Case Date:

6/22/2015

THIS WAS TO GO TO MS MCKENNY AT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSON THERE SITE CONTACT NOT COMING UP, NEITHR IS MAYOR OFFICE PLEASE FORWRD To LEGAL AID JUNE 20 15 I requested your services once more regardind CFC Properties beaurocratic abuse of my current lease that owner of 200 S Madison St #209. Ms wenzler did contact someone at CFC on 8th Street, reqarding their demand of instant payment of 225.00 from my daughter Kathy for an unsubstantiated claim and action against a harmless insect their hired dog handler claimed his dog smelled. Mrs Wenzler appears to favor the CFC lease clauses over the HAP Title 42 Federal Housing Agreement between the owner and the housing section 8 subsidy which pays the tenants rent ? It is my understanding that the HAP Agreemet subhumes the local contact lease, which is not a standardized lease, prepared by CFc Lawyers to protect their CFC Properties, a subdivision of Cook Group, a 1.6 Billion investment group of unkinonw address or owenrship ,as is the CFC properties. That is the value to determine through legal aid services state supported by grant, to provide legal services to the 'poor', and seeking protection of her housing rigths through counsel application of the laws governing her existance at apt 209 these past 18 months. Tenant does not have a copy of the HaP agreement between housing and CFC that pays the rent under Federal Title 42. She was under the understanding that this agreement has a specific number of Complex requirements to be met by the Owners of the rental units that they are required to compy with in order to receive rental subsidy from the tax funds applied to section 8 programs. And that one of these clauses should cover the complex responsiblity to keep the premises they are renting for profit, free of insects and other harmful building pests. This complex apparently has a contract agreement with a company owned by a Young of Michigan which calls itself 'yes' and maintains offices in Bloomington on Second Steet near the ES Electrical services etal. This company under contract to the CFC properties not the tenant, has not appeared to spray the complex here ,of 100 apartments on a regular basis since i have moved in. However they have a year ago, heat treted three apartments in the a and c buildngs by throwing out the tenants, and placing a heat blower though a window from the outside of the building which is highly noticabe, and there fore there are or were bugs in the building ,know to CFC for years if not Months. Of the 33 complexes in bloominton city ,I believe, that have been approved for section 8 subsidy payment from the federal treasury, I believe all are regularly sprayed their premisis for pests, and this cost is born by the complex or the government. This CFC apparently feels it may receive government tax money and remain out of compliance with the rest of the city complexes with regard to resonponsibility to keept their premises free of pest as best controlled. The lawyer with legal aid ,thus far seems willing to advise the Complex residential leasing agent, ms Rudnak ,that tenants hold a protection in state law since 99 that does not permit them to: lock out the tenant, confiscate tenants goods, threaten tenant with letters in the door enter the premisis without a notice to tenat give the master key to the complex apts to annonymous workmen employed with 'Yes' company, collect money from relatives inquiring as the nature of the abuse they are applying, and not notifying tenant or relatives of the programs or availablity of their lease clauses of the tenants responsibilty to pay their hired control progam. The Lawyer ms Wenzler sites a bloomington ordinace saying this ordinace requires the owner to spray for pests, but makes no mention who should pay for this ordinace enforcement which has as yet not been produced as to coverage or effect. She also state that a section of the CFC lease signed by tenant in January 14 and continued on Jan 15 and this year, as originally made on move in ,that a division of this lease [4] allows the owner to pay for pest or other repairs from the deposit of first months put down on move in. This provision from 2 years ago, would naturally not be in the brain tip of a tenant after this amount of time. However the resident manager and leasing agent this Rudnak did not advise the Inquirer, My daughter kathy of this lease or any other lease arrangments between herself and the owers. In fact she did not even identify herself to the inquirer kathy, but did tell her she was required to pay out of pocket 225.00 on the spot to keep her mother safe? This is criminal shake down used by the mob for centuries, and this poor young working woman of 57 years of age, paid this person from her debit card, recieved only a reciept for the 225 without any substaintiation of what it was for. As the lease CFC was not abided by, their own sections, this woman ,I believe ,was not qualified to begin with. The demand for immediate payment from a complete stranger to her for this kind of money for an unidentified service, and thus kathy was 'suckered' what does a billion dollar group member need 225.00 from a stranger for? drugs or buying illegal guns to create murder an maymen . Legal aid lawyer has so far made no effort to obtain the ceo or or board of this cfc propeties, their contact witht this 'yes' company ,their attorneys who prepared this cfc lease, to protect their company interests, or the HAP agreement from housing, which tenant was not been provided on entry in 2013. They need to complete an investigation of the existing and extensive laws, state, federal and contract, which should control the renting of these properties, so tenant has knowledge of the persons and agencys who control her life and have