SECTION 4 TITLE 4.3 SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF AUTHORITY: A LEGAL EXAMINATION OF VIOLATIONS BY RICK NEWMANN, REAL ESTATE EMPLOYEE OF DON KLYBERG
WALLS OF SILENCE
SECTION 4 TITLE 4.3 HOSTILE LIVING ENVIRONMENT: SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
The "Claim of Authority Notice"
(Exhibit 10624A-06) exposes the unchecked power and abusive behavior of Rick
Newmann, a property manager who has weaponized his position to engage in a
disturbing pattern of coercion, intimidation, and harassment. The systemic
failures of property owner Don Klyberg to enforce housing laws and ethical
management have enabled these violations to persist, leaving tenants vulnerable
to a toxic, hostile environment.
Newmann's conduct is more than unprofessional—it
exemplifies a calculated misuse of authority to assert dominance and control
over tenants, particularly women. His behavior reflects the hallmarks of the Power
and Control Wheel, using coercion, humiliation, and retaliatory tactics to
erode tenant autonomy. Beyond these legal violations lies a chilling dynamic: a
psychological and emotional campaign designed to break resistance and ensure
compliance.
Subpart 1. Exploiting Power
Through Coercion and Control
Newmann's abuse includes
consequences for any perceived "disobedience," such
as refusing his demands for constant attention, rejecting coerced sexual
role-play, or resisting unwanted advances. These "consequences" are
meticulously crafted to avoid overt detection, using symbolic, silent, or
indirect retaliation to force victims into submission. Yet, these actions are
not subtle to those directly targeted—they are unmistakable displays of power that
burden the victim with proving their validity while simultaneously denying them
support.
For instance, refusing to engage in
unsolicited text messages from Newmann, where he demanded role-play as his
girlfriend, led to a targeted campaign of harassment. At one point, Newmann
orchestrated a mob-like gathering outside the victim's window to inflict
intentional emotional distress, amplifying the impact of his coercion. This
calculated psychological torment highlights his understanding of how to
manipulate public perception, ensuring bystanders remain oblivious or complicit
while the victim is left isolated.
Newmann’s methods are insidious: he does not ask for
compliance but acts with the presumption that his targets will submit. He makes
suggestive, non-consensual statements—more akin to threats—that
invoke fear and confusion, paralyzing the victim momentarily in a state of
fight or flight. In this brief window of vulnerability, Newmann strikes his
ultimate attack: inappropriate touching, public humiliation, violent outbursts,
or degrading name-calling designed to demean and dehumanize.
Subpart 3. Patterns of Growing
Cruelty and Public Displays
These abusive behaviors have only escalated
over time, emboldened by Newmann's co-apartment manager Anthony Anderson who
signs and delivers Rick Newmann’s retaliatory legal attacks and girlfriend,
Sarah, who commits violence on behalf of whilst residing or being an invitee of
Newmann—enabling
his actions. Witnessing his own power unchecked and unchallenged, Newmann's
confidence in his ability to manipulate and harm has grown, as has his cruelty.
His demeanor in these moments—marked by an air of smug satisfaction—reveals
his enjoyment in exercising control and reducing his victims to
"nothing" in his eyes.
This disturbing "cat and mouse"
game demonstrates Newmann's calculated strategy: commit acts of abuse publicly
while cloaking them in ambiguity, forcing the victim to shoulder the burden of
proof and endure the fallout of emotional and psychological distress. By
leveraging the victim's natural emotional responses to his actions, Newmann
further consolidates his power, taking satisfaction in the façade of innocence
he projects to the public; enjoying violating victims in plain sight without
being caught. Meanwhile, in private Newmann is grooming, abusing and tormenting
tenants .
Within
just 12 months, this "Claim of Authority" has been weaponized to
commit 19 distinct criminal and civil acts across 48 different deployments.
These acts represent gross violations of tenants’ rights under state and
federal housing laws, including:
·
Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3617) – Eight violations
of protections against housing discrimination and retaliation.
