# Appendix — Hancock v. City of Davenport > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_1622%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1989 - **Citation:** 493 U.S. 826 ## Text & J 4 AL & Supreme Court, U.S. No. i F | LL E D JUN 27 1989 JOSEPH F, SPANIOL, JR. CLERK In The Supreme Court of the United States October Term , 1988 GLEN OSWIN HANCOCK "Petitioner” Vv. City of Davenport An Iowa Municipal Corp., ET AL. ”"Respondent” Appendix: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE IOWA COURT OF APPEALS GLEN O. HANCOCK P.O. BOX 1106 DAVENPORT, IOWA 52805 (319) 323-1208 Pro Se Petitioner IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA (Filed December 22, 1988) GLEN O. HANCOCK, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) vs. )_ 8-461 CITY OF DAVENPORT, )87-1022 et al., ) Defendants- ) Appellees. ) Appeal from the Iowa District Court rer Scott County (70078), J.L. Burns, Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in his favor ona jury verdict in t:2 district court. AFFIRMED. Glen O. Hancock, Davenport, pro se. John R. Martin, Corporation Counsel, and Michael J. Melroy, City I Attorney, Davenport, for defendants-appellees. George B. Norman of Dircks, Ridenour, Norman & Macek, Davenport, for defendant-appellee James Conway. Considered by Schlegel, ®.3:, ene Hayden and Habhab, JJ. PER CURIAM The plaintiff appeals froma jury verdict in his favor against the City of Davenport, eight members of the city council, two city officials, and one private individual, for damages suffered when he did not receive adequate notice or a hearing prior toa decision that his property be declared a public nuisance and should be demolished. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. eo The plaintiff owned a building in downtown Davenport known as the Vale Apartments. The building was built in about 1875 and is currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The building at one time was an elegant hotel which could apparently boast President Ronald Reagan as an occupant when he worked for a Davenport radio station. The city vacated the building in 1982 because of numerous housing and fire code violations. It now sits vacant and boarded up. Plaintiff purchased the building with plans to refurbish it to its original splendor. Beginning in 1983 the City took various actions to get the Hancock family to repair the building or demolish it. In 1984 the city council passed resolution 3 finding the building substandard to the extent it should be demolished as a public nuisance. Hancock filed this suit seeking damages and another suit seeking a writ of certiorari and injunctive relief. The latter case was the subject of Hancock v. City Council of the City o Davenport, 392 N.W. 2a 472 (Iowa 1986). The supreme court concluded the City did not provide Hancock meaningful opportunity to be heard which its ordinances contemplated and constitutional due process’ requires. Id. at 479. Following the supreme court decision, Hancock went forward with his damages action pursuant to 42 oe. 856. section 1983, which alleged violations of this constitutional rights. Prior to the trial date, Hancock's attorney sought permission to 4 withdraw as counsel because he believed he would have to appear as a witness at the tciai. Plaintiff then hired another attorney. to withdraw. Also, prior to the ‘trial, Hancock had requested a change of venue because of adverse press coverage of his struggle with the city council. This request was denied. The jury ultimately returned a verdict against all the defendants except James Conway, awarding Hancock $17,225 in compensatory damages, but not punitive damages. The court awarded Hancock's attorneys $13,000 for attorney fees. Hancock then filed this pro se appeal. hes As grounds for appeal Hancock claims he was denied a fair trial because the district court did not Grant his request for change of venue; that he was denied equal protection 5) under the law due to the questionable methods of the judiciary and the attorneys in this case; and he argues numerous theories as to why the damages determined by the trial court were not sufficient to make him whole. This case was initially filed as a petition in equity. However, the plaintiff filed a jury demand which was captioned as a law action. Apparently all or most subsequent documents filed and proceedings were at law. A case is generally reviewed as tried in the court below. Schroeder v. Buegel, 371 N.W.2d 178, 179 (Iowa App. 1985). Therefore, our review of this case is on assigned error. Iowa R. App. P. 4. III. A. Change of Venue. Plaintiff first asserts, he was not given a fair trial because local media attention to the case biased jurors, 6 thus he argues the trial court incorrectly denied his motion for change of venue. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 167 outlines circumstances under which a venue may be changed: (c) Prejudice or Influence. If the trial judge, or the inhabitants of the county, are so prejudiced against the moving party, or if an adverse party has such undue influence over such inhabitants, that the movant cannot obtain a fair trial. The motion in such case shall be supported by affidavit if the movant and three disinterested persons, none being his agent, servant, emplo-ree or attorney, nor related to him by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree. The other party shall have a reasonable time to file counter affidavits. Affiants may be examined pursuant to R.C.P. 116. Decision to grant or deny a motion for change of venue rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Locksley v. Anesthesiologists of Cedar Rapids, 333 N.W.2d 451, 454 (Iowa 1983). In civil cases the trial court's decision is reviewed for an ‘abuse of discretion. Id. Despite the difference in the court's review, cases discussing the impact of publicity in criminal cases are instructive, the supreme court has stated: "Exposure to news accounts 8 does not establish ipso facto substantial likelihood of prejudice in the minds of prospective jurors. Examination of the pretrial publicity discloses that it was, on the whole, objective, factual reporting. The media expressed no view on defendant's guilt or innocence, nor was the pretrial coverage inaccurate, misleading, or unfair. , -. no attempts were made to inflame the public mind Or to sensationalize the event (citations omitted). State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Iowa 1982). 9 Plaintiff provides us with only excerpts from a pair of articles and a list of other stories which allegedly prejudiced the jury against him. There is no evidence the articles were inaccurate, misleading or unfair. We do not believe these articles even remotely inflame the public senses or sensationalize the event to the extent prejudice could befall a juror's mind. We find no prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the newspaper articles shown in the record here. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion. We also determine plaintiff's allegation that he could not get a fair trial because as taxpayers, the jury would have to foot part of the bill for any judgment he may receive. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion stating no proof existed showing 10 plaintiff could not select an impartial jury. As we have stated, a decision to grant a change of venue lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. Locksley, 333 N.W.2d at 454. There was no abuse of discretion. B. Equal Protection. Plaintiff asserts he was denied equal protection of the law because of the actions of the trial court and attorneys in this matter. His argument apparently hinges on complaints the bar and the district court of Scott County are inextricably tied to the whims of the Davenport City Council, thus plaintiff at the very leaSt was not given a fair trial. We observe plaintiff did not raise, in the trial court, any equal protection arguments under the state or federal constitutions. Although the argument is attempted on appeal, it is it too late. The question was not preserved. Lennon 7. City of Muscatine, 272 N.W.2d 429, 430 (Iowa 1978). However sympathetic we may be, we will not address issues, even of constitutional magnitude, not presented to the trial court. In re Staros, 280 N.W.2d 389, 410 (Iowa 1979). Plaintiff's primary grounds’ for making his allegations stem from his attorney's failure to object to certain evidence. Also, he complains his attorney failed to present evidence which plaintiff believes was necessary for the proper adjudication of this case. Even if we believe plaintiff's assertions are valid, we cannot now involve ourselves in the second-guessing of plaintiff's attorney's trial strategy. Plaintiff here is bound by the tactical or oe ys: strategic decisions made by his trial counsel. State v. Jackson, 387 N.W.2d 623, 625 (Iowa App. 1983). Plaintiff did not raise this issue in the trial court and thus’ we are foreclosed from addressing it here. Cc; Damages. Plaintiff argues mumerous errors regarding damages. In abridged form, plaintiff alleges he was damaged in a myriad of ways which he was not compensated for " the jury's award. Plaintiff asks this court to circumvent the jury's determination regarding replacement value of the Vale Apartments and the jury's’7 refusal to award him punitive damages. Plaintiff's arguments are without merit. The trial court did not err to the detriment of the plaintiff in its instructions to the jury. Plaintiff 13 believes he was not properly compensated for both the taking of his property and for unfair treatment by the City. We do not agree. The trial court propounded instructions which adequately informed the jury as to the damages which could be awarded to plaintiff. The court issued instructions which made it clear the jury could award damages ror: depreciation of the building; emotional distress; loss of earnings from the developmental potential of the building; the City violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and punitive damages could be awarded against individual defendants. Paring plaintiff's argument to its Simplest form, he claims he should have been awarded greater damages. The determinative question posed is whether under the record, giving the jury its right to accept or reject whatever portions of conflicting evidence it chose, the verdict affects substantial justice between the parties. Kaufman v. Mar-Mac Community Schools, 255 N.W.2d 147, 148 (Iowa 1977). We hold in this case the jury obtained substantial justice and we do not disturb its verdict. AFFIRMED. | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA (Filed February 02, 1989) No. 87-1022 Scott District Court No. 70078 ORDER GLEN O. HANCOCK, “é Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY OF DAVENPORT, ot Bl«« Defendants-Appellees. Plaintiff-appellant's motion to consolidate actions is hereby denied. Dated this day of February, 1989. Bruce M. Small Justice - Supreme 16 Court of Iowa Copies to: Glen O. Hancock P.O. Box 1106 Davenport, IA 52805 Michael J. Meloy City Attorney Legal Department, City Hall 226 W. Fourth Street Davenport, IA 52801 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA (Filed January 26, 1989) No. 87-1022 ORDER GLEN O. HANCOCK Appellant, vs. CITY OF DAVENPORT, a ae Appellees. The application for further review filed by plaintiff-appellant is hereby set for consideration by this court without oral argument on Friday, March 3, 1989. Dated this 26th day of January, 1989. 18 THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA By Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice Coples to: Glen O. Hancock P.O. Box 1106 Davenport, IA 52805 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA (Filed March 03, 1989) No. 87-1022 ORDER GLEN O. HANCOCK, Appellant, vs. CITY OF DAVENPORT, et al., Appellees. The application for further review filed by plaintiff-appellant is hereby overruled and denied after consideration by this court’ en banc, Neuman, J., not participating. Dated this 3rd day of March, 1989. 20 THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA By Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice Coples to: Glen O. Hancock P.O. Box 1106 Davenport, IA 52805 21 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 87-1022 Iowa District Court for Scott County No. 70078 PROCEDENDO GLEN O. HANCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY OF DAVENPORT, et a2. , Defendants-Appellees. To the Iowa District Court for Scott County: Whereas, there was an appeal from the district court judgment in the above-captioned case to the supreme court, which transferred the case to the court of appeals, and on the 22nd day of December, 1988, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the + 4 district court. Therefore, you are directed to proceed with diligence and according to law in the same manner as if there had been no appeal. In Witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the court of appeals. Dated this 10th day of March, 1989. Clerk of the Court of Appeals eA ASN ERA SS St TASS NN ESA A TEE EI EAE TEED EAL EDE = es IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF No. 87-1022 Iowa District Court for No. 70078 BILL OF COSTS GLEN O. HANCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY OF DAVENPORT, et @1., Defendants-Appellees. IOWA Scott County On the 22nd day of December, 1988, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court. Clerk's fees incurred Amount of clerk's fees already paid by appellant $ 75.00 = § 15.090 Balance due the OSPR 46 ee ee eee $ - PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 10 JD 1-17-85 CASE #68966 DOWNTOWN DAVENPORT DEVELOPMENT CORP. 1979 - 1980 - 1981 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Executive Committee James V. Hancock - President Thomas Midkiff - Vice-President Edward L. Carmody - Sec./Treasurer 1979 - 1980 _ Members of the Board George Norman James K. Figge Charles A. Ruhl, Sr. Charles R. von Maur Mel Foster, Jr. Ron Rickman David A. Shern David Koenig Ray Phillips _ 71 Barry O'Brien Michael Crawford James Ingram 1980 - 1981 Members of the Board Frank Folwell James K. Figge Coerses A. Ruhl, Sr. Charles R. von Maur Mel Foster, Jr. Ron Rickman David. Koenig Ray Phillips Barry O'Brien Michael Crawford James Ingram David A. Shern 1982 - 1984 Members of the Board Same as 1980 - 1981 with the exception of Mr. Shern who's resignation 72 left a vacancy. INSTANT CASE 70078 EXHIBIT 61 RERC REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CORPORATION 72 West Adams Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 June 26, 1981 Mr. Robert J. Mulready City Administrator, City Hall 226 West 4th Street Davenport, Iowa 52801 Dear Mr. Mulready: In conformance with your authorization, we submit our economic feasibility study for a proposed Community Activities and Performing Arts Center which would meet current and future needs of the City of Davenport. Respectfully submitted, REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CORPORATION John W. Diamond Vice President and Director of 74 Hotel/Motel Studies Eugene E. Krell Senior Analyst JWD:EEK:lcm 79 RERC STUDY PAGE 4 4. Vie Although one-way traffic east on Third Street makes it inconvenient to unload passengers at the Center, safety islands will help to solve this problem. Some remaining undesirable surrounding land uses are expected to be removed or upgraded. The Activities Center lobby will offer an attractive vista of the Mississippi River and Rock Island. A number of good restaurants and other Center support facilities are within walking distance. 