the ability though negligence, ignorance ,greed manipulation and political motives ,to cause her and her goods ,and now her family, bodily, economic, anxiety and distress, and put her in jeprody of distruction ,including, health and life of their victims the tenants. They create battlefield conditions for the tenants, rather than being honest with these residents as to their rights and needs. As to the bloomington city ordinace, which are unchecked ,they are unjust laws ,where they attack a particular natural life form for distruction and demand a real estate developmemt anialate a bug or else. What is the or else, cyclone b in the shower, and let us have your teeth and gold at the door. This is natsi docrine and hitlerism hysteria. If the city damands an ordinace to eradicate species created by the maker called God ,they must bring their own poison with their own money and not put the burdon of their desires to kill on the rest of the population who disagree with this holistic atitutude. This particular bug ,attacked by humans in bloomington rental units, and that may only be low income rental units, not the 1000 a month jobs that allow pets- seems to be a member of the 'climet lectularius' which does not seem to have a natural preditor listed in its life cycle, and this not probable . what is probable is that this bug, which was a tree bug in natural setting climbed the tree bark ,sucked blood from birds and monekys living in the trees and was then eaten by a annonymous preditor ,which we probaly have made extinct ,thus creating a surplus of bed bugs not gobbled up in their natural enviornment and having simply found shelter in the two by four and plywood dwellings created by cutting down their forests to build developments, and leaving the creature in the developers new and expensive complexes to survive. These bug as well ,like all insects known to man ,build resistance as do virus and bacteria to chemicals used to treat them. The adult treated may die, but the second or third generation they have produced has a natural antibody immunity to these spray. Therefore the spraying done and paid for may be useless ,and it may just as well not affect the bugs in future leaving a pattern for man of constantly changing of chemical compositons to spray dwellings to rid this pest from their wood environment they occupy, and its profitable apartments. Therefor it is unrealistic for the CFC to expect a tenant to continiously pay large sums of money to it, for its hiring of a insectiside company like YEs. or Terminex or any other. If they hire a company and contract with them without the tenant being listed as a owner/ occupier as well, that contract is between the CVC company or Group and the Yes pest sprayer. The tenants did not hire the Yes company or have any deed to the property declaring them owners thereto, or any investment money as in cooperatives to give them stock holding in CFC properties. Therefore the probablity that this section 4 CFC deamaned for payment is not legally inserted to begin with, unless they have the tenants all of them, as a collective group, listed as partial owners of the real estate complex. However the immediacy of taking Kathys mortage money to help me survive a few days can be immediatley relieved by Legal Aid demanding this Ms rudnik credit Kathys 225.00 back to her debit account ,and place this deamanded charge to myself ,under section 4, CVC Lease, and remove it from the original deposit of 455.00 us ,made on move in. This is the procedure she should have followed when kathy asked her, assuming it was she, the problem of need to pay this fee immediatly arose I image her motivation was simlpy greed and avarice ,as the deposit plans of CFC would be naturally ,to keep this money on move out claiming damages without proof, as is customary in bloomington corporate complexes, like arbor glen ,and she wanted more money. The bilking of passerby Kathy, so they could keep the last months rent intact. why. That is the question What is the motivation these people follow is it evangalistic religion, military malitas , female supremancy, politics or simply a desire to harm an ethnic person they dont like . I aint black I aint Italian I aint muslim, but I am catholic Irish descent from ulster ,and they may not like ethnic Irish we have no information we can prove. The nature of the tactic applyed however in this case, suggests a collusion between company to harm and distroy CFC-Yes. perhapes duke energy . Thus killing off the enemy without getting caught. And being well paid to do it. Because I am 78 years old, and not strong enough anymore, to physically resist these hate crimes and petty thefts ,and mob style criminal intent, I am vunerable to these attacks as they are trying to accomplish distuction and theft by annonymous abuse, and creating fear and anxiety. The 3rd part Legl Aid need to address in the immediacy for my economic safty and security in the homeland ,is their ability to repeat the crime of dog- accuse -spray and charge just rendered and still not resolved within a few weeks or month creating as countinuation of the orignal abuse now ongoing. I see nothing in the CFC lease that denies the complex from continiously bombarding the tenants with demands for payment and continiously spraying their targeted apartments . If this protection is not offered in th HUD/ HAP agreemnts to protect the Poor from economic exploitation and disasterous death alway nearby, the victim is subject to a pattern of continious terrorism from these juvenile types . I have no paper which states that CFC will not repeat the bombardment in a day or two, and legal aid need so to have a written paper from these exploiters, that they will not try the crime again in future. Or that the govenment will pay for their criminal