 |
 |
Ivan, Thanks for the explanation. Thanks for making me even more angry with the system. And they wonder why there are so many people frustrated with this "democracy" we live in. Democracy for whom? Where is the justice? In American society you really do have three strikes against you. Jewish, gay, and disabled. How much can a person take? You must be made of iron. Stand your ground, Ivan. When they come to haul you out, go down kicking! Greg 47/35/35 -----Original Message----- From: Ivan M Suzman <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 6:07 PM Subject: Answers to ALL of Camilla's questions(VERY LONG) >Friends, > >Camilla Flintermann has asked me a long series of very > important questions. I hope that my brief, sequential, >intrerlaced answers below, will adequately inform those of you who are >following >my 8-year battle with the City of Portland over whether I am >disabled so much that I can't afford tax and sewer "availability" >fees on my 80 ft. by 100ft. property. > >On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:25:05 -0500 Camilla Flintermann ><[log in to unmask]> writes: >>Dear Ivan---I suspect I'm not the only one to be perplexed at this >>situation. We have heard from you about the fact that you don't use >>the >>sewer system, yet are taxed for it, and that is the reason they have a >>lien >>on your home. > >The liens and threats of foreclosure are for either property taxes, >or "sewer availability" fees, or for both, on different calendar date >sequences ( overlapping double foreclosure). > I am not connected to sewer, which was recently added to >my street (billing began in 1995). Other homeowners also >are not connected. It varies from house to house. > >> This is on the face of it so crazy that I have to wonder what pieces >>of >>info I have missed---what were the counter arguments from the city's >>attorneys that could carry so much weight? > >City ordinances require assessment, either for use or for proximity. > We are assessed a monthly sewer "availability" fee at the least. > This then becomes a sewer "user" lien if not paid.. >Foreclosure proceedings then follow. > >> I have to wonder things like, are some of the taxes owed on your >>previous>house (that burned down) > >No. I borrowed to pay for them, or gave up buying clothes,doing >repairs, and so forth. I used up all of my past savings. > >and did you use the sewer then? > >No.It did not exist here until 1885. I have been >in my home since 1985, when I bought it, and >simply continue to use my septic system, >which was NEW in 1983 or so. > > >>OR do *others* who have septic tanks *also* get billed for sewers? > >Yes. 111 (One hundred and eleven) property owners are so billed, in >Portland. >I do not know who these people are, nor their financial status. > >> OR why were you turned down by the local ACLU a while back? > >I never was told why. I guess because the City is small, and there >is conflict of interest:- a local ACLU board member also is the City >affirmative action officer. I was told that there was an intern who >analyzed my case. I think it is because PWP's are not seen >as a big enough class for class-action. And also, politics as usual. > > Why did >>they >>not feel you had a case? > >Incorrect information falsely supplied by City lawyers? I still don't >know. > >OR what grounds did the MHRC give in the >>letter >>of denial? > >All kinds of legal details I don't understand, plus, in the MHRC's >opening paragraph,. false information supplied by the City's lawyers, >suggesting that I have money in the bank. When the contractor, after >the August 1996 fire by arson, got $112,000 to both rebuild and re-outfit >(wheelchair - accessible shower, grip-bar bathtub, double handrails, >and many more PD-related additional installations) . my insurance >settlement > was used against me,as if I had funds to spend on taxes. > In fact, I used it all up without completing the re-outfitting of my >homw, > and have even had to scrounge the discarded junk people put out on their >curbs. >At one point, I even had to find boots and clothes this way. > > >>OR why was it so impossible to find legal help--did they feel you had >>no case? > >Some lawyers tell me it is a good case, but that they cannot afford to >take it. >They gave many reasons. Usually they say the case is too complicated. > Basically, FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS, >I have been too exhausted to be able to convince a lawyer to take my >case They all say they know NOTHING about Young Onset - PD, and they >don't see >any money in it. And I live alone, without advocates to scream and >shout for me. > >Some lawyers said they were unqualified , and have no idea what PD or >YOPD >does to a person who might wish to file a lawsuit. Or they are too busy, >and felt unprepared to assist me. I guess I just haven't had luck in this >area. > > >>I find it hard to believe we are getting the whole picture here----- >>you suggest you are discriminated against because they say you are >>"different"--and you relate this to being an aggressively active >>PWP---do >>you also suspect homophobia? > >IT's PD-related and disability-related. Homophobia plays a lesser, >more subtle role.. They see me going around town in my "on" >periods, and are suspicious of my claim that I am unable to >earn money (due to the Medicaid rules). > >Also, my voice slurs and