76 RERC STUDY PAGE 8 3. Demand for hotel rooms stimulated by - other events in the Performing Arts Center and the Community Activities Center will create an expenditure of another $105,000 for hotel rooms in or near downtown. Increase bn hotel room demand would justify the addition of 90 to 100 rooms to the Blackhawk Hotel or renovation of the Mississippi Hotel and conversion of rooms to transient use. Downtown and near-downtown = restaurants, clubs, and bars could expect to receive more than $800,000 annually from users of the Center. 07 RERC STUDY PAGE 12 4. The Parking A supporting element vital to the success of this proposed center is a six-level parking ramp providing 504 convenient parking spaces. For comfort, convenience, and security, it is proposed that this structure be connected by enclosed ramps and arcades with the hotel, activities center, and performing arts center. This parking structure is particularly important for events or meetings not attracting capacity crowds. People recognize that they may have to park at some distance if many others are attracted to an event, but they expect to be able to park at a convenient location at other times. The recent traffic study completed 78 RERC STUDY PAGE 12 (continued) by Wilbur Smith and Associates shows that in 1980 there is a daytime deficiency of more than 800 parking spaces for the blocks immediately surrounding the _ site chosen for development of the parking ramp. Of course, not all of that demand needs to be met on the site of the Activities Center Ramp, but it does point to the great need for parking to meet the additional demand generated by the new Community Activities Center. With the addition of the Activities Center, Wilbur Smith and Associates estimate that there would be a deficiency of over 2,000 daytime parking spaces on the block located within 600 feet walking distance of the site. With 79 RERC STUDY PAGE 12 (continued) this level of potential demand it may be desirable to limit parking ramp usage to persons attending major events in the Performing Arts and Community Activities Center. It is expected however, that there would-be little competition in evening hours for persons other than those attending events in the Center and that the parking ramp would be available to conveniently serve about 1,200 people (assuming that there will be 2.5 persons per automobile). If fees are competitive, we expect the facility to be the preferred parking location for persons coming to the Center because of its convenient location. 80 aaa RERC STUDY 2 PAGE 22 Direct, protected access to the Sundance Social Club at the ground level and to the hotel, Activities Center and the Performing Arts theatre at the second level would expand use of the parking facility and increase the attraction of the Center for many potential users and attendees. As stated initially, we are convinced that usage of each element included in the center is closely related to the presence of each of the other elements. 81 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2 JD 1-17-85 CASE #68966 (EXHIBIT 71 - CASE #70078) PARKING PROGRAM STUDY prepared for the CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA by WILBUR SMITH AND ASSOCIATES October, 1981 PARKING STUDY PAGE 20 Surplus and Deficiency - Upon completion of the calculations determining adjusted supply and parking demands, a comparison of these figures may be used to indicate where parking is needed. The numbers are compared on a block-by-block basis, and the differential of the comparison is commonly referred to as parking PARKING STUDY PAGE 20 (continued) "surplus or deficiency." It should be noted that these numbers cannot be used as a quantitative figure for determining required parking spaces or the existence of too many parking spaces. The completed analysis of parking spaces in terms of surplus and deficiency is shown in Figure 6. As PARKING STUDY PAGE 20 (continued) indicated in Figure 6, the area around the proposed Activity Center was identified as having more parking deficiencies than surpluses, indicating a probable need for parking. The irregular outlines shown for these two sites encompass areas which are 600 feet from the proposed facilities and represent an individual's normal 83 PARKING STUDY PAGE 20 (continued) walking distance. Parkers will tolerate longer walking distances in certain circumstances, depending, of ecteke; on area characteristics, space availability, parking rates, and the environment. Parkers now using the parking lots located south of River Drive and walking to the Orpheum Theatre are exceeding the 600-foot walking distance either because other space is not available at PARKING STUDY PAGE 21 / night for special events, or they are taking advantage of low parking rates during work days. However, the same daytime parkers will pay a higher -parking rate on a cold rainy day in order to park closer to their place of 84 PARKING STUDY PAGE 21 (continued) employment. Projected Parking Needs Future parking needs were investigated through a study of the proposed downtown projects to determine additional parking demands. The parking demand adjustments were made for the blocks on which the area developments will be located. There are three proposed developments that are being considered for the study area. These developments are: 1. Activity Center 2. Ground Transportation Center 3. LeClaire Park improvement Activity Center - The proposed Activity Center complex will be located in Block 10 of the study area. For parking demand gar yerse the ’ > ] PARKING STUDY PAGE 21 (continued) development criteria used were (1) theater; (2) exhibition/activity center; and (3) retail. Parking requirements may change depending upon ultimate development design and the mix ~ of the three criteria on the _ site. 86 PARKING STUDY PAGE 25 Parking Needs Comparison The anaylsis results of projected parking surplus and deficiency in the respective project areas were used to make a comparison. of the expected parking needs. A comparison of the surplus and deficiency findings for blocks within a 600-foot walking distance of each proposed site was made, as shown in Table 9. The comparison of these figures indicates a greater need for additional spaces in the Activity Center area than in the GTC area, although additional parking should be provided in both areas. The blocks in the Activity Center area experience a parking space deficiency in 8 of the 10 blocks within the 600-foot walking distance used for 187 PARKING STUDY PAGE 25 (continued) comparison purposes. The construction of the Activity Center will eliminate some existing parking spaces, thereby increasing the parking space deficiency, and, in addition, the use of the facility will create additional parking demand. The Ground Transportation Center area analysis indicates deficiency of parking spaces in 4 of the 10 blocks within the 600- foot walking distance. 88 PARKING STUDY PAGE 51 Activity Center Parking The economic assessment of the Activity Center did not result in a favorable coverage factor. However, additional parking to be included as part of the center will be required to make such development of the project feasible. it is recommended, therefore, that the City actively pursue a combination of funds to result PARKING STUDY PAGE 52 in the development of the proposed 904-space parking garage. This funding may be realized from UDAG, Parking Revenue Bonds, and other sources, as previously discussed. 89 EXHIBIT F~ IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SCOTT COUNTY (FILED JULY 17, 1985) GLEN O. HANCOCK, Plaintiff, vs. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVENPORT and THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, Defendants. FINAL ARGUMENT NO. 68966 The Plaintiff, in his Trial Brief, filed previously with the court, reviewed the history of the case before the Court. For the sake of brevity, the Plaintiff will not review this material in the closing argument. The Plaintiff also stated to the court in his trial brief that’ the evidence would show that the Vale Building is vacant, secure, structurally sound and is being monitored 24 hours 2 day for fire protection. In support of these facts, the Plaintiff cites the testimony of Dan Palmer, the President of Tri-City Electric, who has over 10 years experience in construction and commercial remodeling. Tri-City Electric ieee the building adjoining the Vale. Mr. Palmer testified from his own personal observations that the building was sound. The Plaintiff also cites’ the testimony of the Plaintiff's expert witness, William J. Knapp, P.C., of Shive-Hattery Engineers, who testified that after studying the structural Support system of the building his firm concluded that the building was sound. He also testified that Shive-Hattery has independently and voluntarily contracted to continually observe the 91 building to monitor any structural changes. Glen Hancock testified that he had installed a functional fire alarm system in the building and had contracted with a security firm to monitor it 24 hours a day. He also testified that he had contracted to install a burglar alarm system with the same security firm. Mr. Hancock also teatities that he inspected the building daily to check on its condition and to prevent break-ins. Testimony was introduced by Chief Vandemark that on October 15, 1984, an alarm was received from the Vale Fire alarm system and that the Fire Department's response time was two minutes. He also testified that a two minute response time is standard for the Central Fire District. Chief Vandemark also testified that the Fire 32 Department has contingency plans for fighting fires in all downtown buildings, including the Vale Building. From all of these facts, the Court should conclude that the building poses no danger. to the general public. Furthermore, as Mr. Hancock testified, he was prepared to offer this evidence on September 4, 1984 at the court hearing scheduled by Judge Newman to review Hancock's progress. Therefore, the building posed no danger to the general public on September 4, 1984. At the first hearing in May of 1984, Judge Newman heard testimony of Mr. Donald Stevenson, the Plaintiff's architect. Mr. Stevenson outlined phases of work and schedules’ for completing the work. This information has been reintroduced in this hearing. As Mr. Hancock testified, he had completed all of the steps outlined by 93 Mr. Stevenson to be completed by August 31, 1984. Mr. Hancock met the intent of Judge Newman's temporary injunction and was prepared to prove his compliance on September 4, 1984 at the court hearing. If that hearing had proceeded, Mr. Hancock would have been entitled to either an extension of his temporary injunction or a permanent injunction prohibiting the City from proceeding with the attempted demolition of his agreement. What happened at the September 4, 1984 court hearing? The Court has the transcript of this hearing (Joint Exhibit #2). The City waived oor dropped their first demolition action in open court. Did this mean that no injunction was needed or that’ the Plaintiff had won? Unfortunately, the City's action left the legal status of the dispute in limbo and the Plaintiff 94 inadequately protected. The City's decision to drop the first demolition proceeding suggests that it feared that it would lose September 4, 1984 in court. The city *s course of conduct suggests + suspected an injunction would prohibit it from demolishing the plaintiff's oroperty. So the City took this matter out of the hands of the Court and dragged the Plaintiff back to City Hall. At the Council Hearing on September 4, 1984, there was no pretext of judicial process. It was evident even to the casual observer that the whole approach of the City Council was based upon the City's determination to demolish the Plaintiff's building. On September 5, 1984, the City voted, Fivst, to condemn the Plaintiff's property and, second, to award a 95 contract to tear it down. The City scheduled the demolition to begin September 10, 1984. (See Answer) This is further evidence of the City's predisposition. Without discussing the due process issue which is addressed in the Plaintiff's Trial Brief, the entire procedure utilized by the City, as demonstrated by its conduct, was a deliberate attempt to take the Plaintiff out of court (where it is likely he would have been successful) and to tear his building down 6 days later. This conduct is so shocking and outrageous, st alone should be sufficient grounds to stop the City from persecuting the Plaintiff. This problem was pointed out by the Court on Spetember 4, 1984 on page 20 of the transcript (Joint Exhibit #2). 96 Ta ie a _ . he ee — os ”“) 4 dn . The Court stated on page 21 of the P2 ; transcript: A } T 7 mic me i- OVW The Court: How much time do the' r ial have to give?... ing Min | - e m ~, “Ts ss > } ir. Meloy: There is no specified » TY) VW 73> T t! time, Your Honor. tm 7 . Tne Court: So they coulda order it torn down next week, is that what )] s 1 > ) - | + > ) + —T + ; ; + + . + Va . - ° 7 se) a4 q ) 7 q c fi ‘ ~~ a” al ' 10) ) 3 A 74 a4 c , ~ - 1 4 > y~ >. > c ‘ i) J ~ l ~ —~ , r 4 ; : j - - a 4 iu ont + ~ > + 7 ¢ _ ( tt ; ps ~ ls , . U _ r lam / ‘ ‘ v 0 YY) . P x » 7 - \ go ; © : c and di 2 + Ad . 0 1 pd4 +7 +4 ’ z : — - . A , , “ = a! ( C . = + J + ~» re - = - Fr . 4 ‘re (rt | - mn t ; +/ ro > | TH = 7 2 c ame | ‘am s - 48 SX : rey , 7 4 a4 oat 7 ©) : i ‘ and n 5 9 , . , : | ‘ 1 . — > 4 se rn = Ul -. ; ) , ) 7 L 4+ c. + - e ct aa i. ‘ 4 0 : ong J as +4 1 W ¥ ) ( a : + ort r j 1 ~ ; ‘ a } ) + : re c 1 : 4 ~ ‘ : , a! ~ ey y ct * A r - - Jl = ry A, ct ; O : ( y ? 