COUNCILMAN CURREN PRICE V. THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE : ANOTHER BLACK COUNCILMAN AND ANOTHER CASE OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION. WILL PRICE FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF RIDLEY-THOMAS AND OTHERS? OR, WILL HE FIGHT BACK (AND RAISE THE DEFENSE ) ?

Los Angeles, California 

January  10, 2024

(Today's Date) 

June 20, 2023

(Original Date)  

* Denotes some change was made in or to the original blog, either added information or deleted information.  Usually, deleted information will  be indicated by the words  "info deleted".  

**UPDATE denotes NEW information added to the blog after the blog’s original publication

This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States) 

In the last three weeks or so, Councilman Curren Price was charged with various offenses by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.  More specifically, he has been charged with “five counts of grand theft by embezzlement, three counts of perjury and two counts of conflict of interest.  Several of the counts relate to Price’s wife, Del Richardson Price, and her company, Del Richardson & Associates, as it relates to business with developers, who later had projects approved with Price’s vote, and “accusations that Price failed to list income Richardson Price received on government financial disclosure forms”.  And, there are charges related to Price “receiving tens of thousands of dollars in medical benefits from the city for his now wife while he was still married to another woman”. 

Curren Price is Black, and he is just the latest Black City Councilmember to be prosecuted by government prosecutors (this time, the D.A.’s Office).  The previous Black councilmember being Mark Ridley-Thomas of course.  And, the District Court has just in the last two weeks denied Ridley-Thomas's two motions attempting to have his convictions set aside.  Black Angelenos, can’t you see the writing on the wall?  Black councilmembers are being plucked off the City Council, one by one.  And this time, with entirely “petty” felonies, e.g., Price receiving money in medical benefits from the city for his wife while he is still legally married to another woman.  A technical miscue.

The Bottomline :  Price, like Ridley-Thomas, was selectively prosecuted, because he is Black, and especially, because he is a black male;  and the prosecution, if successful, moves the City Council closer to an all-white one. Though the council will probably never achieve a completely all-white one, because of the majority-minority composition of the city and hopefully minority intelligence and perception, it can be a greater majority-white council, and with each minority councilmember plucked from the council, the faster that goal can be achieved. 

But, the only way Black councilmembers can defeat selective prosecution is to FIGHT BACK and raise it as a defense.  If they don’t, the prosecutions will continue.  Ridley-Thomas didn’t  fight back, so Price is prosecuted.  If Price doesn’t fight back,  Marqueece Harris-Dawson will probably be next.  So, Price must raise the defense, not only for himself, but for those Black councilmembers coming after him.  Otherwise, Price will meet the same fate as Ridley-Thomas (who likely had a stronger defense than Price will have). 

But, based on Price’s statements so far,  e.g., the allegations are “unwarranted charges” and that “he will prove his innocence in court”, he doesn’t plan to do much fighting.  Those positions are practically the same ones Ridley-Thomas took, while refusing to fight back, and you see where they got him.   So, I’m sure District Attorney George Gascon can sleep better now. 

And, as for Gascon prosecuting Price, my blogposts about Gascon speak for themselves.  After I initially voted for him, I changed course after discovering that he was prosecuting minorities and not prosecuting white people  for the same crimes.  So, I , subsequently, urged his recall.   He is now continuing on that same selective prosecution course with Price.  But , it doesn't appear Price will fight back.  So, Gascon need not worry.  

UPDATE—July 19, 2023 

PRICE MOVES TO CONTINUE HIS ARRAIGNMENT

Councilman Curren Price appeared at his arraignment hearing  only to request a continuance.  As long as I’ve practiced law, over 25 years, I’ve yet to understand the rationale behind postponing arraignment.  You are either going to plead guilty or not guilty.  Why does one need more time to make that decision ?  Are you thinking about pleading guilty to some charges ?  To me that would be the only reason to postpone arraignment.  Anyway, Price’s arraignment has been re-scheduled for August, 2023. 

Apparently, Price’s arraignment is being presided over by judge Kimberly Baker Guillemet, the Black  judge who has engaged in criminality herself, yet , is continuing to preside over criminal matters in the Superior Court.  In my case and trial before her, she favored the government.  But, luckily for Price, she will likely just conduct arraignment proceedings for him.

**UPDATE—January 9, 2024 

PRICE PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO THE VARIOUS COUNTS :   NOW WHAT ?  

Councilman Curren Price has now officially pleaded not guilty to the various counts of embezzlement, perjury, and conflict of interest.   So, where will he go from here.  He continues to assert that the charges are unwarranted, and that he will prove his innocence in court.  That’s essentially what ex-councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas said.  Thus, we wait and see how Price proceeds.  The Court has already shot down at least a couple of pre-trial defenses such as statute of limitations.  The next major step is to determine whether there is enough evidence for Price to stand trial.

NOTE : To my knowledge, the L.A. Times did not cover Price’s not guilty plea in its paper print edition following the not guilty plea.   I wonder why ?

OTHER MATTER

Los Angeles, California

May  23,  2026

(Today’s Date) 

March  6,  2022

(Original Date) 

*Denotes a change in the original publication of the blog, either addition or deletion, or both 

**UPDATE—Denotes NEW information being provided after the original publication of the blog 

STEPHEN “tWitch” BOSS’S SUICIDE NOTE SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC, TO THE EXTENT IT CAN BE ;  IT WOULD BE AN INVALUABLE RESOURCE TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS TO THE REASONS SOME PEOPLE COMMIT SUICIDE 

For those not aware, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, 40,  formerly of  “So You Think You Can Dance”, as a dancer, and of the Ellen DeGeneres Show, as co-executive producer, died “of a self-inflicted gunshot wound“.  He was “found dead inside a motel room in Encino (CA) on Dec. 13” (2022).

I first became aware of  tWitch when he was a contestant on So You Think You Can Dance, a television dance contest show.  He appeared to be a very likable person.  And, every time I would see him (on television) after SYTYCD, he was upbeat and out-going.  And, as can be seen, he was successful after the show.  So when I discovered that he had passed, by suicide, the first thing that came to mind was WHY?  And, I said to myself, I wish he had left a suicide “note” so that at least we (the public) would know why.  I didn’t know that there was a note at the time of my thinking, but, I discovered later that, in fact, there was a note left.

I believe that, unlike in some of these murder cases, where a killer has murdered multiple people and then is killed himself (either by the police or self-inflicted), the motive for tWitch’s killing himself  is very important for others who might do the same thing under the same or similar circumstances as tWitch. 

Many times when a killer kills one or more people, and then is killed or kills himself, the police states the question is, what was the  killer’s motive ?  Most times, with a few exceptions, what difference does it make what the killer’s  motive is?  The victims are dead and the killer is dead.  But, in the case of suicide victims, motive is very important for others who might do the same thing, for the same reasons, e.g.,  as tWitch.  It might help the “others” avoid the same fate as tWitch.  *So that tWitch’s suicide would not have been in vain.

Thus, pertinent parts of the note pointing to motive for the suicide should be published for the benefit of the public or for the good of the public.  If there are parts of the note that may be objectionable by tWitch’s family as being personal and private, perhaps those parts could be excluded, unless, perhaps, if they were crucial to the motive.  In fact, the parts of the note going to motive might be summarized rather than publishing the note itself.  

Clearly, the note is under the jurisdiction of the police and is evidence of the suicide.  So, the police has the authority to produce and/or publicize the note or a version of the note for the public.  *If the police can produce body-cam evidence to inform the public, it can also produce a suicide note, or portions thereof, to inform the public, and to perhaps help other persons in tWitch’s situation or circumstance avoid suicide.

Why would a successful Black man, or any man, who “has it made” *(fame, fortune, and family) commit suicide ?  

Rest in peace,  tWitch.  

UPDATE—January  24, 2023 

 PBS SO CAL :  THANKS PBS SO CAL FOR YOUR MARVELOUS BROADCASTS AND COVERAGE OF BLACK HISTORY 

After viewing the documentary coverage of Roberta Flack and Ella Fitzgerald tonight, it made me reflect on past documentaries of Black people and Black history, including the superb narration and old film footage, produced by PBS.  And that reflection caused me to offer this thanks to PBS So Cal for it’s coverage of Black history and producing it for the general public, including poor people who can’t afford cable.  Although I have lived in this country all my life, there are happenings about Black people produced by PBS that even I were not aware of.  For instance, in one segment of the Ella Fitzgerald doc , it was revealed that Marilyn Monroe once told a hall, hotel, or other venue, which had refused to allow Fitzgerald to perform at the facility because she was Black, that if the facility would not allow her (Fitzgerald) to perform that she (Monroe) would see to it that no one would show up to see any performance that night.  So, Fitzgerald was allowed to perform. 

So, PBS, please continue your coverage of Black history, and KNOW that the coverage is APPRECIATED.   

UPDATE—July 16, 2023. 

THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PROPOSAL FOR EXPRESS LANES ON THE 405 FREEWAY :  A BAD IDEA, IF THE EXPRESS LANES ON THE 110 FREEWAY IN LOS ANGELES IS ANY INDICATION 

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) will be considering a proposal to add express/toll lanes on the 405 freeway in Orange County.  From my experience and observation of the L.A. County 110 freeway express lanes, I don’t think it would be a good idea.  

From my experience on the 110 freeway observing the use of the express lanes and the impact it is suppose to have on reducing congestion of the overall traffic, the express lane experiment has failed.  It certainly doesn’t cause less congestion of traffic in the regular lanes, and , in fact, it appears to increase the congestion by denying use of the so-called “express lanes”.  Most people do not use the express lanes, and the few that do are likely mixed with violators. So what’s the benefit of the express lanes ?  The detriment is that it causes more congestion by not allowing use of those lanes for regular traffic .  The only way that express lanes could reduce traffic congestion is by a substantial amount of regular traffic drivers switching to using and paying for express lanes, and I don’t see that from my experience on the 110 freeway.

