?

A: Yes.

Q: They have the certificate of approval. And I have one here that was February 27 of '06. Does that ring a bell to you?

A: Well, not exactly, although I'm sure my name on it?

Q: Yep.

A: If it is, then I hired the truth and housing guy, you know.

Q: Well, here, it just says, actually, I take that back, report date was February 27, issue date was March 7 of '06. To the City of Minneapolis Truth and Sale of Housing, certificate of approval, Keith Reitman, PO Box 11832 and let's see here. Owner, Kieth Reitman. Certificate of approval 3/7/06. Acceptance of responsibility signed no buyer/none applicable.

A: Meaning what? I mean obviously my name's on it.

Q: Right. But there was no required repairs, I guess. That's what I'm wondering. As of, you know, as of March 7, there was no required repairs according to the Truth and Sale of Housing.

A: Uh-huh. (Affirmative) Okay.

Q: Okay. But was there repairs that were needed?

A: Well, I would imagine not. Not, not that were subject to Truth and Housing. I mean, there's always repairs needed or improvements that can be made, whatever. But, if, you know, they have a checklist  and uh, I'm, I'm...

Q: Okay.

A: Relatively sure I, I'm, I mean I, how many months before the closing was the Truth and Housing?

Q: It was, well the closing was June 27 and this was February 27, so March, April, May, June, four months.

A: Uh-huh (Affirmative). Yeah. Um, I'm just trying to think if, if Tynessia referred the inspector, Truth and Housing inspector or not, which I don't really recall. But I would imagine that the Truth and Housing was correct. You know. You know, they (unintelligible) smoke detector and um, (unintelligible) in the kitchen and bathroom or whatever, you know, safety issues that a Truth and Housing covers. Uh, I would imagine that everything was appropriate.

(JNS says: This next part is my favorite portion of the whole transcript!)

Q: Okay. Alright. Well, just, just to let...just (unintelligible). And maybe you already know this, but, you know I've been...I went out there myself and the place is just a, it's a fricking, it's a hole. I mean, it's, it actually should be condemned. And, you know, like, like the ceiling and there's no carpet. The place is just absolutely a...

A: It's basic, basically there's no what?

Q: Well, the ceiling is basically crumbled in. You know. There's no carpet. It's, I mean the place is, it's a shambles. I mean, I don't honestly think it's livable. And I don't know what, I don't expect you to know, but something obviously happened to the...

A: Is there, is there a kitchen in there?

Q: Not really.

A: Oh, well then, you know, some...

Q: That's what I'm saying. You know. Something had, and after the house closed, nobody lived in it.

A: Okay.

Q: And I've you know, and obviously that's not good either. And the person who bought that home doesn't truly, wasn't was identity theft. So, which isn't good, either. You know.

A: Well that's for sure.

Q: Yeah, that's for sure. And that's again why I ask you cause I'm just, I'm getting some different...I'm trying to figure out, I know you were at closing. But you were not at the closing with the buyer?

A: Well I was at the closing and I never met the buyer and that I will tell you, that that closing was the last of a number of closings that uh, Tynessia sold property and we closed on.

Q: Okay. Alright. Have you done business with her since?

A: No.

Q: No. Okay. Well just so you know, I mean, there was a listing agreement that was signed but that house never went on MLS. It was never, never listed on the Multiple Listing Service.

A: Yeah and you know that doesn' as I'm thinking about it, doesn't surprise me because Tynessia said, you know, I have buyers for, uh, rental property.

Q: Oh she did.

A: Yes.

Q: Did she mention John Foster's name to you?

A: No.

Q: She didn't. Did anybody mention John Foster's name to you?

A: Not in particular. I mean it, it, doesn't ring a bell. I, like I said, I never uh, met, never met the buyers, never said hi. You know, let me tell you, uh, that that rear door is kind of squeaky and you got to jiggle the key or something, you know. There was no, there was never a meeting between me and a buyer.

(JNS says: The portion of the transcript above doesn't make sense to me. What does Reitman MEAN about jiggling a key on a sticky door? The only thing I can speculate is perhaps Reitman was talking to somebody near him about an actual door while simultaneously talking to the police detective)

Q: Okay. Did Tynessia ever introduce you to Larry Maxwell?