1 = ‘ r+ r at ) rj ad - — : . ° : : - sh ; ; ad - , : ; > a” i ) r- ” ( ' l 5 1 ry - 2 + + Vv — a aed r~ : ~ 2 (rt ‘“ cre - . + = 1 ° 0 : Q, : j 4 y ° + bes fr — > a : ~ pt “ by . “ ) 4 ¢ > j 4 ramp on the site, Of course, Mr. Testa denies that he ever said that the City wanted the ground for parking. But Mr. Testa states that he met with Mr. Palmer in 1983, Mr. Palmer states his only contact with mr. Testa was by telephone prior to the January 16, 1984 council meeting. mr. Palmer has no interest in this lawsuit. Plaintiff believes that his testimony is the most credible regarding this conversation, All of this evidence establishes the City's need for the ground for parking. But, did the City really try Co take the Plaintiff's ground without Paying for it? Mr. Hancock testified that if the building were demolished and the cost were assessed against the Ground, he would probably lose it by a tax deed to the City in about 3 to 4 years. This coincides exactly with mr. Testa's time 108 table for building a parking ramp on the site. Mr. Testa's involvement with this project must be reviewed. On August 25, 1983 Phil Testa orders an inspection of the Vale. On August 25, 1983 the City inspectors invade the Vale. On September 1, 1983 Phil Testa first discusses demolition of the Vale at a City council meeting. On September 7, 1983 Jim Conway of the Downtown Davenport Development Corporation prepares a plan for parking on the Vale site. On September 15, 1983 Notice to Appear mailed to Thomas J. Hancock in Arizona. On January 10, 1984 Phil Testa prematurely orders the water service to the Vale abandoned. On January 12 or 13, 1984 Phil 109 SS Testa tells Dan Palmer that the City will use the site for surface parking for 4 or 5 years and then build a parking ramp. On January 15, 1984, Glen Hancock moves back to Davenport. On January 16, 1984 City Council holds first hearing on the Vale. Spring of 1984 City sells bonds to raise money to demolish the building. Jim Conway is clearly an agent of the City. He is downtown coordinator of the Downtown Davenport Development Corporatoin (DDDC). The DDDC is under contract with the City. It advises on expenditures of the Civic Center Bond. In the 1983-1984 City Budget Summary showing actual expenses, the debt service for the Civic Center is $600,788.00 for the first fiscal year. (Budget pp203-204). Bruce Romer testified that the 119 OF WY W W 45 i ’ fe : ~ , J a ‘ rx (4 + 4 aun > . * 7 - wv oy © 1 ‘e - ] uv) O n OU 4 qt ne = 4 - a) () ' ‘ - Pp 1 ) gf & O RN ie ' 4 Ly n\ 4 - - r ~ al — WY Y = : = fe M4 1° C) c ry 4 ~ 4 Cc) s rH - “ > a " L T / al O P W W * ) om = n ms YH , () -) fad et = ’ “_ + © > 4 "i ” 0 n 1 + a O — W) hy — - ( 1) XY) Pies © O my 7, WY) = a ”) fo) a GC 4 a ale (rt O a | 4) ) ) et { — - L + 0 ~ cs v + Y C J Q ~ > Y - , ~ r a\ m~ a pw M4 N = a oe O = tA = _ ° as “4 ms = Q = 8 2 & 2 . ' 4 ox | | a on, —_ . ~ ‘ ( : os ) U oe ( 3 ° or ~ U 0 “j mo w ry rt Oo ol a on re - on 40} © oma es) : = vs W VU) mi = } = U See ) qi) ro n\ o + e! a — — ~ rd) ) “ r .. a Ba @ ~ v oO OO N | ve) i 2 4 _ VY VU YS | » : rr = a oO pe ~| > W4 J re) a ond 4) q Te) “ | at ot My Ly ~ “ » ie 4 ’ VU O 0) vt Ss RT a} a ~ ’ = P e aq Th = “ Ey > i a a ~ Pi: rae Vv -* ~ o ais a m4 oS o>) | © >. VY a) Ly r— as ©) oO co uy) | -4 iJ tf} 1] if m4 qd ~ O O cA ¢ U . O i 4 ©) © U fH a3 C) rvice 111 leb Cc v Center city tax money. It controls the funds in the urban renewal tax fund collected by the City. Furthermore, Conway, Testa and Bruce Romer all testified that Conway works with City Planners. Phil Testa's duties include planning. He works with Conway. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that a decision was made September 1, 1983 to tear the Vale down for a parking lot. There is absolutely no other reason why on September 7, ‘1983 James Conway would draw his map for parking at the Vale site. (Mr. Conway testified that the DDDC has drawn no plans for parking on other sites in the downtown area). The City could have exercised emminent domain to take the Vale for parking. Of course, it would have to pay the fair market value for the ground and the building and it would }12 1 } } dh Wil J y VV 4 Ah WA AC l il iit — . r 7 | ;I),NWrT mmric a i = co Ieto co a ; ~ - MULILIUILIIG uUnader | DOLICE YOwWer as a , lqcann 1+ . nN cocroce + Fr : @lat-s na cy Ff Miuilsa — : a a ~OULC assess Lille COst DI 7 . . ’ smc tT 45 a ~~ Iinat 3 b > li —», q , 4 L. . € MILL LL OF) 24a LIISC LIleé LaLlIO ., mh & the Wnar na . ner redeaam the ] >] AWiliCL A A i aD Cs i. MAccill =F F de CE ch _o scorn ~ + ~~ } ’ {ft4 + 7 “17 1 s > a a55e€ssmen lle roe Re Ba, WOULA a LAA 1 va. , 11+ , c + ~ ~Y ty tha 4eed in 1 & (joa: s LO?! JTILY eat COYSa’ Ta Cr) T rion ] 7 = a rnc +7 an tT Fr ; i + . JOL)DO oe & AT 11 de de We oe WLI aii1U Wa y il Bal i\4 4 + } rr no Fan | r } c ala SB an 4iiU ar A DUuUl J li 1 « _ + ~~ + 8 = se ] { 4 - 4— LL. ¢ > ’ c ¢ } Cc} ( : r) Set te Lactcs WOULOG LOIrCe isa such a desperate gamble? “VYING f lingdeaerctannA hic ar x7 ! wnen trying to understand the ity s actions one mu always look at money, Where is the revenue coming fron nd ynere j it e snded? Plaintiff's Exhibit #4 , shows t che Hotel/Motel 1984 Actual Tax was first applied to +*he Civic Center operating loss in the amount of $125,196.67. The balance of $259,972.11 went toward the debt abatement on 114 $224,021.89 Revenue Shortfall +125,196.67 Civic Center Loss $349,217.56 Total Center deficiency There is actually $349,217.56 in 1983-1984 fiscal year which had to be covered from other sources in the general funds. Recall that the City had a projected site acquisition costs for buying the ground for its ramp across the street of $840,000.00 and that Mr. Romer stated that they have no money budgeted in 1984-1985 to buy that ground. There is , in fact, no money left to buy that ground and there is none available in the foreseeable future. In conclusion, the City has run out of money. Revenues were less than expected and operating expenses were greater than planned. In desperation, the City attempted to confiscate the a= Plaintiff's property. It is now up to the Court to stop this action by the City. Plaintiff asks that a permanent injunction be entered prohibiting the City from condemning his property. He further requests that he be awarded his expenses of defending his property and under 42 USCA Section 1983 that he be awarded any other damages that the Court believes are appropriate. John Flynn. DOWNTOWN DAVENPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PORT OF DAVENPORT, 404 MAIN STREET, DAVENPORT, IOWA 52801 September 7, 1983 Robert Oaks Trust Department > Davenport Bank and Trust 203 West 3rd Street Davenport, Iowa 52801 RE: Burtis Kimball House NE: Vale Apartments Dear Bob: I enjoyed talking with you about the subject property this week. I'm enclosing some materials which may be of interest to you. Please review the 117 information which I got from the City Assessor's office, particuiarly with regard to the size of the building. In friendship, James D. Conway Downtown Coordinator ee 4 Ob —e———— * | ae = Pa o— Vie — or —o 4 —- - (RS Ee ee > amnee ne ae ©... pee 1+ Rt } ‘ 5 ed | om) "a [ weudd “ An ie | i. ee eS-¥ beeen 4 - ,Lu 2b OS 7 ——? | 20160 . ae er, ek Bek ae ee | a ee are oi ’ Pd Sons ata | ‘ ! ' | | ‘ o> [ae - « a ' ' ' x . ' | | ; a ° ont eae ee ee ji — ’ : ’ wG) ’ : ‘ J t : J ox! a, - . - 4 i | 3 | ae ee | a oon a | , ¥ / i) poy t au Cl) oy Si at Lad ! ee ‘ ‘ P ra —— r | i a - a i n £2) ese S47 XS Migs 411 &. oh «72UOL ; t — . ‘ ' ‘ ome, —— - z-1v1 moy fr ; te 9725 01 10 Ta a. - st x rns 7 'e 2D ‘A ( i EE ee Be 4 sad | 5, “py % bh th bb fh pic * om he ee rrr ae 3711 se " 0 re) t ei c 7 f¥ . ‘ s ! fe) ¢) 6 9 / i“ ’ bh b % o.UC ” = | Cee 3380) “eee li €! a ei: \e ee ee oe ae , 2 ia cere- $0 2 OE ad ; 2 * £ © 32H 7 3ce~ TNE WS zr = g 7011d0 ss ot » 9 SI $é _ } heat ve107_cre? 6107 C19) wir i *. a . ; DOWNTOWN DAVENPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PORT OF DAVENPORT, 404 MAIN’ STREET, DAVENPORT, IOWA 5280] MEMO TO: Bob Oaks FROM: James Conway, Downtown Coordinator DATE: January 10, 1984 RE: Urban Renewal Law Section 403.7/403.8 Condemnation/ Disposition In my estimation, the City of Davenport isn't currently anticipating any legal action against 210 E. 4th Street other than condemnation of the existing structure. However, as I mentioned to you, the City's urban renewal plan for the area, which includes this property, allows the City to acquire and dispose of such properties in a manner similar 120 to its other authorities for eminent domain. At the same time Iowa Urban Renewal Law is the only legal means available to the City to take such action on behalf of a private developer. The two referenced sections are attached with key points’ underlined. As an example, should the City be asked to help redevelop a property, say the Vale Building through condemnation, the developer would need to follow the procedures in the law. As would be the case with any open bidding process, it's conceivable someone else could submit a more attractive alternative plan. However, availability of funding, ability to proceed quickly and an existing, and often approved project plan tend to minimize the risks for the developer who initiates a condemnation request to the City. 121 Again let me state that I am not aware of any intent, rumored or otherwise on the part of the City, or any private party to begin any actions under the referenced sections of the code IDC/mis a? a Sic i . 2s IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SCOTT COUNTY GLEN ©. HANCOCK, ) Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF'S SECOND vs. ) MOTION FOR CITY OF DAVENPORT, ) SEPARATE et al., ) ADJUDICATION OF Defendants. ) LAW POINTS ) LAW NO. 70078 Hancock, John T. Darland, Motion Points, oe follows: i? — COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Glen O. by and through his attorney, Flynn of Brubaker, Flynn & Fits and for his Second for Separate Adjudication of Law pursuant to Iowa Rule 105 of , states to the Court as The eta Housing Code 3 adopted by the City of Davenport (Section 15.32.170) adoptes the Uniform Fire Code. Zs The Uniform Fire Code, Section 14.102 applies to unoccupied buildings. as On September 4, 1984 the Vale Apartment Building was an unoccupied buildina as defined by the Uniform Fire Code. 4. That on September 4, 1984, the Vale Apartment Building complied with Section 14.102 of the Uniform Fire Code. -- That no other section of the Uniform Fire Code applies to unoccupied buildings. DATED this 20 day of February, 1987. 124 Copy to: GLEN O. HANCOCK By: Jonn T. Flynn BRUBAKER, FLYNN & DARLAND, P.C. 620 Union Arcade Building Davenport, Iowa 52801 (319) 322-2681 Michael J. Meloy 226 W. Fourth Street Davenport, IA 52801 George B. Norman P.O. Box 1 b- et a f Rock Island, IL 61201-1117 125 DAVENPORT CODE SECTION 15.32.170 UNIFORM FIRE CODE (¢) Section 14.102. Occupied and Unoccupied Buildings. (1) Vacancies. When any portion of a building containing occupied dwelling units and/or guest rooms is vacant such vacant portions shall be maintained secure and under control of the owner, his agent, or other responsible person in order to prevent entry by unauthorized persons. Failure to maintain such security shall be immediate and sufficient cause for the Building Official or Fire Marshal to issue a citation. (a) Failure to maintain security shall include but not be limited to the following: (i) Unsecured exterior openings into 126 vacant portions of a building immediately accessible to the public at grade or unsecured openings into vacant portions of a building immediately accessible by means of landings, roofs, stairs, fire escapes, porches, platforms, or other areas which are accessible to the public from _ grade level. (ii) Unsecured hatchway doors, scuttles, ventilation openings, or other readible means for obtaining entry to vacant portions of a building. (iii) Broken or cracked glass. (b) Unoccupied Buildings. Whenever an entire building remains unoccupied for a period of more than 30 days and is not maintained as provided in subsection (a) ca2, it shall be immediate and sufficient cause for the 127 Building Official or Fire Marshal to issue a citation. (2) The citation shall be punishable by a fine imposed by the magistrate not to exceed $100.00. 128 IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT COUNTY (Filed July 22, 1987) GLEN O. HANCOCK, ) Plaintiff, ) EQUITY NO. 70078 vs. ) CITY OF DAVENPORT, ) MEMORANDUM IN et al, ) SUPPORT OF Defendants. ) TESTIMONY COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Glen O. Hancock pro se, and submits the following: z. The Trust Department of Davenport Bank and Trust Co. testified under oath that Glen 0O. Hancock was behind on payments to the Vale Estate. ra Robert Oaks received exhibit 1 (one) on or about August 26, 1983. The payments to the Vale Estate were current to September 22, 1983. a Mr. Oaks explained to the jury 129 that the map of the Vale Apartments was drawn as ae parking lot due to payment arrearage. WHEREFORE the Plaintiff, pro se submits this memorandum. GLEN O. HANCOCK By Glen O. Hancock, pro se P.O. Box 1106 Davenport, Iowa 52805 (319) 323-1209 Copy to: Michael J. Meloy Legal Department 226 West 4th Street Davenport, IA 52801 130 John T. Flynn 630 Union Arcade Building Davenport Iowa IA 52801 John D. Stonebraker 3432 Jersey Ridge Road Davenport Iowa 52807 George B. Norman 208 18th Street P.O. Box 1117 Rock Island, Ill. 61201-1117 Mark E. Liabo P.O. Box 998 Ceder Rapids, Iowa 52406-0998 131 IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT COUNTY CASE NO. 70078 (FILED: June 24, 1988) GLEN O. HANCOCK ) Plaintiff ) vs. ) “Motion for CITY OF DAVENPORT, et al ) new trial Defendant ) by Plaintiff ) Pro Se" DIVISION I COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, Glen O. Hancock, and for cause of action against the City of Davenport, respectfully states to the Court as follows: 1. That the Plaintiff, Glen O. 132 Hancock, iS a resident of Davenport, Scott County, Iowa. 2. That the Defendant, City of Davenport, iS a municipal corporation epenitine under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Iowa. 3. That the City of Davenport is operated by it's duly elected City Council. 4. That Glen O. Hancock was the owner of certain property traditionally known as the Vale Apartments Building located at 210 E. 4th Street, Davenport, Iowa. 5. That on September 5, 1984 at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Davenport, by roll call vote, adopted a resolution dated September 5, 1984, condemning the 133 property known as the Vale Apartments. 6. That on September 5, 1984 at the regular meeting of the City Council, the City Council voted upon a_— second resolution and approved the award of a contract to Gravenmeyer Contracting Co. to demolish the Vale Building commencing on September 10, 1984. 7. That the actions of the City of Davenport were illegal and in violation of the Plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to the following specifics: A. That the actions of the City of Davenport denied Plaintiff due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution of the States of Iowa and Title 42 U.S.C.A. 134 Section 1983. B. That the Defendant, City of Davenport, illegally exercised summary abatement proceedings to demolish the Plaintiff's property on the basis of the allegations that the building constituted a "public nuisance" but with no evidence an emergency condition existed in violation of Article III, Section 1 and/or Article V. Section 6 of the Iowa Constitution and Chapter 364 of the Iowa Code. C. That the actions of the City of Davenport constitute a condemnation of the Plaintiff's property by the City of Davenport for undetermined purposes without payment of just compensation therefore in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 135 Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 18 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa and Title 42 USCA Section 1983. 