I think car pool lanes are more effective than express lanes, because clearly a substantial amount of people use the carpool lanes.  Yes, I am using the OCTA proposal to vent about express lanes and the 110 express lanes in general. I don’t see the express lanes helping in lessening traffic jams or congestion. They should be open to all traffic, or, secondarily, to carpools.   

UPDATE—February 8,  2024 

THE CONVICTION OF JENNIFER CRUMBLEY:  AN EMOTIONAL  VERDICT THAT, IN MY VIEW, WILL NOT STAND 

Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of Ethan Crumbley (who killed four high school students, and has pleaded guilty to murder, and is now serving a life sentence), has now been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter of the same 4 people that her son has been convicted of murdering.  I believe Ms. Crumbley’s conviction will be overturned on appeal, if it is appealed, as a matter of Michigan law.  I believe the jury’s verdict was strictly an emotional one, believing that the parents must have been responsible in some way for Ethan’s conduct and actions in the killings; and therefore, the jury accepted the prosecution’s explanation and argument of Crumbley’s guilt for the murders, especially when it was established that the parents bought the gun for Ethan.  But even with the other evidence supporting the gun evidence, the totality of the evidence presented at trial will not overcome the law *(and lack of material evidence supporting the law)  that holds otherwise.

 

In fact, I believe that this is the rare case where Crumbley’s  lawyer should move for judgment of acquittal again, after the jury verdict, even if she has moved before.   Because if the judge review the evidence again, after the jury verdict, and the LAW, he might reconsider his ruling, if previously made.  Of course it would take a strong and  fair judge to take that step, and it is rare that most judges would do so; but, even if the motion is denied, J. Crumbley’s appeal would be clearly focused.

I will not identify or discuss the law or the basis of my belief at this time because  J. Crumbley is represented by counsel and her counsel has a job to do.  But, perhaps my belief will be a word to the wise.  Moreover, Ethan’s father still has a forthcoming trial, and his attorney has a job to do as well.

Finally, I believe there is one other crime connected to the killings that Jennifer Crumbley could have been convicted of IF there was evidence to support it, but the evidence was absent.  So, she could not be convicted of that crime by the jury either.  And, again, I will not name that crime at this time either, because, under the circumstances of this case,  I will not aid the prosecution either.  There are times when I might aid the prosecution, when I believe that an individual should be prosecuted, e.g., the George Floyd case, *or, should NOT be prosecuted, i.e., the George Floyd case again (this time on behalf of one of the police officers charged with the murder of Floyd).  But, this case is not such a case.  I don’t think Jennifer Crumbley, under the circumstances and evidence of the present case should be found responsible for the students’ deaths, only Ethan.  And, I think  Michigan law and the appellate court will find that as well.  

*JAMES CRUMBLEY HAS NOW BEEN CONVICTED OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AS WELL (3/15/2024)

James Crumbley, the father of Ethan, has now been convicted of involuntary manslaughter as well.  The same thing that I said about Jennifer Crumbly applies to James as well.  But,  it will depend on the Crumbleys’ lawyers arguing the right thing on appeal.  However, I continue to believe that the Crumbley’s’ convictions will be set aside on appeal based on Michigan law and an appellate court’s review of that law, together with the missing (and necessary) facts needed for conviction.

*THE CRUMBLEYS HAVE NOW BEEN SENTENCED :  10 TO 15 YEARS FOR BOTH 

Jennifer and James Crumbley have been sentenced to 10 to 15 years a piece for the involuntary manslaughter of the four high school students who were killed by their son, Ethan Crumbley.  The Crumbleys were given a total sentence for all four students rather than for each student individually, based on the recommendation of the prosecutors in the case.  

I’m not aware of whether the Crumbleys have decided to appeal or not.  Of course, if neither appeals, we’ll never know whether their convictions would have been overturned on appeal or not.

UPDATE—February  19, 2024 

FANI WILLIS AND THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST NONSENSE. 

This will be a short blogpost.  But, I feel an urge to respond to the controversy.  I will assume my readers are aware of the fact of District Attorney Fani Willis of Fulton County, Georgia prosecuting former President Donald Trump for election interference and racketeering.  With that in mind, recently, Trump’s defense attorneys has attempted to get Willis disqualified from the case based on a charge of conflict of interest based on a romantic relationship between Willis, who is Black  and Nathan Wade, who is Black,  and who was hired by Willis as an outside prosecutor to help assist and/or guide her through the case. 

THE BOTTOMLINE :  The relationship between Willis and Wade has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Willis’s prosecution of Trump.  The attempted disqualification of Willis based on her relationship with Wade is nothing more than the defense throwing out a bone to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee hoping that he bites.  The relationship between Willis and Wade is nothing more than a romantic relationship, for however long it lasted, between two consenting adults, that happen to take place during the course of the trial.  Willis might have wanted or needed some  companionship, and  sex, during the course of the trial to help relieve her tensions and frustrations.  And, the defense attorneys might be jealous because they ain’t  getting none.   See, for instance, the impeachment of Bill Clinton (for his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky).  You want to tell me that some of those house and senate members didn’t impeach Clinton out of jealousy.  That is, because they weren’t getting any, at least not the way Clinton got it, i.e., in the White House during business hours.

Anyway, I believe the judge will find that there is no conflict of interest and that Willis is not disqualified from the case based on the relationship between Willis and Wade, even if the relationship started before Wade’s hiring.  The relationship between Willis and Wade have nothing to do with Willis’s prosecution of Trump.  

UPDATE—March  4, 2024 

A FEW OF MY ELECTION PICKS 

1.  For U.S. Senator :  Barbara Lee — because she is the People’s choice, and my choice;  our choice.  The Senate needs a Black female senator.  There are plenty white male senators in the Senate already, so Rep. Adam Schiff, a white male, would just add another one.  But, there are NO Black female senators in the Senate, so Rep. Barbara  Lee would provide a much needed resource for the Senate and for people of color.

2. For L.A. County District Attorney :  No  to George Gascon.  Gascon prosecutes minority public officials, while allowing white ones to go free of prosecution.  That’s called racial discrimination.   If he had run, my choice would be Adewale Oduye, a former prosecutor in the D.A.’s office who “accused supervisors of refusing to confront law enforcement misconduct or pursuing cases against defendants he believed were obviously innocent”.   And, who filed “grievances against supervisors he considered racist”.  Oduye “applied to both the public defender’s and district attorney’s offices, but chose the latter in the hopes of being an agent of change.  ‘A friend of mine told me being a prosecutor, especially as an African American male, is good  because there’s not very many, and you could do a lot of good in the world’, he said.”  Oduye left the D.A.’s office. 

With no Oduye available, my selection, out of the various individuals running for the D.A. office is :  JEFF CHEMERINSKY.  The main reason for me, while not knowing much about any of the candidates, is Chemerinsy’s candidate’s statement, where he referred to his “plan to bring. . . fairness and justice to our communities.” Emphasis added.  I don’t know if he will keep his word or not, but I will give him a shot.  I know Gascon failed.  Moreover,  Chemerinsky has been referred to as a “mini-Gascon” and  “Gascon sequel” by one prosecutor running for the office, and that helps provide me with additional insight as to what type of prosecutor Chemerinsky might be.  Hopefully, he will be similar to Gascon, but better and more fairer and non-discriminatory.  Again, I will give him a shot, as I did Gascon.  

3.  For State Senator, 35th District :  Michelle Chambers.  This was my most difficult decision. Both Chambers and Laura Richardson were unfamiliar to me, but both sent me equal amounts of campaign literature.  And both received  almost equal support from various factions of the Black community.  And, both are accused of being “bullying” politicians.  But, I will go with Chambers because Richardson appear to have slightly more instances or charges of negative and serious misconduct, such as corruption or dishonesty.  To clarify, were Richardson running unopposed or against someone who did not have the support of the community to match hers,  I would not hold the misconduct alone to not vote for her.  But, in a situation where she is matched against someone who has equal support of the community, there has to be someway of distinguishing one person from the other.  In my case, it is conduct or type of conduct, e.g., civil rights action that may have resulted in charges or arrest and prosecution,  that have been exercised by Chambers and Richardson that has made the difference. 

*4.  For U.S. President :  Joe Biden.  Biden may not be perfect, but, compared to Trump, he is.  And, it appears that the only alternative to Biden, for President,  will be Trump.  Biden deserves the full Democratic vote.  

UPDATE—March. 17,  2024 

THE FANI WILLIS DECISION :  NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST; NO DISQUALIFICATION 

Judge Scott McAfee of the Fulton County Superior Court, Georgia, has now found the relationship between District Attorney Fani Willis and her Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade did  not create a conflict of interest and did not disqualify Willis from prosecuting the case against former President Trump.   Although, judge McAfee did find that the Willis-Wade relationship was inappropriate under the circumstances and that one of them had to go, or, leave the case, with Wade subsequently resigning.  

And what did yours truly say :  “I believe that the judge will find that there is no conflict of interest and that Willis is not disqualified from the case based on the relationship between Willis and Wade. . . .” See  February 19th Update above.

Another professional credibility notch.   

UPDATE—April  21,  2024 

MAGIC JOHNSON PARK :  MISGUIDED DECISIONS EQUAL DISREGARD FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, CONCERN, AND CONVENIENCE   

It has come to my attention that several decisions by park officials at Magic Johnson Park has shown a disregard for the welfare, health, concern, or convenience of the mostly minority community. 

