What's New |
 |
 |
||||||||||||
|
FROM DOCUMENT FORWARDED BY CORTEZ MATHEWS
"I ignore the text and reply to Gellia text in the group chat. Gerry text me again about 10 minutes later he claims that "he is not using his personal phone for business anymore" after realizing that I responded to Gellia’s text rather than his. Despite my confusion, I texted back 'if he ever does need to contact anyone regarding business to use the Group Chat so we all are on the same page.' " "Together with Bobby, Gerry, Gelela and I set up shelves in the lobby of the office. Once more concentrating on helping me, Gerry continued to touch/ make contact with my hands as I arranged the black tubes on the shelf. Given his weird comments I felt uncomfortable and asked him to stop touching me because of COVID." Click here REDACTED FROM JOHNSON RESPONSE It is around June 20 I had reported the sexual harassment by Cortez to Roth Staffing (Brooke Terrell) and Williams Lea company (onsite supervisor Christopher "Chris" Jenkins) . The sexual harassment had occurred around June 9. (JULY 15, 2022) - Click here FROM THE JOHNSON RESPONSE VIDEO "The document of Baby Cortez is an attachment, and it's not signed or dated, or addressed by Cortez. I'm not sure, it looks like he sent it to a mailbox called the mail room or the mailroom help mailbox at Activision. Looks like he's sent it there, but I was not sure who was on that mail room folder list, as to which employees were on it, whether it was Chris Jenkins or Bobby or Brian Smith. " Click here (TEXT MESSAGES) Brian Smith Chris Jenkins Click here
JULY 15 JOHNSON COMMENTARY "CORTEZ MATHEWS IS SCARY" "Employees should not be allowed to ask 'what is your sexual preference' in the workplace. Employees should not be allowed to tape record or video other employees without their permission". Click here
Video details unsanitary food conditions at Activision. Title: "The new video game and my response to the allegations"
 City Hall Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council Told of Housing Racism
https://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com/racism-at-1522-hi-point-st-90035/
Update April 16 2017- new links below
Parking worsens at Hi Point Faircrest Heights 90035
Los Angeles- That is why the city RAC regulations value parking at $200 per stall per month in this area if rent control parking is reduced or removed [if you can get the city corrupt HCIDLA to enforce and rule in the tenant's favor, which is like pulling all your teeth out at once] .
Who to contact for health and safety complaints
City Involvement in Unsafe Work Practices Recently a unit was sprayed during the course of resurfacing a sink. Neither the management company nor the owner nor the repairman explained to the tenants that the spraying was hazardous chemicals nor did they advise the tenant to leave the unit during the repairs. So the tenants were coughing, gagging, eyes watering, headache. We asked the maintenance and owner and code enforcement what hazardous chemicals were being used. No one has responded. Recently a tenant died in unit #17. He was Black. No one thought to ask was that tenant targeted or was the target another let’s say white tenant. No one answers those questions either. If you are naive, health and safety is not that important. We asked code enforcement, "You wouldn’t care if every tenant in there was harmed." Code enforcement did not answer.
Where's Walter?
Maintenance Ali Mozannar was spotted on the property today at about 3:30 p.m. In fact he exchanged greetings with the Blackman tenant. But Mozannar was here to see the resident manager, a White tenant. So another day passes and the Intercom is still unusable for the Black man, even though he continues to pay rent. How many Los Angeles white employees does it take to fix an intercom?
Tenant buyouts lead to protests and Mayor Eric Garcetti signs new laws
Mayor Eric Garcetti, attorney Michael Feuer, Rushmore Cervantes, and other city employees orchestrated the illegal buyouts and told property owners that they did not have to follow THP and Ellis rent control regulations. They need to show the tenants the money that they are owed. Then Garcetti, Feuer, and Cervantes need to be fired.
Intercom Apt 9 Still Not Repaired- Rent Reduction Not Offered to Tenants- 1522 Hi Point Apts at 90035- Discrimination Complaint Filed From: Tenant [Redacted] Sent: Tue 5/12/15 10:01 PM To: Hi LLC (walter.barratt@gmail.com); Cliff Renfrew (cliffrenfrew@gmail.com); Teri@DFEH Houston (teri.houston@dfeh.ca.gov); Zero Prefect (zprefect@housingrightscenter.org); Marilyn London (marilynlondonml@gmail.com); councilmember.wesson@lacity.org (councilmember.wesson@lacity.org); Ali Maintenance (amozannar@gmail.com); LAHD RSO (hcidla.rso@lacity.org); RSO Contact (hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org)
May 12 2015
Racism at 1522 Hi Point Apts* HCIDLA Code enforcement Garland Center 1200 West 7th Street, 1st Floor Los Angeles 90017 Hi Point Apts LLC Walter Barratt, Gianni Capaldi, and Cliff Renfrew 226 Carroll Canal Venice CA 90291-4578 Via Email Address and US Mail Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council City Clerk 200 N. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Via Email Address and US Mail Los Angeles Housing Department Rent Stabilization Division Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator Araceli Sophia Gonzalez, Supervisor Rushmore D. Cervantes, General Manager Javier Nunez Raymond D. Chan Frank Bush Jeffery J. Daar, Chairperson Tai Glenn, Vice Chairperson Jose Oliva Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman PittsPaula Leftwich Jane Paul Garland Center 1200 West 7th Street, 1st Floor Los Angeles 90017 Via Email Address and US Mail _________________________________________________________ Re: Intercom Still Not Fixed Dear Parties: "You may not intimidate or threaten any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by the Fair Housing laws." Summarized from the California Fair Employment and Housing Act website. Hi Point Apts LLC, and its agents and co-conspirators named herein, continue to engage in conduct that is "likely to mislead or deceive the consumer." California's Proposition 64, or section 17200 and 17500 Business and Professions Code. B&P C Section 17200 (and 17500) Standards for Deception. A tenant may display or post political signs in the window or on the door of premises leased by the tenant. CC section 1940.4(b). CC sections 1942.5, section 1942.6. The Apt 9 door entry system intercom is still not repaired; it has been in the non-working condition since before April 2014. I will not bore you with the numerous dates, emails, and letters that I have previously reported this to the owner, but owner Walter Barratt had actual and constructive knowledge that he intentionally installed intercoms in certain apartments and did not fix ours in apt 9, as well as he/employees/agents intentionally did not fix intercoms in units 10, 15, 18, 8, 6, and 5. In fact it was just reported again to him and Cliff April 28, 2015 about 1:00 p.m. and he and Cliff ignored inquiries about the intercom. So I have no choice but to contact all of you and maintenance person Ali Mozannar directly, and I am sure all of you have been aware of the intercom situation for a long time. This complaint to you is that our intercom needs to be fixed today. This may be a repeat of issues previously brought to your attention. Just yesterday about 6:30 p.m., Hi Point Apts LLC agent Marilyn London, said to me [ as I am a Black, African-American,] that she believed that persons such as myself should be denied a working intercom. FYI a DFEH complaint has been filed against Hi Point Apts LLC and the LAHCID. A primary renovation checklist is required for repairs to Apt 6 [six]. If no primary renovation list is on file with the city, I will file a complaint for unauthorized construction and claim for damages against the HCIDLA. I remind HCID that I moved out of stall #14 because I was threatened with eviction, and did not waive any rights of reduced housing services. If not for the city HCID support of the unlawful action of removal and the owner's unlawful discrimination and threat of illegal rent increase of $50, I would still be parked in stall #14, a tandem stall. I remind that the $50.00 parking rule was an unlawful rent increase prohibited by Rent Adjustment Regulations since the RSO does not authorize an increase of that nature in a rent control building. The RSD continues to be in violation of its own regulations. A tenant may display or post political signs in the window or on the door of premises leased by the tenant. CC section 1940.4(b). CC sections 1942.5, section 1942.6. "The covenant of quiet enjoyment requires a reasonable response by the landlord, which may include conducting an investigation...." Andrews v. Mobile Are Estates, 125 CA4th at 584, 597, 22 CR3d at 835, 845. I have received no response by the owner or his agents re inquiries about the intercom repairs. A response by email or phone call is not acceptable as a resolution. A response by first class mail is requested. All rights are reserved. Tenant [name redacted] 1522 Hi point Street Los Angeles, CA 90035 https://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com/racism-at-1522-hi-point-st-90035/ c: Mayor and Council thru email to council president Herb Wesson; DFEH; Housing Rights Center
Contact info: Hi Point Apts LLC Walter Barratt, Gianni Capaldi, and Cliff Renfrew 226 Carroll Canal Venice CA 90291-4578 Hi LLC Cliff Renfrew California Business Entity: 201406410177 Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council City Clerk 200 N. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Los Angeles Housing Department Rent Stabilization Division Rushmore D. Cervantes, General Manager Javier Nunez Raymond D. Chan Frank Bush Jeffery J. Daar, Chairperson Tai Glenn, Vice Chairperson Jose Oliva Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman PittsPaula Leftwich Jane Paul Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator Araceli Sophia Gonzalez, Supervisor Garland Center 1200 West 7th Street, 1st Floor Los Angeles 90017 Ali Mozannar, maintenance amozzanar@gmail.com 818-335-8175 Marilyn London, Resident Manager 818-813-2204 marilynlondonml@gmail.com Govt Code 815.6. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. [ref: Voting Registration and Voter Rights. Please vote in the next local election]
Intercom for Whites only* Building Permit A permit is required to build, remodel, repair, demolish, remove or move any building or structure. A separate permit is required for each separate building or structure. Examples of work that requires a permit: roofing, stucco, window, and door change-out, drywall replacement, installation of security bars, fire damage repairs, chimney repairs, and anchor bolting/bracing foundation (Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 91.106). examples of Unlawful discrimination unlawful housing discrimination can take a variety of forms. under California’s Fair employment and housing Act and unruh Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against any person because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, medical condition, or age in any of the following ways: Refusing to sell, rent, or lease. Refusing to negotiate for a sale, rental, or lease. Representing that housing is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when it is, in fact, available. otherwise denying or withholding housing accommodations. providing inferior housing terms, conditions, privileges, facilities, or services. harassing a person in connection with housing accommodations. Canceling or terminating a sale or rental agreement.
providing segregated or separated housing accommodations. Refusing to permit a person with a disability, at the person with a disability’s own expense, to make reasonable modifications to a rental unit that are necessary to allow the person with a disability "full enjoyment of the premises." As a condition of making the modifications, the landlord may require the person with a disability to enter into an agreement to restore the interior of the rental unit to its previous condition at the end of the tenancy (excluding reasonable wear and tear). Refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to allow a person with a disability "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling" (for example, refusing to allow a person with a disability’s companion or service dog).38
Tenant
*Based on the fact that as of the date of the email, 80% of the buildings whites had working intercoms, while 80% of the buildings Black/minority tenants did not have working intercoms. A DFEH complaint has been filed againts the building owner as well as against the City of Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. Los Angeles Housing LAMC regulations require a reduction in rent if a housing service is removed.
March 25, 2015
Board of Building and Safety Commissioners Department of Building and Safety Javier Nunez Raymond D. Chan Frank Bush HCIDLA Rent Adjustment Commission Jeffery J. Daar, Chairperson Tai Glenn, Vice Chairperson Jose Oliva Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane Paul Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator Araceli Sophia Gonzalezso P.O. Box 17340, Los Angeles, CA 90017-0340
Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council at al.:
Failure by Property Owner to Maintain and Repair Intercom System Request for Court Injunction and Rent Reduction This issue has been previously brought to the attention of the Mayor and Council, the rent control department HCID, and to the attention of the property owner Walter Barratt of Hi Point Apts LLC. There has not been a resolution.