·
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 504B – Twelve violations covering
tenant protections, retaliation prohibitions, and habitability standards.
·
Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) – Two violations of
federally protected civil liberties.
·
Minnesota Human Rights Act – Six violations related to
gender-based discrimination and retaliation.
Additional
violations of statutes addressing deceptive trade practices (§ 325F), reckless
endangerment (§ 609.205), criminal sexual misconduct (§ 609.341 et seq.), and
harassment (§ 609.749), among others. The complete list of acts are as follows:
1.
Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) | Six
Violations
2. Fair
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3617) | Two
Violations
3. Minnesota Statutes § 325F
| One Violation (Unfair or deceptive trade practices)
4. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 504B
| Twelve Violations
5. Minn. Stat. § 504B.441 |
Two Violations
6. Minnesota Statutes § 504B.285 |
Two Violations
7. Minn. Stat. § 504B.161 |
Two Violations
8. Civil Rights Act
(42 U.S.C. §1983) | Two
Violations
9. Minnesota Statutes § 609.17 |
Two Violations
10. Minnesota Statutes § 609.205 |
One Violation (Reckless Endangerment)
11. Minnesota
Statutes § 609.221 |
One Violation
12. Minnesota Statutes § 609.341 et
seq. (Criminal Sexual Misconduct)
13. Minnesota Statutes § 609.342 |
Two Violations
14. Minnesota Stat. § 609.52 |
One Violation
15. Minnesota Statutes § 609.749 |
Three Violations
16. Minnesota Statutes § 609.765 |
One Violation
17. Minn. Stat. § 504B.395 |
One violations
18. Fair Housing Act, Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
19. Minnesota Human Rights Act |
Six Violations
These
violations underscore a pattern of systemic abuse rooted in coercion, intimidation,
and neglect. Newmann’s conduct reflects the abusive dynamics outlined by
the “Power and Control Wheel” (developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention
Project in Duluth, Minnesota), leveraging his position to exert dominance over
tenants—especially women. His documented behavior includes:
·
Sexualized humiliation and intimidation:
Newmann consistently uses inappropriate, sexually charged conduct to undermine
female tenants, creating a deeply hostile environment.
·
Emotional abuse:
Through belittlement, coercion, and retaliatory threats, Newmann has repeatedly
weaponized his authority to silence and oppress tenants.
·
Exploitation of power structures: By
reinforcing patriarchal control, Newmann perpetuates a culture of fear and
compliance, particularly targeting vulnerable individuals.
Subpart 4. Complicity of Property Owner Don Klyberg
The
complicit negligence of Don Klyberg exacerbates this misconduct. Despite legal
obligations under Minnesota law (§ 504B.285, § 504B.161) to ensure tenant
safety, habitable living conditions, and protections from harassment, Klyberg’s
failure to act has allowed Newmann’s abusive practices to flourish unchecked.
This dereliction of duty reveals not only negligence but also a willful
disregard for tenants’ rights and well-being.
Subpart 5. A
Call for Accountability
This environment of fear, intimidation, and abuse
must be addressed immediately to ensure tenant safety and restore the integrity
of this property’s management practices. Victims and
witnesses of these behaviors are encouraged to document their experiences and
pursue remedies through both administrative complaints (e.g., HUD or local
housing authorities) and civil actions to hold responsible parties accountable
for their violations of law and breach of tenant rights. Newmann’s
actions are not isolated—they represent a systemic failure to enforce the legal and ethical
obligations of rental properties. His abuse of power, combined with the
complicity of Anderson, Klyberg and Sarah, creates an environment where tenants
are subjected to relentless emotional violence, coercion, and retaliation.
These behaviors violate multiple state and federal laws, including the Fair
Housing Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 504B, and Civil Rights
Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), among others.
This pervasive misconduct calls for immediate
legal action. Tenants must be protected from further harm, and the structures
that enable this abuse must be dismantled. Accountability is essential to
restore safety and uphold the rights of those who have been subjected to this
egregious misuse of authority. The systemic neglect and outright abuse that
have defined Newmann's management must not be allowed to continue.