my speech softens so mcuh >that they don't bother to listen to me. Or because I am >gay or may have an effeminate or transgendered personal >care attendant with me, they are uneasy, and won't help me. > >The CIty lawyers are afraid that other disabled homeowners >will make claims, so of course I am being prevented from such >tax and sewer help!! >> >>How can they take a house worth much more, for a tax lien of $1,400.00 >> ? > >City ordinances for automatic foreclosure give the City >the right to take my house from me, even though I have >completed paying the mortgage!! Their ordinance allows >them to accomodate exceptional circumstances, but they >say I am not in such circumstances. > >> >>You say the city says you "mis-spend" your SSDI---what do they mean >>by >>that, > >They count me as a household of ONE, where my expenses are supposed >to be those of a person with no more than $457.00 a month in income, >living in >a room in a house, shelter, or lodging place, or living from place to >place and >indigent. So, this way, the fact that I am a homeower who is disabled and >who >needs a live-in caretaker and who is a household of TWO is ignored. > They use the Portland General Assistance statutes, otherwise called the >welfare laws, to manipulate the Americans with Disabilities Act to being >irrelevant. >They say that I should spend my $230.00 of "excess income" per month (the >balance of my monthly SSDI of $687.00) on TAXES and SEWER availability >fees. > > and what right do they have to dictate how ANYONE spends such >>income? > > >They willl only give me tax abatement ON THE CONDITION that at any time, >they can challenge any expenditure (like long-distance calls to you or >anyone >on the PIEnet for example). They have actuially tried to stop me from >going on >e-mail. Even the Human Rights Commission's e-mail address was kept from >me >initially! > > They also have tried to BAR me from going on the PIEnet itself! They do >NOT want >my story to be known. They have had a clause in the failed "Settlement" >effort to >prevent me from being able to talk to anyone at all about all of this >abatement business. >They have also tried to challenge my treatment plan and my PD diagnosis >by saying >that they have the right to make me be examined by doctors of >THEIR choosing and that my doctor has to write letters of explanation to >them at >any time they like. This is when I start boiling over and feel like I'm >in Auschwitz. >> > >>Do they refuse you for "city welfare" because your SSDI income is >>enough to >>put you over the legal limit for welfare? > >Yes. But they ignore Maine case law, which requires the HOUSEHOLD, >not the individual's expenses, to be the standard. Meanwhile, they say >my >caregivers, who live here, or visit, increasing my utility bills to >24-hour use, >are not countable expenses, nor are all kinds of PD-related expenses. >Hello, >Ivan, this is 1984 and Big Brother is watching you....... > >> >>So many questions---but when you ask folks to advocate for you, >>especially >>at a distance,with no other input, you have to expect them to need all >>the >>facts..... > >Hope this explains that I am being perceived as vulnerable bya heartless >system >that does NOT want others who are isolated and disabled- like fellow >PWP's, >PWA's, elderly, and others who are home-bound, to unite . They are >afraid my case might open the floodgate for tax abbatements from >disabled homeowners. So they use pressure tactics. >> >> You are now in touch with your representative's office ( did you try >>Sen. >>Snowe too ?) and that may carry more clout than hard copies from us >>on >>PIEN. > >Tom Allen's staff is talking and following this, and Olympia Snowe's >office >is also aware. But so far, they have not acted with letters of inquiry. >I think >they are adopting a wait-and-see if Ivan is backed up attitude, After >all, >we PWP's are not easily seen by powerful people until we make collective >noise. > >So I think that PWP and caregiver written testimony, signed as required >by >Patricia Ryan,Maine Human Rights Commission Executive Director, is >helpful. >PIEnet lettters are relevant and CRUCIAL, because they prove I am not >alone >in claiming that: > > (!) PD disables me to the point of not having enoiugh money to >pay taxes and sewer availability fees, and > > (2) PD is deceptive, and can give the false impression, if >well-medicated, >of being far LESS disabling than it actually is. > > >> I certainly hope this problem is resolved in your favor, but I >>still >>think there is more to the story, and if you care to or have time and >>energy to fill us in, it will be appreciated. >> > >Camilla I hope this helps. I can also be telephoned at 207 797-8488. > > >Thank you, >Ivan Suzman, 49/39/36 >>Ivan wrote in part--- >>>And the real BAD news: >>> >>>At 4:10 I opened the mail and there was a letter from the MHRC . >>THey >>>have bought the City's >arguments, not mine. THerefore, the MHRC >>says >>>that my claims should be DISMISSED. >>> >>>During the 4-hour facat-finding meeting, the City lawyers submitted >>all >>>kinds of typed >>>documents. I had no lawyer, and just tried to hold on and telll my >>story. >>> >>>I have to respond by NOVEMBER 20, and any "relevant" documents can >>be >>>included. >>> >>>I am afraid that even hand-written letters from the PIEnetters are >>deemed >>>irrelevant. >>>GOSH, what now folks? >