Taken from an email to you HCID RSO August 24, 2014, "Based on a notice received April 25 2014 by tenants in apartment number nine, engineers were inspecting the door entry system at 1522 Hi Point Street. According to the complaint of the tenant, the door entry system has not been maintained and has not been fixed."
"Pursuant to the RAC (Regulations Adjustment Commission) section 413.01, in evaluating the amount of rent reduction that may be reasonable only compensated for the loss of the specific housing services, HCID will consider the extent to which the rent and housing service affects the tenant given rent and rent paid."
"Los Angeles municipal code section 151.02 defines Housing Services as services connected with the use of occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to, utilities (including light heat water and telephone) , ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance, including painting. This term shall also include the probation of elevator service, laundry facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities, janitor service, resident manager, Refuse removal, furnishings, food-service, parking and other benefits privileges or facilities. Chapter XV of the Los Angeles municipal code Rent Stabilization ordnance, effective in the city of Los Angeles, requires that where there is a reduction in housing services there must be a corresponding decrease and equal to the reduction in the monthly cost to the landlord of the service, divided by the number of units deprived of that service."
Key points:
* This is a racially motivated situation. * The City is requested to pay the effected tenants and seek a court lien against the 1522 Hi Point Street property for reimbursement treble damages. The municipal code permits the city to make payment to the tenants and seek a lien against the property. * Effected tenants are entitled to treble damages and a rent reduction from April 2014 forward * The intercom for apartments #9, 8, 6, 10, 15, 5, 18 remains un repaired even though city code enforcement has inspected the property numerous times since April 2014
* Rents paid by tenants with the un repaired intercom represent an illegal rent increase that has been sanctioned by city government officials under HCID and the Mayor’s office
The last illegal rent increase collected from affected tenants occurred on March 1, 2015.
Please make restitution today to the affected tenants and take legal action against the owner Walter Barratt and HI Point Apts LLC.
All rights reserved. I reserve the right to pursue this issue in a claim for damages against the city of Los Angeles based on new evidence of the illegal rent paid on March 1, 2015.
Sincerely,
Tenant [name redacted]
c: Select tenants, Housing Rights Center, employee Norman Koplin, HCIDLA, Code enforcement fromTenant Los Angeles, CA 90035
https://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com/racism-at-1522-hi-point-st-90035 Board of Building and Safety Commissioners Department of Building and Safety Javier Nunez Raymond D. Chan Frank Bush HCIDLA Rent Adjustment Commission Jeffery J. Daar Tai Glenn Jose Oliva Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane Paul Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator Araceli Sophia Gonzalezso P.O. Box 17340, Los Angeles, CA 90017-0340 Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council Hi Point Apts LLC Walter Barratt, Gianni Capaldi, and Cliff Renfrew 226 Carroll Canal Venice CA 90291-4578 Hi LLC amozzanar@gmail.com m818-335-8175 Marilyn London, Resident Manager 818-813-2204 marilynlondonml@gmail.com https://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com/racism-at-1522-hi-point-st-90035/
Complaint received October 19, 2014 by public entity City of Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. City assigned case number 496000 [against Hi Point Apts LLC at 1522 Hi Point Street 90035] Please note: in order to access the building and any unit please call the Manager London at 818-813-2204, the owner Barratt at 310-895-6693, the owner employee Renfrew at 310-339-4475, or maintenance Ali at 818-335-8175
"Your LAHCID has declared they will not investigate complaints at this property"
DEAR MAYOR GARCETTI AND ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: This complaint is to the LAHCID and yourselves: Rushmore Cervantes, Roberto Aldape, Domingo Sauceda, Roya Babazadeh, Anna Ortega. Your LAHCID has declared they will not investigate complaints at this property. I am therefore appealing also to the Mayor and Council and Manager of LADBS Raymond Chan and City Chief Inspector Luke Zamperini. Hi Point Apts LLC dba 1522 Hi Point St 90035 is owned by Walter Barratt and Gianni Capaldi.
"Code inspectors have been in the building on dates, including but not limited to, September 18 and October 16-17, but no inspection of the wiring for said apartments has occurred. " (1) Inadequate security (2) sustained deprivation of essential functions (3) On September 4 2014 the owner employee Cliff Renfrew entered the apartment no. 9 for smoke detector inspection; no inspection or repair of the door entry system was made. The door entry system is comprised of wiring apparatus inside the apartment as well as wiring apparatus at the front and rear doors to the building. No permits have been issued to my knowledge for these repairs. Door entry un repaired electrical wiring disconnected and/or abandoned and electrical service requires maintenance. On September 18 and October 16-17 code enforcement inspectors were in the building but did not inspect apt no. 9 door entry system wiring (4) wiring at the rear door and front door for the door entry system remains un repaired. Door entry un repaired electrical wiring disconnected and/or abandoned and electrical service requires maintenance. Apartments affected with abandoned electrical wiring: apts 9, 18, 10, 5, 15, 6, and 8. Code inspectors have been in the building on dates, including but not limited to, September 18 and October 16-17, but no inspection of the wiring for said apartments has occurred. The owner is aware of the wiring problems.
"...a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect ..."
LAHCID ignores these housing conditions to intentionally endanger the health and safety and quiet enjoyment of all tenants. "SUBSTANDARD HOUSING" 17920.3(a)(13); 17920.3 (d) and (i); pursuant to Government Code 815.6 and 815.2(a) and 815.3(a); 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 [injunctive, compensatory, and punitive damages]. I again request an inspection of this property. [ redacted] "Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty." GC 815.6. I remind you that a REAP request has been lodged against this property. This complaint is also being posted to website http://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com. [Editor note: subheadings do not appear in the original]
Los Angeles Slumlord? October 19 2014 Letter : [Mayor Eric Garcetti's Slum Landlord?]
To: Rent Adjustment Commission LAHCID Jeffery J. Daar, Chairperson Tai Glenn, Vice Chairperson Jose Oliva Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane Paul Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator P.O. Box 17340, Los Angeles, CA 90017-0340 Via Facsimile and Email LAHD.RSO@lacity.org
Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council c/o Mike Feuer The Office of the City Attorney 800 City Hall East 200 N. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Via FAX: (213) 978-8312
Dear Parties: The city government has not responded to my REAP complaint against this property. All rights reserved.
Lack of repaired door entry intercom system
I want to address here the lack of repaired door entry system. We are entitled to a rent reduction because the door entry intercom system has not been repaired to.... Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections "substandard housing" 17920.3(a)(13) and17920.3(d). This also affects about six other apartments in the building who also have defective wiring re the intercom door entry. Door entry "un repaired electrical wiring disconnected and/or abandoned and electrical service requires maintenance."
By enactment, the employees of the HCID and rent control have the duty to investigate illegal rent increases and illegal reduction of services; the lack of door entry system falls under the jurisdiction of the RAC since the door entry system came with the apartment when I became a tenant ….; the rental agreement Feb 2010 forwarded to RAC does not indicate that the door entry system and wiring was not in working order.
"we are entitled to treble damages"
The current owner of the building Walter Barratt and employees around April 28 2014 disconnected the door entry system and installed new entry systems in select apartments. Our apt …...did not receive repairs or upgrade. We have been denied a housing service freely afforded to others. We have continued to pay the full rent May, June, July, August, September, October 2014 without receiving a rent reduction from the owner. As the owner has not complied with the RSO, we are entitled to treble damages.
"such health and safety we are denied"
The door entry system and intercom is also for the purpose of health and safety, such health and safety we are denied. I make reference to letters on file with LAHCID. I was able to secure copies of these letters by using a public open records act request. None of these letters were shared with me by the property owner or LAHCID investigators at the time they were sent to HCID.
First, …. it appears this unit was at one time the manager's unit because it has a slot in the door for mail. When I moved in, the intercom was working because a number of times it rang from people buzzing outside the front door. I recall the manager at the time shortly thereafter had it disconnected because others were being disturbed. I recall that each unit could have been disconnected separately. Second, after reading the records request 2014 Jul 23 with July 22 and Jul 29 letters from the owner and other tenants, and August 4 from Cliff Renfrew, the tenants in #8 and #11 could only testify to their own unit, not mine. The tenant in apt 11 moved in December 2010, which was 10 months after my move in Feb 2010. So she could not have been a witness to my apartment. And owner Walter Barratt and Cliff Renfrew also could not have been a witness to what occurred in Feb 2010 to my apartment.
"the owner installed new intercoms in select apartments but did not fix ours"
Third, around March 2014 I was told to contact either the owner and/or maintenance for general repairs the unit; on or around April 28 the owner's maintenance engineers inspected my unit.... and they were told we would like the door entry fixed. After that the owner installed new intercoms in select apartments but did not fix ours. It is quite bad faith for the owner to claim in the Jul 23 email "our maintenance manager has not received any requests to repair the system" while at the same time he knew that his employees were installing new units, proving they were aware a housing service was being denied. Nevertheless, the owner has received numerous emails and letters from me since April 2014 about the door entry system.
"he started refurbishing the building without the proper permits and numerous tenants complained"
Fourth, in the August 4 letter Renfrew states, "As we got to know our tenants and started refurbishing the building we continued to post all our notices to inform them about what was happening while answering any repair request that they might have had." Actually there were very few notices from the owner and he had no in person contact with me whatsoever until he wanted me to move my car out of a tandem spot by threat of a 30 day notice. It is true he started refurbishing the building without the proper permits and numerous tenants complained that routine repairs were not being done. Stop work orders were issued April 14 and August 6 after the owner had proceeded with repairs without the proper permits; this occurred because tenants made complaints to code enforcement.
"simply unlawful retaliation because I complained"
Renfrew states, "We could not do this with [tenant name redacted] however as he instructed us not to contact him while he went about snowballing everyone and anyone with various erroneous allegations against us." I disagree with Mr. Renfrew as his statement are simply unlawful retaliation because I complained of RSO and health and safety problems at the property; if he thinks I have made "erroneous" allegations, neither he nor his lawyer have brought them to my attention. Mr. Renfrew and Mr. Barratt are at the property numerous times week after week, and they know I live there, but other than an argument about the mailbox and the parking, I have never had any other conversations about RSO or health and safety violations.
Renfrew and Barratt refuse to respond. I never told Mr. Renfrew or Mr. Barrett not to contact me so that statement by them is a misrepresentation. I did however exercise my right under state law to refuse to give them permission to use my email address to contact me; [my email address is my personal property] I simply asked them, as I have done repeatedly, to contact me by first class mail or by leaving a letter at my apartment door; if Barrett or Renfrew had the ability to do that, they certainly would have done it rather than erroneously represent to rent control that I told them not to contact me. The numerous emails of which were copied to the owners and of which rent control has evidence are indication that I certainly have tried to communicate with the owners rather than go to outside channels.
"we are owed treble damages rent reduction"
Yes, I would like to have the door entry system to our apt repaired. Barratt knows that his decision not to repair the unit is intentional. Part of our rent goes towards maintenance of the unit. We are owed treble damages rent reduction, which is under the jurisdiction of HCID. Thus damages are owed from April 2014 to current, with such damages and treble owed to all tenants similarly situation (about 6 other tenants).
["Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty." GC 815.6.].
[The tenant.]
* HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 17920-17928 17920.3 (a)(13) General dilapidation or improper maintenance. 17920.3 (d) (d) All wiring, except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. 17920.3 (i) All materials of construction, except those that are specifically allowed or approved by this code, and that have been adequately maintained in good and safe condition. 17920.3(k) Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Code.
"un repaired electrical wiring disconnected and/or abandoned and electrical service requires maintenance."