NEWMANN’S
PATTERNS OF CONSEQUENCES FOR “DISOBEDIENCE”
I.
Intimidation and Harassment
Women who reject Newmann’s romantic or
sexual advances have faced verbal and written threats including constructive
evictions to “break your lease and move”, intimidation, and escalating harassment. Such
actions constitute violations of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604),
which prohibits discrimination, including sexual harassment, in housing
practices.
II.
Creating a Hostile Environment
The atmosphere fostered by Newmann’s conduct severely interferes with tenants’ ability to live safely and peacefully,
contravening Minn. Stat. § 504B.161, which mandates landlords maintain
habitable and harassment-free properties.
III.
Retaliatory Practices
Newmann takes punitive measures
against tenants who refuse inappropriate conduct or challenge Newmann’s authority. Such retaliation violates both 42
U.S.C. § 1983, which protects individuals from deprivation of their rights
under color of law, and Minnesota’s
anti-retaliation statutes for tenants.
IV.
Neglect of Property and Repairs
Tenants who
rebuff inappropriate advances or report unsafe conditions often experience
deliberate neglect, such as unresolved maintenance requests and substandard
property conditions. These actions violate the implied warranty of
habitability and may constitute constructive eviction under Minnesota law.
EXHIBIT4.3
Cedar Manor Apartment’s Manager Rick Newmann’s Display of
“Male Privilege” Patterned Behavior
“These are the only people with authority. It is
forbidden and not authorized for anyone else to claim authority.” —Rick
Newmann
Subpart 6
NEWMANN’S
BEHAVIOR
Based on Newmann’s daily behavior that’s not a procedural quote about protecting residence. To the contrary, it’s a threat to every
resident that passes by and meant exactly as he authored it; no one has
authority beyond the absentee owner and Anthony Anderson who signs and deliver’s many of the retaliatory
legal acts and mischievous initiations Rick Newmann authors without question,
therefore only leaving Rick Newmann with power on the property—including
personal power.
This is the type of
master manipulation I’ve seen Newmann use to deceive people such as police, exterminators, utilities
and housing inspectors that enter the building and would have the power to take
away his position of authority and the domicile where he offends. I have
personally observed that in their presence he is a ‘charming, frail, older gentleman, battling cancer’. There is a Latino
man and his family in the unit Newmann tried to entice me to take; Newmann is
totally regular towards those people. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him so much as speak to the women or her children. Simply
because a Male healthier than Newmann is present.
As if an equally autonomous
Tenant is unequivocally not entitled to the same observation of boundaries
simply because there is not a male gender, healthier than Newmann in the
residence.
Visitors don’t see anything unusual
with these postings in the common area because he’s such a masterful manipulator. But to those who
are victims of Newmann when those people are not around, that notice is threat saying
if they don’t want him to cross them up in legal problems or end up on the short
end of a violent, screaming, verbal attack that could include battery (they
have for me twice) you’ll protect the secrecy and comply with the following pattern of behaviors:
Subpart 6
Allow apartment manager Rick Newman to
engage in non-consensual physical contact of “fondling” and “molestation”
A.
Non-Consensual Physical Contact (Fondling and
Molestation) Behaviors:
This
allegation details the conduct of property manager Rick Newmann, including
non-consensual physical contact and behaviors designed to intimidate,
humiliate, or retaliate against tenants. These actions, if proven, are clear
violations of federal, state, and local laws protecting tenants from harassment
and discrimination.
1. Placing
hands on tenants’ arms or shoulders as he speaks—without consent.
Now that’s awkward to
slide your shoulder out of strangers hands; literally pick their hand up off
your body and carry on the conversation politely because this person is the
property manager to whom you pay rent and who Lords over your lease. This is
someone with at minimal, 50/50 chance of successfully taking away the roof over
your head or pulling the floor out from under you—and he knows it; he never misses and opportunity
to flex that power. Are the courts going to rule in your favor or his, and where will you
eat and sleep as they decide?
