December 22, 2022
(Today's Date)
January 11, 2020
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion or both.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information or material added after the publishing and first printing of the original blog)
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California (and the United States)
When I first started this blog, it was centered on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s State of the State address, where it was stated by the L.A. Times :
“With tens of thousands of people living on the streets of California , the homelessness crisis has become the state’s defining issue. For Gov. Gavin Newsom, the emergency had become so dire that he devoted his entire State of the State address. . .to the 150,000 Californians without homes.”
“ ‘Let’s call it what it is : It’s a disgrace that the richest state in the richest nation, succeeding across so many sectors, is falling so far behind to properly house, heal and humanely treat so many of its own people,” Mr. Newsom told lawmakers in Sacramento. “Every day, the California dream is dimmed by the wrenching reality of families and children and seniors living unfed on a concrete bed .’”
“Mr. Newsom called homelessness a national crisis in his speech. . . .” “California Governor Declares Homeless Crisis ‘a Disgrace’”, February 19, 2020.
There has been a break since I first began the blog and the now continuation. Nevertheless, I am continuing the blog now.
While I have written several blogposts on homelessness and homelessness in Los Angeles as part of (or included in) other blogs, this blog and future blogposts included therein will be specifically directed to the issue of homelessness, in Los Angeles and the State of California, primarily, but, generally, in the United States as well.
Readers, especially the regular readers, you likely do not remember, but sometime ago I argued and contended that homelessness should be considered and treated as an "emergency". I will cite the passage in one of my earlier blogs to refresh your memory :
“(H)ere, on the West coast, . . .where the number of homeless people on the streets of skid row and other places in Los Angeles have increased (and most of them are Black and/or Black males), we can’t get the courts (state or federal) to treat homelessness as an “emergency”.
“(T)his emergency (deciding whether a Black male in Los Angeles County has and keeps his home or is evicted and made homeless) is . . .to possibly save a person’s life, where that person could end up homeless on skid row, remain there for years, and possibly, die there.”
Finally, I stated, “I know of no instance where (the ACLU) has taken a position that the homeless situation in Los Angeles is an “emergency”. From the blog, Attorney Armen D. Gregorian and Judge David J. Cowan. . .,et. al. #2.. . , UPDATE—January 9, 2018.
Fast forward to October , 2019 , where “Casting about for solutions, some officials in Los Angeles County—including Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who co-chairs a state task force on homelessness, and L.A. City Councilman Joe Buscaino—are calling on California Gov. Gavin Newson to declare a state of emergency on homelessness.” L.A. Times, Editorial, October 4, 2019. And, “The result is that some available units sit empty for weeks or even months. That’s ridiculous in a county where homelessness is an emergency.” L.A. Times, Editorial, March 2, 2020.
But, I don’t expect city, county, or state officials, or the L.A. Times to give me credit for my ideas, although they have adopted several of them (but has not IMPLEMENTED them, e.g., my Homeless Resolution Committee (HRC), after I continue to criticize them for their uncaring nature when it comes to the homeless, especially the Black or African American homeless. As I have stated before and repeat here : these officials don’t really give a damn about solving the homeless problem, especially about the Black male homeless, who disproportionately represents a greater portion of the homeless.
I, even in my poor or indigent state, offered to assist the county, and necessarily, the city, with pro bono assistance as to one aspect of its problem, e.g., an organizational plan evolving from the integration of the various actors which are necessary for a REAL solution to the homeless problem. That is, the HRC. As I have stated before, the city, county, and state will not solve the homeless problem, at least not in an expeditious manner, without an organizational model such as the HRC (Homeless Resolution Committee).