8. That the actions of the City of Davenport as set forth above, have been the proximate cause of damages to the Plaintiff Glen O. Hancock. 9. That the Plaintiff, Glen O. Hancock, has suffered damages in a fair and reasonable amount to be determined by a jury as a proximate result of the actions of the City of Davenport, Iowa for the following injuries: A. Depreciation of the Vale Apartment Building; B. Emotional distress; C. Pain and suffering; D. The cost of defense of the 136 actions brought by the City of Davenport; E. Loss of wages past, present, and future; F. Loss of rental income, past present and future; G. Loss of developmental potential of the Vale Building; 10. That pursuant to Chapter 613 A.2, the City of Davenport is liable for the actions of the members of the City Council who illegally voted to condemn and demolish the Plaintiff's neencey,, and the actions of the employees and agents of the City of Davenport, namely, Phillip Testa, James Conway, and Bruce Romer, who while acting within the scope of their employment or duties, wrongfully prosecuted the Plaintiff in 137 this action for civil wrong incurred upon Glen O. Hancock, and the injury to his personal or property rights based upon their negligence, or errors and omissions, or breach of duty, or perjury under oath, or denial of any right under any constitutional provision, statue of rule of law. ll. That this action was’ filed within the proper time frame by former Attorney, John Flynn, of Davenport, Iowa, and within the six month parameter of the constitutional infraction according to 613A.5 of the Code. The petition was filed in equity March 4, 1985. 12. That Plaintiff is entitled to his damages and his legal fees under Title 42 USCA, Section 1983, Section 138 1988, for violation of his constitutional rights. 13. That on August 20, 1986, the named defendants were found in violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff by federal law by the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa, Hancock vs City of Davenport 392 N.W.2d, 472 and that decision in regards to damages’ for these illegalities was "without prejudice to Hancock's right to assert that claim in a separate original action." 14. That on June 26, 1987, a final judgement of a jury trial in a equity action was filed by the trial court in the form of Special verdict, returning a unanimous verdict against all defendants, except James Conway, and an 139 award was entered of $17,235.00 in damages under 42 USCA Section 1988. Judge Burns signed the judgement entry. 15. Liability was established by jury of all the defendants for said infliction of constitutional infraction with the exception of James conway. 16. Grounds for this Motion for a New Trial are based upon the following facts: A. As per a letter dated 4/4/86 by Attorney Flynn, Flynn had established earlier in a communique to Attorney John A. Hellstrom, to whom the letter was sent, (attached Exhibit A), his decision of non representation to Glen 0. Hancock, and further, according’ to (attached Exhibit B) Flynn illegally represented to the court he was the 140 attorney of record and sought withdrawal through court and was granted same. B. No notice of Flynn's representation denial was received by Plaintiff, Glen 0. Hancock, either certified or by regular mail. Exhibit A was received by Plaintiff's mother Jane Hancock, in Phoenix, Arizona, and the contents of which, showing Flynn's statement of non representation, was not discovered by Plaintiff until at least two months after trial. Jane Hancock will supply an affidavit under penalty of prejury to the court if requested. Cc. The attorney who entered an appearance, Mark Liabo of the Tom Riley Law Firm in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in this case on March 2, 1987, did so under the auspices of Attorney John Flynn, as 141 Stated by Plaintiff and filed in Denial of the Bill Particulars. (Exhibit C) Liabo had no contract with Plaintiff assuring his representational credibility and at all times’ was representing Flynn, and furthermore as provided by affidavit, (Exhibit D) made false claims of any fee or representation with Plaintiff; and later did so file said waived claims on lien July 28, 1978 (Exhibit E). Plaintiff also has in his possession, and upon request of the court, demonstrate a video tape made showing Liabo's waiver of attorney fee arrangements. (Exhibit F (Video) to be supplied upon request of court). Plaintiff asserts herein that these elements, but not limited to these elements are material evidence newly 142 discovered and could not have been reasonably or diligently produced at the trial pursuant to Rule 252, Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure and give rise to a Motion for a new trial within the one year prescribed by Rule 252 (B) (F). D. Pursuant to Rule 252 F I.R.C.(. as filed by Plaintiff, July 22, 1987, and designated Memorandum in Support of Testimony, Plaintiff's locating of the existing evidence that serves to demonstrate perjury in a court of Law and jeopardized Plaintiff's rights to an impartial jury through the hearing ae perjured evidence. This check was not located until after testimony of Bob Oakes during the trial and Liabo would not introduce this evidence upon strenuous assertion by 143. Plaintiff. (Exhibit G) 17. Attorney Martin for the City Stated through his most recent Supreme Court briefing for the defendants, that, this case 70078, is an action at law. Plaintiff denies the applicability of this conjecture on his part, but without disclaiming the right to appeal and leave the final- determination of that question in the judgement of the higher courts through extensive and complete de novo review of the entire proceedings from the inception of the matter, Plaintiff presents Exhibit (H) copy of docket, case 70078, and pursuant to Rule 252 IRCP (a), points out to the court that the docket is designated below under "kind of action" as a equity case. Plaintiff invokes his 144 constitutional rights of appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter as to the determination of the conjecture opinion of Attorney Martin, or the possible designatory error of the clerk, Plaintiff denies legal error, but the Matter was plead by the defendants and the appeal process will discover the legal question. The lower courts ruling Shall have no effect on the _ legal question of this point in controversy of the possible application to 252 (a) IRCP to the disposition of review by the Supreme Court, Plaintiff hereby requests an entire and comprehensive court review of the authentication of transmitted records and existent docketing of, but not limited to all motions and services, exhibits of trial, jury instructions, 145 court orders, all resistances and liens and notices as pursuant to Article XI Rule 901 (a) Iowa Rule of Evidence, Rule 901 (B) 10. In other words, this pro se representative respectfully requests Scott County docketing and court authentication guidelines of impartiality to be applied, in the name of fair justice, to all the evidentiary records of this litigation in light of the controversy of docketing and the entries therein represented in case 70078 being expressed in the Supreme Court of Iowa. 18. Attorney Liabo has not returned into the possession of Plaintiff any records of this case received by him through Flynn or from the courts Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 166 IRCP 146 reserves the right to perpetuate the depositions taken in this matter of all parties deposed by both sides of the litigation. Pursuant to Rule 402 "all relevant evidence is admissible" Plaintiff seeks to use this evidence perpetuated, but not exclusive to only this evidence, if a new trial is granted. Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 802 (14), but not limited to that Subsection, seeks to receive confirmation through deposition all alleged hearsay in this matter, and also seeks his rights to the entrance of former cadkinnns of actors in this matter pursuant to Iowa Code Section 622.97 and Rule 144 IRCP also 12 IRCrim.P and Rule 804 (b) (1). Plaintiff also seeks the application of 147 any proper Disciplinary Rules and Ethical Considerations as they apply to the attorneys in this matter, not limited to Plaintiff's alleged attorneys. 19. Acquiescence to representation at trial is not proper defense to the actions of these attorneys, Liabo and Flynn, in that this action (70078) was enjoined with a companion USC Section 1988 attorney fee claim and by essence of the prejudicial verdict award of the jury, Plaintiff would have no cause to know the outcome of awarded fees to these people until after the trial, and therefore establish yet another criteria for evidence not through’ reasonable diligence discovered. IRCP 252 F. 20. Claimed prejudice (Exhibit I) of 148 the (jury offering) of Scott County and Davenport exascerbated by negative Quad City Times Articles has ripened in several ways and constitutes underlying public record proof of material evidence not discoverable through trial: 1) There have been more negative and damaging articles after trial, (evidence supplied upon court request) 2) In an editorial the foreman of the jury made statement of presupposed opinion of the Plaintiff's property after trial (evidence supplied upon request of the court) 3) Activity as of December in the mbdiace vicinity of Plaintiff's property proposing the razing of the Lee Enterprises building for a parking ramp and the dealing with Project Rejuvenate Davenport and the City of Davenport, 149 specifically Tax Increment Finance District (3.36.020) approved May 4th, 1988, is material evidence that could not with diligence have been presented at trial. Plaintiff's original claim as cited in case 68966, was to the effect that the adjacent landowners needed his property for recoup on their Superblock investments, in the form of parking or otherwise, and used the City through James Conway, but not limited to him, to illegally obtain same. 68966 gave rise and substantiation to cause 70078. 21. Defendants filed cross appeal July 28, 1978 and dropped same April ll, 1988. This was filed frivolously in that it was filed only to hamper legal progress herein and confuse the issues, it was dropped after the Plaintiff filed 159 his Brief to the Supreme Court of Iowa, however, Liabo retains the records of the contents of said cross-appeal and Plaintiff knows not the terms objected to by the defendants. 22. In the scope of the parameter of the entire case of the legal and illegal path the municipality of Davenport has chosen with Plaintiff. Plaintiff hereby includes his claim for malicious prosecution in the evidentiary records of case 71281, and 73265, and seeks a fair, discovery in those actions, of malfeasance to the current litigation to be effected in the form of proof of mal feasance or abuse of process or malicious prosecution, but not limited to that specific scope, and it's harmful effect on this instant case. 15] 23. Pursuant to the evidence submitted in case 68966, Plaintiff requests all authenticated exhibits and records of same and hereby specifies they will show conflict of interest by Attorney George Norman, as he was a member of the Downtown Davenport Development Corporation, and presently represents James Conway. The DDDC was the interface to the City of the political vested interests that controverted the City's action of singling out Plaintiff's building for selective enforcement and the perpetrators of the neavy burdens Plaintiff has had to incur. 24. Plaintiff requests this trial to be on the issue of damages only, and a retrial oon the liability of James 152 Conway. Plaintiff also asserts his rights to remove this action from this venue due to the entire prejudicial circumstances of this case. 25. All before mentioned defects in the alleged representative of Glen O. Hancock shows’ serious’ violations of Constitutionally provided protections to Citizens of the United States. of America. 26. Plaintiff files this motion for a new trial for the expedient and fair disposal of this litigation, and retains his rights protected by the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws of the State of Iowa in his appeal rights of findings of this court and any interlocutory affect they may have upon his current Supreme Court Appeal 153 presently being considered. 27. Plaintiff files this action pro se and requests constitutional protection to the matter of keeping within the spirit of the law and within a good faith boundary of representing only the facts as they happened. 28. Plaintiff was denied proper discovery of the application of federal codes specifically the National Historic Preservation Act 16 USC(470 F, commonly referred to Section 106, The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4F as they apply to a Nationally Registered Historic Building. 