2.
Invasive and Intimidating Proximity
Deliberately leaning too close to tenants and
speaking with his face alarmingly near theirs, creating a threatening ambiguity
regarding whether he intends to kiss them or harm them physically (e.g., grab
their throat). Deliberately pressing his entire body against tenants’ and brushing tenants private
areas or chest with this hand, often pretending there was no space or that it
was accidental because he innocently was not paying attention when there
was plenty space; there is no justifiable reason for him to be that close to
you. Comm.
#1
3.
Leveraging the illusion of charm to mask intimidating and predatory intentions.
And the hostile, perverted, excitement on his face every time he commits
these acts says: “not only was I applying the utmost precision to fondling
and/or molesting you—I got away
with it—but ‘there is no it’ so what are you gonna do start
challenge me?” Exhibiting excitement during these acts, implying
deliberate intent, for which there are a set of terrible consequences
for challenging. These are some of the consequences that I’ve seen and experience by people who’ve resisted or unintentionally offended Newmann
dating back to November 2023.
A.
Emotionally explode on you verbally and/or
physically, and make a humiliating scene.
B.
Turn the situation around to make you seem at
fault.
C.
Use the opportunity to isolate you from others:
§ Performatively
play the role of the victim.
§ Spread harsh
gossip about how troublesome you are.
§ Claim he is
being charitable by letting you stay but needs to "keep extra attention on
you."
§ Portray
himself as responsible for maintaining property safety by trying to remove you.
D. Sadistically create a situation where you feel compelled to:
§ Grovel to
maintain the security of your housing.
§ Cower in
emotional sadness.
Legal Implications
§ Sexual
Harassment: Violates the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604), which
prohibits harassment in housing, including sexual harassment.
§ Sexual
Harassment: Violates the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) and the Minnesota
Human Rights Act (MHRA), which prohibit unwelcome sexual advances and
intimidation in housing environments.
§ Battery:
Non-consensual physical contact may constitute battery under Minnesota
common law, as it involves intentional physical contact without consent.
§ Minnesota
Human Rights Act (MHRA): Such conduct may violate Minn. Stat. § 363A,
which protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on sex.
§ Assault or
Threat of Harm: Such conduct may constitute a criminal act under Minnesota Statutes
§ 609.224, addressing assault, as it induces fear of bodily harm.
Subpart 7
Permit apartment manager Rick Newmann to employ
coercive grooming and intimidation tactics, fostering fear and confusion to
manipulate victims into submission for potential future sexual advances.
Moderate Grooming And Intimidation Behaviors
Using a façade of charm to intimidate tenants while
engaging in inappropriate conduct; conditioning tenants to tolerate abuse by
creating a hostile environment.
1.
Pattern of Abuse and Sexual Grooming
§ Using
personal space invasions and "charming" behavior to desensitize and
groom tenants for more aggressive or violent sexual misconduct later.
§ Building a
façade of credibility and loyalty among neighbors and others in the community,
effectively shielding himself from scrutiny and enabling further predatory
behavior.
Legal
Implications
§ Stalking and
Predatory Behavior: This sustained, calculated grooming can qualify as stalking under Minnesota
Statutes § 609.749, which prohibits conduct causing substantial emotional
distress.
§ Negligent
Supervision: The property management company may be held liable for failing to
oversee and address an employee's pattern of abusive behavior.
1.1 Impact on Victims and Environment Behavior
§ Victims, such
as the claimant, describe feeling trapped in a threatening, manipulative
dynamic requiring constant vigilance for self-preservation, exacerbating
emotional distress and impairing their ability to live peacefully.
§ Persistent
harassment and intimidation create a hostile housing environment, violating
tenants’ legal right to safety and quiet enjoyment.
Legal
Implications
§ Hostile
Environment Sexual Harassment: This aligns with precedents set by the U.S.