exploitation under the 'what do i care' phylosphy con in america that your not paying for it. The taxpayers are. By govenment grant. A Ms Keck, employed by Centerstone, a Tennesee psycological company ,tells kathy orally, i guess they have telephone communication, I dont know ,but that a grant can be obtained, either by the individual, or a company to cover this spray charge, and I am supposed to go down to her and get these application. In the first place, Ms Keck social worker is not on a walk in basis an appointment has to be made, and that may take month I have i hope, requested an explantion of her announcement, that a grant form can be filled out, and if there is such a form ,she can post it to me online or send it to me in the us mails. I dont think individuals in this country have any rights to a grant, except the student doing advanced research in science. I imagine from past experience with ms Keck, that she means the township Trustee help. I do not qualify, or need the township trustee services now, or last year to pay rent, come up with the deposit or buy food. and I doubt the township trustees are authorised to pay bug sprayers and dogs at their income level 225,00 got 25 minutes is worse than doctor O D with medicade, and the comptuter service retail of 99.00 an hour. But since she told Kathy this, she should follow through with the paper application ,if one exists. As legal aid is a state funded help agency with a cause to be sure these citizen basic rights are complied with, it is not qualified to obtain comspensation ,or remove the defects as they stand. Neither are the existing elitist govenment. Therefor, we must work around these distructive forces and compromise to stay alive. The spray used was unknown to the annonymous sprayer working for Yes company of Michigan, but did know what product retail name called transport This comes up on google as Transport Micron Insectiside consiting of a bifentharin/ actamiprid prepared by FMC Agricaultural Solitions, and used primarily for field spraying and fruit spraying to keep down insects who live on these crops. It is listed as a carsinogn and appoved by the EPA. The dosage is not given on line nor the time it remains in effect, and if it is water soluble etal. Therefore it is not a threat to public health, as are misquitos ticks ,ants, fleas and flys etal . crickets and locusts may be killed by it as well as the near extinct sarving birds, who naturally feed on these sparyed creatures. If ms wenzler can induce this manager to return kathys 225.00 us to her bank account and take her demanded charges from the 455.00 last months rent deposit hold and will agree to refrain from any repeat or follow through of the alleged bug problem, and will accept the July rent as required in the current lease ,the immediate threat to safty, goods and person will be relived, except for any payment for future sprays. This CFC must have a board of directors behind the employees on 8th street and it must have a retained legal firm, that can be delt with reguarding the future and interpretaion of the tenants rights. I cannot afford to live in a places where these extra add on charges are planned upon me, and I do need a security of tenure at a fixed rate in conformity with my limited money income. Thus it is probably more secure to try and find lodging outside the city of bloomington, where bugs are not in city manadated ordinances. I also would like to know the background on the dog hander and his team ,and their identity, as well as the persons who run this CFC properties ,and what their structuer is , and who licenceses their business, state or city or federal governments. There is no information on their web site, an also if they use the sniffer dog in all 8 of their rental complexs scattered over the city ,or if just bicycle is targeted, and if I myself was targeted . If they sprayed 5 or 6 apts on monday past, that would be over 1000 dollars for 6 hours of work and no one know how much the 'yes' pays wholesale for chemicals, both of which are on amazon .com to determine a 225.00 charge for a prodcut they paid 50 cents for, is fraud. This particular bug, like ebola, seems to be a war propaganda bug, the military uses to create hysteria in an enemy before it is attacked. This created fear of a harmless situation is a wr tacktic . I am not giving a notice that I am willing to end the present lease, but thinking ahead, that it may not be wise to renew the exising lease in january '16 if I live that long. The cost of looking for an apt in bloomington is also an expense not availabe to the low income group, young or old need to contact each of the section 8 complexes listed want a 25 or 30 dollar fee to check the credit of the applicant before they give you the application. This for 33 coplexs is $850.00 ,a thousand dollars to look for a corporarte apt. This is what is called unfair and price gouging There is no solidarity in the us There is only survival of the fittest and the money we have is printed 24/7 under the present administration, so it if valueless. jd 20 '15 judidonnelly bloomington indiana 47404 judiann22@gmail.com PS I woke up at 5am this day and Fitzgerald 'Great Gatsby' in in the head with the Daisy protection by Tom, when she kills a poor woman ,hit and run, and this is the attitude and law that applies. They are very careless people', and aint we got fun. I have the book but no time to read it over, and kathy is a doer not a reader, so cfc needs to return her cash. I think it would be cheaper for the Company to allow the tenants to pay the water bill very month and they pay their pest control . 'In the meantime in between time, aint we got fun. jd And what 'ill I do when you are gone from me, o what 'ill I do What 'ill i do. Nothing like a song before breakfast.