A: No.

Q: Never?

A: Not at all.

Q: Okay. Well, just to let you know (unintelligible) to have to do with Tynessia and Larry Maxwell. What may come down the road, just to keep in mind, as far as, if you're not, I'm sure you keep records of who rented your property and signing lease agreements and so forth?

A: Right.

Q: Okay. If you could, I'd like to know who, when was the last time there was a renter in that property. And that really isn't so much on you. It's, it's pretty much on maybe what they were doing in your property. Do you follow me?

A: Not exactly.

Q: Well, it's just because the condition...the stories I'm getting as far as the condition of what that property is, and you know there is an appraisal that happened on that property. And, the appraisal on that property is not, definitely does not match what that house was presently worth. Do you know what I'm saying?

A: Well, here, I will tell you that I had, on that property I had the rental license, but Jim Lang operated the rentals and so...

Q: He had the rental information.

A: That's true.

Q: Okay. Okay.

A: But um...

Q: Cause that would be helpful to me?

A: Oh yeah.

Q: You know what I mean, if you don't have a renter in there the last year, and I guess what I'm wondering is if you didn't have a renter in there, because if, do you recall or, do you recall you having to,  did you own that outright? There was no liens, there was no outstanding mortgage on it or...

A: Would you hold on one moment.

Q: Yep. Go ahead.

A: Ok.


A: Thanks for holding.

Q: No, that's okay. So, this property, you own this property outright?

A: Yes.

Q: There was no mortgage on the property?

A: Nope.

Q: That's okay. Well, that's good to hear.

A: But, here, here's, I mean, this, this does sound really serious.

Q: Well oh yeah.

A: Yeah. Um, the, like I, was there a boiler in there?

Q: That I can't, you know I'd be lying if I--I wasn't sure if there was a boiler or not. All I can tell you is the, the Department of Commerce Investigator went over there and did an investigation and wrote quite a lengthy report on it, which has been submitted to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office.

A: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

Q: And they're reviewing it now. So I'm, I'm just basically, they have a kind of wish list and I'm just doing some follow up on so I can dot my I's and cross my T's.

A: Yeah. Well, they, the place was pretty nice when we sold it as I've said, that new kitchen was the highlight of it.

Q: Okay.

A: And a lot of work had been done. Not a lot of permits had been pulled as you can see.

Q: Right. Right. Okay. And like I said that Truth in Housing inspection, that was February, you know, it said there was nothing that needed to be done.

A: Uh huh. (Affirmative) And I would believe that to. (Sic)

Q: Okay. Alright. Well, that was helpful, I will call Jim...

A: Excuse me, I, I, when I, I mean I believe that, you know. It's very, it, that it was in order. I, based on what you've already told me, I wouldn't expect you to believe that. If you go in and there's no kitchen there, there's no, it's in shambles, whatever.

Q: Well, the ceiling is now on the floor. So that, that's one problem. And the foundation and the garage. I mean, it's just, it's basically, it literally is, it's condemned. So my job is, is to figure out, okay, what happened here in a certain period of time. Something happened.

A: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

Q: And if (unintelligible) if someone did it or, you know, was it, could this be caused by a burst pipe or you know. Who knows.

A: Well it was watered heat. Uh, boiler hear with (sic) (unintelligible), but that wouldn't explain if the kitchen's not there.

Q: That, that's a very good point. And the carpet's gone.

A: Right.

Q: That would be another one. Okay. So, as far as you know within the last, prior to about a year, the last update was about a year before the house was sold?

A: Yeah. Or again, I'm, I'm, you know, I'm, it might've even been, we redid it and within the year sold it without a tenant. I'm not quite sure. But, it was nicely redone.

Q: Okay.

A: Of that I'm sure.

Q: Well, how about this, when you showed, when you showed Tynessia Snoddy the property, was there furniture in there?

A: Well.

Q: Cause that would show someone's living there.

A: Oh absolutely and I'm just trying to think, uh, what the deal was. I, in fact, the, the one of the last, I'm not quite sure, but Jim might've put in one of his like manager/caretake, more caretaker than manager types there and then, I'm just not sure.