Department of Justice in fair housing cases, where repeated conduct created
an oppressive living environment for victims.
2.
Psychological Manipulation via Public Notices
Posting manipulative and threating notice in common
areas for multiple targets to feel psychological impact differently according
to their interactions with Newmann which none of the victims are speaking
publicly or to each other about. See Commentary #2
Legal
Implications
§ Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Posting threatening and manipulative notices may
meet the criteria for IIED under Minnesota law, particularly if it is proven
that the conduct caused severe psychological harm to tenants.
§ Retaliation: Violates
provisions under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3617), which
prohibits intimidation and coercion in housing settings.
3.
Pattern of Abuse Involving Multiple Victims
§ At least
three identified victims have been subjected to coercion, grooming, and sexual
violence. Two victims are residents, while the third, the sister of one victim,
is indirectly tied to Newmann through cohabitation with an associate apartment
manager Anthony Anderson in the second building on the property.
§ The coercion
and intimidation extend beyond these individuals, creating a broader culture of
fear and control. See Commentary #2 and Title 4.2
Legal
Implications
§ Trafficking-Like
Coercion: Forcing individuals into abusive dynamics as a condition for housing
or services may fall under state and federal laws addressing human trafficking
and coercion.
§ Negligent
Supervision and Vicarious Liability: The property management company may be
held responsible for failing to address and prevent the known predatory actions
of its employee.
4.
Secrecy and Isolation
Newmann’s deliberate
manipulation ensures that victims do not communicate with one another,
preserving his control and preventing collective resistance. This includes
isolating individuals by involving them in personal relationships with his
associates. See Commentary #2 and all of Section 9
Legal
Implications
Coercive Control: This
systemic isolation and manipulation are key elements of coercive control, a
recognized form of abuse under emerging legal standards.
5.
Cumulative Pattern of Predation
§ Described as
a manipulative abuser with a history of successful offenses, Newmann’s conduct is consistent with traits of serial
predators, who exploit perceptions of harmlessness to carry out calculated
abuse.
Legal
Implications
§ Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Sustained harassment and intimidation can
constitute IIED under Minnesota common law, subjecting the perpetrator to civil
liability.
§ Criminal
Harassment and Exploitation: If substantiated, this pattern of abuse may lead
to charges under Minnesota's criminal harassment statutes.
§ Hostile
Environment Harassment: Constitutes a hostile living environment under
federal and state housing laws.
§ Retaliation: Intimidation
aimed at discouraging tenants from reporting violations breaches 42 U.S.C. §
3617, which prohibits retaliation against tenants asserting their rights.
6. Coercive Sexual Relationships and Attempted Rape
§ Engaging in
coerced, non-consensual sexual relations with victims as part of an abusive
power dynamic linked to the provision of housing services.
§
Attempted rape of a resident on November 28, 2024, accompanied by the
victim's public disclosure of Newmann’s history of
sexual violence toward her and her sister. See Title 4.7
Legal Implications
§ Sexual
Assault and Attempted Rape: Such actions constitute criminal violations under Minnesota
Statutes § 609.342, which addresses first-degree criminal sexual conduct,
and Minnesota Statutes § 609.17, which covers attempted crimes.
§ Sexual
Harassment in Housing: Coercing sexual acts in exchange for essential
services or housing stability violates the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §
3604) and state laws prohibiting discrimination and harassment.
7. Weapon Storage
on Property
§ The machete
used in the assault was reportedly stored in Newmann’s bedroom, which is located within the rental
office. See Section # Battery
Legal Implications
§ Reckless
Endangerment: Storing weapons in a location accessible to others, particularly
individuals with a history of violent behavior, could be considered reckless
endangerment under Minnesota Statutes § 609.205.
§ Negligent
Security: The landlord's failure to secure the premises and protect tenants from
violence may violate Minnesota’s
landlord-tenant laws under Chapter 504B, which require landlords to
maintain safe housing.