First, a park bench (a wooden bench for sitting on only) which has been in the park since the park’s inception (while some other benches have been replaced with iron benches).  The bench is located in a convenient spot in the park for a good view of several sections of the park.  The bench has had to be repaired several times, because, as expected in a public facility, some members of the public misused and/or damaged the bench, such as by exercising on the bench the wrong way.  But, some members of the public are going to misuse or damage certain things, e.g., graffiti, in a public park.    So, now, it appears that park officials are not going to replace it.  Apparently, they have become aggravated by having to repair it.  There was another park bench that was in the same area, a table bench (where several people can sit and eat), which was removed because a homeless person would sleep on the bench now and then (I surmise).  That bench was in a shaded area under a tree.  However, it was not missed as much as the sitting bench.  The sitting bench is missed. 

Here’s the bonehead move that the officials made :  They actually had the bench FIXED and the bench was being used and appreciated.  Then, after about a week, the bench was suddenly REMOVED.  And, it has not been replaced.  Apparently, the officials had second thoughts, and decided, we’ll just take the bench out, and we won’t have to worry about fixing it anymore.  But, what about the patrons of the park ? There was no consideration of their feelings about the bench.  The bench should be replaced.  It was comfortable and presented a good view of the park.  Even if it was going to be replaced with another type of bench, the wooden bench could have remained until the new bench was installed.

Second, one of the main  men’s bathrooms in the park now have only one bathroom stall, and no urinals.  Therefore, only one person can use the bathroom at a time.  This occurred after the park’s construction in conjunction with the demolition of the housing project adjacent to the park.  But, before the new construction, there were two urinals in the bathroom, separated by a partition.  So, at least two people could use the bathroom before  the new  construction.  However, after the new construction, the park built an actual stall with a door, but, removed the only  single urinal.  Therefore, now, only one person can use the restroom at a time.  So, why was the only urinal removed ?  Without a  significant reason, other than cost, the urinal should be replaced.  What do you think happens on holidays with increased attendance at the park ?  And only one person at a time can use the restroom ?

Finally, and most important, for health purposes, a separate and main men’s bathroom, have neither paper towels nor a hand-drying blower to dry one’s hands after using the restroom.  Apparently, the park’s excuse for no towels or a machine blower for drying one’s hands is that some members of the public have stopped up the toilets with paper towels occasionally.  But, that’s expected at public facilities.  It’s going to happen in urban areas, e.g., like graffiti.  So, that’s no excuse for neither paper towels nor a blower.   There is a blower machine in the aforementioned other men’s bathroom with no urinals.  I believe it’s probably a health violation not to have either paper towels or a blower in the restroom.   There should be either hand towels or a hand-drying blower put in the men’s bathroom.  

A word to the wise.

UPDATE—April 21,  2025  

STOLEN CARS, PROBABLE CAUSE, RACISM, AND THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT. 

About two weeks ago I discovered two of my automobiles, both Mustangs (‘71 and ‘86), had been stolen from my home.  I later discovered that the cars had actually been stolen a few days before I discovered the theft.  So, I called the Sheriff  Department (Imperial Highway) to report the thefts.  

When the sheriff deputies arrived, I reported the thefts , and I told the deputies that the landlord told me who did it.  It’s a guy who caretakes for my landlord.  We’ve butted heads when I’ve gone to pay the rent. So, I told the deputies that this guy, Daryl, was a suspect.  While one deputy, a male (the other deputy was a female) kept saying that there are “no suspects” , and I kept saying that this Daryl was a suspect.  And, I told the deputies that I wanted this Daryl’s name included in the Report that they were making.  The female deputy pointed to her body camera, suggesting that it was included.   But, I could see where this was going.

However, guess what?  One of my neighbors taped the theft.  After I inquired, the wife of the neighbor had checked her tape, and discovered the theft, and together, we viewed parts of the tape, which had been downloaded to her cellphone.  We could see the theft being perpetrated together. We could see Daryl and a tow truck driver taking one Mustang away.  So, with this viewing in mind,  I proceeded to the Sheriff’s station to report the same.  The desk deputy at the station, after I told him I wanted to report the new facts to someone, left the desk and went to get someone.  He came back with a detective (l’ll call him John).  As I began to describe what had happened (and I got to the point of me viewing the tape), John got an emergency call, and had to leave.  But, he seemed like he would pursue the matter,  as it should be pursued.  The desk deputy had left, so I left.  

Probable Cause For Daryl’s Arrest 

When I returned to the Sheriff station again, I tried to ask for John, but I didn’t describe him correctly (for instance, I thought he was white, but actually, he is Hispanic) so no one knew who he was.  So, another detective (I’ll call him James) was sent out.  After I told him about the theft, he asked me a few questions about my ownership of the vehicles, then , he said, maybe he (Daryl) was doing it for the owner of the property (I rent), who had complained about the vehicles.  I told him I don’t care WHY he did it, he stole my cars, without my consent or permission, and I want him arrested, and my cars returned. The detective said he would get back with me, but never did.  Later, the neighbor sent 5 videos of the theft to the Sheriff Dept. via a link provided by the sheriff.  John later entered the case again.  And, after I told him that there was probable cause for Daryl’s arrest, and that I wanted Daryl arrested, he replied that “there is no probable cause”.  That let me know, he either did not know what probable cause is,  or he is just biased, favoring the suspect and property owner.

Here’s the deal :  When Daryl took (stole) my cars from my home without my consent or permission, he committed Grand Theft Auto (GTA), among other crimes such as larceny and criminal trespass.  In addition to the initial evidence I had, e.g., the neighbor’s wife and I viewing the theft by Daryl on videotape and other evidence, when the sheriff received the 5 videos of the theft, that was sufficient evidence for probable cause for the sheriff to arrest Daryl.  The detectives should know what probable cause is and means, so I won’t discuss it here.  However, instead of arresting Daryl based on probable cause, the detectives decided that they would skip over probable cause, forego arresting him, and entertain his reason or motive for stealing my cars.  Not only is that not usual police procedure, but, it is improper.  If Daryl has a reason for the theft, he can present that reason to a judge or jury at his trial, i.e., his defense. But now, he must be arrested (especially, since he is not the owner of the property). So, now, he hasn’t been arrested, and I still don’t have my cars.

READERS :  When is the last time you’ve heard the police/sheriff , after a theft of property (such as a smash and grab, of clothing, jewelry, or other) has been caught on tape, refuse to arrest the suspected thief, while entertaining his reason for the theft ?  “I stole the goods to give them to the poor”! Okay, we won’t arrest you.  That’s a good reason!    It’s never done. It’s always arrest him or her first, and find out his reasons later (after the arrest), i.e., tell it to the judge (or jury).

Racial Bias   

I believe and charge that the reason that Daryl has not been arrested is because I’m Black.  If I was a white man, under the same circumstances as here (including the suspect being Black), Daryl would have been arrested within two to three days after the detectives viewed the tape, or, probably, after he told them he had seen the tape and identified Daryl.  Thus, I charge racial bias in the refusal to arrest Daryl and secure my cars.  

The Sheriff Department   

The detectives at the sheriff department acted in a biased way.  First, I asked to see the videos that were sent to the sheriff dept. on my behalf.  Initially, two deputies, John and another deputy, said that they didn’t want me to see the videos to protect the integrity of the case.  Then, after I asked again, telling them I wanted to compare the tape with the tape I had seen.  The detectives said the tapes were distorted, and you couldn’t see much of anything on them, NONE of them.  Then, at a different time, when I asked to see the tapes again, John said that I would have to subpoena them to see them.  This is all biased conduct, tending to protect the suspect rather than the victim.  John said he went to talk to the homeowner, but, I’m not charging the homeowner, I’m charging Daryl, and he should be arrested.  And, *(deleted).  

My Next Moves 

If no satisfaction from the detectives, then I will need to speak with Sheriff Robert Luna. And, if no satisfaction from Luna, then, the final decision maker, who will know what probable cause for an arrest  is, will be District Attorney Nathan Hochman.  

Note: I’m not using true names for several persons at this time because of benefit of the doubt at this time, but it may change.

*Update—August 1, 2025  

NEW FACTS AND ANOTHER CRIME :  BUT, NO ARRESTS. 

There has been new facts and an additional crime committed and discovered since the last time I published this blogpost.  Yet, no arrest of either Daryl has been made. 

I have now had my two Mustangs found and recovered.  They were found in large part due to the efforts of John, the Detective.  And, I thanked him for finding them.  They were discovered and found in a city called Little Rock, California, near Palmdale.  I had to travel to Little Rock to retrieve the vehicles.  And, I had to have the vehicles towed back to L.A. at my expense. 

Prior to traveling to Little Rock to retrieve the vehicles, I learned from a Lt. Salgado (at the time stationed at the South L.A. location of the Sheriff Dept.) that one of the thieves had utilized a false bill of sale to secure the assistance of the Little Rock tow truck driver in stealing the cars.  So when I traveled to Little Rock and spoke with the tow truck driver, he showed me the pictured driver’s license of the person who had utilized the false bill of sale to secure his services.  I recognized the person; it was the property owner’s nephew, a Daryl.  So, when I returned to L.A., and sometime later, I informed Det. John of this. So, now, John was aware of evidence of two separate crimes committed by the car thieves , GTA and using a false bill of sale.  Still, no arrests. 

So, I filed a Complaint against John for not further investigating the conduct of the car thieves, and for not showing me the videoes for identification purposes, if nothing else.  Later, I received a response from Sheriff Luna stating that “appropriate administrative action was taken upon conclusion of the investigation”.  So, what does that mean ?  I followed up to get a further explanation of the results of the review of the Complaint, per the letter, but I’m still not satisfied after speaking with a Lieutenant. So, I’ll try speaking to the signed author of the letter (not Luna)(a Captain).