Q: Okay.

A: Truly as far as the rental history, Jim managed that. And I mean, we had, he and I had some friction about that because, you know, my name was on the rental license and he was managing the rental.

Q: Okay.

A: So.

Q: But you're the one, when you signed the agreement, you're the one that walked through the property with Tynessia.

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And when you're in there, you don't recall if it was furnished or not?

A: (Sigh)

Q: Or if there was like clothes in a closet, shoes by the front door?

A: I'm, I'm not, I'm not sure.

Q: Or photographs even.

A: Uh, none, none taken by me.

Q: Alright. My last question, and I'll leave you alone here.

A: Okay.

Q: You know, when, when Tynessia went through, I mean most realtors do this, I'm sure she did. Did she take interior photos of the house for you?

A: No.

Q: She didn't?

A: Not that, not that I recall. I don't recall her snapping pictures while I was along.

Q: Do you recall, do you have any photos of the house? Or would Jim? Of the interior, I mean?

A: I don't.

Q: Did you guys...

A: I'm sure, I'm not sure if Jim does and he, he definitely had a serious contractor that, for the countertops. He always mentioned that cause he did, we did a bunch of them with the new countertops in the kitchen. So...

Q: Okay. Okay. But when you would do that with your rentals or with him, would you sometimes take pictures of the inside of your property?

A: No.

Q: No. Okay.

A: Wasn't I, it wasn't that magnificent.

Q: Alight. Well, I didn't know like if you sold them, you know, people that, they'd say hey here's this picture for my realtor. I want this put on the MLS so you could show like an interior shot of my house.

A: Right. No, I understand that.

Q: Okay.

A: You know, that...

Q: But that didn't happen...?

A: Well it was more, Tynessia had her buyers. I mean, she had, it seemed to me they were like ethnic types or something. You know. By the names that were on the documents. But I never.

Q: Except John Foster?

A: No. Or any of the buyers. We sat in a room, I'd sit in this one room, corner office, like a meeting room and I did bring, uh, what's her name, uh...

Q: Amy?

A: Amy. Right. And Amy's, Amy's, she's, you know, knowledgeable, uh...

Q: Sharp cookie?

A: Yeah. Right. But I, I drafted her, so I don't think, you know.

Q: Okay.

A: That was goofiness, I mean, uh, she was less, more remote than I from this.

Q: When Amy was at the closing with you, she was okay with everything and everything seemed to be in order or did she have to correct anything at the closing?

A: Well she correct (unintelligible) like I said, their numbers didn't add up half the time.

Q: Okay. Did, do you recall anything that didn't add up that they had that you guys were pissed off about and had to get that fixed?

A: No, not specifically.

Q: Okay. Okay. And the reason, why I want to highlight here is I'm getting back to Gill construction for $24,000.

A: Uh-huh (Affirmative).

Q: Or you know like no lien waivers in the, in the closing file. There wasn't one. Do you know, I mean I call Amy. I'm just wondering if you recall anything like that?

A: Well, I'm not, I'm not sure, what you, what that means, really. I mean I know what a lien waiver is but...

Q: A lien waiver if there's, because a disbursement check of $24,000 is paid out to Gill Construction that's, for your property. No work was ever done by the own admission of Gill, Bobby Gill, who is the owner of Gill Construction and he never received that check. So...

A: Wow.

Q: So that closing was, taken at that closing, that check was given to somebody and not Bobby Gill and it was deposited and no work was ever done on that house. So obviously (unintelligible) and also Bobby Gill says he never did a lien waiver on that property. So on the closing company when you're sitting down there and all the parties are together, that would be an obvious, you know one thing that would come up and hey, there's no lien waiver here. We can't give this disbursement check out to somebody when there's gotta have a lien waiver.

A: We, we, who gave the disbursement check out(?)

Q: Well, that's the, that's the question. I mean, it's close there and I think it was Janie Coats. Does that name ring a bell to you?

(JNS says: I believe the name is correctly spelled "Coates," but I have reproduced the spelling found in the transcript)

A: No. Not really at all.

Q: Okay.