I didn’t receive a response from either Supervisor K. Barger or Mark Ridley-Thomas. And how can they refuse any colorable assistance when, after receiving money from two taxpayer measures, i.e., measures H and HHH, HHH is a bond measure approved in the city in 2016, and measure H is a tax increase passed countywide in 2017, there has been no substantial impact on the homeless population. That is, most of the homeless before measures HHH and H, continue to be homeless after the measures. Further, also included in the mix of funds the local officials have had at their disposal is federal funding, “Generally, funding to help the homeless comes from the federal government and goes directly to local agencies that coordinate homeless financing and services across the state. That federal effort has provided around $100 million annually over the past four years to an agency that covers much of Los Angeles County. At the state level , major programs that included homeless housing subsidies, such as a 2006 bond measure and a $1-billion annual property tax set aside for affordable housing, have run out of money or were eliminated over the past four years.” L.A. Times, “Billions of dollars to help California’s homeless population are piling up—and going unspent”, March 25, 2018. Yet, most of the homeless remain homeless after city , county, state, and federal contributions.
* “Despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent to curb homelessness, the number of people without a home in Los Angeles grew last year for the fifth time in the last six years, officials announced. . . . And that was before the pandemic.” L.A. Times, “Homelessness worsens in L.A.”, June 12, 2020.
“An average of about three homeless people die each day in L.A. County, while countless others suffer monstrous madness in full public view.” L.A. Times, “Trauma is rife on Hollywood streets”, November 18, 2019.
Now, with the advent of the coronavirus, a federal judge, U.S. District Court judge David O. Carter, has ordered that perhaps thousands of homeless people be moved away from freeways in Los Angeles, based on considerations of health risks from tailpipe emissions and car crashes. The city and county have less than 10 months now within which to do it.
While I applaud the judge’s concern for the homeless and his willingness to take some action to move the homeless away from dangerous areas, I have reservations about moving the homeless out of the tents into hotels for at least two (2) reasons : (1) it is very likely that the move to hotels will only be a temporary move; and the homeless will end up back in the tents under the freeways anyways. And the money that was spent on temporary housing could have been spent on permanent housing. (2) it allows the city and county to point to actions that they are taking to help the homeless without producing permanent housing in a timely manner. That is, using the hotel moves to delay the provision of permanent housing.
But, I want to be clear, on behalf of the homeless, I thank the judge for his concern for the welfare of the homeless, and for ordering actions out of that concern.
More next time.
UPDATE—June 17, 2020
AT LAST : THE LOS ANGELES GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR HOMELESSNESS IN LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY IS RACISM
While I’ve said all along that the homelessness problem in Los Angeles is a product of the racial discrimination or racism directed against Black males, with the remaining homeless population being collateral damage, the Los Angeles government, city and county, have now confirmed my assertions.
“The homeless population continues to be about two-thirds male. The racial dynamics of homelessness continue to be stark. Black residents account for 8% of the population in Los Angeles County, but 34% of those who are homeless. (Heidi) Marston said that structural racism mean that Black men and women are four times more likely to experience homelessness.” L.A. Times, “Pre-pandemic homelessness worsens”, June 12, 2020. “Institutional racism propels Black people into homelessness at a grossly disproportionate rate.” Id.
“In a presentation on the (homeless) count, Heidi Marston, the homeless authority’s executive director, repeatedly said systemic racism is behind the inequities in homelessness.” L.A. Times, “Racism blamed in L.A.’s homelessness report”, June 13, 2020. “A 2018 report by a homeless authority -appointed commission on Black people without housing called homelessness ‘a byproduct of racism’ and detailed structural barriers in education, criminal justice, housing, employment, healthcare and access to opportunities.” Id.
From City Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson : “We desperately need to reinvest our resources into Black communities to prevent the types of disparities we continue to see when it comes to homelessness”. Id. “He (Harris-Dawson) called for passage of a resolution declaring racism as a public health crisis in Los Angeles , but also said the problem ‘cannot be resolved quickly or locally. We need the federal government to acknowledge and address how slavery and systematic racism contribute to these outcomes.” Id. Harris-Dawson is Black and Marston is white or Caucasian , so the assertion of racism comes from diverse racial voices.
Of course, I disagree with Harris-Dawson that the problem cannot be solved “locally”. I believe it can be, with input from others of course, e.g., the federal government. And, the taxpayers, i.e.,Measures H and HH, apparently think so as well.