Case Date:

10/22/2021

The current resident at 3508 E. Park Lane (Bloomington, 47408) is running a business in a residential dwelling. Besides untidiness and noise in the front yard, this individual stores equipment and materials in the open. He parks his vehicles and trailers on the street, effectively disabling a lane, which not only causes congestion but generates conditions for an unfortunate accident. He has now expanded his business to two trailers, worsening traffic issues and general safety in a residential area. This business has become a nuisance to Park Ridge neighbors and we hope the City of Bloomington takes prompt action.

Case Date:

8/5/2022

Cresent Union Leasing Office requested my vehicle to be towed without any warning. My 2001 Chevy Tahoe was parked legally and within apts guidelines parked in their visitors parking lot approx 3am on or about June 17 and by noon the next day vehicle was gone. Stryker stated they requested the tow and when he arrived my back passenger tire was flat. Tire wasn't flat when I parked. I now have several photographs date time stamped their lot several piles of broken glass multiple days with no clean up. Unbeknownst to me when I parked and with no time to see or attempt to fix tire. So many stories of tenants and guest vehicles being towed at this complex people whom are already experiencing financial hardship lol sing your transportation...new management since. I'm stranded and vulnerable..they are required to post 24 hr warning and violated that law me and many others. Thank you for your consideration stephaniepersohn@yahoo.com 8126662549

Case Date:

9/6/2022

This past weekend my car was towed by Chandler Towing at 4am Sunday morning. I was staying the night at my partner’s apartment at 406 e 11th st. which is leased by Parker management. I was given verbal consent to park my car there while visiting by an employee at their office when I helped her pick up her keys to the apartment on the 1st of August. Given that it was a holiday weekend and I have no other way to get to work I opted to but the bullet and go get my car before trying to file any complaints. I was charged the legal maximum of $160 dollars which I understand and did not choose to raise any questions at the Chandler office. Afterwards I emailed Parker to ask if they would be willing to either reach out to Chandler to get me a refund or reimburse my partner via deducting that cost from her rent balance next month. I was told that an employee would never tell me I can park here and that they cannot do anything. I understand that given the city ordinance put in place a couple years ago as well as state laws require that I am given 24 hours notice prior to being towed for abandoning my vehicle and the only exception is if there is an emergency OR I am preventing a business from performing as intended. The lot in which I parked has not once been close to full this year so far and I was not preventing other tenants from accessing parking spaces. My car was only there for 8 hours before being towed without notice. The affidavit written by the towing company did not provide any testimony as to what circumstances allowed them to tow my car without a notice. I was also told by the towing company that they do not file police reports when towing a car and I cannot find any legal precedent on this matter. If you have an answer as to whether that is legally required I would appreciate clarification on that matter. If there is a formal way for me to file a complaint on this issue please let me know. I would like to proceed as respectfully as possible while not allowing myself to be taken advantage of. Thank you!