A: But there was a, there was like a black gal that was like the secretary at the front desk and there, let's see, then there was another gal that was the, their, their, their closing company. Yeah, she's sort of a big black woman.

Q: Okay.

A: Yep.

Q: But you don't recall her name?

A: No.

Q: Okay. Was it, do you recall if there was just one person that handed out the disbursement checks at the closing? Do you remember how that went?

A: One person that handed out the disbursement check.

Q: Or how about this...who was there? Besides yourself. It was you, Amy..

A: Right.

Q: Not the buyer.

A: Okay. Would you hold on a second, I just want to have a sip of water. 

Q: Yeah. Go ahead.


A: Okay. Um.

Q: I'm talking your ear off, here, but, there was just...

A: Not, it's just, it's obviously serious stuff...

Q: Oh, yeah. So, it was you, Amy...

A: Me and Amy. Uh, there was uh, an office across the hall and I think the buyers or whatever and a realtor whom I didn't know, really wasn't introduced. There were people in there. Cause then the paperwork was shuffling back and forth. There was a receptionist and then there was the, their closing gal. Like I said, so there was probably, and maybe people wandered in and out. Um, so, me and Amy, some guy and buyers in the other room across the hall. Uh, secretary, closing gal, and Tynessia.

Q: Tynessia, okay. And Tynessia never mentioned to you how she found this buyer for the property?

A: Nope.

Q: Okay. Did, how about this, how many times would you say you've done business with Tynessia?

A: I'm gonna guess, five.

(JNS says: Oh, my word. And wouldn't we love to know the addresses of those five deals?)

Q: Five? And on every one of those, do you recall if any of those ever went on the MLS?

A: I don't really have a recollection of that.

Q: Okay.

A: I mean, like I said, she had buyers for investment property and we needed buyers and it was okay. It was just great.

Q: Okay. Do you recall what you wanted to sell that property for?

A: (Silence)

Q: Just what was, I mean, cause that's important too, I guess, because what did you--do you recall what you wanted to sell for and what it actually did sell for?

A: Well I don't really recall what it did sell for or what I, what I wanted, but uh, there, um, I guess I don't really recall. But it went for...

Q: It went for $179,000 but actually the gross amount from the buyer was $186,000.

A: What, what, I guess what, what does that mean?

Q: (Unintelligible) what I'm just wondering is is when I have the, basically when an appraisal is done by the Department of Commerce, it didn't match up.

A: Uh-huh (Affirmative)

Q: It's different with what the properties are and...

A: And I'm sorry. What does it mean by the gross amount...

Q: Oh, the buyer had to bring some money to...the sale price is $179,000, but the gross amount, the total amount brought to the table from the buyer was $186,610. (Unintelligible), so the sale amount was $179,000, I mean, so they're figuring in closing costs, buyer's pricing and 3 percent, on paper. Do you see what I'm saying(?).

A: (Silence)

Q: So basically...

A: Here, wouldn't that be the sale price?

Q: Yeah. I'm just saying like the contract sales price on the HUD, I'm looking at, is $179,900 and then the settlement charges to the buyer were $6,696. 51. You know what I mean, so it came up to $186,610. Is that, do you see what I'm saying...

A: That, well...

Q: Well the bottom, okay, $186, so that's what it shows if it was going to show on MLS. That's what it'd be. But it doesn't show up on MLS. But the point I'm trying to make is, when the house was appraised now, and you always want to go retro back to the market at that time, which would be the summer of '06. The problem is, and you're not an appraiser, I know that. But the problem I ran it with the appraiser is that the appraisal at that time did not, was not indicative of what it should've been, which that facilitates part of the problem that we're talking about with this property. Do you see what I'm saying?

A: Okay. But the, the money that Gill Construction, that, the idea there was to bring that, to make the improvements I think that would make it a more valuable property.

Q: Right. And the Department of Commerce took that into consideration and it still didn't match up. So, but I, I don't, you know, I'm not an appraiser. And I don't work for Commerce. I'm just, they're trying to give me some stuff that I need to match up and, and...So obviously we're running into a problem with what the house is appraised for, even including if it legitimately the improvement were made. And that's where we're...