Back to the racism : “The commission found it took longer for Black people to get housing, and less time for them to be evicted for breaking rules, White (member of commission) said.” Id. “(D)espite official acknowledgments that systemic racism is driving homelessness—and a major study on show to address it—the persistent and staggering over-representation of Black people in L.A.’s homeless ranks barely budged this year, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s homeless count report (just released)”. Finally, “the vast majority of homeless people on skid row—I’d say 75% or more—are Black.” Lopez, S., L.A. Times, “Black people in L.A. deserve a home”, June 14, 2020.
First, on behalf of the Black males of Los Angeles city and county, I thank Ms. Marston and Councilman Harris-Dawson for their candor and courage in admitting that racism is the main source of homelessness in Los Angeles. While I believe their candor and courage was made easier by the George Floyd riots , protests, and /or demonstrations, it nevertheless took some candor and courage to admit that racism is the main cause of the homeless problem in L.A. city and county.
Second, now that we have admitted that racism is the problem. The next step is to identify the sources of the racism. At least four possible sources are : housing administrators, landlords, court administrators, and courts themselves. I know from news reports that evictions, after racism, is the second main reason for homelessness in L.A. county.
Third, once the sources have been identified, some action must be taken to correct or eliminate the source of the racism. That is, penalties, retractions, suspensions, firings, removal from office, vacation or reversal of orders leading to evictions, etc. If nothing is done about the racism causing homelessness, quite naturally, the homelessness will continue.
More next time.
***Next time, I will provide a live or current example of the racism causing homelessness. We’ll see if the city, county, or the courts will do anything about it. Action speaks louder than words.
UPDATE—June 23, 2020
SO FAR, SO GOOD : I AM IMPRESSED WITH HEIDI MARSTON AND HER ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE BLACK HOMELESS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
In my passage above, I thanked Ms. Marston, along with Councilman Harris-Dawson, for her courage and candor in admitting that racism is the main cause of the homelessness problem in Los Angeles County. Now, she has continued on that path by pointing out that most of the homeless that live at freeway or other bridge under-passes are mostly white, per news source. And that fact causes my reservations about judge Carter’s order to be enhanced.
THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE HOMELESS LIVING UNDER OR NEAR FREEWAYS ARE WHITE, IF TRUE, ENHANCES MY RESERVATIONS ABOUT JUDGE CARTER’S ORDER
My reservations are enhanced because it appears that not only will there be a delayed production of permanent housing, but, now it appears that the people most in need of the temporary housing, e.g., the Black homeless, may not be receiving it. And, that’s especially so in the context of the coronavirus, with statistics showing that Black people are the most affected group of people, especially as it pertains to deaths from COVID-19. Finally, it appears that settlement or satisfaction of the judge’s order will , at most, only provide the homeless people with “beds”, but, beds are not “homes”. “If people can be moved into the new beds, ‘ I’m confident we’ll see the first reduction in homelessness in five or six years’ (Mayor Eric Garcetti) said.” LA.Times, “6,000 beds slated to clear freeway camps”, June 19, 2020. Again, “beds” are not homes. Beds are what they have in shelters; Beds are what were provided Black people during Hurricane Katrina. But, a bed is not a home. Therefore, the provision of beds for the homeless cannot solve the homeless problem.
The only way one cannot be homeless, is for one to have a home. A bed *alone is not a home.
THE TEST CASE : IN THE MATTER OF HELEN H. DAVIS : DO THE CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THE HOMELESS PROBLEM AFTER THE CITY AND COUNTY ADMITS THAT RACISM IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE HOMELESS PROBLEM IN L.A. CITY AND COUNTY ?
Helen H. Davis is a 98 year old Black lady, and my mother. She owns a home that she has lived in for over 50 years. At around age 92 , she suffered a fall at her home (at the time, both my sister and I —adult children—were living with my mother). Because of the fall , she was hospitalized. Upon release from the hospital, hospital medical officials told my sister and I that we had the options of taking care of my mother at home or placing her in a nursing facility. I chose to take care of my mother at home, and my sister chose to place her in a board and care. Because both my sister and I had to agree to take care of my mother at home for home care, and my sister did not agree , my mother was placed in a board and care. My sister was subsequently appointed conservator, over my objection, to manage my mother’s person and estate. She has now maintained my mother in a nursing facility and is now attempting to sell my mother’s house and home.