[Editor's note: portions of this letter have been redacted. Also, subheadings do not appear in the original. And based on documents released to Congressperson Karen Bass.] Substandard Housing Conditions RAC and HCIDLA Walter Barratt and Cliff Renfrew illegal rent increase tandem parking stall door entry intercom system bad faith LADBS code enforcement Attorney Mike Feuer; Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council RAC members Jeffery J. Daar, Chairperson Tai Glenn, Vice Chairperson, Jose Oliva, Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman Pitts, Paula Leftwich, Jane Paul. Raymond Chan and City Chief Inspector Luke Zamperini Walter Barratt and Gianni Capaldi REAP un repaired electrical wiring GC 815.6 Rent Adjustment Commission health and safety refurbishing the building without the proper permits unlawful retaliation Renfrew and Barratt refuse to respond treble damages public entity is liable for an injury inadequate maintenance Luke Zamperini Mayor Eric garcetti housing service Hi Point Apts LLC 90035 800 City Hall East public entity mandatory duty City of Los Angeles slumlord Mike Feuer city attorney public official slum landlord illegal rent increase reduction in parking unlawful retaliation LAHD Armida Olguin-Flores Does Los Angeles Rent Control favor the rich over the poor? As seen on Facebook re Damage claim:
Damage claim against City of Los Angeles Government: A damage claim has been filed naming code enforcement, rent control board, Los Angeles Housing department, Westside Rentals, and Hi Point Apts LLC. The complaint asks for "LAMC section 151.09.A.2(c) prevents landlords from unilaterally without written consent changing the terms of tenancy and if reducing services the landlord must make a corresponding decrease in the rent; 1522 has not made a rent reduction for reducing the parking of certain tenants; failing to repair the intercom system, failing to provide a resident manager, and charging new tenants $100 for utilities without reducing the rent of older tenants who pay the utilities as part of their rent but with shared utilities and no separate utility meters per apartment;" "That the City should seek to access appropriate restitution and order disgorgement of unlawful gain acquired by Hi Point Apts LLC as a result of their false, misleading, unfair advertising and actions, for the benefit and protection of the consuming public.", and "Complaint for injunction, civil penalties, and other equitable relief against Hi Point Apts LLC by the city of Los Angeles district attorney for untrue or misleading representations under Business and Professions code section 17500; unfair business practice under Business and Professions code section 17200, against Hi Point Apts LLC, owner Walter Barratt at 226 Carroll Canal, Venice, CA."
RENT CONTROL ALERT:
The Los Angeles City council thru council person Herb Wesson has received a complaint against 1522 Hi Point Apts LLC. The complaint dated Jul 5 is on behalf of all tenants similarly situated and asks for a determination of rent reduction since the owner recently took away 2 car parking from some tenants but without written consent, there is no onsite manager as required by the fire safety code, utilities are shared but the owner refuses to detail who pays what without separate meters, and the owner maintains a separate standard of providing intercom systems only for the "well-connected" tenants. Those poorer tenants paying less rent do not get intercom service. Section 410 of the Rent Adjustment commission requires the following monthly rent reductions including loss of onsite manager at $20-30 per month; loss of parking at $60-200 per month, etc. The owner Walter Barratt at Hi Point Apts LLC also maintains he can charge new tenants $100 per month for utilities [A whopping $1200 per year] when the rent control maximum is 2% per year [$1500 per month rent would equal increase of $360 per year.] Barratt is gouging tenants $1200 without informing tenants that there is no separate meters and utilities are shared and that he may be getting a rebate for certain utilities. "If the utility meter for your rental unit is shared with another unit or another part of the building, then the landlord must reach an agreement with you on who will pay for the shared utilities. This agreement must be in writing (it can be part of the rental agreement or lease), and can consist of one of the following options: The landlord can pay for the utilities provided through the meter for your rental unit by placing the utilities in the landlord's name; The landlord can have the utilities in the area outside your rental unit put on a separate meter in the landlord's name; or you can agree to pay for the utilities provided through the meter for your rental unit to areas outside your rental unit." CA DCA; California Code 1940.9. The owner Walter Barratt has not talked to tenants about these options required under the law. In addition to the reduction in rent, affected tenants may also seek treble damages under California consumer law. Tenants at 1522 Hi Point St 90035 may wish to contact legal aid or rent control.
Rent control plays $$$ favorites so be forewarned.
For more info call rent control at 1-866-557-RENT LOS ANGELES RENT CONTROL: Does Rent Control only speak for the well connected and not the low income? Is a low income person entitled to the same protection under the law? At 1522 Hi Point Street 90035 (1) there has been no resident manager since mid March, (2) select tenants were threatened with eviction if they did not remove a second car from the parking lot or pay $50, a breach of the rental agreement, while those tenants with the same one bedroom but paying more rent would get two car parking included in the rent but the owner never offered a rent reduction to the affected tenants, (3) the low income tenants get a broken intercom while the tenants paying more rent get a working intercom. The rent control ordinance requires a rent reduction for all these areas. So why does not rent control act on behalf of the low income tenants? Why does Hi Point Apts LLC Walter Barratt, Cliff Renfrew, and Tom Hunter not have to follow rent control laws? Stay tuned.
As told to Congressperson Karen Bass July 27 2014:
July 27 letter to rent control Armida Flores: The March 27 2014 letter from Hi Point Apts LLC employee Cliff Renfrew advises that the [resident] building manager "has vacated his apartment and we are currently looking for a replacement." Please advise the building owner of the required reductions in rent for all applicable tenants, for the time period March thru July, and copy me. [from a tenant]
Dear Los Angeles RSO Armida Flores:
Please answer the following questions:
Does the Los Angeles rent control ordinance [LAMC section 151.09 etc. ] require a reduction in rent after a reduction of housing services? Yes or No.
Is parking at apartment building 1522 Hi Point Street [90035] a "housing service"? Yes or No.
Was I at 1522 Hi Point Street receiving a housing service of a tandem two car stall #14 in 2014? Yes or No.
Did Hi Point Apts owner ask me to move from the #14 two car stall to #8, a one car stall? Yes or No.
Was the housing service received by me reduced from a two car stall to a one car stall? Yes or No.
Has the Los Angeles Rent Control board informed the owner of Hi Point Apts to make a reduction in my rent based on a reduction in parking stalls? Yes or No.
Signed, The tenant July 27 2014 Letter via email
AUGUST 17 RENT CONTROL UPDATE RE CITY ATTORNEY LOS ANGELES
City LA Attorney Asked to Crack Down on Owner of Hi Point Apts LLC
The Los Angeles City attorney Mike Feuer has been asked via fax dated August 10 2014 to order a local apartment owner to follow the rent control laws and pay tenants the correct relocation amounts. Owner Walter Barratt of Hi Point Apartments LLC, 1522 Hi Point Street 90035, maintained he could offer relocating tenants $3500 but the rent control ordinance requires payment of $7600 to $19,000 if a tenant's unit is being renovated. Barratt has refused to make the payments. The city attorney has been asked to protect the rights of tenants after rent control board and the Housing Department refused to help. Barratt could also be liable for $57,000 per affected tenant as treble damages . What will the city attorney do?
Federal Judges Remove Hyundai Documents from the Record Class Action Update Over Hyundai False MPG Claims Five videos have posted (excerpts below:) "All about court documents filed against Hyundai Motor America and then removed from the public record. What does Hyundai have to hide? Information also on the court class actions against Hyundai Motor America. Based on Los Angeles Central District Court case CV13-2264 FMO (MRWx) and documents filed onto the PACER SYSTEM ("Public access to court electronic records.")
"Federal Judges remove Hyundai documents from public view.” Click link to see video:
Part II
"What is it that two federal judges and perhaps others do not want the public to know about Hyundai?" Click link to video:
"Certainly the judges involved know what a car is and know what a Hyundai is and know what a warranty is. So we will not attempt here to guess at the Judge's motivation." Click link to see video: Part IV "Google "Hyundai Refusal to Do Repairs" and the result is 24,200,00 million sites. Google "Hyundai Problems" and see the Edmunds site with 15 pages talking about the Hyundai Owners sudden acceleration problems ." Click link to see Video: Part V "How long has it been that Hyundai and its dealers refuse service to Blackman and his vehicle. Over ten months." "Why would two federal judges not want you the public to know this?" Click on video link below:
Third Response to Wolfe- Re: I/M/O Robert J. Johnson, an Incapacitated Person Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:37 PM From: [Next of Kin] To: Kevin.Wolfe@judiciary.state.nj.us Cc: Glenn.Grant@judiciary.state.nj.us, Jane.Castner@judiciary.state.nj.us, Jennifer.Perez@judiciary.state.nj.us, "James Boutillier" Dear Kevin: I quote from the "Judicial Conduct" of the New Jersey Superior Court Website. As you know I have asked Judge Koprowski to recuse himself from the case based on his bias towards me. From Judicial Conduct Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (4) A judge should be impartial and should not discriminate because of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, language, marital status, socioeconomic status, or disability. (6) A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. A judge, however, may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to or the subject matter of a proceeding if the judge gives notice to the parties of the person to beconsulted and the nature of the advice, and affords the parties reasonable opportunity to participate and to respond. B. Administrative Responsibilities. (1) A judge should diligently discharge the administrative responsibilities of the officewithout bias or prejudice, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials. (2) A judge should require staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties. From Rules of Court 4:6-1. When Presented * (a) Time; Presentation. Except as otherwise provided by Rules 4:7-5(c) (crossclaims), 4:8-1(b) (third-party joinder), 4:9-1 (answer to amended complaint), and 4:64-1(i) (governmental answer in foreclosure actions), the defendant shall serve an answer, including therein any counterclaim, within 35 days after service of the summons and complaint on that defendant. If service is made as provided by court order, pursuant to R. 4:4-4(b)(3), the time for service of the answer may be specified therein. Service of the answer shall be complete as provided by R. 1:5-4. A party served with a pleading stating a counterclaim or crossclaim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within 35 days after the service upon that party. A reply to an answer, where permitted, shall be served within 20 days after service of the answer. Kevin: Neither Vanessa D. Taylor nor her lawyer EVER served the complaint July 2009 on me thus the tolling of the 35 days never occurred but of course Judge Koprowski considered the Complaint by the Guardian anyway. Seems the rules apply to some but not others. If the tolling never began, then my papers would still be timely to be filed. ****************************************************************************** Dear Kevin: The Judge by holding onto papers marked to be filed has clearly discriminated against me based on my socioeconomic status in that I am a pro se. The Judge by not submitting the filed papers from me and/or by not returning them to me has denied me full right to be heard according to law. The Judge and staff has not diligently discharged administrative responsibilities, and has acted with bias and prejudice towards me. If a person comes to the filing window at the Surrogate's office, or the Judge's courtroom, and they have papers to be filed, I presume they are told immediately when they get to the clerk or window if their papers do not conform or are lacking the filing fee. I forwarded papers for filing July 2009 and August 2009, as well as August 2010, September 2010, and November 2010. Even though I brought it to Judge and staff's attention and Surrogate's attention in November 2010 that I had not received conformed copies, I was never told by the Judge or staff or Surrogate's office immediately that any documents had not been filed. So how do you account for the double standard here, Kevin? What is the time frame your employees are expected to follow for the return of documents not filed? How many people does this happen to in New Jersey court who present documents for filing? Is this practice only directed at Blacks, at Jews, at people acting in pro per? Kevin, how do you explain this misconduct and judicial misconduct and discrimination of Judge Walter Koprowski and others? Please report the misconduct of