A: Well, I guess what, what I would say is that based on what you've told me, somebody stripped the house of, of the improvements that were made by Jim and I for one thing. Now there, not necessarily did we create the Taj Majal there, but it was pretty nice. Um, I'm trying to think, uh, four or five bedroom house with, you know, remodeled, substantially remodeled, so.

Q: Okay. Well, if I...

A: I guess I, in my (unintelligible) experience, I've shoveled a lot of poop behind tenants.

Q: Yeah.

A: But I would just say that if you walk into a place and the ceiling, you say is laying on the floor and there's no kitchen and there's no carpet and whatever.

Q: Yep.

A: You know, that place has been robbed.

(JNS inserts: By a gang of ceiling hating carpet thieves!!!! Sorry, I've restrained myself for a while, but toward the end of this conversation, I find it hard to avoid interjecting)

Q: Right.

A: Or some, you know, something very serious happened there.

Q: Right. Well, I will, if I call Jim, you think maybe he has some history on the rental or people...

A: Oh definitely and on the improvements too.

(JNS inserts: ALLEGED and PURPORTED improvements)

Q: He would. Okay.

A: And, and then finally, um, let me give you a couple other numbers for him because he, he's, he is between his...I don't, I haven't talked to him for awhile, but...

Q: Okay.

A: He has a home in Florida too.

(Reitman provides the phone number for Jim Lang. The number is in the Fort Myers and Cape Coral area of Florida. I've performed internet searches which turn up interesting--though not definitely connected--bits of information about another individual who apparently uses this same phone number)

A: And I think that's his home in Florida and then um, I'm just trying to...uh, I'm not sure if uh, I can think of his home number in Minnetrista.

(Reitman tries to provide two other phone numbers that might work for Jim Lang)

Q: I'm...

A: I'm not sure. I haven't dialed those numbers for a while. But that Florida number will...

Q: That will get him. He's there now? Or he's living in Florida now?

A: I don't know.

Q: Oh.

A: I haven't talked to him since, uh, certainly a few months.

Q: Okay. Alright. I will give him a call and thank you very much for your time.

A: Alright. Thank you.

Q: Okay. Bye-bye.

A: Bye.

(JNS says: this transcript answers some questions, raises new questions, and shows Keith Reitman more tongue-tied than I've ever seen him. If more documents come loose from the Maxwell and Snoddy investigations, and if those documents are as interesting as this one, count on seeing details published here on Johnny Northside Dot Com)


Anonymous said...

You should watch yourself. There are a whole lot of recent actions that show you are not as protected by the 1st amendment as you think.
Free speech? Tell that to the gal that's going to the workhouse.

What's the difference between your harassment and hers? Nothing!

Read the comments.

Also read the COA decision that shows that retaliatory blogging in not protected speech:

One of these days your are gonna mess with the wrong person and they are turn the tables on you.
Heaven help you if you lose your appeal. On second though, you will need more help than heaven can provide.

Johnny Northside! said...

Yeah, I don't even really have time to look at those links right now because I have to finish up my post about Keith Reitman but, you know, thanks for contributing to the discussion, maybe others will care what you're saying and look at those links more closely.

Anonymous said...

Two main differences I see, Anon 3:50. In the first scenario, Jerry Moore has already been ruled a limited purpose public figure. And in other cases John is reporting on and/or reposting public information that is already available if others wish to find it.

The second story showing that, in your words, "blogging in (sic) not protected speech," the perpetrator in that case created false profiles and identities, and spread false information in a clear attempt to slander and harass.

Neither of these seem applicable to John's recent posts.

Anonymous said...

Ok anon @8:36,

Why does everyone limit the discussion to Jerry Moore. John's harassment is much more vast.
Let's use Pete Rickmyer as an example. How is what these serial harassers have done any different that what John has done to Pete?
John doesn't like Pete so he has stalked, harassed, maligned his character (not that his character is perfect), called his PO for every little thing John imagines, posts degrading articles about him in his blog.
Tell me that if Pete had the verbal and literary skills to draft a petition for a harassment restraining order, that he wouldn't be able to prove his case against John. All the evidence he needs is right here in this blog.
I'd bet you a weeks pay that if John attacked me the way he attacks Pete that I'd be able to get a restraining order against him without any problem.
And I'd bet you another weeks pay that John would violate that restraining order because he's so firm in his convictions that he can't see any wrong in what he does.