Case Date:

3/3/2023

Background: My girlfriend and I went to The Chocolate Moose to get ice cream on August 20th, 2022. I parked in a parking lot outside of Bedrak Café, which is a cafeteria that’s next to Chocolate Moose. The parking lot is in between Bedrak Café and iMechanic. We arrived at the parking lot at approximately 9:20 pm. Around 9:50 pm, we exited The Chocolate Moose. Right after exiting the shop, I noticed from approximately 50 meters away, that my car was lifted and was getting ready to be towed. All wheels were raised, the front wheels were on a dolly, the back ones were on a mechanical arm. I ran to the driver while shouting: “Hey.” I questioned as to why my car was being towed. The driver said that I was parking in iMechanic’s parking lot, and I was taking up two spots. In fact, I was not taking up two spots. The driver then said that the green lines on the ground indicated iMechanic’s parking. In fact, at night, it is very hard to determine the color of the line. I then asked: “What do I need to do for you to release my car.” He told me that I must pay him $160, cash or Venmo only. I then pulled out my phone and started taking pictures. He continued to put straps on my wheels while saying: “You can take as many pictures as you want, I already took them, but if I get these straps on these wheels, I’m towing your car and you won’t get it until tomorrow.” I then venmoed Stryker Towing $160, and he started to unhook my car. He lowered the mechanical arms to let down the rear wheels. He then kicked the dolly to remove the latch on my right front wheel, the car dropped abruptly. I said: “Dude, can you lower it slowly?” He said: “Why don’t you go ahead and put your hands under there and let your hands be crushed by 500 pounds.” He then said: “I do it 25 times a day and it doesn’t damage the vehicle, if you continue to have a shitty attitude, I am going to keep hooking it up and dropping it again and again.” I then said: “Okay, do it.” He then kicked the dolly to remove the latch on my left from wheel, and the car dropped abruptly again. He removed the pieces of the dolly, got into his car and said that he was going to wait until he saw me back out and leave. At one point, he also said that he was just going to hook it back up and tow it anyway, after I’ve already paid him. He then pulled out of the parking lot. Below are the pictures of my car when it was on the dolly. We got into my car, and we realized that there was no signage in front my parking spot indicating that it’s a towaway zone. The closest sign indicating a towaway zone was two parking spots to the right of my spot. There was also a sign posted on the building behind my vehicle. The sign reads as “I-MECHANIC PARKING ONLY 9:00 AM – 7:00 PM; BIG RED PERMIT PARKING 24 HRS” I then took pictures of the signage and left the scene. There were also two women at the scene, they told Sheana that that had just happened to them as well. I was not given any sort of receipt. I studied relevant statutes and I believe Stryker Towing unlawfully towed the two ladies' car and also tried to tow my car and unlawfully charged me $160. I also believe that they were engaging in predatory towing, which the City of Bloomington forbids. They were also in violation of multiple Bloomington Municipal Codes and Indiana Codes. Discussion: Stryker Towing is engaged in predatory towing, which the City of Bloomington forbids. On February 19, 2020. The Bloomington City Council passed Ordinance 20-03. This ordinance amended Bloomington Municipal Code Title 4 by adding a new Chapter 4.32 to provide for the licensing and regulation of towing companies that engage in the practice of non-consensual tows. The ordinance provides that “while many companies engage in non-consensual towing in a fair and ethical way, others, especially in communities such as Bloomington where parking is limited, engage in non-consensual towing practices that might be deemed predatory. This includes, but is not limited to, refusing to release a vehicle to the owner before it has been removed from the private property. . . engaging in kickback arrangements, and charging exorbitant towing and storage fees. . . these predatory towing practices disproportionately harm the community’s most vulnerable residents. . . the City of Bloomington has a significant governmental interest in protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the community. . . .” BMC 4.32.030 provides that “‘Non-consensual tow’ means the towing, by a tow business. . . without prior consent or authorization by the vehicle’s owner. . . .” Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.100. BMC 4.32.100 provides that “It shall be unlawful for a licensed towing company or two truck operator to tow a vehicle from a parking lot unless the parking lot owner or the owner’s authorized agent, present at the time of the tow, signs a contemporaneous specific written authorization for the tow of the vehicle. . . a towing company owner or employee, or tow truck operator, may not act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent.” The code also provides that, “Notwithstanding the provisions above, a towing company owner or employee, or tow truck operator, may act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent if: (1) The parking lot is for a multifamily rental dwelling which provides permit parking twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week for its tenants