8. Encouraged Violence by an
Associate of Newmann Behavior (Sarah)
§ On January
30, 2024, an individual identified as "Sarah," who is described as
Newmann’s girlfriend or invitee, physically assaulted a
female resident (the complainant) and attempted to stab her with a machete. The
weapon was allegedly retrieved from Newmann’s bedroom,
which doubles as his living quarters and the rental office.
§ The
complainant did not defend herself due to a lack of faith in legal protections
and fear of retaliation. See commentary # 2 and Section 5
Legal
Implications
§ Assault and Battery: Physical
violence, such as beating someone or threatening them with a weapon,
constitutes criminal assault under Minnesota Statutes § 609.221-609.224.
§ Attempted
Murder: The act of attempting to stab someone with a machete may meet the
criteria for attempted murder under Minnesota Statutes § 609.17.
§ Premises
Liability: Newmann may be liable for creating an unsafe environment and allowing a
known associate to engage in violence on the property.
9.
Failure of Authorities to Intervene
§
Local law enforcement has allegedly refused to respond to dispatched
calls from female residents reporting crimes such as animal neglect, unsafe
premises, and attempted rape. This neglect perpetuates Newmann’s power and leaves victims vulnerable. See Title
4.5 and Title 4.6
Legal
Implications
§ Negligence by
Law Enforcement: Failing to respond to serious allegations may constitute dereliction of
duty and could expose authorities to legal challenges for failing to protect
residents from harm.
§ Enforcement
Failures: Allowing building conditions to deter oversight and investigations
constitutes a failure to enforce housing codes and protect tenant rights under Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 504B (Landlord and Tenant).
Subpart 8
Permit apartment manager Rick Newmann to employ retaliatory and
intentional emotional distress tactics designed to compel compliance,
discourage external complaints, and pressure you into voluntarily relinquishing
your unit.
Manipulative Retaliation & IIED Behaviors
This statement identifies actions by the property
manager involving psychological abuse, humiliation, and coercion to isolate
tenants and enforce control over their behavior. Below is a breakdown of the
specific actions described and their potential legal and psychological
implications.
1. Emotional
Explosions and Public Humiliation
§ The property
manager deliberately creates emotional outbursts or humiliating scenes to
intimidate or disempower the tenant.
Legal Implications
§ Harassment: This
behavior may fall under the definition of harassment under Minnesota
Statutes § 609.749, which includes conduct that would cause a reasonable
person to feel oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated.
§ Hostile
Environment: These acts may contribute to a hostile living environment, violating Chapter
504B, which requires landlords to maintain habitable and non-threatening
conditions.
2. Blame-Shifting and Role Reversal
§ Turning
informal complaints or issues around on the tenant, portraying themselves as
the victim to deflect responsibility including but not limited to refusal to
check property surveillance cameras and claiming cameras did not see any
(illegal or lease violating) acts when he, his invitee’s, apartment manager Anthony Anderson of the two
female residence attached to him are the offenders. See Section 9
Legal Implications
§ Deceptive
Practices: If this behavior involves misrepresentation of facts or duties to avoid
legal or contractual obligations, it may constitute a violation of Minnesota
Statutes § 325F on unfair or deceptive trade practices.
3.
Spreading Gossip and Harsh Judgments
§ Disseminating
false or damaging information about tenants to isolate them socially or create
an unfavorable perception.
Legal Implications
§ Defamation: Making false
statements about a tenant that harm their reputation may constitute defamation
under Minnesota defamation laws (libel or slander).
§ Retaliatory
Conduct: If done in response to a tenant asserting their rights, this could
violate 504B.441, which prohibits retaliation by landlords.
4.
Exploiting Tenant's Housing Security
§ Threatening
eviction or emphasizing their control over the tenant’s housing to force compliance or elicit submissive
behavior, such as groveling or cowering; actually issuing eviction notice for
asserting right to privacy and safety. See Smoking Gun (Eviction)
Legal Implications
§ Retaliatory
Eviction: Threatening eviction as a means to silence or control tenants is
illegal under Minnesota Statutes § 504B.285.