29. Plaintiff requests a hearing in a timely manner on these issues pursuant to Iowa and Federal law. [RA Glen 0. MHancock- pro se . P.O. Box 1106 Davenport, Iowa 52805 Copy to: Michael J. Meloy City Hall 226 W. 4th Street Davenport, Iowa 52801 George B. Norman 1790 Union Arcade Building Davenport, Iowa 52801 155 In the Supreme Court of Iowa (Filed January 11, 1989) Glen oO. Hancock ) Appellants’ Reply Plaintiff v ) Brief City of ) Davenport, etal ) Scott County No. 70078 Appeal from the District of Scott County Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge From Pg. 1 Plaintiff through his appeal. has shown evidence of, and demonstrated the "hurried" activity of the Scott County justice system in trying to force these complex issues, to the destain of Plaintiff. This impulsive style of the local courts manifested itself throughout the proceedings, jeopardizing the "real" issues of discovery, and forcing Plaintiff into court, vulnerable in an unjust and untimely manner, without an attorney, 156 without financial wherewithal to carry on in a fair progression of protecting his civil rights. Plaintiff asserts that misuse of From Pg. 2 the system in Scott County assured his financial instability for the use of his rival litigants. Local courts failed to allow impartial construction of justice through these, but not limited to plead transpiring. From Pg. 2 _In considering this case, reviewing court is made cognizant that actions after Flynn's public statement by letter (App.p. 80. of his status to former client Hancock, disallow the best interest legal protection to Plaintiff and Plaintiff fairly reserves the right to deny as proper or just, any litigatory subservience to Flynn's activities within 157 that time parameter, as it applies to this entire lawsuit. Acquiesence till _ the conclusion of trial is not’ enough criteria, in this case, to establish representational status of the attorneys. This was a USC 1983 From Pg. 3 action with the overtones of a companion USC Section 1988, known as a lawyers fees action, and as stated by Appellee: "to attorney's fees incurred" (Appellee brief p.3) limits the scope of damages. Flynn commissioned Liabo, as his own intermediary, for recovering from the work he had done on case 68966, and through the ensuing trial. Plaintiff asserts the two conspired with the defendants, in the assured loss of rightful damage discovery: presentation in open court of unfair parameters of evidence, limited in depth as to what had been previously established 158 before other courts, diverting an already prejudiced jury, under the guise of "expertise" and their "trial" strategy, and usurping subsequent award to Plaintiff. Mark Liabo had no contract with Plaintiff and Hancock denies Appellees ascertain (Appellee brief p.4) he was represented by these attorneys throughout most parts of instant case (App.p.47 item 2). From Pg.5 Liabo has retained all records belonging to Plaintiff (App.p.93,93). With the appearance of such a major discrepancy, if that is the truth of this case designation argument, Plaintiff is compelled _ to objectively verify authenticity of all transmitted records, existence docketing, motions, resistances, court orders, depositions, trial transcripts, exhibits at trial, jury instructions, but not 159 limited to these legal documentations of the transpiring of instant case in Scott County Iowa. From Pg. 10 Second, the Quad City Times can _ be directly linked through it's board of directors as a political prominent of a Parking Ramp (LETTER FROM LEE PRESIDENT- Downtown News-Vol. 5 No. 5 March 1987) aed Fund Raiser for the Adler Theater a major part of the Superblock Development. From Pg. 13 As to the question of "affidavit", it is submitted to this court that the alleged attorney, Liabo, made no effort to inform or procure same and furthermore he made no effort tc inform Plaintiff on his constitutionally guaranteed rights of Federal jurisdiction in instant case. Monroe v Pape 365 US 167,183, Light v Blackwell 472 F.Supp, 333. Flynn never 160 gave that timely advice either: why should they make Plaintiff's cause more fair? They were not representing him to the first place. On the other hand they were protecting the defendants by keeping the cause local. Liabo premeditatively went to court for the venue issue emptyhanded and that is the reprehensible. (DR1-102 (5), Canon 2, EC2-B, DR6-101(A) (2&3), DR 7-10 (A) (1&3). From Pg. 14 The issues at the heart of this lawsuit are 1) statutory protection of historic properties and improper discovery of same 2) the right to protection by legal council in a "closed" community due to the circumstances of political contravention 3) subjection to malicious prosecution and prejudice by local officials and the body politic due to subversion and ignorance. From Pg. 15 161 Plaintiff herein asserts that he was totally unprotected as to the Statutory Protections provided to Historical Buildings by the Federal codes and denied not only proper time for discovery of same. (I.R. Evidence 103 (a) & 104 (b) but the legal fortitude vis a vis fraudulent attorneys (in this state). From Page 15 Plaintiff herein raises a constitutional issue as to the State courts disposal of the matter in it's entirety From Page 16 The historic Burtis Kimball Opera House is adjacent by party wall to the Plaintiff's property and may, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, constitute a "historic district" where it applies herein. It cannot be said that timely raising of the "historical" significance of Plaintiff's property has not been made. 162 It was raised by Flynn in his briefing on 68966 (rule 804(b)-1&5 I.R. Evidence and citing of Chapter 303 of the Code of Iowa, as well as reference to the placement of the property on the National Register in the Hancock ruling filed by this court. All parties know and had cause to know. From Pg. 17 Certain protections are awarded National Register properties under Section 106.16 USC Code 470 F. The federal agency cannot passively rely on other agencies to Satisfy it's responsibilities. Hough v Marsh 557 F. Supp. Supp. 74, 87-88 without due process notice or any flagging of proposed planning the city undertook the Superblock development and did not provide Plaintiff on the Federal government, to the best of Plaintiff's knowledge, with any compliance to Federal law if there was indeed federal money involved in the 163 undertaking. On the contrary the city built the convention center in close proximity to the Historic Burtis Kimball House without any interface with the Plaintiff as to plans or obstruction of riverview, including the closing of Perry Street to facilitate the "rivercenter" building. (Department of Transportation Act 4-F) There was no NEPA or Environmental Impact Reviews undertaking even though the building was listed on the National Register at the time of the Superblock construction. Discovery of federal monies or approval was denied proper redress due to the lower courts procedural history in instant case. Fair and legal investigative discovery in this case in the state of Iowa. From Pg. 18 under the umbrella of Federal Constitutional compliance, may well 164 necessitate a Section 106 review. From Pg. 18 The property is located on the rail line connecting the Rock Island Arsenal, an "undertaking" may involve military operations, that adjacent line is active. Romero-Bercelo v Brown 643 F.2d. 835. When a federal agency funds or gives it's conditional imprimatur for a project it may trigger a section 106 review. National Center for Preservation Law v Landau 496 F. Supp. 746, Save the Courthouse Committee v Lynn 408 F. Supp 1323 Elv Velde 497 F2d. 252. By closing off the street. Perry Street directly across from the Landmark, involvement of federal subsidations of streets of roadways is necessitated for discovery of potential 106 and not limited to that action as the Davenport Department of Transportation Act and Stop H-3 Association v Coleman 533 165 F.2d 434. If the federal government holds discretionary authority over a project, such as funding of roads or subsidation in the downtown area of Davenport, 106 must be complied with through every phase. Morris County Trust for Historic Preservation v Pierce 714 F.2d 271, Wi''CH v Harris 603 F.2d. 310 Thompson v Fugate 374 F. Supp. 120. From Pg 19 The archaeological significance of the location of Plaintiff's property was also passed over in fair discovery. Indian tribe existed along the Mississippi in ancient ties, and any agency of federal attachment or funding must comply with the Archaeologic and Historic Preservation Act 36 CFR 800.1. The SBA was involved in certain fundings of the Blackhawk Hotel, owned by Davenport Bank and Trust and directly across the street from 166 Plaintiff's property. Discovery of the specific allocation of fundings and monies spent may also trigger a 106 review. This presents credibie weight to any perjury by an officer of Davenport Bank and Trust, especially in light of the fact Mr. Dakes had "memo" level discussions of Plaintiff's property, without Plaintiff's knowledge indefinite violation of fiduciary responsibility (App.p. 73 to 76) From Pg. 20 On January 10, 1984-Phil Testa orders termination of the water service to the Vale: on January 12 or 13 1984-Phil Testa telis Dan Palmer (owner of Burtis Opera House) that the city will use the site for a surface parking for 4 to 5 years and then build a parking ramp: (conflicting testimony); on January 16, 1984-city council holds it's first "hearing" on the "Condition" of the Vaie: Spring of 1984- 167 city sells bonds to raise money _ to demolish the building. From Pg. 21 There was no contract with Liabo, there was no notice of non-representation by Flynn; the court ordered us into trial (App. p. 27). Was the Plaintiff expected to give up? Was the Plaintiff expected to file his own motions that may have severely crippled his case as a layman? Was 30 years of Plaintiff's family holdings to be lost to unscrupulous behavior? (Appellee brief p.15) Ponder the Federal protections just cited. He was prepared to win his Section 1988 case for Flynn. That transpired. From pg. 22 (Appellee brief p.18) Plaintiff asserts, that ultimately this action can be enjoined to the level of class action under Federal Code (Section 106) Residents 168 of a town are considered users of the property and beneficiaries of the environment that it's unchanged character produces. Legal interest in preserving the property thereby accrues to each of the residents. Edwards v First Bank of Dundee 393 F. Supp. 680, River v- Richmond Metropolitan Authority 481 F2d 1280 From Pg. 23 Also Urban Renewal Projects undertaken with HUD is a major federal action requiring nepa compliance Aertsen v Harris 467 F. Supp 117 at 118. From Pg. 23. Application of these federal codes and protections provided by federal law are submitted for this court as to the constitutional application to Chapter 303 of the Code of Iowa. This case happened in the State of Iowa and probably is the most Significant Historical Preservation case 169 in Iowa. It is a fact that according to Mr. Ray Christian, the SHPO of the state of Iowa, (Rule 804 I.R. Evidence), a Section 106 review has not transpired in the state of Iowa. Discovery of breach of federal law in the violation of Plaintiff's rights will clarify the serious level of tort-feasance as it applies to a municipalities improper and illegal activities. Crosby v Young 512 F.Supp. 1363, Colony Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v Harris 482 F. Supp 296, National Center for Preservation Law From Pg 24 v Landrieu, supra. From Pg. 24 The jurors deserved to know evidence from the 68966 action to fairly reach a verdict, absent prejudice. In 68966, Defendants Exhibit 1-Plaintiff wrote a good faith letter in early 1984 explaining 170 his approach in the preservation of the building to the city, and specifically stating that if feasibility was not possible he would tear the building down and create a private parking business. Plaintiff's Exhibit 3-The Convention Center Feasibility Study (RERC) specifically calls for 90 to 100 additional hotel rooms when Superblock was to be completed; as expected, the study favored the addition of those rooms to either the Blackhawk Hotel oor’ the Mississippi Hotel, which houses the Adler Theater. (p 8 RERC) This verified the hospitality industry From Pg. 25 Feasibility in 1984. Also the study concluded an additional $800,000 annually would be spent in food and beverage near Superblock; a good location for a hotel restaurant). On p.12 of RERC, the study 171 says "A supporting element vital to the success...2000 space deficiency within 600 feet of the center. Is this the tort "incarnate"? Plaintiff's exhibit (2) ;The parking study spells out the money recoup per space and demands. (P.43): if feasibility as per that letter would not have been possible, a parking expert was arranged to establish that 100 to 115 "valet" spaces on an asphalt lot would create a successful parking "going concern", recouping hard cash for several years by now. From Pg. 25 the Marcou O'leary Study noted: "In the year of greater recognition...downtown presents a collection of historic structures not found in other areas of the community." Number 1 objective: preserving the buildings of historic and architectural integrity. Did ‘the city use 172 this study and falsely represent to the Federal government. HUD and UDAG, to receive funding downtown? 173 In the Supreme Court of Iowa (Filed on or about January 20,1989) Glen O. Hancock ) Applicants Application Plaintiff v City) for Further Review of Davenport, ) et.al. ) Scott County No. 70078 Appeal from the District of Scott County Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge From Pg. 2 When issues of basic’ constitutional safegaurds are raised, under principles laid down in applicable federal and state From Pg. 3 decisions,such issues r2quires a court to make it's own evaluation of the totality of the etreuetances under which those constitutional rights was made. Dickenson Co v City of Des Moines Iowa 347 NW2d 436 Schneckloth v Bustamonte 412 US 218, 225 Sheppard v Maxwell 384 US 333,362.. 174 From Pg. 4 Within the public psychological determination the Plaintiff Glen 0. Hancock, cannot be separated from the "presumed public eyesore quality" of historic building, an consequently the public mind would not isolate or separate Glen Hancock from erroneous blame, it would be an integral part, a "play within a play". "When the spotlights glare comes to rest on a certain individual in a matter of large public interest involving widespread and intensive publicity of a prejudicial nature..."quoting Pollard v District Court of Woodburry County 200 NW2d 519 at 521) From Pg. 5 The sequestered voir dire of jurors "is not unusual or view with suspicion" In re:Greensboro News Co, 727 F2d, 1320,1323 (4thcir. 1984) 175 From Pg. 6 When the exercise of free press rights actually tramples upon 6th amendment rights (in this case 14th amendment equal protection of the law) the former must yield to the latter. Justice Frankfurter observes "trial by newspapers" too often differs from the real trial court. Pennekamp v Florida 328 US 361. From Pg. 7 It is alleged the story not told by the Quad City Times is that they are directly involved with the downtown power players by their location geographically at the very least, and "voice"a clever "negative tone" to the destain of the plaintiff and confusion of the body politic. It is a fact and mentioned in Plaintiff a motion for new trial (see Motion for a New Trial herein Annex p.6 subsection 20-31), that the present building of Lee Enterprises is 176 to be razed to facilitate the much need parking lot for Superblock. "In a civil case, an issue may be proven From Pg. 8 by circumstantial evidence if it is such as to make the theory of causation probable, not merely possible, than other theory" State v Williams 179 NW 756 From Pg. 9 The Court of Appeals erred in it's initial conclusion of fact regarding evidence submitted in Plaintiff's appendix. The Court of Appeals states that it's review of news articles was limited to exclusively a "pair of prejudice" as a result of the "newspaper articles" shown. It is clearly indicated by Plaintiff in his Appendix Table of Contents that page 58 is designated as "Public Notice-Fee Award. 