UPDATE—August 3, 2025 

THANKS TO THE SHERIFF DEPT. FOR EXPEDITIOUS ACTION AND RECOVERY OF A THIRD STOLEN VEHICLE 

On July 8, 2025, I had a third vehicle stolen, a Kia Optima.  This time I must commend the sheriff department, and voice my appreciation for its (their) swift action, resulting in the recovery of my car within 3 hours after I reported it stolen. I was also lucky in that I noticed it stolen soon after it happened.  But, it was the sheriff dept’s swift action on the report of a stolen vehicle that was the outstanding aspect of the entire scenario.  And, I thank officer Jennifer Alvarado and the other officers involved who appeared with the return of my car. 

The four young thieves (estimated to be about 16 years old) escaped without apprehension. But, unlike the case of my two stolen Mustangs, there is no videotape (so far), no identification of the teenagers, no photo telephone and driver’s license evidence, and no evidence of other crimes committed by the teenagers. 

Thus,  I will continue to pursue the arrest and prosecution of the individuals (adults) who stole the Mustangs and who have been and/or can be identified.  

**UPDATE—May  23, 2026   

WHO SHOULD BE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR?  

Because of California’s system of Top 2 highest vote- getters , rather than party categories, as is usually the case, going to the general election, it places Democrats in the awkward position of having to select the democratic candidates that will have the best chances of becoming the ultimate governor.  And that has to come down to the best two, or at most, three candidates that  all citizens most choose among to vote for to help assure that a Democrat is voted in as governor.  That is, unfortunately, democrats cannot necessarily vote for the individual that they would ordinarily choose to vote for.  Rather, they must choose from the top two or three democrats that might secure or obtain the votes from the democratic masses at this time, and who would best represent  all  the people, e.g., minorities and the poor.

For instance, ordinarily, I think I would vote for Tony Thurmond, but, because of the top 2 system, it would be a wasted vote, and only serve to lessen the chances of having a Democrat elected Governor.  And, I am basing the decision, in part, based on the polls.  But, it’s not entirely based on polls.  For example, the polls are claiming  Xavier Beccera is the prevailing top democratic vote-getter in the polls, or at least that is what the L.A. Times is claiming and reporting.  But, I don’t accept that result from the polls or the L.A. Times.  I think it’s propaganda.  I think Beccera is the L.A. Times’ candidate of choice.

So, I will name who I think should be the only three Democrats that Democrats should select from, and why.  Those candidates are :  

1.  Antonio Villaraigosa 

     He did well during the debates in terms of expressing practical ideas of how he intended to govern, and he has experience governing the first or second largest city in the nation, L.A., which would suggest that he has good experience in preparing to govern the state of California.  And, we could use a person of color in the governor’s job. 

2.  Katie Porter 

     She also did a fairly good job during the debates, and she represents a grassroots candidate who is focused on the working class, with working class ideas.  And she finally said something about fighting racism (through a sign in one of her TV ads), which provided some sign as to how she would be governing on behalf of Black people and other minorities. She says she doesn’t take money from corporations, and I think that’s a positive.  Becerra appears to admit in a tv ad that he accepted or would accept funds from corporations.  Also, Porter, unlike any of the other democratic candidates in the running, has specifically and repeatedly sought my vote.

3.  Tom  Steyer 

      He has the money to take democratic positions and not having to worry about suffering any economic consequences, similar to Newsom.  But, he also has received support from Black public officials. He also appears to have contributed in some way to the provision of free meals for school children in California.  He also appears to want to try and solve some of the problems of working class and/or poor people in California. I think it is a positive that he is a billionaire.  

So, I think all democratic voters in California, to help assure that a democrat is among the top 2, should vote for one of the three candidates identified above.  I am still deciding myself.  But, my choice will be from among the three named above. 

THE HELEN H. DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL AND PETITION FOR REVIEW : A MOTION FOR A STAY OR MANDATORY INJUNCTION, WITH MY AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION BEING A RECENT CA SUPREME COURT CASE AUTHORED BY JUSTICE LEONDRA KRUGER; HOW APPROPRIATE FOR BLACK HISTORY MONTH

 Los Angeles, California 

March 13,  2024

(Today’s Date) 

February 16, 2022

(Today’s Date)

*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion, or both.

**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information or material added after publishing of the original blog).

This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California (and the United States) 

***For immediate background information and the last blogpost published about the Helen H. Davis Conservatorship, you must refer to my blog entitled “The Homelessness Crisis in Los Angeles and the State of California. . . .” For the latest blogpost, see the February 8, 2022 UPDATE.

A few days ago,  I filed a motion to stay or for a mandatory injunction with the CA Supreme Court regarding new actions surrounding my mother’s (Helen H. Davis’s) home that I was recently made aware of.  In researching authority for the motion, I came across a recent case, Daly v. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, NO. S260209, August 9, 2021, authored by Justice Leondra Kruger, one of two Black Justices on the CA Supreme Court, and a now considered candidate (one of three) for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Stephen G. Breyer.  *The seat on the Supreme Court went to the Black Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

 It was strictly a coincidence that I came across the Daly case, and it is likely that I came across it so quickly because it is recent.   But, it seems altogether fitting that I, as a Black man and Black lawyer, would rely on a decision authored by a Black Supreme Court Justice in support of my motion, and this occurrence happens during Black History Month, where an emphasis is placed on Black historical moments. This is a historical moment for me as a Black lawyer, because it is the first time in my *long career that I’ve relied on the *sole authoritative opinion of a Black judge , as opposed to a white judge or other non-Black judge, to support a motion, petition, or brief.   It just hasn’t happened.   But, perhaps I should say that this is the first time a Black judge that I KNOW about has provided the primary *and sole supportive authority for a  pleading of mine.   Because I certainly haven’t researched every primary authoritative source I’ve relied on in my career to determined the author’s race or color.   So, *it’s possible, though not likely, that  I may have relied on a Black judge as authority before and didn’t know it.    And, that’s what helps make my knowledge of judge Kruger’s case remarkable.  That is, I happened to gain knowledge that the primary source of authority that I relied upon in support of my motion is Black, and I happened to discover this for the first time in my career during Black History Month. 

Moreover, the case itself, that is, the Petition for review, is essentially a civil rights matter.  So, that fact combined with the above, makes the discovery even more remarkable. 

In the end, the motion will be decided as the Court usually decides motions to stay.  Along side my motion, the University of California Board of Regents has also filed *requests to stay regarding an order requiring UC Berkeley to freeze enrollment at the same level as the 2020-2021 academic year.

My motion regard the state of my mother’s home during the pendency of the Petition.  I’ve asked the Court to stay any sale or attempted sale of the home pending a decision on the Petition.  

UPDATE—February 24, 2022 

UC BERKELEY’S REQUEST FOR A STAY 

Remarkably, in my view, Berkeley’s requests for stays do not cite or mention Justice Leondra Kruger’s Daly v. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors decision, even though it appears to be the latest decision by the Supreme Court on the subject, i.e., request for a stay, and even though the decision was produced several months before Berkeley’s requests were filed in Court.  Every attorney makes his or her own decision as to what case or cases to cite in support of his or her action.  So, Berkeley had no requirement or duty to cite the case, but it seems to me, the only reason Berkeley would not cite the case, is that it did not believe the case was helpful in obtaining relief, or that it was not aware of the case in drafting its petitions.

In any event, I did not make the above point to criticize UC Berkeley. I made the point because I only read Berkeley’s petitions (both in the Court of Appeal and the CA Supreme Court) after I had filed mine, and when I read its petitions,  I discovered that Daly was not cited, and I was expecting it to be.    So, I was surprised.   I still think Daly’s absence in Berkeley’s requests for stays is remarkable (because at least one passage in Daly specifically  supports UC Berkeley’s position, and because in one of its petitions, it specifically stated, “The Regents reasonably believed the filing of the appeal stayed the entirety of the judgment, as is typical on a judgment directing issuance of a writ of mandate”).  Justice Kruger’s decision specifically dealt with automatic stays and mandatory injunctions.  

UPDATE—February 28,  2022  

THE HELEN H. DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL/PETITION :  MS. DAVIS IS NOW 100 YEARS OLD : A MILESTONE IN LIFE ;  WE CONTINUE TO WAIT 

My mother, Helen H. Davis, is now 100 years old.  A blessing.  The Supreme Court has now extended the time to make a decision, to grant or deny the Petition.  And, if the Court does not make a decision by the end of March, the Petition is considered denied.  I have an opinion about that procedure, but, I will defer at this time.    So, we anxiously wait.  

UPDATE—March 24,  2022 

HELEN H. DAVIS, UC BERKELEY, THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, AND GOVERNOR NEWSOM:  HELEN H. DAVIS AND UC BERKELEY  BOTH TRAVELED THE SAME PATH , ARRIVED AT THE SAME DESTINATION,  AND  RECEIVED THE SAME TREATMENT BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT :  SO, IF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE CAN CREATE OR DEVELOP A REMEDY FOR UC BERKELEY, IT CAN AND SHOULD CREATE OR DEVELOP ONE FOR HELEN H. DAVIS AS WELL, AND THE GOVERNOR SHOULD, ONCE AGAIN, SIGN THE LEGISLATION.

Like it did with UC Berkeley, the California Supreme Court , after ordering an extension to decide one way or the other , denied the Petition and the application for a stay in the Helen H. Davis conservatorship case.   

Therefore, both UC Berkeley and  Helen H. Davis traveled the same path, arriving at the same destination,  with the same results :  a denied petition for review and application for a stay, with no reasoned decision.