HOW RACISM CAUSED ME TO BE HOMELESS AND IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE MY MOTHER TO BE HOMELESS
The Conservatorship
The racism began with the appointment of the conservator for my mother’s affairs. Judge David Cowan of the Superior Court of California, *a white judge, exercised racism when he appointed my sister conservator rather than me. And, he did so because I am a Black male. First , judge Cowan asked my sister and I : Who pays your mother’s bills ? I responded, “I do”, with a silent concurrence by my sister. I believe this disappointed Cowan. Second, I provided Cowan with specific reasons why my sister should not be appointed conservator. Cowan gave little , *if any, regard to my reasons.
Readers : You’ll have to get the record and read the transcript for the specific reasons. Third, Cowan relied on a lie or false statement submitted by my mother’s court-appointed attorney to support his grant of the conservatorship to my sister.
My sister and I filed cross petitions for appointment as conservator. Cowan granted hers and denied mine. He did so because I am a Black male. Therefore, it was racism that determined the conservatorship appointment, and if my sister had not been appointed conservator, she would not be in position to try and sell my mother’s home.
Judge Cowan should be removed from office.
*(deleted)
*(deleted)
UPDATE—June 27, 2020
The Conservatorship Appeal
The appeal replicated the trial court’s action, that is, Division 7 of the Second District Court of Appeal, lead by judge Laurie Zelon, who wrote the decision, relied on a false statement of the evidence contained in the trial court record. Briefly, Zelon asserted that the trial record, in part, showed that I did not care for my mother. In truth, the record testimony, through my sister, showed that I did provide care for my mother. So, based in part on this false evidence, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant my sister’s petition for the conservatorship , and deny mine. And, when the Court affirmed judge Cowan’s decision to deny my petition for the conservatorship, it also affirmed his decision to deny my petition because I am a Black male. So, the racism continued.
The Unlawful Detainer Action And My Eviction
Once my sister succeeded in obtaining the conservatorship, she decided she would try to get me evicted, or out of the way. It seems clear now, that one of her reasons for doing so, was to sell my mother’s house and home. Another reason is, at this point, we simply didn’t get along, for various reasons. My being at home presented an impediment for her controlling my mother’s affairs her way. So, likely with the encouragement of others, she initiated unlawful detainer proceedings to get me evicted.
One of the reasons that makes it clear that my eviction was racially-motivated was that there was no legal basis for my eviction. My mother didn’t require either one of us to pay rent, and there was no other legitimate reason. I was evicted because I am a Black male.
A. Stage 1 - Notice
The beginning of all unlawful detainer (U.D.) cases begin with notice to the evictee that eviction from the premises at issue is being sought. Usually, only one notice (of unlawful occupation) is required. But, in my case, since my mother was allowing me to live in her home without paying rent, and for an uncertain length of time, per the California Supreme Court and a California Rule of law, two notices were required. At the initial UD appearance for trial, prior to being assigned a trial, I informed the judge, a Black female judge, that 2 notices were required and I had only received 1, and I told her that I could cite her the case that said so. She simply said in jest, “I’d like to see your case”. But, she never did. She simply moved on and said “we only require one notice”. So, after she denied me a jury trial because I hadn’t paid for the jury trial beforehand (even though I could have paid for it then—no jury trials had been per-assigned or set up), she sent me to get assigned a judge for a bench trial.
NOTE : Before I proceed further, I must state that at this point, the UD proceeding should have been dismissed, with prejudice. It should have been dismissed because I wasn’t served with 2 notices, and it should have been dismissed “with prejudice” because there was no legal basis for bringing the UD in the first place. It wasn’t dismissed for two reasons : (1) bias against tenants, and (2) I was a Black male tenant.