Judge Joseph P. Brennan Judge Koprowski and let me know you have done so. [Next of Kin] c: Judge Walter Koprowski --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Kevin.Wolfe@judiciary.state.nj.us From: Kevin.Wolfe@judiciary.state.nj.us Subject: I/M/O Robert J. Johnson, an Incapacitated Person To: [Next of Kin] Cc: Glenn.Grant@judiciary.state.nj.us, Jane.Castner@judiciary.state.nj.us, Jennifer.Perez@judiciary.state.nj.us Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 8:52 AM Your e-mail to Judge Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D, Acting Administrative Director of New Jersey Courts, and Jane F. Castner, Esq., Assistant Director has been forwarded to me for response. Surrogates are Deputy Superior Court Clerks for the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part. Court Rule 4:83-2. As clerks, Surrogates accept and file all Probate Part pleadings. Court Rule 1:5-6(c) authorizes clerks to return nonconforming papers. If a document, which conforms to the Court Rules along with the proper filing fee, a copy of the document and a stamped self-addressed envelop, is received, then the clerk will return a filed copy of the document. Generally, “pro se” (self-represented) litigants are held to the same standards of professional responsibility as trained attorneys. It is a pro se litigant’s responsibility to become familiar with and to comply with the Court Rules which set forth the general procedural requirements for litigating cases in New Jersey's state courts, including the Probate Part. Probate Part pleadings and practice must conform to the Rules Governing the Courts of New Jersey in General Part 1, Rules of General Application, and Part IV, Rules Governing Civil Practice in the Superior Court and Surrogate’s Court. The Court Rules authorize Probate Part parties-in-interest to file, in response to a verified complaint and order to show cause, an answer, answering affidavit or motion. Rule 4:67-4. The filing fee for an answering pleading or other answering papers, i.e., any first paper filed by anyone other than the plaintiff, in a Probate Part action is $110.00. N.J.S.A. 22A:2-30. Typically, the motion contemplated by Rule 4:67 is directed to the challenging the appropriateness of proceeding by way of summary action (which is not an issue in the Probate Part, see infra). Generally, a motion seeking independent affirmative relief (akin to a counterclaim or crossclaim) is not an acceptable probate practice response to a verified complaint. All probate actions are summary actions, Rule 4:83-1, and therefore any new relief, i.e., your claim that Vanessa D. Taylor should be sanctioned $500,000, must be initiated by a verified complaint and order to show cause. The filing fee for the first paper (typically a verified complaint) in the Probate Part action is $175.00. N.J.S.A. 22A:2-30. The Court will not, as you suggest, use its “inherent authority to bring a motion on its own and grant sanctions.” You must file the proper pleadings to place such an issue before the court. It is not clear to me that your letters and motions should be made part of the court's docket for the above stated reasons. I am confident that Judge Koprowski will, at some appropriate time, instruct the Surrogate’s office which of your submissions he views as substantially conforming to the Court Rules that they should be retained as part of the Court’s official case docket. Finally, Judge Koprowski's suggestion that you seek the advice of a New Jersey licensed attorney is well founded. Probate Part practice can be complex and perplexing for those who do not frequently litigate in it. Kevin M. Wolfe, Esq. AOC Civil Practice Division Tele: 609-292-8470 E-mail: Kevin.Wolfe@judiciary.state.nj.us and Incompetence of the Guardian and Malpractice of the attorneys Yahoo! Mail My Second Response to the Jan 31 Annual Report re IMO Robert Johnson [redacted] Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:05 PM From: Next of Kin To: "Vanessa D Taylor" "Lawrence Meyerson" Cc: "Vernell Johnson" Charles Floyd" 1. The report indicates that Vanessa's attorney says Robert Johnson may owe federal taxes. Attached to the report is a notice of a possible state tax audit. Does Robert Johnson owe state as well as federal taxes or returns? 2. The debacle of the contents of the annual report is exactly why there is justification for me receiving a bi-weekly or monthly report from the guardian.In that way while others have PROVEN that do not act in the ward's best interests, at least I can be the one who will attempt to get the guardian fraud under control and truly act in the ward's best interest. 3. NEGLECT OF GUARDIAN AND OTHERS TO DETERMINE WARD'S TAX STATUS I just don't believe that these actions/inactions of the guardian occur by accident. They seem well planned. I could understand if the guardian forgot to do something and she was acting on her own and it occurred over a 2 month period. But these are actions that occur over 12 month period. This guardian is supposedly a college educated person, has a business and pays estimated taxes quarterly, and is surrounded by three attorneys and a real estate broker and host of other people (Helen Dodick and APS for example) and this contract of sale still doesn't come out right. It is incredible to think that all these people involved could have done this by accident. The property has not been sold, without waiving my objections to the sale to others, but from the accounting there sure are a lot of people who have benefited financially from the ward's estate. Even a homeless person would know [seller's disclosure statement New Jersey] that when selling a property one would first check to see if any taxes are owed or possibility of a liens. The guardian had access since October 2009 (14 months or more ago) to the ward's mail and his tax papers. Other than pure unmitigated inability and neglect of duties and real estate fraud, how does the Guardian not investigate the ward's tax status from October 2009 to January 2011? September 8 2010 Vanessa Taylor makes an affidavit submitted by her lawyer Shawnda Floyd and served upon the court, Mr. Boutillier, Mr. Meyerson. There is no mention of the tax returns due, no mention that the $36,000 203k loan is not mentioned in the proposed contract of sale, no mention that the contract does not spell out that it is subject to court approval. Attorney Floyd and Taylor present an affidavit from Samuel Pica September 8 2010 where he states "initial contract requires...buyer obtaining a FHA 203k loan of up to $36,000 over the purchase price." There is no mention of the tax returns due, no mention that the $36,000 203k loan is not mentioned in the proposed contract of sale, no mention that the contract does not spell out that it is subject to court approval. December 8 2010 Floyd files and serves another statement and mentions a future "HUD1 Settlement Statement". I believe that if this will be a HUD property, then the Guardian is obligated under HUD regulation to respond to my offer to purchase the property or face a HUD discrimination claim. December 8 Floyd mentions the Aug 30 email of Taylor which states , "There are no other assets I am personally aware of." No mention of the pension monies going to Vernell Johnson from the ward.There is no mention of the tax returns due, no mention that the $36,000 203k loan is not mentioned in the proposed contract of sale, no mention that the contract does not spell out that it is subject to court approval. There is the September 7 2010 email from Taylor and There is no mention of the tax returns due, no mention that the $36,000 203k loan is not mentioned in the proposed contract of sale, no mention that the contract does not spell out that it is subject to court approval. Attorney Floyd states, quite erroneously due to the Jan 31 report, "bills remain unpaid". Why would Floyd lie about the bills? The guardian's substantial neglect of duty from October 2009 to now and continuing; for that time period Vanessa perpetrated fraud on the court, on next of kin, and on prospective property buyers like myself. The fraud has not occurred by accident. 4. THE WARD'S MEDICAL CARE AND CONDITION I can't tell from the annual report what exact ailments the ward is suffering from. From the time Vanessa took over as Guardian I have no information on his ailments. I have no information that the treatment he receives at the nursing home has made his conditions better or worse. It is my conclusion he is well enough to return home with in home care.I have offered my assistance to Vanessa and she has rebuked it at every turn. She wants to eat her cake and have it too. 5. THE REPORT ON THE WARD'S RESIDENCE IS VAGUE AND LACKING IN SPECIFICITY I can't tell from the annual report what exact ailments the ward is suffering from. From the time Vanessa took over a s Guardian I have no information on his ailments. I have no information that the treatment he receives at the nursing home has made his conditions better or worse. It is my conclusion he is well enough to return home with in home care.I have offered my assistance to Vanessa and she has rebuked it at every turn. She wants to eat her cake and have it too. As always, a response is requested. [Signed] Next of Kin Intended Beneficiary c: Judge Walter Koprowski APS Robert Johnson Attorney Ethics Committee Received May 5 2011 by the Committee [Redacted and attachments not included] [This is a public document] [Sent by USPS delivery confirmation 420 07102 9101 0105 2129 7953 3885 85] [Received by committee May 5, 2011] To: Seth Ptasiewicz, Esq. Secretary HALL OF RECORDS 465 MARTIN Luther King Jr Blvd Room 308 Newark NJ 07102 From: Name: DISTRICT ETHICS COMMITTEE NJ Date Sent: MAY 2, 2011 CC: Phone: Number of Pages: Fourteen Fax: 973-622-6115 and USPS Mail Via US Mail Message: Via Facsimile and Priority Mail Re: Attorney Ethics Complaint against James Boutillier and Brandley, Kleppe, O’Conner & Boutillier, LLP; Lawrence N. Meyerson, Shawnda Floyd; Ethics Committee members Andrew Epstein, Peter A. Gaudioso, Seth Plasiewicz, A. Richard Ross, Jeffrey Wachtlar, Todd R. Conn, Mark S. Winter, Steven R. Irwin, Joshua D. Sanders, Nancy Issacson, Steven D. Minion, Marcella Matos Wilson, Maurice Brown, David S. Wu, Richard R. Silverlieb, Todd R. Cohn, Peter J. Gallagher, Steven L. Schepps, Joseph L. Schwartz, Richard F. Ricci, Mark S. Winter, Alix R. Rubin, Christopher D. Adams, Gabrielle N. Gallagher, Lenore M. Imhof, Diego P. Milara, Dina M. Vanides, Robert J. Candido, Steven R. Irwin, Peter L. Davidson, David W. Field, Jeannet E. Pavez, Joshua H. Raymond, Kevin G. Walsh, Traci A. Zalinski, Christopher Perez, Avion N. Benjamin, Cherylk H. Burstein, Nancy Issacson, David J. Zirrith, Joseph A. DeFuria, Bruce R. Barnhard, Frederic V. Goode, Harris S. Nydick, Kristin Kucsman. Dear Committee: I am in receipt of the March 14 2011 letter from the office of the New Jersey Attorney General Division of Criminal Justice in which they instruct your committee to investigate Vanessa D. Taylor, Shawnda Floyd, James Boutillier, Lawrence N. Meyerson, and Judge Walter Koprowski. I ask again that you institute disbarment proceedings against James Boutillier, Shawnda Floyd, and Lawrence N. Meyerson. This complaint is against them as well as all Ethics Committee members listed. RPC 8.4. Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or other law; (g) engage, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination (except employment discrimination unless resulting in a final agency or judicial determination) because of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, language, marital status, socioeconomic status, or handicap where the conduct is intended or likely to cause harm. 1.1 Competence A lawyer shall not: (a) Handle or neglect a matter entrusted to the lawyer in such manner that the lawyer's conduct constitutes gross negligence. (b) Exhibit a pattern of negligence or neglect in the lawyer's handling of legal matters generally. RPC 1.3. Diligence A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. RPC 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others ・ In representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: ・ make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or ・ fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client. ・ The duties stated in this Rule apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6 RPC 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal ・ A lawyer shall not knowingly: ・ make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; ・ fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting an illegal, criminal or fraudulent act by the client; ・ fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; ・ offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures; or ・ fail to disclose to the tribunal a material fact knowing that the omission is reasonably certain to mislead the tribunal, except that it shall not be a breach of this rule if the disclosure is protected by a recognized privilege or is otherwise prohibited by law. ・ The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6. ・ A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. ・ In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. Note: Adopted July 12, 1984 to be effective September 10, 1984; paragraph (a) amended November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004. RPC 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel A lawyer shall not: ・ unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value, or counsel or assist another person to do any such act; ・ falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; ・ knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; ・ in pretrial procedure make frivolous discovery requests or fail to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests by an opposing party; ・ in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or ・ request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless: ・ the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and ・ the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information. ・ present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter. Note: Adopted July 12, 1984, to be effective September 10, 1984; paragraph (g) adopted July 18, 1990, to be effective September 4, 1990. RPC 3.5. Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal A lawyer shall not: ・ seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law; ・ communicate ex parte with such a person except as permitted by law; or ・ engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. RPC 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct ・ A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. ・ A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. The January 31 2011 annual report presented by Vanessa D. Taylor, easily proven, is misconduct on the part of Shawnda Floyd (attorney for Vanessa D. Taylor); Lawrence N. Meyerson, James Boutillier in that the report shows as written to Boutillier, Meyerson, Floyd and Judge Walter Koprowski: The report fails to mention information I was entitled to about 3 months ago (on Jan. 31): 1. About $400 per month of the estate that goes to Vernell Johnson. As such the report is fraudulent concealment and concealment of evidence. RPC. 2. The lien I have against the property of Robert Johnson. 3. Anticipated medical and dental treatment of the ward with specificity. (In not revealing the medical and dental treatment, the report is evidence that the ward is not receiving any medical and dental treatment at the Woodlands); 4. About $2500 in unaccounted for miscellaneous expenses. If I assume you [Taylor] continue to personally enrich yourself in such manner, over a 20 year period ($2500 x 20) you would have improperly dissipated the estate by $50,000. Again, I remind you that as beneficiary of the estate I have the right to question your accounting. 5. Over two and half months and still no word on the tax returns and tax liability. If you failed to file tax returns on time on behalf of the ward, I believe that you, not the ward, is personally responsible for that indebtedness. In violation RPC stated herein but especially RPC 4.1 and 4.4, all actions by said attorneys easily proven and their actions of violating RPC stated herein constitute a substantial threat of imminent harm to the public. In addition for a December 17 2010 hearing in case CP-0136-2009, Boutillier, Meyerson, Floyd showed incompetence in failing to file a response/opposition that complied with local rules of court (state the rules). For a Jan 13 2011 filed document (name it) Meyerson, Floyd, Boutillier filed no response/opposition whatsoever easily proving their incompetence under RPC 1.1 . Floyd, Meyerson, Boutillier have filed and served attorney fee statements in violation of rules of court in that they did not file any opposition to the relief requested in the December 17 2010 heard motion nor did they file an opposition to the Jan 13 2011 filed motion therefore they were not entitled to an award of fees; such attorney fees the court had already ruled Feb 3 2010 Order would be paid out of the estate of the ward, and for the Dec. 17 hearing and Jan 13 complaint the three were not entitled to attorney fees since they filed no opposition. The presentation of such fees are prohibited under RPC 8.4 sections a-g in that Meyerson and Boutillier wrote letters to the Judge Walter Koprowski that improperly influenced the Judge to grant attorney fees in an order March 28 2011, such attorney fees that were not authorized under N.J. local rules 1:4-8(1), 1:5-6 ( c ) and (d) Filing; 4:83-2, 4:5-3 Answer; 1:04(a); 4:5-5 Failure to Deny; 1:6-1, 1:6-2. In addition Meyerson, Boutillier, Floyd with Vanessa D. Taylor presented a fraudulent contract of sale for residential property in which they alleged the property was being sold “as is” but contradicted that by offering a blank check of over $36,000 for repair credit to the proposed buyer, attorney Savio Figaro. Meyerson, Floyd, Taylor, Boutillier and Judge Walter Koprowski have not responded to my requests for corrections to the Annual Report filed by the guardian Vanessa D. Taylor in January 2011. All parties have conspired to get paid for two hearings/complaints that they did not file an opposition to; they are not entitled to attorney fees for not even doing any work. What a racket. Committee members stated herein have engaged in Misconduct RPC 8.4 in not taking action against Boutillier, Floyd, and Meyerson under RPC 8.3, and Meyerson Floyd Boutillier for not taking action and reporting Judge Walter Koprowski under RPC 8.3; for violation rules1.1, RPC 1.3; 8.4 and as stated herein. All facts stated herein are easily proven. The in equal treatment of me is shown in Meyerson’s letters in that he writes me by regular mail while others are contacted by cc by fax or email (“immediately”). The parties cannot claim attorney fees as estoppel of the Feb 3 2010 ruling which said attorney fees would be paid out of the estate of the ward; in addition a previous request for sanctions against me was denied by the court and this also acts as estoppel. Taylor, Meyerson, Boutillier have presented their attorney fees in violation of the RPC herein. As evidence I attach letters dated January 2011 from Lawrence N. Meyerson, February 8 2011 from Meyerson, March 21 2011 from James Boutillier. The letters show that all parties (joined by Floyd and Taylor in letters to be presented) sought sanctions but did not in any way comply with local rules on requesting sanctions nor did they comply with local rules on requesting sanctions for abuse of process. Even the judge offered no specific word or phrase or sentence which he found objectionable. It is a lynch mob mentality of Floyd, Meyerson, Boutillier, and Taylor. “The facts alleged present a substantial threat of imminent harm to the public. “ In New Jersey, a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not only a basis for the imposition of attorney discipline, it is also evidence of legal malpractice. , Baxt v. Liloia, 155 N.J. 190, 199-201 (1998) . The mere possibility of such a conflict at the outset of the relationship is sufficient to establish an ethical breach on the part of the attorney." In Re Buscavage, N.J. App. Div. No. A-6041-08AT3 (Aug. 25, 2010). Sincerely, [Signed by Next of Kin] for attorney of Vanessa D. Taylor of the Taylor Group of Manalapan New Jersey [Redacted; actual audio tape available] [This is a public document] FOR VOICEMAIL LEFT May 5 2011 W Boutillier, Floyd, Meyerson Floyd 732-489-1070 Meyerson 201-802-9202 Boutillier 973-226-0526 This message is being left May 5 2011 to James Boutillier, Lawrence N. Myerson and Shawnda Floyd, attorney for Vanessa D. Taylor. Shawdna Floyd’s number is 732-489-1070. This is [next of kin] at [phone number]. The January 31 2011 annual report presented by Vanessa D. Taylor, easily proven, is incompetence and misconduct on the part of Shawnda Floyd (attorney for Vanessa D. Taylor); Lawrence N. Meyerson, James Boutillier in that the report shows as written to Boutillier, Meyerson, Floyd and Judge Walter Koprowski: The report fails to mention information I was entitled to about 3 months ago (on Jan. 31): 1. About $400 per month of the estate that goes to Vernell Johnson. As such the report is fraudulent concealment and concealment of evidence. RPC. 2. The lien I have against the property of Robert Johnson. 3. Anticipated medical and dental treatment of the ward with specificity. (In not revealing the medical and dental treatment, the report is evidence that the ward is not receiving any medical and dental treatment at the Woodlands); 4. About $2500 in unaccounted for miscellaneous expenses. If I assume you [Taylor] continue to personally enrich yourself in such manner, over a 20 year period ($2500 x 20) you would have improperly dissipated the estate by $50,000. Again, I remind you that as beneficiary of the estate I have the right to question your accounting. 5. Over two and half months and still no word on the tax returns and tax liability. If you failed to file tax returns on time on behalf of the ward, I believe that you, not the ward, is personally responsible for that indebtedness. In violation RPC stated herein but especially RPC 4.1 and 4.4, all actions by said attorneys easily proven and their actions of violating RPC stated herein constitute a substantial threat of imminent harm to the public. The report is concealment of evidence in that there is no mention of the stroke that Dad supposedly had. I am the beneficiary of the estate and I accuse Vanessa D. Taylor, James Boutillier, Shawnda Floyd, and Lawrence N. Meyerson of elderly financial abuse on the estate of Robert Johnson. What do you plan to do about the ramifications and estoppel effect of the annual report? When will Robert Johnson be removed from the Woodlands due to the fact the Doctor in the annual report has admitted that the ward is not receiving any medical or dental treatment? The doctor’s statement indicates there is no justification for dissipating the estate for unnecessary Woodlands nursing home bill of $8,000 per month. Where is the $2,500 in misc expenses? Elderly financial abuse. How do you justify giving a $32,000 credit to someone who you claimed was buying the property “as is”? What is the status of the tax returns of the ward? I am beneficiary of the estate and I demand to know the answers to these questions immediately. The annual report proves the concealment of evidence, misconduct, incompetence and malpractice of Taylor, Boutillier, Floyd, and Meyerson. I have been damaged and harmed in that I have had to incur costs of phone calls and faxes and mailing to ascertain the inequal treatment I am receiving and the failure to provide the medical care of the ward. [Audio tape of this voice mail is available.] Vanessa D. Taylor and others Faxed and mailed to the New Jersey Real Estate Committee February 6 2011
From next of kin. Dear Real Estate Commission:
This fax regards a proposed sale of property at 146 Fabyan Place, Newark, N.J. 07112. The property is a four unit duplex income property.
The property belongs to Robert J. Johnson. Johnson is a court declared incapacitated person and the sale is handled by court appointed Guardian Vanessa D. Taylor. Vanessa has supervised the authority to handle the sale with Sam Pica. Vanessa is a real estate agent also as well as insurance broker ("The Taylor Group, Inc.") James J. Boutillier is the court appointed attorney for Robert J. Johnson, my father, only.
Real Estate Fraud re Samuel Pica
My Father Robert J. Johnson, aged 81, is in a nursing home The Woodlands, Plainfield New Jersey. His Guardian is Vanessa D. Taylor, my sister. IMO case CP-0136-2009 . Probate Part. Judge Walter Koprowski. Essex County.
I bring the following to your attention:
Update: Feb 6 2011
Around November 12 2010 as you are aware the Judge in this matter gave approval to the sale of the ward’s property. On or around Jan 05 2011 the court ordered the contract of sale redone (sic). The court ordered Jan 5 : "…the guardian shall re-apply for approval of the sale of the house based on changes in the terms of the sale". He apparently left in place the buyer in the November 12 2010 order. That buyer is S. Figaro.
As you know I raised the issue of real estate and criminal fraud to you prior to the November 12 2010 ruling. The November 12 2010 ruling was actually under the jurisdiction of the appellate court when the Judge issued his ruling Jan 5. I believe the Judge had no authority to make his ruling Jan 5.
Neither the November 12 2010 ruling or the Jan 5 ruling address the issue of fraud.
My understanding is that the parties including Lawrence Meyerson of APS telephone conferenced a number of times before and after the May 31 contract of sale signed by Vanessa Taylor. As a result of those conferences and up to the court's November 12 ruling approving the sale of property, all parties represented that the buyer would be given an approx. $32,000 credit for repairs. This is the agreement by all parties (except me) and approved by the Judge November 12 2010 in which they represented that this was a lawful agreement. But Jan 5 the court said that all conditions were not spelled out in the contract of sale. This is exactly what I was saying prior to November 12. The agreement was "void" from where I stand.
The court should have addressed the criminal fraud that occurred and was entered into by Taylor, Boutillier, Floyd, Meyerson, Pica, and Figaro. I ask that your office address the fraud herein.
I am also told by James Boutillier that the prospective buyer S. Figaro prior to November 12 never inspected the inside of the property. Yet Taylor, Pica, Floyd, Meyerson, Boutillier, and the court all represented that they would give Figaro a (blank check) of $32,000 plus to make repairs, but such repairs that Figaro never asked for since he had not seen the inside of the property.
In other words, what accounts for giving the buyer a short arm inducement unconditional blank check of $32,000 plus?
I believe the $32,000 was for some purpose other than a real estate transaction. Don't you agree? As you know, when I made an offer to purchase the property, and the seller represented repairs needed to be done, I was not given a repair credit of $32,000.
Third, the buyer was supposed to get an FHA loan to cover repairs. I am told the buyer applied for a conventional loan instead. I find this scenario questionable. The buyer is a lawyer. The contact of sale was signed May 31. So I am to believe that from May to December (7 months) the buyer and no one else realized the Figaro was applying for the wrong loan. Not believable.
Please investigate and let me know the results of your findings.
Vanessa D. Taylor Real estate and insurance agent 35 Symmes Drive Manalapan NJ 07726 Phone 732-577-6935.