§ Emotional
Abuse: Using housing as leverage in this manner could be considered
psychological abuse under broader legal frameworks addressing tenant
protections.
5. Creating a
Façade of Responsibility or Charity
§ Claiming to
be charitable or overly responsible in "keeping the property safe" to
justify actions that harm or disempower the tenant. See Section 9
Legal
Implications
§ Unlawful
Pretense: Misrepresenting motives to conceal abusive or unlawful actions may
violate consumer protection laws regarding deceptive practices.
6. Fostering Emotional Distress
§ Deliberately
instigating sadness or helplessness in tenants as part of a psychological
control strategy.
Legal Implications
§ Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Causing severe emotional trauma through calculated
and malicious behavior could be grounds for a civil claim under IIED tort
principles.
7. Fear of Legal and Institutional
Retaliation
§ The complainant
refrained from self-defense and did not contact law enforcement due to fear of
retaliation, institutional bias, and previous non-responsiveness by
authorities. See Smoking Gun and Title 4.5
Legal Implications
§ Failure to
Report Crimes: While not reporting a crime is not typically a legal violation for
victims, the situation underscores systemic failures in tenant protection and
law enforcement responsiveness.
§ Civil Rights
Violations: Fear of engaging law enforcement due to perceived or actual bias may
indicate violations of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) if
systemic discrimination or neglect of duty by authorities is evident.
8. Power Dynamics and Abuse of Authority
§ Exploiting
his position as property manager to create an environment of fear and
subjugation, particularly for women.
§ Making
tenants feel dependent on his approval for continued housing security.
Legal Implications
Quid Pro Quo Harassment: Using
housing security as leverage to gain compliance with inappropriate demands
breaches housing discrimination laws.
Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment: Violates tenants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes as
guaranteed under Minnesota landlord-tenant law.
Broader
Context
These behaviors form part of a systemic failure to protect tenants from
abuse and harassment, reflecting a lack of oversight and enforcement. Such
actions undermine tenants' rights and safety, exposing property management and
ownership to liability under federal and state statutes.
Subpart 9
Comply with apartment manager Rick Newmann’s
demands for role-playing and romantic behavior, despite his awareness that such
actions constitute non-consensual grooming, harassment, and abuse—persisting
even after your clear and explicit rejection of his advances.
Gender-Based
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Forced Role Play
Severe Grooming and Intimidation Behavior
The following allegation details conduct by property manager Rick
Newmann, focusing on unsolicited romantic role-playing interactions, executed
both in person and through written communications. These behaviors, conducted
without consent, are described as manipulative and designed to intimidate,
degrade, and distress tenants, with the intent of furthering an environment of
harassment and control. Such actions are egregious violations of tenants’ rights and fall under multiple legal frameworks
addressing harassment, discrimination, and emotional abuse.
1. Unsolicited Romantic Role-Playing
§ Initiating
role-play scenarios involving romantic or intimate themes without consent.
Employing a false charm to mask violent, degrading, or manipulative undertones.
Demanding tenants assume specific roles in conversations to fulfill his
personal gratification.
Legal Implications
§ Sexual
Harassment: Violates the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) and Minnesota
Human Rights Act (MHRA), which prohibit harassment, including sexualized
behavior, in housing environments.
§ Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): This behavior could be actionable under Minnesota
common law as deliberate actions intended to distress or intimidate.
2. Manipulative
and Aggressive Role Enforcement
§ Using
aggression and manipulation to coerce tenants into participating in unwanted
interactions.
§ Creating
distress either through drawn-out emotional torment or by exploiting targets’ rebukes for his gratification.
§ Demanding
Tenant respond and supply attention on-demand of face retaliation such as
property theft and destruction of property. See Section 7
Legal Implications
§ Hostile
Environment: These actions establish a hostile housing environment in violation of
federal and state housing laws.