177 From Pg. 9 It is asserted again in Plaintiff's brief that the only notice he received regarding the facts surrounding the payments of attorneys in this case was through the newspaper. Page 58 is a copy of a press release by Plaintiff's brother (a copy was sent to Justice Wolle in February 1988) and further proof that the intention was not to exclusively submit only these articles is clear in the article appearing on the bottom. That specifically was from the Des Moines Register, that newspaper never have been alleged as to prejudice or conflict of interest in instant case. From Pg. 12 Evidentiary issues were not preserved for appeal where they were not raised in the motion for new trial. Goodrich v McCannel 382 NW2d 235 It is now alleged the trial court erred in the ruling on that Motion for New Trial (see Order Annes p.8) for 178 these reasons: 1) The original notice was served to the clerk and mailed to the defendant's attorneys Meloy and Norman, if the service is indeed errant as Judge Briles alleges, the maid defendant, the City of Davenport, has been duly served proper notice through the legal department and Mike Meloy, and point 2) Judge Briles should have disqualified herself form participating as has ben alleged by Plaintiff in his brief she made a derogatory remark about him in chambers within the presence of a witness whose name Plaintiff will supply herein: Attorney John Hoekstra, 1705 2nd Avenue, Rock Island, Illinois, 309-788-5661. Participation is adwerse to Canon 3 (C)-1 (a) Judicial Conduct. "Only when the evidence clearly shows an abuse of discretion by the trial court will we interfere with a ruling upon a motion for iva a new trial. "Waddell v Festa Feeds 266 NW2d 29. From Pg. 13 It is alleged in Plaintiff's briefing and now preserved in the evidence annexed herein (Annex p. 10-exhibit A) Attorney Flynn, former council to Plaintiff who withdrew tow weeks before instant trial state in a letter discovered after the fact of trial (Annex p.3 under sub-section 16-b) this paragraph: As I mentioned to you previously, I will no longer be representing Glen Hancock..." This instrument is dated April 4, 1986 and is clear evidence that the entire matter was falsely brought. It was stated in Hancock, supra instant action was "dismissed by necessary implication" and required a "separate original action". From Pg. 14 180 Flynn failed to prepare for this complex litigation, yet he lead Plaintiff to believe he was involved in this litigation by making various filings. Plaintiff alleges these actions were part of a larger conspiracy to keep this cause local. In State v Hendron 311 NW2d 61 (1981) the conduct wad equated with failure to make a defense. Presently the court applies the "cause and prejudice" standard adopted in Wainwright v Evkes 433 US 72. From Pg. 14 By failing to court in the hearing on the change of venue issue with "any" evidence including affidavits and prejudicial news articles 181 From Pg. 15 nothing, he left Plaintiff totally compromised and within the jurisdiction necessary to see his damage issues totally destroyed. 182 In the Iowa District Court for Scott County (Filed March 17, 1987) Glen O. Hancock ) Defendant Conway's Plaintiff v City ) Response to City of Davenport ) Supplemental et.al ) Interrogatories ) Propounded to ) Defendant From Pg. 13 List any and all feasability studies and planning studies prepared for the City of Davenport in the last fifteen years and state how they are funded and whether any federal funds were spent in obtaining them, including but not limited to; a) Marco O'leary - 1975 b) Wilber Smith - parking study 1981 c) Real Estate Research 183 Corp. Study- 1981 d) Wilber Smith Updatec Parking Study ANSWER: Defendant Conway has no knowledge of any such items. The City of Davenport has copies of , The Marco O'leary Study, The Wilber Smith Parking Study, The Real Estate Research Corp. Study, The Wilbe. Smith Updated Parking Study. 184 In the Supreme Court of Iowa (Filed March 21, 1988) Glen O. Hancock ) Appellants Brief Plaintiff v City) and Argument and of Davenport ) Request for Oral et al. ) Hearing Supreme Court No.87-1022 Scott County No. 70078 Appeal from the District of Scott County Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge From Pg. 8 It is common knowledge that the Plaintiff's building is located directly across the street from The Blackhawk Hotel, the River Convention Center, and the restored Adler Theatre. The vested 185 interest in these properties were members of the board; James Conway was’ the director of the Downtown Davenport Development Corporation and has_ been stated by him in at least one record of this case that the board of directors establishes policy and he administers policy. Mr. Conway also worked with city officials in a capacity of coordinating downtown projects. It is also common knowledge that the Times Newspaper and Lee Enterprises is located within close proximity to Plaintiff's property, (within two blocks), and that newspaper is well established as the Quad Cities major daily periodical. 186 From pg.9 Plaintiff's alleged attorney, John Flynn, withdrew on the "eve" of the civil rights trial (App. p.25) and was replaced by Mark Liabo of the Tom Riley Law Firm in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Flynn agreed to proceed in the case as the witness. Plaintiff did not have a contract with the Tom Riley Law Firm and specifically Mark Liabo. Flynn was authorized by the judge to withdraw and be a witness at the same time Plaintiff was given only seven days to secure consul (App.p. 27) or Flynn's position would be reconsidered; Plaintiff was again seeking proper consul as the clock ticked rapidly toward March 11 at 5:00 p.m. the close of discovery. (App. p.27) From Pg.9 In early March, 1987, Plaintiff was at the court house in Scott County and only a few 187 days before the trial was served with a notice of sheriffs sale for approximately $20,000. to be paid within about thirty days. This note overdue was drawn on a bank in Denver, Colorado and arranged by Mr.Rick Reagan, son of Donald Regan, the secretary of the treasury, U.S. Government. The case is numbered 72181, Scott County. From Pg. 11 There was significant assertion of that right based on the fact that newspaper coverage of the condemnation was substantial, and did not paint a clear picture toward the Plaintiff's property. These articles are public record and Plaintiff includes them here with the following citation. (App. P. 77,78) Storer v Brown 415 US at 738-740 "to assess 188 realistically whether the law imposes excessively burdensome requirements. ..upon facts which do not appear from the evidentiary recording the case." These articles generally accentuated a "wrecking ball" mentality. Again the source is the Quad City Times and Lee Enterprises. From Pg. 14 The jury was lead to believe that the Plaintiff was behind on his payments to the Davenport Bank and Trust Company, Vale Trust Dept., Mr. Oakes stated in open court a false statement and although ee ee by Plaintiff to object and set the record straight, Mr. Liabo discredited the weight of Plaintiff's assertions. Plaintiff was not behind in his payments to the bank. (App.p.50.60). 189 This error enhanced the already existent prejudice by the jury. Rutten v Investors e ns. Oo. Oowa, 1966, 258 Iowa _ 749,140 NW2d. 101 This very important misstatement of the facts carries deeper significance: it is relevant to crucial evidence regarding Plaintiffs theory of conspiracy, that defendant James Conway, was acting on behalf of the DDDC (Downtown Davenport Development Corporation) to secure Plaintiff's property for a parking lot or other unspecified usages. To secure exactly for who, is still open to investigation. If the building was to be condemned for a parking lot, in the September 7, 1983 letter (App.p. 73-75) please consider the verbiage: ",.,.particularly with regard to the size of the building." Jacobson Supra, State 190 Supra. In the January 10, 1984 letter (App. p.76) please consider the middle paragraph:..."tend to minimize the risk for the developer who initiates a condemnation request to the city." Kilroy v Board of Review of Benton County, 1975, 226 NW2d 814, Rouse v Rouse 1970, 174 NW2d 660 From Pg. 15 Once again Plaintiff would like to say that the Superblock project, and developments across from Plaintiff's property, were essentially developed and funded by Davenport Bank and Trust Co. in conjunction with Blackhawk Hotel, and the River Center, was a joint city-private sector venture; inclusive they both had severe parking shortages at the time of 191 municipal illegality. The vested interests in those properties, including the Adler Theatre, were members of the board of directors of DDDC, James Conway's superiors. "...unless the preponderance is very great, or so strong as t justify an inference that the court was mistaken, or was influenced by passion, prejudice or corruption, or failed to consider all evidence. Robinson v Poe, 1881, 56 Iowa 73,8 NW 751, White v White, 1882, 60 Iowa 203,14 NW 253., State Supra From Pg. 22 The presidential connection is not vague, and it only serves to enhance greatly the value of the building the Plaintiff was cheated from developing. Mr. Reagan's roots as a radio announcer were part of 192 the history of this building. His technocratic artistry in the 1930's as a radio sportscaster and subsequent rise to show business fame, takes away the carnival macabre of an actor being elected to the United States presidency. Radio was a new medium at that time; he was a pioneer. This is the history and important beginnings of a president to pass on preserve. Plaintiff asserts if the vested political interest did not own it they would wield the force of the city to a it. Or as in Conway's) letter (App.p.76) abscond with it knowing the potential. From Pg. 23 The Iowa "hear say" provisions are vaguely understood by this pro se appeal but Plaintiff will mention that on December 193 20, 1985 and with two witnesses Judge Briles called the Plaintiff a "deadbeat". From Pg. 24 A presidentially connected landmark building will not go unnoticed in Washington and the local power contingent Know this. Time Magazine, November 23, 1987 spoke very realistically of the benefits of historic preservation all across this country. From Pg. 39 It was not until late February, when Flynn withdrew of record from the case, that Plaintiff was served with a sherriff's sale of the Vale property to cure that default 194 From Pg. 39 This action was undertook against the Plaintiff on the eve of trial against the city of Davenport by the Asst. Scott County attorney Mr. Oddison. This abuse of process was a direct slap in the face to the rights of the Plaintiff to fairly seek his claims of damage. Three Lakes Association v Whiting 255 NW2d 686. From Pg. 42 The public relations value to an established and redeveloped hotel connected to a President in office are substantial. The opportunity of that quotient of damage determination is valid yet Mr. Reagan leaves office in 1989. Plaintiff bears the burden of that loss of attached revenues. 195 From Pg. 43 President Grant was also a guest at this hotel, but the fact remains that a president in office would enact substantially more national and international coverage and positive public relations value to the hotel insuring great notoriety favorably affecting the revenues recouped. The city of Davenport Iowa effectively absconded with that possibility by their illegal actions. Hancock Supra. From Pg. 49 The City's actions have substantially deprived him of the use and enjoyment of his property and constitutes a taking of his property without due process of the law. These actions constituted "inverse Condemnations." Osborn v City of Cedar Rapids, 324 NW2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1982) yar State v Osborn, 154 NW 294, 171 Iowa 678, 692 (Iowa 1915); and Dawson v McKinnon, 285 NW2d 258, 226 Iowa 756, 770 (1939). See also Horton v Gulledge 277 NC 353, 177 SE2d 885, 890-891, 43 ALR 3d 905 (1970). 197 In the Supreme Court of Iowa (Filed On or About January 20, 1989) Glen 0. Hancock ) Defendants Resistance Plaintiff v City ) to Application for of Davenport ) Further Review et al. ) ) Supreme Court#87-1022 ) Scott County #70078 Appeal from the District of Scott County Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge From Pg. 4 Giving all benefit to Hancock's argument it might be instructive to determine if the Court independently reviewed the publicity. Regardless of whether or not this is actually required of the Appellate Court under rule 167, the Court of Appeals clearly made its own analysis of the denial of a change of venue and found no 198 basis to determine that the trial court had abused its discretion From Pg. 8 Even assuming misconduct of counsel perhaps the jury after hearing the evidence determined that $17,235.00 should not be considered a victory by definition, this is not prejudice; the jury made up its mind after hearing the evidence. This quote, however, makes it very clear a different result would not have been probable. The jury believed his rights were violated, but that renovation was not feasable. From Pg. 10 There has been showing that sufficient grounds exist under Rule 402 (c) IRAP which requires further review by this court. As a practical matter, final action 199 by this court mearly puts the parties back to where they were in 1984. The Vale is still there. No matter what action either party takes next, Hancock, regardless of his belief, will have the benefits of procedural protections as previously held by this court. John Martin - Corporation Council. 200 The Iowa District Court Scott County (Filed September 3, 1986) Glen O Hancock ) Law X no.70078 v City of Davenport ) Equity et.al. ) Probate ) Filed by Plaintiff Trial Certificate 1) The above party believes the issues are joined and states that such party is (a) is ready for trial, or (b) will be ready for trial by February 1, 1987 2) Discovery has been completed except as follows: Depositions of the individual defendants 3, 4, 5, [deleted] John Flynn 201 In the Supreme Court of Iowa (Filed June 1, 1988) Glen O Hancock) Appellee's Brief Plaintiff v ) Supreme Court #87-1022 city ) And Arguement of Davenport, ) et.al. ) Scott County No. 70078 Appeal from the District of Scott County Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge From Pg. 23 Hancock raises the issues of temporary taking (Appellant's Brief p. 25) and inverse condemnation (Amendment To Appellant's Brief p. 44) specifically for the first time on appeal. GLEN O. HANCOCK P.O. BOX 1106 DAVENPORT, IOWA 52805 319-323-1208 Tom Riley Law Firm August 11,1987 Mark E. Liabo P.O.. Box 998 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 54206-0998 Dear Mr. Eisbo: Thank you for the letter of August 5, 1987, and the Notice of Appeal, there were other filings sent to you that day q~ concerning representations of the Civil Rights of Glen O. Hancock, denial of your second bill, (we have never received a bill from you, and from your presentation no bill for services would ever be presented), the lien placed on our assets and other matters. Please confirm that you received the other filings in Case 70078 including, but not limited to the continuance. From Pg. 93 You became aware of our problems in the first meeting. The City and other lawyers served an illegal notice of sale of the Case 70078 and the Vale property in late February, 1987. As you agreed, they were operating illegally concerning procedure trying to stop the suit from going to trial. Your advice cost the Hancock Family 204 close to $20,000.00, and exhausted all monies. From Pg. 93 We have requested on numerous occasions that you return our complete file C OD at the following address: From Pg. 94 Again, why did we not enter’ the ordinance(s) involved including, but not limited to the following: City Legal ordinance states: "...the city attorney must keep records." This case would never have gone to trial if we had the records we requested. These records (Housing and Fire reports) were never submitted to us for persual. The City Attorney was hiding the evidence. 