The path of both Helen H. Davis and UC Berkeley began with the trial court .  In Berkeley’s case, an Alameda County Superior Court judge, Brad Seligman, “ordered Berkeley to cap enrollment at its 2020-2021 level of 42,357 students. To get to that level,  Berkeley would have to cut admission offers by at least 5,100 to account for the share of applicants who decline acceptance.  UC, in its appeal to the court, said the enrollment cap would prove particularly ‘catastrophic’ to the top-rated public research university’s goal to admit more low-income, underrepresented students (emphasis added).  L.A. Times, “Why Berkeley May be forced to slash 3,050 seats”,  February 20, 2022.  “It was the first time any court had ever issued an injunction against UC specifically on enrollment related to long-range development   plans.”  Id.  The lawsuit leading up to the court’s order was brought by a community group, Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, which “blamed the university for failing to adequately review the impact of its burgeoning student population and not building enough housing to accommodate it.”  Id. 

In Davis’s case, the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, Anna Marie Luna, ordered Davis, a then 99 year-old Black lady, to sell her home that she had lived in for over 50 years, without Davis’s consent, and especially,  verified   consent, and other statutory violations.  The Petition for confirmation of the sale of the home was brought by Davis’s daughter, Dianne Jackson, who knew that she had not acquired Davis’s verified consent to sell the house.  I argued before the trial judge that Jackson wanted to sell the house for her own personal benefit not for the benefit of Davis.  In fact, it was Jackson’s decision to place Davis in a board and care in the first place, over my objection.  Davis had suffered a fall at home, and I wanted to take care of her at home.  Jackson chose a board and care, and the medical professionals said at the time, we both had to agree to take care of Davis at home in order for her to be cared for at home.  When Jackson became conservator, over my objection, Davis has remained in a board and care.  

UC Berkeley appealed to the First District Court of appeal.  That Court sustained the  trial court decision and denied a stay. Berkeley  actually won a dismissal (demurrer), but that dismissal was reversed on appeal by the First District.

I, on Davis’s behalf, appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.  That Court, initially, issued a dismissal of the case based on “standing” ,  finding that I did not have standing to appeal (suffered no injury).  I, in turn, filed a motion to recall the case, based on various grounds, including racial discrimination, fraud, and false statements.  The Court denied the motion (after initially refusing to rule on the motion).

UC Berkeley thereafter, filed a Petition for Review and applied for a stay in the California Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court denied Berkeley’s  petition and its application for stay, with two dissents, but without reasoning or explanation for the decision to deny the Petition.

Davis, through me, filed a Petition for Review, and subsequently, moved for a stay or a mandatory injunction (with some indication that there was an exchange of possession of Davis’s home).  Both the Petition and motion for a stay or mandatory injunction were denied, without reasoning or explanation.

So, both UC Berkeley and Davis arrived at the California Supreme Court with important issues regarding the welfare of people of color and others.  For Berkeley, it was a concern for their education of students .  “UC, in its appeal to the court, said the enrollment cap would prove particularly ‘catastrophic’ to the top-rated public research university’s goal to admit more low-income,  underrepresented students,”  L.A. Times article, supra (emphasis added),  who, invariably, are students of color.  For Davis, it was a concern for the loss of her home as a 100 year-old  Black lady  who did not  consent  to the sale of her home, and where the sale of her home was made in violation of several statutory provisions, i.e., the sale was illegal, and in view of the fact that the sale of the house points to covert racial discrimination in the spirit of the Bruce Beach taking of a Black family’s property in Manhattan  Beach over 100 years ago.  Moreover, the sale of the house was confirmed at a time when there are few Black homeowners in the County of Los Angeles, and it is difficult for Black people , financially, to purchase homes in Los Angeles.

Yet, both UC Berkeley and Davis received the same result :  a denial of the Petitions and applications for stays without a reasoned decision why the Court reached the decision that it did.

LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION 

While the UC Berkeley case was pending before the CA  Supreme Court, “ ‘We are exploring all options and our hope is for a remedy (via the courts or the Legislature) that will result in no need to reduce this fall’s enrollment by 3,050,’ the UC Berkeley statement said.”  Id. That means Berkeley was exploring legislation while its Petition was pending, which likely included lobbying.  The California Legislators responded. “California legislators are fast-tracking a rescue effort to help UC Berkeley avoid slashing its in-person fall class by more than 2,600 students to meet a court-ordered enrollment freeze, just as the university prepares to release admission decisions this month.”  L.A. Times, “Push to help UC Berkeley escape cuts, March 12, 2022.  “If passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the legislation would take effect IMMEDIATELY AND RETROACTIVELY—allowing UC Berkeley to proceed with its original plans to enroll more than 5,000 first-year California students, according to state Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco). . . .”   Id. (emphasis added).  

And why did the legislators do what they did ?  “ ‘We believe this . . .allows us to continue educating deserving  students,’ the legislators said.  ‘When our legislation passes and allows the law to be applied retroactively, UC Berkeley will be able to resume its enrollment plan, which was disrupted by a misguided court order.’”  Id. (emphasis added).  And, this “misguided court order”  language is equally applicable to both the Berkeley case and the Davis case, whichever court it refers to.   Gov. Newsom signed the legislation.  Making it  law.  “I’m grateful to the Legislature for moving quickly on this critical issue”, said  Newsom.

UC Berkeley Chancellor  Carol  Christ stated, “I want to thank California’s legislators for their quick and effective response.”  

HELEN H. DAVIS DESERVES  NO LESS FROM BOTH THE LEGISLATURE AND GOV. NEWSOM 

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Clearly, my mother, Helen H. Davis, deserves no less from both the Legislature and the Governor.  Her issues are at least as important, if not more important, than Berkeley’s .  While Berkeley’s issue(s), education of students , was important, Davis’s  issues are  fundamental.  The taking of anyone’s property without their consent is stealing and wrong.   And, the taking of someone’s home without the person’s consent , with the aid of the government, as in Davis’s case, is the denial of the person’s fundamental right to own property, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. With the homeless problem in Los Angeles city and county, as it is, homeownership is not only a fundamental right, but , it is an essential right. 

Further, Davis was deprived of her home at least in part because she is Black, and therefore,  in losing her home, she was deprived of equality in application of the law.  She was not equally protected.

But, the Legislature does not have to reach the Constitution to devise a remedy for Davis.  It didn’t do so for Berkeley, and it need not do so for Davis.  It need only devise a remedy that will undo what has been done, immediately and retroactively, which will return Davis’s home to her, in the event of an illegal sale.  It is much needed legislation for Davis and other elderly conservatees in Davis’s position in the County of Los Angeles.

I don’t have the resources to hire lobbyists and lawyers to persuade Legislators to devise a remedy for my mother, as Berkeley may have had and done for its case, so I’ll have to lobby myself.  I will start with a State Assemblyman or Senator, and may end with Gov. Newsom, if necessary.   However, Gov. Newsom need not wait for me to approach him to offer assistance;  he may do so, in his own accord.

UPDATE—April 18,  2022 

GOVERNOR NEWSOM  :   WE (HELEN H. DAVIS AND I) ARE CALLING ON YOU TO USE YOUR INFLUENCE WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND YOUR OWN POWER TO  RETURN MY 100 YEAR OLD BLACK MOTHER’S HOME TO HER, AFTER THE HOME WAS TAKEN FROM HER BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITHOUT HER CONSENT, AND WITH RACIST MOTIVATION, IN THE SPIRIT OF THE BRUCE BEACH THEFT OF PROPERTY FROM THE BRUCES OVER 100 YEARS AGO.  YOU ARE THE HEAD OF STATE, SO YOU CAN UNDO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE STATE, BY WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY. 

BESIDES THE THEFT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE OTHER SIGNIFICANT REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD INTERVENE AND RENDER RELIEF : 

1. THE HOMELESS CRISIS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHICH AFFECTS BLACK PEOPLE MORE THAN ANY OTHER RACIAL GROUP.  WHILE YOU HAVE RECOGNIZED THE CRISIS AND PURPORT TO WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM,  THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW BLACK PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THE HOMELESS P3ROBLEM, AND PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.   REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SENATOR APPOINTMENT  :   THE PEOPLE  HAD INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED A BLACK FEMALE TO FILL THE POSITION,  BUT YOU CHOSE OTHERWISE.  THIS CASE PRESENTS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO SHOW BLACK PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY THAT YOU  INTEND TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.  THEFT OF PROPERTY BY THE STATE HAS LEFT MY MOTHER HOMELESS.  THE NURSING FACILITY WHERE SHE RESIDES IS NOT HER HOME.    AND, EVEN WITH HER INCREASED DEMENTIA,  SHE RECOGNIZES THIS;  JUST LAST WEEK ,  SHE VOLUNTARILY STATED, “I’M READY TO GO HOME” (NOT RECOGNIZING AND REALIZING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH HER HOME).  AND, HER HOME WAS MY HOME, SO WE BOTH WERE LEFT HOMELESS (WHERE I LIVE IS NOT MY HOME EITHER).

IT’S ONE THING TO ALLOCATE MONEY FOR THE HOMELESS PROBLEM,  AND ANOTHER THING TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM, *OR TAKE DIRECT ACTION TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.   RETURNING HELEN H. DAVIS’S HOME TO HER WILL ACTUALLY SOLVE  HER HOMELESS PROBLEM, WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, DEFEAT THE RACISM THAT CAUSED HER TO BE HOMELESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.  WHILE YOU INTERVENED IN THE BRUCE BEACH MATTER ON BEHALF OF DECEASED BLACK PEOPLE AND THEIR DESCENDANTS,  MY MOTHER IS LIVING, AND SHE WILL REAP THE BENEFITS OF YOUR ACTION WHILE SHE IS LIVING.  DON’T WAIT UNTIL SHE DIES TO GRANT HER RELIEF.