Just look at his current posts. He's already got a $60,000 judgment against him from Jerry Moore, and he continues to post articles about Jerry because he believes as long as he prints the truth, he's safe. He doesn't get that the jury found that he caused emotional harm to Jerry via his blog posts because he embellished the truth with his commentary.
Bullies are bullies and they always get screwed in the end.

Johnny Northside! said...

What John has "done" to Pete?

OK, so a guy can file lawsuits until he's declared a frivolous litigant (so rare!) but he gets a free pass? It shouldn't be reported about?

He loses three lawsuits in a row, suing prominent people, and he's supposed to get a free pass and not have it reported about?

He goes back to PRISON, but he gets a free pass, nobody should write about it?

He creeps around a mortgage fraud trial, but his presence should be ignored, despite past dubious associations with Keith Reitman, whose former property is at issue in the suit?

Pete is not some random sex offender. Pete has made his own fame. If Pete didn't have so much stuff filed in the public courts, there wouldn't be so much to report.

You think that because a blog is a blog and not the Star Tribune that reporting you don't like is "harassment?" Why, I'd like to know, is the Star Tribune "harassing" poor Amy Senser, or dozens of other people I could name? Why is City Pages "harassing" that harasser whose link you posted?

This is my neighborhood. I report on my neighborhood and issues connected to my neighborhood, always reserving the right to report on what I damn please.

Also, spanking minors for sexual gratification and exposing genitalia to a child merits more of a description than "not that his character is perfect" when talking about Spanky Pete, who is a goddamned LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER.

As for the "current posts," by which you apparently mean coverage of the civil suit over 1564 Hillside Ave. N.'s mortgage fraud, plus the transcript of Keith Reitman's statement to a Bloomington Police Detective, the current coverage will continue or, in the words of a funny poster I saw in an office, once:


Johnny Northside! said...

And furthermore, I'm sure it could be easily argued, and easily won, that Level Three Sex Offenders whose images and information are placed upon MNDOC websites to inform the public about their status are ALWAYS limited purpose public figures.

Not unlike bats*** crazy lawyers facing disciplinary charges who start their own blog to say, "Look at me, look at me, I'm being persecuted" are certainly limited purpose public figures, as well.

Anonymous said...

hey Anonymous 3:50

so basically no one should say anything bad about people . ever. ever. ever.
Bad things never happen. Bad people dont exist. LaLaLaLa dont talk about it lalalala no l3so here lalala no mortgage fraud here lalalala

Anonymous said...

No, the Star Tribune didn't harass Amy Senser. They just reported the facts, and just the facts. What they didn't do was call her names, express their opinions about her character, post staged photos of her, or look up the criminal histories of her children.

I agree that Pete has made his own fame, but if JNS wasn't standing in his front yard posing for parodic photos, or sneaking around the law library taking pictures of Pete doing research, he would not have needed to file a law suit to keep JNS away from him.

In short, the Strib has journalistic ethics.
We can assume that if one of their reporters wrote an article the same way JNS does, they would be out the door right quick.

I might also point out that others don't appreciate the way JNS writes, as demonstrated by the "F$@K John Hoff" Facebook page that was created by MN Daily staff when JNS worked for the MN Daily.
All one has to do is Google John Hoff and there is an abundance of "anti-John" comments from a variety of sources in various States.

As has been written previously: It's not was JNS does, rather, how he does it.

I read "The Deets" every day. How many times has Ed been sued?

Ethical journalist JNS is not.

Johnny Northside! said...

Well, let's see, how many times did you knowingly misstate the truth in that comment? Let me count the ways.

First of all, I don't know if Amy Senser's children have any criminal histories. If they did, depending on what the history had been, it could have been relevant. For example, consider a hypothetical world where one of Amy's children had multiple DUIs. It may have been relevant. Or if one of her children was in prison and Senser went to visit the child all the time. Could have been relevant. I'd support the right of the Star Tribune or any other journalist to report on criminal charges. Criminal charges are sort of ipso facto news.