204 Mr. Liabo, you to were hiding the evidence to protect the attorneys. Entering the evidence as requested would have proven that the City could not demolish the building. The City Attorney stopped our progress early in the case for benefit of the lawyers! From Pg. 95 We requested per Judge Kelly's instruction that the Housing and Fire Code ordinances for a VACANT building be entered into this trial. In addition, we requested: 1) Recommended Provisions and Commentary for Existing High-rise Buildings, and the uniform code _ for building conservation be entered in this. case. These buildings codes are part of the International Conference of Building 9N4 Officials and are part of the Davenport Ordinance. From Pg. 96 Speak to me concerning the Real Estate Appraisals. There, as explained to you, were never any appraisals completed. Mr. Liabo only looked at the January 1984 preliminary consultation. We agree there was no viable use at that time under those assumptions. However, the value next preliminary consultation by the = same appraiser showed a value of $500,000.60. Remember, this was only a working tool for us. Also, Mr. Fisher stated under oath that the dicvicscaeiann package could never be completed. We told you this in February 1987. As stated in your hearsay letter (contents are denied by me) of April 2, 207 1987, the assumptions on a project can make or break a development. Please identify any development in the Central From Pg.97 Business District that has four to five times the total square footage of floor space for parking. There are only 29 developed blocks in the Central Business District of Davenport. We challenge your interpretation of Mr. Fisher's comments. From Pg. 97 The fact is, Mr. Liabo, we were at all times cooperating with you. You or your firm discussed our case 70078 with Mr. John Flynn before and after your entrance. In reality, you allowed the City to close discovery on or about the time you entered with no objection. You stated, and we quote "This a young case and will not go 218 to trial in the near future". From Pg. 97 The City Housing Inspector that you would not depose or call to trial as requested was quoted as saying "We (the City) are going to condemn all of your property" on or about February 1, 1984. The refinanced money was not identified with Industrial Development Bonds. From Pg. 98 As a professional, please state the requirements for a professional development of Real Estate, specifically the Vale Apartments. The first and foremost is legally the City. 209 From Pg. 99 You did not allow any evidence concerning the money damage that we have incurred to be introduced at trial. We asked on more than one occasion to amend the petition that John Flynn filed to include money damage. You never did so. You had wno authority to drop part of the suit against the City, but you dropped the money parts that we may have prevailed on. 91Nn The Iowa District Court Scott County (Filed May 1, 1987) Glen O Hancock ) Motion for #70078 v City of Davenport ) Change of Venue et.al. ) ) 1 and 2 [deleted] 3) Virtually every city counsel meeting in which the Vale Apartments was discussed were reported in the papers or _ on television. Plaintiff will submit with his is brief and support of this motion copies of dozens of newspaper clippings dealing with the controversy surrounding the Vale. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 {deleted} / Mark Liabo Attorney for Plaintiff eli MailGram of Public Record Western Union 7149953775TDRN Anaheim, CA 271 06-08-87 O658PEST Mrs. Nancy Reagan c/o Mr. Jack Cortamache The White House Washington D.C. 20005 From John Hancock 2704 West Ball Rd. Apt. 6-F Anaheim, CA 92804 Mail Gram of Public Record Western Union 4-0219088303002 10-30-87ICSIIPMRNCZ CSPSNAB 17149953775MGMTDRN Anaheim, CA 10-30-87 0155PEST Attorney General Edwin Meese c/o Justice Dept. Washington D.C. 20530 From John Hancock 12 PUT mAT YT rITAI- DACLTC weoor DOANL LAT COPY ing FOLLOW ING PFAULS WE. OOR HARD I _ FII So oa >~r awry, TTrKy a ‘ “i | > . 2 \ f + Leb baa . a rovers, Willi a an a>? nT NOTA TWIT A WOT? van iie a . 2, . a ba nin BE OBTAL VED, AA Asie rs bids Letter from Lee president EDITOR'S NOTE: The feiiew- ing is a copy of a letter from Schermer, When I assumed the responsi- bility to be chairman of the fund- raising drive for the Theatre, I had several objectives Quad-Cities’ No. 1 prior- ity is jobs Cultural and educa- tional facilities are very impor- tant to firms seeking new plant locations. 2 To put together a project that would be truly Quad-Cities in scope. 3% To stimulate cooperative leadership between the public and private sectors of the Quad- Cities hoping this would be the first of many projects to impor- ved the quality of life for our communities and to help attract businesses that will give our citi- sens 8 meaningful employment. 4 To set a example of what we RiverCenter. That facility is being used far beyond its expec- tations by thousands of people from in and around the Quad-Cit- jes. Davenport Bank & Trust has made a major contribu- tion when if remodeled the Blackhawk Hotel Before the hotel was renovated, Lee Enter- prises had serious studies under- way to move its corporate head- quarters to another city because of inadequate hotel and meeting room space. We could have io- cated our headquarters in any one of 50 communities and qual- ity of tWe was an important con- sideration. Communities grow because 213 there is leadership that helps therm grow and this must include & cooperative effort between the public and private sectors. Take @ look at Cedar Rapids or Des Moines for example. Davenport bas not just stood still; it is going backward. International Harvester, JI Case and.Caterpillar are gone. I have a hunch Deere & Co was se- riously wounded in this last stri- ke, too. If the parade of jobs marching out of our community continues, you're not going to have streets, much lessprovide other vital commuuity services. ° I don't see much hope for this community with the kind of lead- ership you have displayed. We have a fine leader in Mayor Thomas Hart It's a pity you don't give him the support he needs. Liord G. Schermer Lee Enterprises ‘D’Autremont predicts favorable council reaction The Davenport City Cor cil is as the River Center and the Adler likely to react positively tothede- Theatre. velopment plans that were an- Alderman Jim Hancock, D- nounced this morning, Alderman 2nd Ward, also was enthusiastic Larry d’Autremont, D-at-large, about the project. The parking said. ‘ramp would serve the 6,000 em- D’Autre- ‘ who work downtown dur- mont, chair- ing the day, and also provide manofthe / for ial events, he said. city’s commu- It also will help get parking off nity develop- the which will improve ment commit. Claire Park, he said. tee, said he’s Several other council members excited about and council members-elect also the project be- ‘ said they think rg) ae will - causeitcould — "Autremont much to encourage downtown lead to even - . velopment. : more downtown development. ‘-. Mayor Thom Hart said the “I can’t speak on the council's . council he has talked to behalf, but I think they will react favor the plans, and said he thinks positively,” he said. they will approve the agreement. He said the proposal for a City Administrator Bruce parking ramp is different than the Romer said the parking ramp the plan that the council defeated in city would build probably would ' February because the Times loca- have at least 500 spaces. The tion would allow a new ramp to. nearby ramp at Perry and 2nd serve the whole downtown as well streets has 341 spaces. 214 Lee again demonstrates commitment and the Times is an important step in downtown development. “This agreement solves a ing the In addition, Lee contributed ° $1 a year to lease its facility at $300,000 to that effort, and ite , Brady and 2nd streets. board of directors created and Gottlieb also praised Rejuve- t Foundation to support program- ; ting the expected deal together. ming. The theater was renamed in . “They are doers. We need honor of E.P. Adler and his son, ‘ more like them and they need the Philip, longtime publishers of the community's support,” he said. Times. Philip Adler also later be- He also expressed appreciation came president of Lee. to Mayor Thom Hart and aty of- Ron Rickman, former Quad- ficial for their positive attitudes City Times publisher and now Lee” in the discussions to date. 215 Meme * ayes Oley -—, Daniel K. +. editorial page editor editor | : Jonn C. Gardner Pubitsher William K. Johnston Daniel J. F general manager es Sl Se or Et ee -f Anew seid GML a ny val He 7 iH i , ta He leat ab if P “ee. eee e owner — victory I was e prey Ea oat Saas Coes win -! jiises ull itailis still © Juror: Val | didn t The White House Washington September 9, 1983 Dear Mr. Kell; Thank you for sending the Argus article on the Vale Apartment building. It did recall many happy memories. However, it is always sad to see a fine old building deteriorate. Perhaps that is why happy memories are so important -- they never get shabby and run down! It is very kind of you to share this article with me. With best wishes, Sincerely, Ronald Reagan Mr. Ellis E. Kell, Jr. Rock Island Argus P.O. Box 6 Rock Island, Illinois 61201 217 . ink Wunaran NO sweet socvyrow I reycice that the oki Vate Apartnwnts, the ugly uray @ephant in downtown Davenjpert, must zo down. Thal pucige whe row is smart He must have been peti theapnt waves fron thagh Downs, the eniient ote chats cede) thank much af the place, eiber (hur what thud s worth) A couple vears ave Hine was vrciing Daven. prt fer se I sayin ee, ened Cheats Wis Olive or Gallesgne bested tae far bubbly and eheese thigh, aa architecture loli, was davenye at the Biockhaws llotel and ee bt that in- evestibke tak (ine Vale) ; ’ that bv out my noted mm ~ - ) wewdow™ Why ws ab ‘ "og bowel te Shimi in your . 4 ee Puretiv civ’ What real Lae te "iv theew Thanh was the : ue i aS “py marty toot Tht boots 4 os . tke Somuttung from a beet vA eravy hase a wien Vole) thal (he tp Hugh Lhowns once turned off, and what was ket was aliawed lo stand, Downs Shrug Tink yominess fb tneuyht you just heed drunken brieklayers in Davenport.” PERSONALLY, Lefore they tear ihe old place down, | want to yo roller skating in those whoop SV disy colliog corners, wilh Ther wavy shapes thal wort when the tnikliay was snaked (rom Lenn Ue Loeod tenery Chuan annge Ot Poage fares 218 SOF OE SE an Ome ae tie pie ae ee hn a p naenstrcerieaensasiiel” AEE seracicarne manne | VTICS EROaanaeer canorial saan echet Serving the entire pege “ Quad-Cily area COMMUNITY @1. Develop # Quad-City strategy. 2. Create more Quad-City jobs. 3. Encourage ‘can-do’ leadership. @4. Overcome our ‘image’ problem. AGENDA ‘87 @5. Fund our vital institutions. He hes rebuffed them at every turn. . Hancock has repeatedly said he has plans to renovate the , 110-year-old structure where Reagan once slept. He has re- ~ peatedly failed to produce any. The city has repeatedly tried “to force him to do something — through negotiation, through council action, through the courta. And it has re- =peatedly been unsuccessfil. ... A few months back, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that ‘the City Council failed to follow its own ordinance when it _ Dyrdered the building demolished. = The court eald the city did not give Hancock a list of epe- oie probleme he would have to cervect in order to prevent “demolition. To anyone who followed the city's lengthy ef =Torta; however, it was almost laughable to suggest that the “Owner wasn't made aware of the city's specific concerns. = Nevertheless, demolition is off for now and Hancock is in court suing the city for damages he aays he oulfered in the “legal fight. = All of that might persuade city officials to give up on “aaa fp eye = What they should do is give Hancock one more chance — + rastrating as that might be — to come up with a renovation =plan. And it abould be a good faith effort on the city's part. lf the guy would put the money he's spent on lawyer fees "into a remodeling plar, perhaps he could save the building. = But if Hancock doesn’t produce a plan within some rea- * sonable time, say three to six months, the city ought to start “over again on demolition proceedings — making sure this “time that it follows the law to the letter. ~- The Vale has been No. 1 long enough. 219 G GUAD-CIVY TIMES Friday Jury 19, 1985 Juno GC Gartner 7 Daher ‘es LS. Grae City j sora a = ale x borrest Rumer amok. Paw ee ri On a, , —— AS bn 4a, ery Wiaim Wundram n independent eae ylive editur assiniale edilor newspaper Ha Nan e Daniei J Folny { Ounloral payo culo Managing cUior _ ~ Ve SG’... baal ° . i An overaue aceision y! ; The Vale Apartments in D oir | Davenport — once an elegant vot Mak holed and now a condemnable a 74 | evesure — have hung too long “Ti se \A4 5 between fix-up and teardown. av \5'4 The five-story, H1-vear-old a if AN?) Dring at 71018. 4th St. is now “ti Pr . oat ens ee { mont a ley Sep away from being mn “ia ewe 4 , . raves, which wouldn't be a bad \ ie weet tiny for a community trying He, sitet \ to service its downtown Super Block deveropment The city of Davenport is myrht to press for a decision on the buiding that was ordered closed in Jk2 because of code shortcomings. Owner Gien Hancock has been delaying a wrecking-ball execulion while offering nothing Dul a faint hope of renovating Ihe buildin, llowever, the only solid thing on the table is a court reyection of liancock’s request for a permanent injuncuon to keep the city and demolition away from the Vale door Time is running: out. This push-and shove toward demolition comes with a heavy heart — and understandably so When thal building was known as the Kimb:all House, is visitors included Ulysses S. Grant, Al Jolson, Ralph Waldo bimerson and Surah Bern- hard President Reayan later ved in the buildings That 1s strony history — bul not enouyzh te held up walls of such a de- lenoraling siructure. So, as the city has been sayiny, fia itup or tear it down Surely, the property cun serve the community in betler ways than a boarded eyesore. 