2.  THERE ARE PROBABLY NUMEROUS OTHER BLACK ELDERLY CITIZENS WHO THE SAME THING HAS HAPPENED TO.   YOUR ACTION ON BEHALF OF MS. DAVIS MIGHT SERVE TO HELP THEM AS WELL.  PERHAPS, IT WILL INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SALE OF HOMES OF OTHER BLACK ELDERLY CITIZENS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,  ESPECIALLY WITHOUT THEIR VERIFIED CONSENT,  AND WITHOUT DETERMINING WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOMES WITH HOME CARE.

3.  THERE ARE VERY FEW BLACK HOMEOWNERS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY PRESENTLY , AND IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE AVERAGE  BLACK PERSON TO PURCHASE AND OWN A HOME IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, BASED ON THE COST OF HOMES IN LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY;  SO,  GOV. NEWSOM, IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO RETURN MY MOTHER’S HOME TO HER,  YOU WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE BLACK HOMEOWNER DEFICIT. 

GOV.  NEWSOM,   YOU ACTED ON BEHALF OF DECEASED BLACK PEOPLE IN THE BRUCE BEACH MATTER;  YOU ACTED ON BEHALF OF POTENTIAL STUDENTS OF UC BERKELEY IN THE BERKELEY MATTER;  NOW,  I’M ASKING YOU  TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE  LIVING AND REAL  HELEN H. DAVIS .   RETURN HER HOME TO HER.

Finally,  I contacted the office of Senator Steven Bradford in an effort to garner assistance, but,  other than a referral to another agency, all I received was the run around from his staff, initially Sacramento,  but ending with Inglewood, CA (“Jasmine”) even after they requested and received some documentation.  I don’t know if Sen. Bradford even received notice that I was seeking assistance.  But, the bottom line is, I received no assistance from his Office (and didn’t get to speak with him personally), therefore, I received no assistance from him.

I will send a copy of this blogpost to Governor Newsom.

GOV. NEWSOM :  PLEASE,  DO THE RIGHT THING.   

UPDATE—April 25, 2022 

GOV. NEWSOM :  WHEN YOU HELD A PUBLIC SIGNING OF THE LEGISLATION FOR THE BLACK BRUCE FAMILY,  DID YOU HOLD THE PUBLIC SIGNING BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO BLACK PEOPLE AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT YOU  INTEND TO DEFEAT  OR REVERSE THE TAKING OR STEALING OF BLACK PEOPLES’ HOMES AND/OR OTHER PROPERTY BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THROUGH COVERT RACISM ;  OR,  DID YOU HOLD THE PUBLIC SIGNING BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HELP SECURE THE BLACK VOTE FOR YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN ?    

*IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO RETURN MS. DAVIS’S HOME TO HER, AS YOU DID FOR THE BRUCES,  BLACK PEOPLE AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WILL KNOW THAT YOU HELD THE PUBLIC SIGNING (AS OPPOSED TO A NON-PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ONE)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE BLACK VOTE IN YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.   *AND THAT YOU HAVE NO INTENTION  OF TRYING TO CURTAIL THE THEFT OF BLACK PEOPLES’  HOMES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THROUGH COVERT RACISM  IN LOS ANGELES  COUNTY. 

UPDATE—May 10,  2022 

ISAIAH  LEE  AND DAVE CHAPPELLE :  GOVERNOR NEWSOM AND THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ,  DID ISAIAH  LEE,  INDIRECTLY, ON BEHALF OF BLACK HOMEOWNERS, ESPECIALLY ELDERLY BLACK HOMEOWNERS, IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, GET YOUR ATTENTION ? 

BLACK POLITICIANS OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY,  DID ISAIAH LEE, ON BEHALF OF BLACK RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY, GET YOUR   ATTENTION ?    SAY SOMETHING;  DO SOMETHING.  OR, DO YOU CONDONE  THE GENTRIFICATION  ?

OTHER POLITICIANS OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY, IN THE SPIRIT OF SUPERVISOR JANICE HAHN, DID ISAIAH LEE GET YOUR ATTENTION ?  

LOCAL LOS ANGELES BROADCAST AND PRINT MEDIA, DID ISAIAH LEE GET YOUR ATTENTION ?  

A few days ago, during a “Netflix is a Joke Festival” comedy show at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, a man, Isaiah Lee, tackled comedian Dave Chappelle while Chappelle was engaging in a comedy presentation.  Chappelle was not hurt (rather, it was Lee who ended up hurt, with “a swollen eye and his right arm in a sling, bearing injuries from when he was detained by security”).  Most times when the police partake in investigating crimes when the crimes were not committed in their presence, they almost always claim that they don’t know the MOTIVE for the crime, and that they are trying to determine the motive while investigating.  

Well, thanks in large part to Dave Chappelle himself, law enforcement,  and some of the public (those who were able to pickup on the brief presentation by the broadcast media) were able to ascertain that Lee’s MOTIVE for tackling Chappelle at the comedy show was, according to news reports of Chappelle’s conversation with Lee,  Lee wanted the tackling incident of Chappelle at the public and publicized event “TO DRAW ATTENTION TO”  Lee’s GRANDMOTHER from Brooklyn,  “who had been FORCED OUT OF HER NEIGHBORHOOD due to GENTRIFICATION”.   Since Lee is Black, I assume his grandmother is Black (but, in this day and age, I could be wrong).

By coincidence, this is nearly the precise issue that I, as a Black man, together with my Black, 100 year-old year mother, am facing in Los Angeles County.  As with Lee, I am acting on behalf of my mother in trying to get Gov. Newsom and the Legislature to act to return my mother’s home to her after it was taken through ILLEGAL and racially-motivated  GENTRIFICATION (as opposed to sometimes facially legal gentrification).   But Lee’s act, which did not cause injury to Chappelle, was more courageous than my act of writing a blogpost, in trying to DRAW ATTENTION to the plight of his grandmother AND the issue of GENTRIFICATION, especially as it affects poor Black folks.  If I had done what Lee did, surely the local broadcast media and the L.A. Times would have had to announce my name and my mother’s name in their reporting of the incident (right now, the local broadcast media and the L.A. Times deliberately do not mention my name in their broadcasting and writing, *based on bias or racism—and, the Times article I read on the Lee-Chappelle incident DID NOT include a mention of the gentrification matter—I wonder why), which would have “drawn more attention” to the taking of my mother’s home through covert racism and/or gentrification.  

And so, especially since Dave Chappelle did not get hurt, I THANK Mr. Lee for his efforts in bringing the issue of gentrification to the forefront.  MR. LEE : YOUR EFFORTS WERE AT LEAST A PARTIAL SUCCESS.  As an aside, the $30,000 bail amount set for Mr. Lee‘s release is *illegal and/or unconstitutional per the California Supreme Court in In re Humphrey.  BREAKING NEWS : The trial judge has just denied Lee reduced bail, e.g., release on his own recognizance, in a follow up hearing, thereby maintaining the $30,000 bail.  The public defender MUST appeal the trial court’s decision, to protect Lee’s rights; and,  if it chooses to, by filing  a writ of  * mandate * or prohibition in the Court of Appeal.   *NOTE :  Lee has now been charged with attempted murder, purportedly based on an incident involving a roommate at a transitional house, where Lee is alleged to have stabbed the roommate. But, why an attempted murder charge ? as opposed to an assault charge ?  Could it have anything to do with Lee’s bail ? And why is the charge being brought now, rather than earlier (on or before the Chappelle charge) ?  And, why is the charge being brought after I questioned Lee’s bail amount and bail status ?  It doesn’t pass the “smell” test. In any event, it doesn’t change Lee’s indigent status regarding bail, and it doesn’t change his motive for tackling Chappelle, i.e., drawing attention to  GENTRIFICATION .  *NOTE :  When the broadcast media, e.g., television, report on Lee’s case now, it doesn’t mention “motive” anymore, because the motive is not what they expected  it to be, and not what they (broadcast or print) want it to be.  *NOTE :  Lee has another scheduled hearing tomorrow (5/20/2022), now, with the NEW charge.

GOV. NEWSOM : YOU HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY KICKED OFF YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN .  HOWEVER, WITH THE ADVENT OF ISAIAH LEE’S  ACTION  AND DISCLOSURE OF THE  GENTRIFICATION PROBLEM FACED BY HIS GRANDMOTHER (BE IT IN BROOKLYN OR HERE) AND WITH MY DISCLOSURE OF THE GENTRIFICATION PROBLEM BEING EXPERIENCED BY MY MOTHER, AND LIKELY OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED BLACK ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS HERE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,  I MUST STATE GOVERNOR : WITH YOUR ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE OF THE ILLEGAL TAKING OF MY MOTHER’S (HELEN H. DAVIS’S) HOME WITHOUT HER CONSENT  AND IN VIOLATION OF OTHER CALIFORNIA LAWS, AND WITH YOUR POWER AND/OR AUTHORITY  TO TAKE SOME ACTION (AS YOU DID FOR UC BERKELEY) TO RETURN HER HOME TO HER;  IF YOU DO NOT TAKE SOME ACTION TO DO SO BEFORE ELECTION DAY,  YOU WILL NOT GET THIS BLACK VOTE.  

AND IF OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED  BLACK ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS AND OTHER BLACK PEOPLE IN SUPPORT THEREOF FEEL THE SAME WAY, HOPEFULLY, YOU WILL NOT GET THEIR VOTES EITHER. 