B. Stage 2 - The Trial.
This was an easy call. It was the same : bias against tenants and discrimination against me as a Black male tenant. The most compelling and determinative factor showing the prejudice against me was the judge, Joseph R. Kalin, stating, at the outset, after my sister stated her position, “you don’t have any defenses”. This was after he had discounted the 2-notice requirement, and I had requested to present my defenses (several of which I had identified in my Answer to my sister’s complaint). Finally, after I had raised the issue of my sister not having authority to initiate the UD action, Kalin said that he would check with the Probate Court. He postponed the trial for one day, and the next day he comes back and says the supervisor at the Probate Court says that she can do it, without citing to any law, and the supervisor apparently not citing any law for his or her position (because the judge did not identify any).
Kalin entered a judgment in favor of my sister. I was subsequently evicted, and homeless. I had no other home. I remain homeless. I’m living in a shared house, but, even a house is not necessarily a home. And, in my case, it is not. I’m not on Skid Row, but, it’s within reach. *And, government racially-motivated or racist misconduct, e.g., illegal surveillance, is trying to send me there. But, I’m not there yet.
*Kalin should be disqualified from acting as a judge.
C. Stage 3 - The Appeal
The appeal was before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. The focal point of the appeal was the 2-notice requirement , because there was no trial transcript. But, the way the Court decided the case is telling. In order for the Court to deny me relief, it had to refuse to follow California Supreme Court precedent, i.e., the 2-notice requirement. While the Court purportedly “distinguished” the case, it could not be distinguished . The California Supreme Court’s decision is clear. Two notices are required. The appeals court affirmed the trial court because I was a Black male, pro se appellant, while my sister was represented by a white female counsel and member of a law firm. It had nothing to do with the skill level of counsel. I believe the outcome would have been the same , even with my sister proceeding pro se. I am a Black male, versus a Black female.
*The Appellate Division that decided my case should be removed from the bench or otherwise disqualified from being judges, not only because of the racism, but also because they refused to follow precedent of the California Supreme Court in doing so.
The Attempted Sale Of My Mother’s Home Without Her Consent
Now, with me out of the way at my mother’s home, my sister is attempting to sell my mother’s only home. She apparently has secured a buyer, and is now petitioning the court for confirmation of the sale.
A. The initial grant of the petition to sell my mother’s house
After my sister filed her first petition to sell my mother’s home, the trial judge, Elizabeth A. Lippitt, granted her petition, even though her petition was not verified, as required by law (which demonstrated that my mother’s consent, if she consented at all, was not verified—and I assert that she did not consent at all); even though there was no hearing on the petition, because I was not served with the petition prior to the hearing—there was a hearing, but not a hearing on the petition; even though the proceeding was brought as an ex parte proceeding , but did not include Declarations, as required by law; and MOST importantly, even though her petition did not include a required demonstration that other alternatives, including in-home care, was not available or feasible before selling my mother’s home. This provision protects my mother from losing her home even against herself, in the event she actually consented to a sale of her home. And, at this time, it is difficult for the average Black person to obtain or purchase a home.
Lippett claims she was granting the petition because there was an emergency. But, there was no emergency. And, the only one opposing her decision was a Black man, me, without counsel. Racism played a role in Lippitt’s decision.
*Lippitt should be removed from office, not solely because of any racism, but because she allowed my sister to sell my mother’s house with all of the above-identified deficiencies in meeting the requirements to sell the house, which results in the taking of my mother’s property without due process of law. And, the taking of my mother’s house without her consent is stealing or theft.
B. The appeal
Another easy call. This was Division 7 again, and this was judge Zelon again, and consistent with her decision in the conservatorship appeal, she made another false statement about me. This time she claimed I didn’t cite authority regarding verification when , in fact and truth, I did. And, I pointed it out in a subsequent writing. And, keep in mind, her decisions, although not published in the formal Reports, and therefore , are deemed “unpublished”, they still are published otherwise, and therefore, are defamatory in nature. And, I have no opportunity to respond in a like published decision, other than my blog, which do not have the exposure her opinions have.