[Shawnda N. Floyd, Esq. 5 Buchanan Blvd Jackson, NJ 08527 Phone 732-489-1070]
Samuel H. Pica, Jr. Real estate broker The Prudential Pica 256 Broad Street Bloomfield NJ 07003 Fax 973-743-2632
James Boutillier Brandley, Klepper, O'Conner & Boutiller 13 Smull Avenue Caldwell NJ 07006 Phone 973-226-0526
Lawrence N. Meyerson Attorneys for Adult Protective Services Rubenstein, Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte, P.A. One Paragon Drive, Suite 240 Montvalle, NJ 07645
Edward O. Kenlan Essex County Surrogate's office
Helen Dodick NJ Public Guardian for Elderly Adults
Robin Spagnoli Chiquita M. Carter Woodlands Nursing Home Plainfield, N.J. 07060
[S. Figaro Buyer] c: Pre-paid legal services
Next of Kin Asks for Judge Removal FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLIC RELEASE Newark, New Jersey: The Judge in a New Jersey guardianship case has admitted he and court staff did not follow rules of court. In November 2010 Probate Part Essex County Judge Walter Koprowski and court clerk Tara Wilson were accused in a claim for damages of not filing documents sent to the court for filing. This complaint by next of kin accused the court and the Judge of corruption and wrongful conduct. In a letter dated April 6 2011 Judge Koprowski admitted that a number of documents from 2009 and 2010 were not filed in guardianship case CP-0136-2009 IMO Robert Johnson. The Judge claimed some of the documents were faxes. The Judge omitted to explain why his explanation comes 14 months later and why court staff did not return the documents to the next of kin in a timely fashion. The letter seems to indicate the corruption and wrongful conduct in New Jersey courts in that the rules of court require that all documents be marked as "received" and if deficient be returned to the sender with a note that they will be filed if corrected within ten days. The Judge has not explained why this procedure was not followed. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDICIARY EMPLOYEES: New Jersey CanonsThe Judge is also charged with violation Judicial Canons in that in numerous court orders the Judge implied that he was using the un filed documents as part of the record. Worse still, the Judge admits to filing documents of attorney James Boutillier, Lawrence N. Meyerson, and Shawnda Floyd that did not comply with local rules of court required format. The Judge has also participated in what some call a bribe to attorney buyer Savio Figaro in that he approved $36,000 repair credit to Figaro but for a property being sold "as is". The Justice Department is being asked to examine the bank accounts of Vanessa D. Taylor and the Taylor Group of Manalapan New Jersey.Guardian Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor is accused of unlawful euthanasia killing Ward Robert J. Johnson of Newark New Jersey died May 21 2012 after Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor of the Taylor Group directed his life support to be disconnected. The police are investigating her and Judge Walter Koprowski Jr. on homicide charges. It was Judge Koprowski who refused to hear a family member's observation of Johnson's lack of care at Plainfield New Jersey Woodlands Nursing Home. For the last two months the nursing home is alleged to have had a greater number of resident deaths. The Judge also had refused a family members request to remove the ward to a better living environment. Doctor Patricia Barsanti refused for two years to supply required doctor's reports on the Robert Johnson's care. It was January 2012 that attorney Shawnda Navarro Floyd said that a recent illness of Johnson had "come and gone." Officials and those at John F. Kennedy Medical Center Edison New Jersey have refused to confirm why Robert Johnson was bought to the hospital. A requested telephone conference with family members was denied. An autopsy has reportedly been ordered. Hyundai Motors Declared to be Unsafe UNSAFE HYUNDAI MANUFACTURER DEFECT. Better Business Bureau Auto Line arbitrator Arthur C. Devine has determined that Hyundai has manufacturer defect of motor mounts. Documents to the arbitrator indicate this is an unsafe condition in that the suspension could separate from the vehicle. Hyundai is not safe. The BBB claim is HYU1216311 and phone 323-319-4280. From a May 12 hearing the problem is due to a unsolved constant vibration throughout the passenger compartment with the car idling in park. "...the suspension could separate from the vehicle." A May 12 "mechanical inspection report" of the Hyundai by United Automotive Appraisals was declared to be " unqualified, not reliable, and not based on the factory specifications of the car." United Automotive Appraisal stated the car had "no abnormal engine or vehicle vibration" but this contradicted a Hyundai consultant and arbitrator who said they felt the constant vibration in the passenger compartment and doors. The inspector and Hyundai refused to do a vibrometer and acceleratormeter test on the passenger seats and refused to provide the manufacturer specifications for the vehicle passenger seat vibration. The owner of the vehicle said "No effort is made to examine if the bolts attached to the underbody are secure and torqued correctly." He said, "Do not buy Hyundai."  The attorneys are charged with malpractice and the Judge
with breach of Judicial duties because the Complaint failed to comply with N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1). NJ Probate Guardianship: November 16 2011 state appointed guardian Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor filed a Complaint to sell the property at 146-148 Fabyan Place, Newark. The Complaint was opposed by next of kin oldest child due to lack of documentation and fraud on the estate by parties and the Judge. The Complaint was supported by attorneys James Boutillier, Lawrence E Meyerson, and Shawnda N Floyd. The court of Jan 13 2012 refused to require the filing of affidavits of attorney fees as a prerequisite to the Complaint. The attorneys are charged with malpractice and the Judge with breach of Judicial duties because the Complaint failed to comply with NJSA 2C:28-6(1). [Click on Picture to see a related Video] Served on Office of Attorney Ethics Dec 5 2010
Summary Violations
Failure to ensure rights Misuse of court resources Unlawfully obstruct another parties access to evidence Engaged in telling client Vanessa D. Taylor to lie RPC 1.1 Competence RPC 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation RPC 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal RPC 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel RPC 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others RPC 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons RPC 5.1 Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer RPC 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct RPC 8.4 Misconduct Advising the violation of the law
On November 15, 2010 Judge Walter Koprowski wrote me as interested party (See attached true and correct copy of letter from the Judge) that I could file a formal motion or appeal. On November 13, received by the court November 15 by USPS priority mail , I forwarded for filing a Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Next of Kin's Rights (sic) along with a check for $30.00. This was about number six in documents sent to the court for filing from me. On November 21 2010 I faxed the Superior Court clerk Jennifer M. Perez a fax entitled "Corruption, wrongful conduct, intentional negligence and neglect of court employees". (See attached true and correct copy of this 8 page fax with receipt.) On December 1 2010 I received a response from Kevin M Wolfe of the Civil Division of the NJ Superior Court. I responded to him on December 3. See his attached email as well as two of my responses to him, responses two and four by email, true and correct copies.
In telling me I cannot file a motion post judgment (clearly authorized by the Judge's Nov 15 letter as well as the Superior Court fee schedule of $30 for a post judgment motion in the Chancery Division) Wolfe has violated the rules of professional conduct and engaged in attorney misconduct. I have also asked Wolfe to report the misconduct of Judge Joseph P. Brennan and Judge Walter Koprowski for not filing/returning documents to me that were intended for filing. I have a due process right to file a post judgment motion. Judge Joseph P. Brennan and Judge Walter Koprowski did not timely file/return documents to me that were intended for filing. UNLAWFULLY OBSTRUCTS ANOTHER PARTIES ACCESS TO EVIDENCE- RPC 3.3 In telling me I cannot file a motion post judgment (clearly authorized by the Judge's Nov 15 letter as well as the Superior Court fee schedule of $30 for a post judgment motion in the Chancery Division) Wolfe has violated the rules of professional conduct and engaged in attorney misconduct under RPC 3.3. RPC 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.
Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel - RPC 3.4 A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value, or counsel or assist another person to do any such act; I have also asked Wolfe to report the misconduct of Judge Joseph P. Brennan and Judge Walter Koprowski for not filing/returning documents to me that were intended for filing. In telling me I cannot file a motion post judgment (clearly authorized by the Judge's Nov 15 letter as well as the Superior Court fee schedule of $30 for a post judgment motion in the Chancery Division) Wolfe has violated the rules of professional conduct and engaged in attorney misconduct under RPC 3.4. and engaged in assisting Judge Walter Koprowski and Judge Joseph P Breenan in concealing or destroying documents from filing that have potential evidentiary value. Respect for Rights of Third Persons - RPC 8.4 In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person. Kevin M. Wolfe representing the Superior Court civil division has used means in telling me I cannot file a motion post judgment (clearly authorized by the Judge's Nov 15 letter as well as the Superior Court fee schedule of $30 for a post judgment motion in the Chancery Division) and Wolfe has violated the rules of professional conduct and engaged in attorney misconduct under RPC 8.4, in violating me legal rights and burdened me as a third person. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or other law; (g) engage, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination (except employment discrimination unless resulting in a final agency or judicial determination) because of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, language, marital status, socioeconomic status, or handicap where the conduct is intended or likely to cause harm. I believe Kevin M. Wolfe In telling me I cannot file a motion post judgment (clearly authorized by the Judge's Nov 15 letter as well as the Superior Court fee schedule of $30 for a post judgment motion in the Chancery Division) Wolfe has violated the rules of professional conduct and engaged in attorney misconduct under RPC 8. 4 ; and by admitting that the Judge/Surrogate's office is improperly holding onto documents intended for timely filing has imposed on me a "chilling effect" and retaliatory effect violating my rights to petition the government for redress of grievances including a right to file suit in a court of law. Under color of law, he has threatened my due process rights.
If the Judge received original documents intended for filing, which it is easy to prove the Judge did, the Judge had the obligation to immediately forward the documents to the Surrogate for filing, or return them to me. That the Judge did neither should be reported by Wolfe as attorney misconduct; Wolfe is obligated to report the attorney misconduct of the Judge Koprowski.
If the Superior Court's Surrogate's office received original documents intended for filing, which it is easy to prove the Surrogate did, the Surrogate had the obligation to immediately file the documents, or return them to me. That the Surrogate did neither should be reported by Wolfe as attorney misconduct; Wolfe is obligated to report the attorney misconduct of Surrogate and office of Joseph P. Brennan. Please suspend from practice and disbar attorney Kevin M. Wolfe, for his violations of attorney ethics and acts of misconduct herein.
Dec 5, 2010
FROM YOUTUBE A Pennsylvania lawyer speaks out on corruption in the courts
Click here to see the video www.youtube.com/watch
"This is a must see video from a lawyer inside the system. The same crap is happening all across the country. NJ Judge Walter J. Koprowski Jr, The Taylor Group's and Century 21's Vanessa D. Johnson Taylor, Surrogate Court Tara Wilson, Middlesex Prosecutor Major Crimes unit Adrian Villegas, JFK Medical Center, Edison, NJ, Dr Patricia "Butcher" Barsanti and others need to face criminal charges for the murder of Robert Johnson May 20 2012 or conspiracy to commit or failure to prosecute." New Jersey Major Crimes Unit Middlesex County Asked to Arrest Doctor and Others for Elderly Abuse Re: The Unlawful Mercy Killing of Robert Johnson
Dear Sgt Villegas:
By this letter I am forwarding to you the names of all relatives of Robert Johnson in that they may offer assistance into the motives of Vanessa D. Taylor, or their own involvement, for the mercy killing of her father. I give contact as much as is known to me:
Dr Patricia Barsanti (not related) - at lawyer Spencer B. Robbins 732-636-1600 Letitia Johnson-Tyler (daughter)- ljohnsonty@aol.com Alisa Stewart (daughter) stewart5906@yahoo.com Kevin Johnson (son) Anthony Hunter at ahunter@aich.org (nephew) James Boutillier (not related) – lawyer at 973-226-0526 Deborah Knight – neice- d_silverknight@yahoo.com Shawnda Navarro Floyd- (non related) lawyer at 732-489-1070 Gregory Smallwood at gregwsmallwood@aol.com Latoya Johnson at latoya.johnson@rccc.mailcruiser.com Vernell Johnson at vernj3148@aol.com – Cedarbrook Park Apartments, Plainfield Kira Knight at divakiwi@hotmail.com Lawrence E. Meyerson- lawyer- lmeyerson@rmfmclaw.com Rick Hunter at rick451@verizon.net Donna Knight Gaskins
I will also try to mail you a signed and notarized statement.