or guests; (2) Tenant parking permits and/or guest parking permits, to be placed in vehicles, are provided to tenants at lease signing. The towing company shall obtain an affidavit from the property owner stating the same; (3) The parking permits are made to be easily identifiable and observable from outside the vehicle; and (4) Video or photographic documentation to attest to the propriety of the tow is made and kept for at least two (2) years as part of the authorization required under subsection (b) above” In my case, the driver made the representation that he was towing my car on behalf of iMechanic, and the spot I parked in was iMechanic’s parking spot. Imechanic is a phone repair shop, therefore, the building is not a multifamily rental dwelling. The driver may not act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent. Because the driver cannot be the parking lot owner’s authorized agent, and there was no owner nor any type of authorized agent present at the time of the tow, Stryker Towing is in violation of MBC 4.31.100. Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.110. BMC 4.32.110 provides that “It shall be unlawful for any tow business or two truck operator to tow a vehicle unless the parking lot in which the vehicle is parked has signage, posted in plain view and visible to the public at each entrance and exit. . . .” There was no signage at the entrance nor exit of the parking lot. Furthermore, the signage on the building says “I-MECHANIC PARKING ONLY 9:00 AM – 7:00 PM”. We went to get ice cream at 9:20 PM. Therefore, the towing of my car at that time is unlawful. Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.120. BMC 4.32.120 provides that “A towing company and tow truck operator shall allow the vehicle’s owner a reasonable amount of time to inspect the vehicle or to remove or retrieve personal property or possessions that are not affixed from a vehicle. The inspection or retrieval of possessions may be at the scene of the tow or at the vehicle storage facility prior to payment. . . .” In my case, the driver did not allow me a reasonable amount of time to inspect the vehicle. Upon arriving at the scene, he continued to strap my wheels, and said: “You can take as many pictures as you want, I already took them, but if I get these straps on these wheels, I’m towing your car and you won’t get it until tomorrow.” Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.120. BMC 4.32.120 provides that “When the owner or operator of a motor vehicle is present and desires to instead personally operate and remove his/her own vehicle from a parking lot before the vehicle is in the process of being towed, the vehicle shall not be towed nor shall any fee be charged. However, when the owner or operator of a motor vehicle arrives at the location of the motor vehicle when it is already in the process of being towed, the towing company shall, pursuant to Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4, give the owner or operator either oral or written notification that the owner or operator may pay a fee in the amount that is not greater than half of the amount of the fee the towing company may normally charge for the immediate release of a motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, a motor vehicle is in the process of being towed when it is attached to the tow truck and at least two tires of the vehicle are off the ground.” BMC 4.32.130 provides that “For the towing of a vehicle, the maximum fee shall be one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135.00); fees for special treatment, including dollying, shall not exceed an additional twenty-five dollars ($25.00). In my case, my car was in the process of being towed. According to the code, they may charge me for a fee that is “not greater than half of the amount of the fee the towing company may normally charge”. However, they charged me $160, which is the maximum amount of fee they can charge according to the code. Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.140; Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2; Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4. BMC 4.32.140 provides that “A two business that tows a vehicle under this article shall accept payment for towing and storage fees pursuant to Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2.” Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2 provides that “A towing company or storage facility, upon receiving payment for all costs and fees assessed against a motor vehicle, shall provide an itemized receipt that includes the information described under IC 24-14-5 if the information is available.” Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4 provides that “Upon the owner’s or operator’s payment of the amount specified, the towing company shall: (1) release the motor vehicle to the owner or operator; and (2) give the owner or operator a receipt showing: (A) the full amount of the fee the towing company normally charges for the release of a motor vehicle; and (B) the amount of the fee paid by the owner or operator.” In my case, I was not given any sort of receipt. Therefore, they violated BMC 4.32.140; IC 24-14-7-2; IC 24-14-4-4. Conclusion: Stryker Towing unlawfully towed two ladies' car and also tried to tow my car and unlawfully charged me $160. They were also in violation of multiple Bloomington Municipal Codes and Indiana Codes.

Case Date:

2/20/2022

I’m suing the city