But, it’s clear that Zelon’s decisions in my cases before her are racially-motivated.
*Zelon should be removed from office.
C. Causing my mother to be homeless
In Zelon and Division 7 exercising racism against me, it transfers to my mother regarding the sale of her home. And, if her home is sold, she will be homeless. She has no other home. While she is in a nursing home now, if anything happens, especially concerning the coronavirus, and she has to leave the nursing home, she will have nowhere to go and will be homeless. And, the reason my mother is in a nursing home is because my sister did not want to take care of her at home. So, if my mother has to leave the nursing home, and her home has been sold, she will have to rely on my sister to care for her (and upon my knowledge and belief, my sister lives with a boyfriend herself). In any event, it will not be my mother’s home.
I will do everything within my power to stop the sale of my mother’s home.
I am opposing a proposed petition for confirmation of the sale of the home, and I’ve identified specific reasons why the house should not be sold, including the current coronavirus and COVID-19, where nursing homes have been found to be the most affected facilities by the virus, and with Black people, particularly Black seniors, presenting the most cases and the most deaths evolving from the virus. My mother is a 98 year old Black lady living in a nursing facility. If her home is sold, and subsequently, there is a problem at her nursing facility, prompting a need for her to leave the facility, where will she go ?
There is a scheduled hearing on the petition for confirmation of the sale of the home on July 28, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Courtroom #79, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012.
While no one outside the actual participants *likely can actually attend the hearing because of the virus, anyone supporting us can certainly express that support outside the courthouse. *Or, anyone or a family member or friend who has experienced the same or similar circumstances as those in this case, i.e., have been wrongfully evicted or have had their property or house or home wrongfully taken in or by the court system. For example, if anyone know of an elderly person who has had their house sold by a family member or other person or entity, *and thereafter placed in a nursing home, or simultaneously placed in a nursing home, WITHOUT having first determined whether there were alternatives to selling the house or home. You should come to voice your objections or other opinions.
UPDATE—June 27, 2020
***MOST ASTONISHING , IN VIEW OF THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS IN L.A. COUNTY, THE HOUSE , MY MOTHER’S HOME, THAT I WAS EVICTED FROM, HAS REMAINED VACANT SINCE MY EVICTION.
In view of the severe homeless problem that we in Los Angeles County are facing, it is ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING that the courts would allow me to be evicted and homeless while the home I was evicted from remains vacant. The house has been VACANT for TWO YEARS AND 9 MONTHS, almost three years, *while I REMAINED HOMELESS throughout this nearly three-year period. Why ? Because my mother would not allow anyone else in the house, and my sister knows this. And, my sister just wanted me out of the house, she didn’t care about the house being vacant. BUT, the COURTS should have cared, in the interest of fairness and the homeless crisis. *However, the lack of care is probably indicative of the discrimination against Black males or racism causing homelessness in Los Angeles County, as determined by the city and county.
The courts knew, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, about the homeless situation in L.A. county from the beginning of the eviction process through the sale of my mother’s home. News sources or the press, in addition to Skid Row and tent city, informed everyone in L.A. county about the seriousness of the homeless problem. Yet, no judge in the eviction process or the home sale process asked me, as a Black man living in Los Angeles county, “Mr. Bray, are you going to be able to get another home after you are evicted ?” I must emphasize, that while under ordinary circumstances and absent the homeless crisis, the courts would not be expected to ask such a question of a Black man, pursuant to the homeless crisis in Los Angeles, and under the circumstances of my case, i.e., a resulting VACANT or EMPTY house after the eviction, they were required to *ask. And, *it is *highly likely that, but for *the invidious discrimination against Black males in L.A. County, or racism , at least one of the judges *during the entire process(s)(conservatorship to sale of the home) would have asked.
THIS IS THE TEST CASE : WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO RACISM CAUSING HOMELESSNESS IN MY CASE AND ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE HOMELESSNESS IN MY MOTHER’S CASE ?