Please without further delay make the arrests of the Judge, Taylor , and Doctor Patricia Barsanti today.
Sincerely,
[Next of Kin]
Nurse Handed 11 Life Sentences for “Mercy Killings”
2006 Article By Terry Vanderheyden SOMERVILLE, New Jersey, March 2, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A New Jersey nurse and serial killer who claimed he was killing the “very sick” and elderly out of compassion has been handed 11 life sentences without possibility of parole for 397 years. “You betrayed the ancient foundations of the healing professions,” said Superior Court Judge Paul Armstrong, according to an AP report. Cullen, 46, pleaded guilty to 22 counts of premeditated murder, admitting to using lethal doses of hard-to-trace medications like the heart drug digoxin. When finally arrested in 2003, he told police he only killed “very sick” and elderly patients, claiming the murders were for compassion. Cullen escaped the death penalty in exchange for cooperating with police to solve other murders. He still faces sentencing in Pennsylvania, where he was convicted of seven additional murders.
Youtube click here youtu.be/_sKrERqH11E
"Warranty services will be provided by an authorized Hyundai dealer without charge for parts or labor...
"As the consumer you have got to go down there [to the Hyundai dealer] with a witness; if you can't go with a witness, take a tape recorder, take a camera, take a video camera."
"Welcome to Hyundai Motor America. Won't you please join us for tea and discrimination."
Negligence and neglect of court employees" Response #6 to Kevin Wolfe re his attorney misconduct re CP 1036-2009 IMO Robert Johnson Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:22 PM To: "Kevin Wolfe" Dear Kevin Wolfe et al.: Seems to me there must be a lot at stake in this case in that so many officials and lawyers participated in keeping documents from being filed with the court. You state in your email that matters cannot go before the court unless they are filed with the court. Well, the Judge in his letters and rulings has mentioned my opposition and so has attorney James Boutillier in his filed papers, so my opposition, papers notwithstanding, is indeed before the court. The Judge in his ruling mentions my request for sanctions and he denied them. For purposes of appeal then, papers filed or not, the court has established that the request for sanctions was before the court. You state the Judge does not have the authority to sanction without a motion and that he does not have inherent power to sanction. As an attorney I don't know why you would conceal the fact the Judge has power to punish for contempt of court, as well as sanction for misconduct that appears in front of him; he can do so without there being a motion before him. And in this instant case, he denied sanctions even though there was no sanction motion before him. If you have court cases that you believe support your position that sanction cannot be requested by motion but only by complaint, then reveal them to me. Otherwise, I think your position on sanctions is faulty. It appears if documents were not filed, it is substantially due to the neglect of the court. If the court had done its job and returned the documents to me immediately if they were incorrect, I would have made efforts to return the documents corrected for timely filing. The Court repeatedly did not do its job. It is solely then due to the Court's wrongful conduct that documents if any were not filed. It may certainly be an issue before the appeals court that the record on appeal may be incomplete due to the court's fault. Since James Boutillier details my opposition to the Complaint for application to amend the judgment to sell property (sic) his papers give validity that my opposition was indeed before the court, papers filed or not. The fee structure for the Superior Court Chancery Division indicates $30.00 for a post judgment motion; do you disagree that the fee structure says this Mr Wolfe? I am forwarding $110, $25.00, $5.00, and $5.00 to cover filing fees. I will be forwarding you a copy of my Ethics Complaint against you. [Next of Kin] On Tue, 11/30/10, [Next of Kin]wrote: Subject: Documents forwarded for filing not being filed To: CivilWebSites.Mailbox@judiciary.state.nj.us Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 9:53 PM To: Judge Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D Acting Administrative Director of New Jersey Courts Jane F. Castner, Esq., Assistant Director Dear Judge Grant and Jane Castner: There seem to be a problem here. I faxed the office of the Superior Court Clerk Jennifer Perez, as well as the Essex County Surrogate on November 21 2010. I also faxed Judge Walter Koprowski. I have not received a return phone call and this is over nine days later. Here is a copy of my complaint as faxed and mailed to the Surrogate' office. Please contact me at your earliest convenience at 323-935-3274 to resolve this. ************************************************************************************* Corruption, Wrongful conduct, Intentional Negligence and neglect of court employees To: Essex County Surrogate et al.. November 21 2010. My Father Robert J. Johnson, aged 81, is in a nursing home The Woodlands, Plainfield New Jersey. His Guardian is Vanessa D. Taylor, my sister. IMO case CP-0136-2009 . Probate Part. Judge Walter Koprowski. I bring the following to your attention: Update: November 21, 2010 This information is being relayed separately to Judge Walter Koprowski, the office of the Superior Court clerk, the office of the public Guardian, and NJ Essex County Surrogate’s office. I have discovered that many if not all of the documents I have forwarded to the filing clerk for filing over the past year have not been filed by the clerk. I have proof of most of the documents were served by mail and received by the court. It appears these failures to file documents was due to corruption, wrongful conduct, and intentional neglect. Even though I have always sent a SASE I have never received any conformed copies from the filing clerk for over a year. I talked with Tara of the Essex County Surrogate’s office on Friday Nov 19 where she indicated the docket did not show any documents filed by me. I asked her about a document received for filing on Monday Nov 15 and at first she said she did not have it but then remembered it had not been filed but forwarded to Judge’s Walter Koprowski’ courtroom. I also told Tara I faxed a request for the docket/case history and she said instead of processing that it was sent to Judge Koprowski. It is clear there is a routine passing back and forth of documents between the Surrogate’s office and Judge Koprowski. I want the court to find the documents that are obviously in their possession and file them properly and timely and forward me a conformed copy of each as filed and copy of the docket. I am entitled to such documents and the docket is needed as confirmation and for purposes of appeal. JFK Medical Center Edison Doctor Refuses to Talk About Mercy Killing Los Angeles-
The doctor assigned to the late Robert Johnson has hired a lawyer and refused to answer questions about Johnson's lack of care.
Doctor Patricia Barsanti of New Jersey has been charged with wrongful death and mercy killing of Robert Johnson. The Essex County Prosecutor's office has been asked to place Vanessa D. Taylor, Barsanti, and Walter Koprowski under arrest for Johnson's death.
Doctor Barsanti had been ordered by the New Jersey Probate court to provide doctor's statement s two years in a row to relatives but Barsanti failed to comply.
NJ Corruption and Elder Abuse: Dr Patricia Barsanti faces medical malpractice charges regarding the unlawful mercy killing by the doctor and Vanessa D. Taylor of senior and veteran Robert Johnson who was killed on May 20 after a brief stay at John F Kennedy Medical Center in Edison NJ. Barsanti has refused to answer questions about Robert Johnson's lack of care and hired a lawyer claiming she is being harassed. Dr Barsanti can be faxed at 908-755-6979 and is represented by Robbins and Robbins LLP at ph 732-636-1600. [As seen on Facebook and Youtube]
It is anticipated the names of all family members of Robert Johnson will be turned over to the prosecutors office as witnesses to Vanessa Taylor's motives to kill her father.
For Media Release Aug 1 2012 why you should not buy a Hyundai? Hyundai Recalls 220,000 vehicles for airbags Overstated Mileage Loosely bolted steering columns Defective and loose motor mounts and vibration Where is the factory quality control?
The Hyundai ads all across America are deceptive because they do not tell the public what they may encounter if they buy a Hyundai. Hyundai Motor America Jeffrey Phillips, John Krafcik, Sung Hwan Cho, and L.A. Hyundai at LAX’s Richard Middlekauff, Nicolas Williams Moss, Jeffrey Philip Zwerling claim they can deny service to a customer. But this is not stated in any of Hyundai $100,000 ads nor is it stated in the warranty or owner's manual. What does this tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
November 5 2012 Hyundai recalled over 220,000 vehicles for airbag issues. But they don’t mention that in any of their ads. Isn’t that false and deceptive advertising? What does that tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
Is VIEWER bsp1148 in disagreement? Warranty rights are rights under law. Do you agree? "Concerted failure to provide warranty service and constitutional public accommodation. No anti-discrimination policy. Did not honor rights. Request injunction to provide warranty service." :that is what the lawsuit against Hyundai says. Do you give up your rights if you decide to buy a Hyundai? Various mechanics said the vibration in the 2010 Hyundai Accent was fixable. BBB, also will cheat you, said the word "abnormal" but that was a trick word. BBB accepted a visual inspection only, refused a mechanical and electrical inspection, and refused to provide the mechanical specifications for the vehicle. The car was never fixed. Hyundai Motor America and the dealer refused to provide the mechanical specifications also. What does that tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
Defective airbags
Does youtube bsp1148 give up their state and federal warranty rights? Does bsp1148 propose that Hyundai car owners give up their rights granted under law?
On Aug 18 Hyundai Motor America and Marina Automotive LLC dba L.A. Hyundai LAX refused to inspect a 2013 Hyundai Accent. What does that tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
On Aug 18 Hyundai Motor America and Marina Automotive LLC dba L.A. Hyundai LAX refused to provide warranty service to an African American car owner. What does that tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
Overstated Mileage
On Aug 18 Hyundai Motor America and Marina Automotive LLC dba L.A. Hyundai LAX called the Police to keep from inspecting a 2013 Hyundai Accent and keep the owner from getting warranty service. What does that tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
It is now November 2012, nearly three months later, and Hyundai Motor America, saddled with complaints of overstated gas mileage and recall over inoperative air bags and other problems has not made one phone call or letter and offered to inspect the 2013 Hyundai Accent SE denied inspection in August. What does that tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
It was claimed that a Hyundai suffered from loose suspension parts. Nissan Altima faced recall due to loose suspension bolts that the government claimed could cause a crash. Hyundai has never issued a recall on their manufacturer defect motor mounts. What does that tell you about why you should not buy a Hyundai?
Loosely bolted steering columns
What does that tell you about why YOU should NOT buy a Hyundai?
AMERICA’S WORSE WARRANTY : HYUNDAI http://seedebtrun.com/2012/10/americas-worst-warranty-why-i-will-never-buy-another-hyundai.html
[This article also based on Inglewood California Small Claims Court case 12S01314 and youtube channel comments of channel "legaladvocate71"]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hyundai-kia-overstate-mpg-compensate-220411168.html http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/hyundai-kia-overstated-gas-mileage-on-900000-cars/4453 http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/3-on-your-side-kia-and-hyundai-overstate-fuel-economy-owners-to-get-debit-cards/
in California Police Complaint August 19 2012
Inglewood Police Department Personnel Complaint Form Claim for Damages
SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT
[Retyped and revised from the Original Aug 18 Complaint]
I had a verified Aug 11 online appointment to bring my car in for service on August 18 2012 to LA Hyundai LAX. I make payments on a 2013 Hyundai Accent SE. I am entitled by the manufacturer warranty to take the car to any dealer for service. LA Hyundai LAX is a certified dealer and agent of Hyundai Motors Corporation. I also emailed Hyundai Corporate and called the voicemail of the LA Hyundai LA service manager around Aug 15 that I would be bringing my car in for service Aug 18 at 8:00 am.