So you're saying what the Star Tribune didn't do, but you're matching that against a set of facts where it couldn't happen because there WERE no criminal histories.

Also, when talking about me digging up the criminal histories of "children" (adult children, here, actually)--it's pretty obvious you're alluding to the Yzaguirre Munster family--a family that files so many lawsuits, all together, as a family, that's relevant news as far as I'm concerned. How are lawsuits filed in federal court are NOT potentially news to somebody?

Other media only touched on the surface of the Yzaguirre brood's lawsuits, which are very associated with their charges, their arrests.

If I feel like digging deeper into that issue and reporting on it, I certainly will. OH BY THE WAY JUST SO YOU KNOW!!! Today I managed to get a copy of the criminal complaint for Nicole and the (looks like) revised criminal complaint for Eric.

YES!!!! It's so great to have facts and documents nobody else seems to have, and to be the conduit of that info. That's the thrill of journalism, after all.

And I'll be excited to report that stuff in detail in the very near future.

Where was I?

Johnny Northside! said...

Next, I was not in Pete's yard. I was on the public sidewalk. I have a right to be on a public sidewalk and to take a picture from a public sidewalk. You may not like it or whatever, but it's free speech.

In fact, I seem to recall learning that "speech on sidewalks is quintessential free speech."

In regard to the STrib's journalistic ethics, bully for the STrib! Hey, I have a great idea! Let's see if JILL CLARK has good ethics! I guess we'll know after that disciplinary matter concludes. The referee judge has until some time in August to submit his report. I'm sure looking forward to that.

In regard to the F*** John Hoff page of which you speak, it wasn't started by MN Daily staff to my knowledge. Not sure who started it. Not sure I care. I'm sure you realize by now that, to a degree, having a coterie of devoted haters just tells me I'm having an impact. And if I man is judged by the quality of his enemies, well, I'm proud to say that Level Three sex offenders, slumlords and mortgage fraudsters are among the haters of this blog.

So some of my columns at MN Daily pissed off this person, that person...whatever.

When I left that paper (because I was wrapping up my schooling there) I had awards. I was an opinion columnist. Stirring stuff up was MY JOB, and I did it VERY well.

In regard to your "as has been written previously" quote, go back and check for typos.

Are you commenting after a couple drinky winkies?

Johnny Northside! said...

Oh, I should say: To have my picture TAKEN on a public sidewalk, but of course I also have a right to TAKE a picture on a public sidewalk.

Anonymous said...

Johnny Northside! said...

Next, I was not in Pete's yard. I was on the public sidewalk. I have a right to be on a public sidewalk and to take a picture from a public sidewalk. You may not like it or whatever, but it's free speech.



Johnny Northside! said...

There's not even a basis of comparison with this woman you keep yammering about. She had restrictions imposed on her by the courts. She violated them. You're not just comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to zebras.

I suppose you think typing in all caps and boldface gives your statements more credibility? Or is it just harder to remember to undo the CAPS LOCK key when you're liquored up?

Anonymous said...

I can see why you never win in court - you refuse to look at the broad argument:

OK - BEFORE she had the court restrictions placed on her.

Again - BEFORE she had any court restrictions placed on her.

She was posting signs on her garage and acting out demonstrations.
She was mocking her neighbors.
She was chanting degrading comments.

All of this should be free speech - YES?
You can hold signs and protest on a street corner - YES?
You can protest and chant on a street corner - YES?
If I want to stand on the sidewalk in front of your house with a sign and chant, "John Hoff is a cyberbully", I can do that - YES?
You should be able to do the same kind of thing in your own front yard - YES?

YET - she was told by the Court to stop.
How can this be if the 1st Amendment protects free speech?

Apparently, the 1st Amendment has limitations.
If these limitation apply to her, why not you?

Interestingly enough, there is a big push locally and nationally to combat cyber bullying.
What you are doing, and have a well-known reputation for, is cyber bullying.

What I'm suggesting is that at some point, you will end up paying the price for your cyber bullying.
Apparently, the $60,000 judgment did nothing to slow you down.