FOR YOU NOT TO ACT MEANS THAT YOU CONDONE THE RACIALLY-MOTIVATED GENTRIFICATION EXERCISED IN MY MOTHER’S CASE, AND LIKELY OTHER CASES INVOLVING BLACK ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, BLACK ELDERLY CONSERVATEE HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; AND, WITH THAT IN MIND, I COULD NOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, VOTE FOR YOU.  

UPDATE—May 18, 2022

WHETHER IT’S BUFFALO, N.Y. OR LOS ANGELES, CA; WHETHER IT’S OVERT OR COVERT; AND WHETHER IT’S VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT,  RACISM IS RACISM, AND,  IT’S ALWAYS DEBILITATING AND DE-HUMANIZING.  IN BUFFALO, THE RACISM WAS OVERT AND VIOLENT, AND RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF LIFE OR LIVES TO 10  BLACK PEOPLE ,  MANY OF THEM ELDERLY OR SENIORS.    HERE, IN LOS ANGELES (THE DAVIS CASE), THE RACISM IS COVERT AND NON-VIOLENT, AND RESULTED IN THE THEFT OF A HOME OR PROPERTY  (LIKELY HOMES AND PROPERTIES OF OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED BLACK SENIORS)  OF AN ELDERLY BLACK LADY (AND LIKELY OTHERS).  WHILE THE MAGNITUDE OF THE LOSSES BETWEEN THE BUFFALO CASE AND THE LOS ANGELES CASE CANNOT BE COMPARED, THE EFFECT OF THE RACISM  IS THE SAME IN BOTH CASES, DEBILITATING AND DE-HUMANIZING.   

BUT,  GOV. NEWSOM, ONE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BUFFALO CASE AND THE LOS ANGELES CASE IS : WHILE THE LOSS OF LIFE IN THE BUFFALO CASE CANNOT BE CORRECTED, THAT IS,  THE LOSS OF LIFE CANNOT BE RESTORED OR REVERSED;   THE TAKING OF THE HOME IN THE DAVIS CASE CAN BE AND  SHOULD BE  CORRECTED OR REVERSED.  AND YOU, GOV. NEWSOM,  HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO CORRECT OR REVERSE IT, OR, AT LEAST, TO DO YOUR PART.  “The Newsom administration has called on the Legislature to quickly pass the budget proposal, so the governor can sign it into law by July 1.” Emphasis added.  L.A. Times, “Details are few on costs for homeless program”,  May 17, 2022.  SO, GOVERNOR, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING IF YOU CHOOSE  TO. 

IF YOU DO NOTHING, GOVERNOR,  YOU ARE, IN ESSENCE, SUPPORTING THE RACISM. AND IF YOU SUPPORT THE RACISM, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ?  

UPDATE—May  23, 2022 

GOV. NEWSOM :  YOU MAY FEEL CONFIDENT THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE, NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR SUPPORTING COVERT RACISM, BUT, THERE ARE OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT, AND, IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO DEFEAT COVERT RACISM,  ONE OF THOSE CANDIDATES WILL GET MY VOTE, AND HOPEFULLY THE VOTE OF OTHERS WHO DO NOT  SUPPORT  COVERT RACISM.

MY CHOICE AT THIS TIME WOULD BE :  JOEL VENTRESCA  (BASED ON HIS CANDIDATE STATEMENT) 

UPDATE—May  30, 2022 

READERS  :  IF YOU WANT SOME FURTHER INSIGHT INTO WHY GOV. NEWSOM IS SUPPORTING RACISM AND IS TREATING MY BLACK MOTHER AND THE THEFT OF HER PROPERTY THE WAY HE IS, I REFER YOU TO  A RECENT  L.A. TIMES ARTICLE           ENTITLED  “ ‘CARE Court’ is no solution for unhoused people in California”, May 27,  2022,  WHERE THE WRITERS CRITICIZE AND POINT OUT THE MISTREATMENT OF HOMELESS PEOPLE IN A PROGRAM PROPOSED BY GOV. NEWSOM.

I will offer here a few excerpts from the article : 

“In March, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposed framework to force some people living with mental health conditions to undergo treatment under court order.  On Wednesday the California Senate passed a bill to enact this framework and create the deceptively named Community Assistance Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Court.  There is nothing empowering about involuntary treatment.”  Emphasis added. 

“State officials have misleadingly promoted CARE Court as ‘diversion to prevent more restrictive  conservatorships  or incarceration.’  In fact, people can be compelled into  CARE Court without being accused of a crime or qualifying for conservatorship.  The CARE plans are enforceable court orders, which can include coerced medications as well as submission to treatment modes not chosen by the person who must comply.  Those who do not comply may be set on the path to conservatorships, which allow the state to lock people up and rob them of their autonomy.” Emphasis added.  

“Under international human rights standards, treatment should be based on the will and preferences  of the person concerned.  Housing  or disability status does not rob a person of their legal capacity or right to personal autonomy.  The expansive , involuntary CARE Court process denies these rights.”  Emphasis added. 

“The potential for abuse in this program is astounding.  A family member could wield a petition or threat of a petition as a weapon of control over a less powerful member (as in this, the Davis matter, the conservator,  Davis’s daughter, over Helen H. Davis, the conservatee, in the sale of Davis’s home without her consent)”.   Emphasis added.

Finally, “Disturbingly, CARE Court would place  Black and brown  Californians disproportionately under more court control because discrimination in housing, lending, employment and  healthcare has pushed these groups into high rates of  houselessness. . . .”  Emphasis added.

These are just a few excerpts from the article, written by Olivia Ensign and John Raphling. 

UPDATE—June  2, 2022 

READERS AND THE PEOPLE (THE  REAL PEOPLE) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  :  DO NOT LET GOV. NEWSOM TAKE YOU AND YOUR VOTE  FOR GRANTED.   DO NOT HAVE HIM SUPPORT RACISM AND STILL EXPECT YOUR VOTE.   BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE  DO NOT LET NEWSOM SPIT IN YOUR FACE  AND STILL EXPECT YOUR VOTE.

I WILL NOT LET HIM SPIT IN MY FACE AND SPIT IN MY MOTHER’S FACE, AND  STILL VOTE FOR HIM.  HE WILL NOT GET MY VOTE.  *AT THE RECALL  ELECTION,  I VOTED FOR HIM AND AGAINST  HIS  RECALL.   BUT,  NOT  THIS TIME.  *THE  REAL  GOV. NEWSOM HAS  NOW  BEEN REVEALED.   *THIS TIME,  I WILL VOTE FOR  JOEL VENTRESCA.

*READERS  AND  THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ,  I URGE YOU TO VOTE  FOR  JOEL  VENTRESCA  FOR GOVERNOR  (HE WANTS TO  “END HOMELESSNESS  & POVERTY  (AND) REVERSE ECONOMIC  INEQUALITY.”  AND, HE WANTS TO “CREATE (A) JUST, LIVABLE  & FLOURISHING CALIFORNIA  FOR ALL”, AND “PUSH TO REDUCE EVICTIONS, DISPLACEMENT, AND  GENTRIFICATION”). 

UPDATE—June 6,  2022 

See above at (* ). 

UPDATE—June  9,  2022

GOV. NEWSOM IS HEADED TO A RUN-OFF IN NOVEMBER AGAINST A REPUBLICAN OPPONENT :  THE MESSAGE TO BLACK CALIFORNIANS :  WHOEVER WINS, YOU LOSE. 

With 50% of the vote in, Newsom leads with  56% of the vote followed  by Brian Dahle with 17%. 

I haven’t discovered any real platform that Newsom has (but, I know he supports covert racism) and Dahle says Californians can count on him to “clean up the (homeless) mess.”  I wonder how ?  Anti-encampment laws ?  Or encampment sweeps ?   Neither of their positions have the welfare of Black people in mind.  So, whoever wins in November, Black folks lose. 

Joel Ventresca, the Democratic candidate for governor with the humanitarian platform, received 1% of the vote ( as did 10 others).  That should tell you something  *about the true views of many Californians, despite California’s “liberal” label.  *I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, California might be liberal for white folks and Hispanic immigrants, but it ain’t that liberal, if at all, for Black people.

The same thing applies to Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta and his run-off opponent, Republican Nathan Hochman, who received 54% and 19% of the vote respectively.  Whoever wins, Black people lose.  *Hochman  intends to solve “out-of-control homelessness”.  I wonder how ?  And,  as to Bonta, I based my assessment on personal experience with him and/or  his office (which disputes his statement that  he “launched first-in-the-nation efforts to ensure every person—regardless of their race or income—is treated equally before the law (emphasis added)).  I’m still waiting for it to happen.   

UPDATE—July  10,  2022 

THE BRUCE BEACH PROPAGANDA :   THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERSUADED BY THE PROPAGANDA ARE THE UNINFORMED, THE MISINFORMED, OR UNEDUCATED

First, let me make clear, that I do not include County Supervisor Janice Hahn among those who are putting out this propaganda, trying to convince Black people of Los Angeles County  that this single act of kindness, redemption, or justice is the beginning of a pattern of justice to stop the racist taking of Black peoples’ property unlawfully and against their will; or, that this single act of justice will cleanse the on-going record of injustices perpetrated against Black people in Los Angeles County.   Supervisor Hahn did a good thing, and she should be thanked for her efforts, as well as the others who assisted in the return of Charles and Willa Bruce’s property to the Bruces and their descendants.