Once at the dealer I was confronted with Don Quimby, unknown occupation, Nic Moss, alleged owner of the dealership, and Francis Melodia, service manager. Other than an email from Melodia Aug 12, I had never seen any of these people before or in person. The three told me that they "could not satisfy my needs" [I assume repair needs] and that I needed to leave the property or they would have me arrested for trespassing. There was a heated argument which was being recorded by both sides and witnessed by customers and employees and others in the repair area. Quimby said I was a "problem" and seemed to reference my past contact with the Better Business Bureau auto line regarding this dealership. Being in the repair area, it was at times hard to hear without raising ones voice. I demanded that the car be repaired, and inspected if necessary. They refused. They called the police. I tried to call the police but my cell phone was malfunctioning. The owner of the dealership advanced towards me a number of times waiving his arms like he was going to hit me; I felt harassed ;terrorized ; frightened for my personal safety and targeted because of my race, Black.
The police came in three squad cars, but one car left. They talked with Moss, Melodia, and Quimby at a distance from me. I feel the police were favoring the Hyundai employees because they were white. The three gave the police a letter which at a distance appeared to be on Hyundai Corporate letterhead, but a copy of the letter was not given to me. The Police ordered me to remove myself and vehicle from the property, and with objection, I complied.
As a Kushite Black Amercan male, I had the right to have my vehicle repaired at that location. By removing me from the property the police acting under color of law instilled a chilling effect, did obstruct my civil rights to have my vehicle inspected, the same rights available to those whites at the location. I suffered embarrassment, emotional distress, and intentional deprivation of rights. I did call the watch commander asking for more police so I could get my car inspected and make a complaint about harassment; he told me he would not send any more police, he would not take a harassment complaint, and that I would have to take the matter to civil court.
My rights have been infringed upon and by those acting under color of law. The officers stated their awareness of the warranty agreement, which I believe is much like an agreement of two persons renting an apartment together.
The mayor and city council members of Inglewood and any and all Hyundai Motors Corporation officers, including the President and CEO, any and all contracts and permits Hyundai LAX has with the City, are hereby included in this claim.
The City of Inglewood Police Department is hereby notified of intent to seek restraining order and permanent inunction against the Police Department to prohibit them from denying repair and inspection rights to [the car owner] at LA Hyundai at LAX, Inglewood.
Amount of damages: [redacted]
The officers bought manager Frances Melodia over to me and instructed her to tell me if I came to the property again, that I would be charged with trespassing. That is what Melodia told me. I told her I have a legal right to bring my car to the property. The Officers disregarded my rights as a Black American and said they would not take my harassment complaint against the three Melodia, Moss, and Quimby.
The officers improperly and without legal grounds ordered me and my car from the property; I was not engaged in any unlawful act nor was I causing any injury, actual or implied, to anyone.
The Police failed to reveal to me who in corporate Hyundai [Motors] ordered LA Hyundai LAX to refuse me service.
I reserve the right to modify or amend this complaint any time. All rights are reserved.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct this 19th day of August 2012.
[Signed by the vehicle owner] RESEARCH NOTES:
On the other hand, criminal harassment is usually confined to state law. States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety. Though state harassment laws vary, they often take different levels and methods of harassment into account. Separate penal statutes or a general harassment statute may list various ways to communicate harassment, including telephone calls, emails, and other forms of communication. Whether there was any legitimate reason for the communication becomes a factor under many states' harassment laws. Harassment charges can range from misdemeanor to high level felony charges. In many states, people charged with harassment will receive a higher level charge if they have previously been convicted of harassment, of communicating a threat, or of a domestic violence offense. Harassment by someone in violation of a restraining order may also draw a higher level charge. Some states elevate the charge if the harassment targeted someone based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation.
Don Quimby of Hyundai Says No Blacks Allowed Service at Hyundai COURT ACTION AGAINST HYUNDAI
On Oct 26 2012 Hyundai Motor America and Marina Automotive LLC DBA L.A. Hyundai at LAX appeared in court to answer lawsuit filed in Inglewood CA Small Claims Court case 12S01314. Defendants along with service manager Frances Melodia was charged with concerted failure to provide warranty service and public accommodation, no anti discrimination policy, request for injunction to force warranty service. The defendants admitted denying warranty service inspection from August 15 2012 on to an African American owner of a Hyundai. Named in the lawsuit are owners of the Hyundai dealer are Nicolas Moss, Jeffrey Zwerling, and Richard Middlekauff. Appearing at the hearing was Hyundai's Melodia, Donald Quimby, and Jeffrey Phillips of Hyundai Motor America; as well as the plaintiff, an African American entitled to heightened protection. Decision is pending. [See Youtube channel "legaladvocate71" for related Videos. As seen on Youtube Channel "legaladvocate71" and Facebook. Based on court documents and testimony. ]
REFERENCE The State of California government and Bureau of Automotive Repair give license to Hyundai Motor America to practice unlawful discrimination and retaliation against Black Kushite males. ************************************** It costs about $750 per year to purchase a bumper-to-bumper warranty with coverage similar to a new car factory warranty. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5486571 http://ezinearticles.com/?Factory-Warranty---Best-2011-Car-Manufacturer-Warranties&id=5486571
***************************************************************************
Click for related Videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/legaladvocate71 Los Angeles city government negligence: the cost of gentrification http://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com
Were the December 9 City Fires Caused by Code Enforcement Negligence?
December 15 2014. City case number 501222 LAHCID. To Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Raymond Chan: Re 1522 Hi Point Street 90035. LADBS does not believe in compliance; they believe in "substantial" compliance. So if you have a problem in your building, and you report it, the LADBS feels as long as the building "substantially" complies, LADBS feels they are not going to investigate your complaint. If there is a wiring problem they are not going to investigate. In this building there is a wiring problem that was reported last April that affects seven apartments that requires repair as well as a rent reduction to select tenants. LADBS has not managed to address it, has not managed to get it fixed; even though it has been numerous complaints about the intercom wiring and the intercom, un repaired wiring and un connected wiring. I told them I was agreeable to meet them here but they said twice in person and voicemail "we will not inspect the property and your apartment". So I gave them more dates I would be home and two more dates I would not be home and I expected them to give the proper 24 hour legal reason notice. LADBS comes out and they bring an army of Gestapo thugs with their thumbs up their butts. [This is not the first time they have been to the building to see others’ apartments.] And what do you think they do? They come out on one of the days I said in writing I would not be home. The 24 hour notice says Cursory Survey but what is a "cursory survey"? They did not come out to address the wiring or my concerns. A witness said they just stood in the apartment and said nothing. If they are not going to address the wiring problem in this building, is there any wonder why buildings are catching on fire across Los Angeles under the watch of LADBS Director Raymond Chan? Were buildings on fire due to lack of inspection by Garcetti and Chan’s Gestapo goons? This building has toxic wall heaters that have not been cleaned in over four years. Code enforcement or the Five Stooges? LADBS issued stop work orders on two occasions and a notice to comply yet the wiring for seven units remains un inspected and un repaired. One apartment here has not had a working wall heater they say for over a year; another apartment has consistently had plumbing problems and bathroom tub water backup and this is in spite of the LADBS so called "inspections" .LADBS Director Raymond Chan needs to be replaced. "Substantial compliance" is not compliance and is the wrong policy. LADBS authorized numerous permits for construction without the required primary renovation checklist. Could a similar practice indicate the reason for the [December 9] Los Angeles fires? Think about it. City case number 501222 LAHCID. community investment department.
http://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com Mayor Eric Garcetti and Raymond Chan LADBS does not believe in compliance; they believe in “substantial” compliance LADBS comes out and they bring an army of Gestapo thugs with their thumbs up their butts This building has toxic wall heaters that have not been cleaned in over four years The 24 hour notice says Cursory Survey but what is a cursory survey LADBS authorized numerous permits for construction without the required primary renovation checklist Communications with Government City Employees http://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com.Substandard Housing Conditions Subject: Illegal Rent Increase Oct 1 2014 by Hi Point Apts- Complaint to RAC and HCIDLA From: [tenant and email redacted] To: hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; hcidla.rso@lacity.org; Cc: walter.barratt@gmail.com; cliffrenfrew@gmail.com; Date: Saturday, October 4, 2014 2:12 PM
Dear HCIDLA and RAC [rent adjustment commission]: Hi Point Apts LLC [Walter Barratt and Cliff Renfrew et al.] [1522 Hi Point St 90035] collected rent October 1 of $ [redacted] for apt [redacted]. This amount represents an illegal rent increase under the jurisdiction of the RAC. It is an illegal rent increase due to: 1. We are entitled to a rent reduction because the visitor parking stall is not available to us. Another tenant is currently parking in the stall. 2. We are entitled to a rent reduction because we have not been compensated for the reduction of the tandem parking stall; RSO regulations say we are entitled to $200 per month rent reduction. 3. We are entitled to a rent reduction because the door entry intercom system has not been repaired to our apt 9. [pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections "substandard housing" 17920.3(a)(13) and 17920.3(d).] 4. We are entitled to a rent reduction because shared utilities are being paid by other tenants according to the owner ads on the internet. [Civil Code Section 1940.9.] In addition, the owner of the property has in bad faith not sent any notices to all tenants explaining: (1) use of the housing service visitor parking stall (2) use of the housing service of the door entry intercom system (3) shared utilities [civil code section 1940.9] (4) use of the housing service of owner installed outside window air conditioning. The LAHD is requested to process this complaint. This complaint is pursuant to California government code sections 815.2(a), 815.3(a), 815.3(b), and 815.6; herein also that the LAHD and RAC and LAHD employees, and LADBS code enforcement employees, are required to exercise reasonable diligence to discharge their duties as regards these housing complaints. This is being emailed "CC" above to the email addresses provided by the owner Walter Barratt and Cliff Renfrew at Hi Point Apts LLC. Hi Point Apts LLC is requested to respond in writing by first class mail only. This will also be mailed to the owner at the state of California declared address of record. All rights reserved. [tenant name address and phone redacted] Los Angeles, California c: City Attorney Mike Feuer; Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council; RAC members Jeffery J. Daar, Chairperson; Tai Glenn, Vice Chairperson, Jose Oliva, Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman Pitts, Paula Leftwich, Jane Paul.
October 5 2014 via city website and Fax to city Attorney DEAR MAYOR GARCETTI AND ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: This complaint is to the LAHCID and yourselves. Your LAHCID has declared they will not investigate complaints at this property. I am therefore appealing also to the Mayor and Council and Manager of LADBS Raymond Chan and City Chief Inspector Luke Zamperini. Hi Point Apts LLC dba 1522 Hi Point St 90035 is owned by Walter Barratt and Gianni Capaldi. The door entry system and intercom remains un repaired at this apartment as well as about five other apartments. This initially occurred around May 2014 and code enforcement was aware of it because numerous inspectors were in the building as well as inspector David James on Sept 18. Door entry un repaired electrical wiring disconnected and/or abandoned and electrical service requires maintenance. LAHCID ignores these housing conditions to intentionally endanger the health and safety and quiet enjoyment of all tenants. "SUBSTANDARD HOUSING" 17920.3(a)(13); 17920.3 (d) and (i); pursuant to Government Code 815.6 and 815.2 and 815.3. The Manager/contact at this property is at 818-813-2204; Walter at 310-895-6693; Cliff at 310-339-4475; Ali at 818-335-8175. I again request an inspection of this property. I remind you that a REAP request has lodged against this property. [city case number 494911]. This complaint is also being posted to website http://lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission.wordpress.com. | Update Housing Racism | Complaints to CA State Bar | Downloads | Event Calendar | Great Links | Contact Us | Letter to New Jersey Prosecutor | Letter to Woodlands Nursing Home | Letters to Vanessa Taylor | Criminal Concealment | | Return Home | Rep Karen Bass re Hyundai | Opposition to Sale of Property | What's New | Corrupt Los Angeles Rent Control | City LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts | Racism in America | Inside the Law Firm | California EDD Corruption | |
|||||||||||||
 |
 |