Just like the White Bear Lake neighbor from Hell, at some point you are going to attack the wrong person, and that person is going to have the resources to hire a really good attorney (not Jill Clark), get a restraining order, and shut you down.

Now I know you will just blow me off with some arrogant comment.
But as the saying goes, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall".
You think you are some really big deal.
All I'm saying is that when you go down, you will go down hard; like A 747 crashing into a mountain side. You are going to crash and burn. And the really sad part is it will have a detrimental effect on those closest to you.

These folks just spoke at the Minnesota Capital on an invitation from Gov. Dayton:

Johnny Northside! said...

Oh, now you cite "a big push nationally" in place of some actual LAW?

"Your honor, according to these articles I clipped from this morning's paper, there's a big push nationally."

I can see the law school in Crazy Town is still issuing diplomas to random people, as per its longstanding policy. Compare and contrast what I do versus the White Bear Lake neighbor from hell.


A notorious slumlord in a neighborhood besieged by slumlords and their ways is NOT a random neighbor.

A Level Three Sex Offender who files multiple lawsuits in court until he is declared a frivolous litigant is NOT a random neighbor.

The head of a neighborhood organization who was INVOLVED in a high profile mortgage fraud is NOT a random neighbor.

A batshit crazy attorney who files nutty lawsuits is NOT a random neighbor.

A business that has been asked, repeatedly, to clean up its exterior but persists in its shabby ways, and then gets its rightful share of criticism right here on this blog is NOT a random neighbor.

The matriarch of the Yzaguirre "Munster Family" that files multiple lawsuits in the courts, has her own "news according to crazy Terry" blog, its own "this is our baby daddy blog" blog, etc. and etc. is NOT a random neighbor.

A neighbor across the street whose home is raided by police wearing armor, who toss in a flash bang grenade is NOT a random neighbor.

And there is no order against this blog publishing anything, despite Spanky Pete's attempt to get an injunction, despite the lawsuit over, let's see, one sentence in one article is what it came down to, huh? And that sentence was determined to be NOT DEFAMATION.

And so forth, and so forth. What I do is legitimate, critically acclaimed and highly successful blogging activity. It is not cyber bullying.

If you want to throw around that label, you'll probably only succeed in dragging down the anti-cyber bullying efforts by attaching the baggage of YOUR obvious issues to THAT apparently well-intentioned effort. But when did causing problems for well meaning people ever influence you anyway?

Anonymous said...

I have a hypothetical question:
Your blog covers your neighborhood and with people like Don Allen you always make it a point to note he does not live in north Minneapolis but, sex offenders do live in your neighborhood. How would you feel if a flyer about this blog was distributed to all homes in the northside to invite residents (including the sex offenders you post pictures of and all the people accused of murder, etc) to read? After all, they are residents and if I had a critically acclaimed blog, I would want them all to know about it and take part.
Do you agree? How would you feel if that flyer was to be distributed? Hypothetical question.

Johnny Northside! said...


So is somebody going to teach Bucket the Cat how to use a staple gun?

Cat and staple gun. Sounds like a funny YouTube video.

Johnny Northside! said...

Poor little Bucket! How will he climb a wooden pole with a flyer AND a stapler?

He'll have to staple stuff at cat level. Only other small animals will see the flyers.

Anonymous said...

To anon @4:50.

Look how John never answered your question, showing a faux bravado like he has no fear of gangsters.
There are a couple of us who make it a point to mail copies of John's blog to some of the people he writes about or attacks. John already knows this, and that we include his URL and home address in case they want to respond to his writings. Some people actually do respond to his blog. We have no idea if they send him snail mail.
You will observe that John is particularly bold when he is away from home. He mellows out when he is back is his NoMi homi.
John likes to rile up the "thuggy gangsters" when they can't find him.
But when he's in town....well can you blame him? No one wants to end up a bloody pile on the curb. After all, he does have Alex to support?

What will John do when his buddy Don Samuels moves to the county board? Papa Don won't be there to hold his hand anymore.

Johnny Northside! said...

To think I transcribed that whole damn thing. Thank goodness I've now mastered Googledocs.

Anyway, here's a link to anybody who wants that transcript.

Anonymous said...