However, the news media, the broadcast media, i.e., television stations, as well as the print media, have attempted to transform a good deed into a perception of intended action and change that they KNOW is not happening in Los Angeles County AT THIS TIME, that is, returning Black peoples’ property, which has been unlawfully taken through racist motivation, to them.  And, of course, my mother’s, Helen H. Davis’s, home is the best evidence of this.   Moreover, while the media broadcast and print the Bruces’ story of their property being returned, both locally and nationally, after a racially-motivated taking in the PAST,  it doesn’t broadcast or print anything about the actual unlawful or racist taking of Black peoples’ property NOW, or presently.  

In showing some of the propaganda,  I will rely on, at least in part, quoted statements from  L.A. Times’ articles.  From the Times, “Many say Bruce‘s Beach could forge a path for those seeking to reckon with past injustices that violently dispossessed Indigenous people and blocked Black people, Latinos, Japanese Americans and many others from owning property and building wealth in this country.” And what about “current injustices” ?  What about forging a path for those seeking to reckon with “current” injustices that “block(  ) Black people. . . .from owning property and building wealth in this country” ?  The implication is that there is no racially-motivated “blocking” of Black people from owning property and building wealth TODAY, so we only need to address past injustices or  past blocking of Black  people . . . from owning property and building wealth in this country.   And, we all know that’s not true.  Therefore, it’s propaganda. 

The Times:  Referring to county staff and pro bono counsel, “They’ve received support from state lawmakers and reparations advocates — as well as from Gov. Newsom, who authorized the transfer last September and codified into law that the property had been wrongfully taken” (emphasis added).  The implication is that Newsom took the action he did  because the Bruces’ property was wrongfully taken (not necessarily because of the racism).  If that’s the case, why didn’t he take the same or similar action in the Davis case ?  Davis showed that her home was at least  wrongfully taken, putting aside the racism.  The further implication is that Newsom would do the same thing for another Black family if  their home or other property was wrongfully taken through governmental action.   The Davis case showed that this isn’t true as well.   So, the statement is propaganda.  

Finally, from the Times, quoting a part of the decision of L.A. Superior Court judge Mitchell Beckloff, dismissing a case challenging the transfer of the Bruce property, “Righting  a government wrong perpetrated in breach of our core and fundamental constitutional principles works to strengthen governmental integrity, represents accountability in government and works to eliminate structural racism and bias”.  Clearly, this is a good principle to operate under.  But, where is this principle in the Davis    case ?  Nowhere.  But, the implication of the statement is that whenever the courts identify a government wrong in the taking of Black peoples’ property, such as the Bruces’, that wrong will be or should be “righted” by action geared towards the elimination of “structural racism and bias”.  And, we know that’s not happening in other cases in L.A. County, e.g., the Davis case.  So,  it’s propaganda.  Not by judge Beckloff, but by the Times publishing the principle without proper context or the full picture.

From the L.A. Wave :  Quoting one of the Bruces’  family members, “Our culture and society has changed.”  The family member apparently truly believes this.  And, the implication is that the Bruces’ circumstance, situation, and outcome (having their property returned after it had been taken or stolen) is evidence of a change in the mindset of  white people as a whole in not taking or stealing Black people’s property unlawfully.   But, we all know this is not true.  Again, the Helen H. Davis case is a perfect example of this (not to mention the likely many others).  Thus, the statement, out of context,  is  publicized propaganda. 

THE BOTTOMLINE :  Supervisor Hahn made an important contribution to the civil rights movement when she initiated the process of returning the Bruces’ beachfront property stolen through acts of covert racism.  But, we shouldn’t make this out to be more than it is.  It was simply a single act of relief to a single Black family.  And , at the same time that the Bruces’ property is being returned to them, other Black people are simultaneously having their property taking or stolen by white people through the same or similar type of covert racism as was utilized by the city officials of Manhattan Beach and the courts of the State of California in the Bruces’ case.  So, when the media produce stories on cases like the Bruces, they should place the coverage in proper context, otherwise , those uninformed  listeners or readers might be misled into believing the circumstances are what they are not.  

UPDATE—February 28, 2023 

TODAY, MRS. DAVIS IS  101 YEARS OLD  

Happy birthday, Mamma!   God has blessed you.  *And,  I love you.  “I’ll always love my mamma.  She’s my favorite girl”.  

UPDATE—May  11,  2023 

THE  U.S. SUPREME COURT IS NOW DECIDING A PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE FOR A  94-YEAR OLD WIDOWED GRANDMOTHER;  TOO BAD MY MOTHER COULD NOT HAVE JOINED THE CASE BEFORE IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT;  MAYBE SHE COULD BE GETTING HER HOME BACK SOONER. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering and deciding a case out of Minnesota dealing with the constitutional rights of a 94 year-old widowed grandmother regarding the county seizing and selling her condominium for unpaid property taxes and not returning the remainder of the sum of the sale to her after the property taxes were deducted. The lawyer for Ms. Geraldine Tyler,  Christina Martin, argued that the county’s action amounted to a taking of property without just compensation.  Tyler’s children had convinced her to give up her condominium and move into an assisted-living facility.

My mother, Helen H. Davis, would be a Black 101 year-old widowed grandmother whose house-home the State of California illegally authorized the sale of without due process of law and equal protection of the law. The State of California indirectly seized her property without her permission and sold the property (through a conservator agent), I assume, and turned over the proceeds to her (Davis), I assume.  Davis, like Tyler, had one of her children place her into an assisted care or nursing facility (and arrange for the sale of her home without her consent).   I  believe the Court’s pending decision would apply the same to both cases.  That  is, if the decision is positive for Ms. Tyler, it would be positive for Ms. Davis as well, although the cases have some different facts.

Too bad we couldn’t hook up with the Tyler people prior to the case being submitted to the Supreme Court.  Then there would have been  two  over 90 year-old senior widowed women arguing that their property had been taken unconstitutionally by separate States (to include the Counties).

It is anticipated that the Court will reach a decision by the end of this Term.  

HAPPY PRE-MOTHER’S DAY MRS. DAVIS 

UPDATE—June  15,  2023  

The Supreme Court has now decided the Tyler case.  It decided that Hennepin County, Minnesota was in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause when it retained the excess value of  Ms. Geraldine Tyler’s home above her tax debt.  The Court also found that the County violated the Eight Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. 

As I stated above, if the Court acted favorably in Ms. Tyler’s behalf, I believe it would also act favorably on my mother’s behalf were the issue of the State of California taking her home (or allowing the taking of her home, without her consent), placed before it.  But, I knew the Davis  taking was not only unconstitutional, but also intentional, for various reasons, including denying me, a Black man, my interest in my mother’s home.  And the beat goes on, in Los Angeles County. 

**UPDATE—March 12,  2024 

ANOTHER PETITION; THE SAME DISCRIMINATORY FLAVOR 

In October of last year, I filed two petitions regarding the assumed sale of my mother’s , Helen H. Davis, home.  One petition was for an accounting by the conservator (Dianne Jackson) of Davis’s personal and estate property, to determine the status of the property at this time, especially regarding the status of Davis’s home after the Court of Appeal gave Jackson permission to sell Davis’s home without Davis’s consent.  That is, after the Court approved the sale of the home, Jackson has not provided an accounting of whether the sale was executed or not, and, if so, what happened to the proceeds of the sale.  

I also filed a petition for removal of Jackson as conservator for various reasons, including the sale of Davis’s home without Davis’s consent.  Another reason was that Jackson had failed and/or refused to take my mother to the burials of either of her (my mother’s) last remaining two living sisters, both over 100 years old as well when they passed.  And, as for the last remaining sister, Ruby Wheeler, Jackson picked and chose who to inform of the burial amongst our various relatives.  And, she did not inform me as well.  And so, I don’t want Jackson to be the final decision maker regarding my mother’s passing when that time comes.  

After I filed the petitions, the probate office assigned dates and times for the petitions to be heard, January, 2024.  When I appeared in January, at the outset, the discrimination began.   The judge was Lynn H. Scaduto, who appeared to be a white female.  

After my case was called, after being continued from the 8:30 am calendar to the 10:30 am one, I approached and stated my appearance.  Jackson’s counsel, Robin Chow, made an appearance remotely or telephonically.  The first thing Scaduto said was that I did not give notice.  This was false as to Jackson, because I did give notice, otherwise, how did Chow know to appear ?  Subsequently, Scaduto, after going through the record further, discovered the proof of service and opined that it was different or unusual.

Next,  she addressed a past restraining order that has expired (and which never should have been granted in the first place, being based on lies).  And she entertained feedback from Chow, who indicated that Jackson was still fearful or something to that extent.  Chow indicated that she planned to file objections.  So, Scaduto continued the hearing to February, 2024, and directed me to give notice to my mother’s court-appointed attorney.  

Mind you, up to this point, Scaduto never  mentioned the Petitions themselves, or what the case was about.  So that anyone attending the hearing would have had  no idea  what the case or petitions were about. 

Thus, sometime after the hearing, I filed a CCP 170 against judge Scaduto, charging her with being prejudiced against me, and claiming that I cannot receive a fair hearing before her. 

That expired  restraining order has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the current petitions, other than a display of racial and gender discrimination.  

Following my submission of the CCP 170, there was a change in assignment of judges, but who did the Probate Court assign as the new judge ?  Judge Deborah Christian, who is Black, and who had denied me my right to a jury trial in an unlawful detainer case (brought by Jackson) several years ago, and after the jury trial right was denied, the case was assigned to a judge who further denied my rights by relying on the word of a probate supervisor rather than the law to resolve a legal dispute (i.e., whether Jackson had the legal authority to evict me from my mother’s home) which was resolved against me, a Black male. 

Now, I will probably file another 170 against judge Christian, when I appear before her, trying to obtain a fair judge.  If Christian keeps my case, I will conclude that the Probate Court intends to deny me my constitutional rights.