§ Coercion and
Abuse of Power: Exploiting his role as property manager to enforce participation
violates tenants’ right to a safe and respectful
living environment.
3. Sexual Grooming and Pattern of
Abuse
§ Engaging in
calculated behaviors designed to groom tenants for further harassment or abuse
through electronic messages and written notes inappropriate placed in Tenant’s rented, private and personal mailbox by using ‘emergency master mailbox key’.
§ Leveraging
fear and distress as tools of control, escalating to physical harassment or
retaliation.
Legal Implications
Quid Pro Quo Harassment: Conditioning
tenants’ housing security or peace on compliance with these
interactions breaches anti-harassment statutes.
Violations of Quiet Enjoyment: Infringes on
tenants’ legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes
as protected under Minnesota landlord-tenant law (Minn. Stat. § 504B).
Broader Context
These actions demonstrate a systematic abuse of
power, contributing to a culture of intimidation and control at the property.
They also highlight failures by property ownership and management to enforce
legal protections for tenants, exposing them to liability for negligence and
complicity.
Subpart 9
Submit to Apartment Manager Rick Newman's coercion for sexual acts and
endure retaliation for non-compliance without raising complaints, maintaining a
demeanor that is agreeable and accommodating to him, or voluntarily relinquish
your home.
Specific Allegations and Legal Implications
The following allegation highlights egregious conduct by property manager
Rick Newmann, involving coercion for sexual acts within the confines of the
rental office and retaliation against tenants who refuse his advances. This
behavior, which includes sexual harassment, retaliatory eviction, and ongoing
intimidation, is a gross abuse of power and a violation of multiple legal
protections afforded to tenants.
1. Coercion to Perform Sexual Acts
§ Issuing
outright suggestions or demands for tenants to engage in sexual acts with him
in the bedroom of the rental office.
§ Leveraging
his position of authority to create coercive and unsafe situations.
Legal Implications
§ Quid Pro Quo
Sexual Harassment: Violates the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) and the Minnesota
Human Rights Act (MHRA), which prohibit sexual demands as a condition of
tenancy.
§ Criminal
Sexual Misconduct: May constitute criminal behavior under Minnesota Statutes § 609.341
et seq., addressing non-consensual sexual advances.
2. Retaliation Following
Non-Compliance
§ Serving a
notice to vacate and eviction notice simultaneously after the tenant refused
and protested the harassment.
§ Engaging in
retaliatory actions such as property theft, destruction, surveillance,
harassment, and social isolation.
Legal Implications
§ Retaliation: Violates
protections under Minn. Stat. § 504B.441, which prohibit landlords from
retaliating against tenants for asserting their rights.
§ Constructive
Eviction: The ongoing harassment and deprivation of peaceful enjoyment of the
property may legally constitute constructive eviction, actionable under
Minnesota landlord-tenant law.
§ Intentional
Property Damage and Surveillance: May violate criminal laws related to theft (Minn.
Stat. § 609.52) and stalking or harassment (Minn. Stat. § 609.749).
3. Failure to
Perform Repairs Behavior
§ Halting
essential repairs following the tenant’s refusal of
advances and assertion of boundaries.
Legal Implications
§ Negligence: Violates Minn.
Stat. § 504B.161, which requires landlords to maintain rental properties in
a habitable and safe condition.
§ Breach of
Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment: Retaliatory inaction on maintenance undermines
tenants’ legal right to a livable home environment.
Broader
Context
This behavior not only constitutes violations of
federal and state housing laws but also creates an environment of pervasive
fear and exploitation. The property management’s failure to
address or rectify such misconduct exposes them to liability for negligent
supervision, enabling a pattern of abuse. These allegations, coupled with
documented retaliatory actions, establish a clear case of systemic failure and
intentional harm.
References and Resources
Grooming | Emotional Abuse | Sexual Harassment In Housing | Sexual Harassment Behaviors | Profile of Abuser | Domestic Violence | Sexual Violence Against Soulaani Women
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for your feedback!