220 Vale issue to a head Who cun biame the Davenport City Council for pressing the owner uf Vaie Apartmenis, Glenn iancock, for a $200,000 bond lo ensure the deteriorating and vacant duking on East 4th Street will eather Le renovated or torn dawn? The owner simply has run out of tume for this overdue decision. And the cily understandably ran out of patience as reflected by a $1 vole requiring, the bond by Murch 22 that could stay the demolition by one year. A sensible deferral sgreement had been worked up to serve both the eily und lManeock, but the owner's call for a ume extension to raise tne bond threatened to knock every thing off track. So by Murch 22, the cily showd know whether Lhe owner intends lo fix up ihe property or have it torn down, ‘bhe city was mght to briny this issue to a head — and © Clearly reasonable in selling the bond requirement next month. The bail is in the owner’s court — and he knows ‘ time around thatil cun be a wrecking ball a1 Kb e2i VYelle demolition is OX wills fucige By Eill Theobaid QUAD-CITY TIMES The city of Davenport ts free to tear down the Vale Apartment! Dud ing because an lowa Supreme Court justice has dismissed a request by the owner to Dicch demoulion Bul the wrecking crew wont be oul today Buuding owner Glen !lancock had requested thal the court Diock demoluon pending hus appea! of the enture issue Although his request was rejected he stu can yo forward with hus appeal a if he would win that appeul and the city had torn down the budding in the meantime, the city might Nave lo puy damages The decision, duled Friday, from Mid-80s Thursday Tonight will De partly Cloudy with lows in the upper 00s Thursday will be partly Cloucy with highs in tne mid-60s — PAGE 2 Weatherline: 326-5174 index Quau-Cities Pages 11.12 Business hugs 8.9 Classified Payers 30-36 ~~ " pP ~ Mowes NO! Outuares Poge4 ports Pages 15-16 Supreme Court Justice Mark MeCor- mick comes on Hancock's appeal of a Scott County District judses muung thal said the citv could proceed with plans to demolish tne 111-year-old downtown landmark al 20 & 4h St The budding has Leen cited nu- merous umes for housing am fire code violations and Iie d.spule be Lween the city and Ifancock has been going on for absoul SIX yeurs Hancock claims the city does not have the authorily to tear down the building and has announced plans to restore tt mto a 19h century-style country inn The judge's ruling sLiles that the “court is concernel stout Wie evi- dence that the Building Constitutes a havurd to the public safety” and de mics Hancock's rejuesi for an order blocking demolitien unt the a, peal is decided. A cecusion on ihe uppeal may take (fom sux to 12 ihenif. Michuel Meloy, with the cily’s legal stuff, suid the cily could pro ceed with demoluon, dul if Hancock won hus appeul the cily migat have to puy damages On the other hand, if the cily duesn’l tear down the build ing and il catches on fire and dam aues surtcundina property, the city nught abo oe Lable, Meloy seid he city received « 3b se) Did last year fur the ad mouuon and We contractor has uy Teed to Nonor al Dif despite Lhe lony delay, Meloy ii - it Mayor (natles Peart Piavectys Sud ne expect, ine issuc will be dis- Ciined bis Ua ily (Ouncd fatofe 3 OCCinwwA & UlaGe ON how lo oF ceed 6 QUAD-CITY TIMES Monday, Aug. 25, 1986 John C. Gardner liniies ‘pina Daniel K. Hayes Bob Nangie An independent = a newspaper Oaniet J. Foley. managing editor / 19 edibon on Graeme, pom pd — Same Vale mission The Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous in telling the city of Davenport that it didn't go about the planned demo!- ishment of the Vale Apartments, 210 E. 4th St., the right way. So be it. No use contesting such lopsided legal rebuttal. The city’s resolve now should be to try again to get a com- mitment on the property's restoration or push demolish- ment the right way. The city’s clear task is to either have Vale owner Glen Hancock fix up this downtown eyesore or take the proper steps to get it removed. This setback to square one is regret- table, but if the city can live with that building for 112 years, it can manage stil] another. The Vale, empty since 1982, has a listing in the Nationa! Register of Historic Places going for it, but that is about all. Its heyday of providing a roof for such celebrities as Sarah Bernhardt and Al Jolson, even Presdient Reagan, is past. Its brick and wood frame has held up a past — but what future for a building more than a century old? Renovation plans have never materialized. If the city has failed to pay legal respect to its own laws and due process as the court contends, then make the neces- sary corrections and continue to force action on the Vale. A legal decision does nothing to strengthen the aging materials that hold this building together. It's still a matter of fix or nix. Oiay Cour. action? Since the city of Davenport icin eee a | nas done Gwie well dumny tne ss ye + | first 111 years of the Vale ones arm, ' Apartments at 210 & 4th St, at siete! N shouidn’t have any trouble xet- ee nner : \ ; ling alonys for another year ea, |i, >... even though the eyesore struc- aot we % ogi t ws ture appears late lor a renova- ea Tee os ean ee Lion or raving. Oe OR ce meen Oe Buikuuy owner Glen | j tiuncock doesn't want lo give usted in Use Nutional Neier of Historic Places and once pruvided 4 ruof over the need of such celeurues as Surah up on the property that is : Bernhardt aad Al Jolson. Inaved, it’s tough to et go. But the bWkUNY .s NG 400d as iL ow stands, compicte with Ilancock's window },caffiuy, “I have just Legun to fiynt.” That {iiht, an aternpt to keep the cily from clobbering the buildanj: wilh a wrecking buu, now goes Lo (he lowa Supreme . - Court The court appucently will have the [ual say regarding - © the safety and dispos.uon of the buildin, And legal wheels . aren't very zippy. It’s Loo bud Davenport has to yo this route when Hancock hus had ample opportumuity to serve the situation by present- ~ in renovalion plans und money. The cow lest regretiably . wii lake ume. That dvesn’t help a coromunity stuck with an . uy Gownlown landmurk. Nur does it necessary help hancuck or a budding that ulready has nad more time Wan its ; +- old bmck-wood frame can obviously Lake. ae * sy Ave /} Oras TrmlS 224 Appraiser: Vale is worthless Says renovation can’t be justified By Karl Oxnevad QUAD-CITY TIMES A real estate appraiser hired in 1984 by Vale Apartments owner Glen Hancock testified Tuesday that the 114-year-old building is worthless. J.T. Willits, of Davenport, tes- tified as a witness for the city of Davenport, the defendant in Han- cock’s damages suit against the ~ city. Willits said he told Hancock in 1984 that he could not make enough money from the com- pleted renovation of the building to justify either of Hancock's $3 million or $1.8 million proposals for restoring the building, 210 E. 4th St.. “It was my opinion then and now that the building renovation could not produce enough income to support the renovation,” Wil- hits said. “So the value of the building was zero?” asked John Stonebrak- er, attorney for the city. “Zero, yes sir,” Willits replied. Willits said only the lot the building stands on has any value. —— not estimate a value on the t. Hancock is suing the city for unspecified damages, saying the city's efforts to tear down the building has caused potential in- vestors to back away from his multi-million dollar plans to turn the building into a downtown hotel. . 29c CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF QUAD CITY TIMES NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (INCOMPLETE) September 4, 1977 Business (Picture) December 1977 Loans Top Grant Spending March 19, 1987 Here Comes an Auto Comeback Trail for Faded Vale February 15, 1981 Reagan Days (Picture) September 2, 1983 Building May be Leveled November 11, 1983 Vale Owner Warned: Fix it or if Feasee February 10, 1984 Vale Owner May Get Another Year to Fix it. January 17, 1984 Vale Owner Gets 30 Days to Decide January 13, 1984 Council Decides: Will Vale Fall Febru-ry 15, 1984 (Editorial) Agreement pn Vale February 16, 1984 Council on Vale: Time 6 Put up or Shut Down 226 February 17, 1984 (Editorial) Vale Issue to a Head March 20, 1984 Face Lift for Vale Building? March 19, 1984 New plan for Vale:Turn it into an Inn March 22, 1984 No Talk on Vale:Both Sides Proceed April 13 1984 (Official Notice) Bid to Demolish March 25, 1989 Vale Owner Sues to Stop Demolition May 12, 1984 Vale Obtains Lease of Life May 17, 1984 Vale Ducks Demolition August 30, 1984 Wrecking Ball Swings Toward Vale September 5, 1984 Another showdown for Vale September 6, 1984 Council:Raze Vale September 8, 1984 Vale on Hold Again 227 January 8, 1985 Inspectors get look in Vale January 12, 1985 (Soundoff) The Ghost January 10, 1985 Tour of Vale Draws Crowd January 10, 1985 Showdown at Vale January 16, 1985 Boarded up But Not Down January 17, 1985 Hot Battle Ignites in Court January 18, 1985 Vale Owner: Nearly Set 6 Renovate January 23, 1985 Vale is Full of Holes, City Says 7 March 5, 1985 Vale Owner Sues Again May 18, 1985 No Room at Inn (Picture) July 1, 1985 Will Vale Prevail? July 1, 1985 Last Chapter Still Not Written to Tale of Vale January 11, 1985 Replace Vale with Parking Lot July 17, 1985 Judge: Vaie Must Go 228 July 18, 1985 Vale Owner Vows Appeal July 19, 1985 (Editorial) An Overdue Decision July 22, 1985 (Editorial) No Sweet Sorrow July 30, 1985 Vale Demolition Delayed Again August 1, 1985. (Editorial) Only Court Action July 30, 1985 Appeal Puts Vale on Hold September 17, 1985 Vale Owners Demolition Fight Goes All The Way 7 © The Top September 4, 1985 Vale Demolition is OK With Judge August 3, 1985 Save Vale for History (Soundoff) August 3, 1985 Vale Remains in Limbo September 17,1985 Vale Owner Fires Off Nw Appeal eeo October 4, 1985 Vale Gets Reprieve From Court October 3, 1985 Vale Gets Reprieve October 22, 1985 Vale Owner Files High Court Motion October 23, 1985 That Says It All (Picture "I Have Just Begun to Fight!") November 8, 1985 Vale Owner Must Pay Or Else November 24, 1986 Bill Wundrum December 19, 1986 Council Lacks Leadership December 21, 1986 High Court Backs Recent Vale Order June 16, 1987 City Worker: We Wanted Vale Fixed Up June 21, 1987 Reagan Slept Here (Picture) June 25, 1987 Man of steel Clears Bix & Finish Area (Picture) 230 June 16, 1987 Testimony: City Didn't heve Secret Plan for Vale June 31, 1987 Vale Deed Changes Hands June 26, 1987 Vale Owner Suit Nets Only $17,000 June 9, 1987 Davenport v Vale June 1987 Appraiser: Vale is Worthless August 25, 1986 Same Vale Mission August 20, 1986 Back to Square One [In Fight Over The Vale _ July 31, 1987 Cheers and Jeers December 28, 1987 Bright Idea In Vale of Gloom January 12, 1987 What Next For Vale October 1, 1987 Is The Vale Worth Jail September 2 1987 Davenport Will Pay $48,000 for Lawyer 231 Brubaker, Flynn & Darland, P.C. Attorneys at Law 630 Union Arcade Building Brady Sreet Davenport, Iowa 52801 Telephone (319) 322-2661 April 4, 1986 Mr. John A. Hellstrom Attorney at Law 811 Kahl Building Davenport, IA 52801 Re: 221 E. 7th Street, Davenport, Iowa Dear John: I spoke with you on April 3, 1986 about a problem that has developed resulting from a judgement which you took against Jane T. Hancock on March 24, 1986 for the property upon which first Federal Savings & Loan Association has a mortgage at 411 232 E. 13th Street, Davenport, Iowa. Prior to this judgement being entered, Jane T. Hancock had entered into an Offer to Purchase with Terry McDonald wherein Terry McDonald agreed to purchase the property located at 221 E. 7th Street, Davenport, Iowa for the sum of 2,200.00. A copy of this Offer to Purchase is enclosed with this letter. Unfortunately Mr. McDonald paid the entire $2,200.00. to Mr. Glen Hancock upon the execution of the Offer. Mr. McDonald was waiting to have the abstract brought up to date and have his attorney exam it prior to closing. The abstract was continued through March 10, 1986 and we were in the process of obtaining a deed from Mrs. Hancock when your judgement in favor of First Federal went on record on March 24, 1986. Mr. McDonald was buying this property subject to an accumulation of back taxes ro | in excess of $1,000.00 and in an "as is" condition. The property needs renovation in order to meed City Housing Code Standards. Mr. Dennis Jasper represents’ Terry McDonald in this purchase and he is preparing an affidavit to be signed by Mr. McDonald indicating the sequence of events in this transaction. From Pg. 80 I would request that upon receipt of Mr. McDonald s affidavit verifying the facts in this letter, that First Federal release the judgement lien contained in the foreclosure action against 411 E. 13th Street, Davenport, Iowa, as it pertains to the property being sold to Mr. McDonald. I realize that First Federal may well refuse to release this lien and there is very little that can be done to force them 234 to do so. However, the only person who would be hurt by this situation would be Mr. McDonald, who is an innocent third party to the disputes between First Federal and the Hancock family. As I mentioned to you previously, I will no longer be representing Glen Hancock, but because this matter was left hanging, I feel a moral obligation to Dennis Jasper and Mr. McDonald to do what I can to resolve this problem. I appreciate your consideration. Very truly yours, John T. Flynn 239 Trial Transcript Testimony of Bob Oakes (of the trust Dept. Davenport Bank and Trust Co.) Case 70078 [Tr.Trans. }] From Pg. 61 BY MR. NORMAN: Q. Mr. Oakes, does your bank belong to the downtown Davenport Development Corporation? A. Yes, I know it does. ; Q. Does your bank own or manage other property in downtown Davenport besides the Vale property which you once managed? A. We have some property in downtown Davenport, yes. Q. Are you acquainted with James Conway, one of From Pg. 62 [tr. trans. ] the defendants in this action? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever had occasions to visit with Mr. Conway about the 236 prospective uses of downtown real estate that your bank would have an interest in? A. Yes, we have had several conversations. Q. Referring to the summer of 1983, — do you recall talking to Mr. Conway about the possible uses of the Vale Apartment Building in case the bank, for some reason, had to -- A. Yes. Q. --take possession? I would like to show you a copy of a letter addressed to you and ask you if you recall seeing that before? A. Yes. Q. And the letter has three attachment: to it which purport to be diagrams of downtown real estate in the area of the Vale. Do you recall seeing those before also? A. Yes, I have them in my file. a MR. NORMAN: I would like to offer as Defendant Conway's Exhibit--I don't have any number--Defendant Conway's Exhibit-- MR. STONEBRAKER: I don't thin [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_1622%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.