More next time.
UPDATE—July 3, 2020
ONE SOLUTION IS : STOP THE SALE OF THE HOUSE AND HOME OF HELEN H. DAVIS
That will automatically prevent my mother from being homeless. Additionally, the court can order that my status as tenant at will be reinstated, and order that I re-take possession of the premises. Then that will be two people eliminated from a homeless list, and two people the city, county, and state of California will not have to worry about providing housing for.
UPDATE—July 6, 2020
A SMALL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE : A CIVIL ACTION RE THE U.D. ACTION
After my sister filed the U.D. action and secured a judgment, I filed an abuse of process claim against her, basically arguing that she used court processes for an ulterior motive, e.g., malice.
After my sister obtained another pro bono lawyer, Public Counsel and Heather Shook, that lawyer filed a motion called judgment on the pleadings. After a hearing on the motion and opposition, the court, judge Gregory W. Alarcon , granted the motion. I disagreed with his decision, so I appealed.
I don’t believe his decision was racially-motivated. But, I believe he was wrong. Even if it was racially-motivated, I have no reason to believe that it was. So, I will assume that it wasn’t.
BUT NOW : DIVISION 7 OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.
Once again, my appeal is to be decided by Division 7, after I have filed a continuous objection to Division 7 hearing my appeals, based on racial bias. And, the bias has already started. The trial court Clerk‘s Office or the Appeals Office omitted parts of the record that I requested. So, I requested the clerk to supplement the record with the omitted documents. They didn’t do so. Moreover, I had attached the missing documents as an Appendix to my Brief, but the court said that wasn’t allowed. *But, the Court had the discretion to allow it. So now, the court is hearing the appeal without having the documents before it. And, the documents went to having a default judgment granted on appeal. Yet, the Court has allowed the Respondent to augment the record with various documents that shouldn’t be allowed.
A main issue on appeal with be my sister’s default. Her default is clear. The clerk, in its bad faith actions, provided my sister with information intended to be warning notice and date, but, the date was wrong, and my sister relied on the wrong date and defaulted. And the date was meant for me, but, my sister relied on it.
According to the Court’s notice, judge Laurie Zelon is not scheduled to be on the panel for my case. But, I’ll have to wait and see what happens. She was supposed to have recused in an earlier appeal, but didn’t do so. In any event, it is still Division 7, therefore, I have no confidence in receiving a fair appeal.
And, while the city and county has determined that the main reason for homelessness is racism, the STATE of California has made no such determination or admission. So, apparently, it does not join the city and county, so that’s likely reflected in its effort to solve the homeless problem, notwithstanding governor Gavin Newsom’s State of the State address. And, the Court of Appeal is a state entity.
Oral argument is scheduled for : July 10, 2020, at 1: 30 p.m., at the Court of Appeal, 300 S. Spring Street, 2nd Flr., Los Angeles, CA, 90013. *However, the argument will not be in the courtroom, rather, it will be via video-recording or telephonic. The public’s access will be via “streaming”.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 8, 2020
MY GO FUND ME ACCOUNT
I have now started a go fund me account. If I wouldn’t have started one before, I have been prompted to start one now based on what I believe is the government’s illegal surveillance of me , resulting in interference with my my personal and professional or business affairs (to include employment). I believe that surveillance has included contact with individuals associated with my personal and business affairs.
I believe the persons responsible are the same or connected to the individuals who burglarized my car and stole certain documents therein , i.e., complaints filed with the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) and other associated documents, and who burglarized my storage facility and stole letters from the CJP addressed and sent to me. And, clearly, the burglary incidents are government-related. So, I conclude that the surveillance is also government-related.
NOTE : This case presents another example of how the government takes advantage of poor people. If I were rich, the government would be reluctant to perform this type of misconduct. Because I would have the resources at my disposal to perform counter-surveillance, e.g., investigators, technicians, etc., and a privately retained attorney to sue the government in federal court for civil rights violations. However, since I’m not rich, the government is taking advantage of that fact.
Finally, even if the government finds some dirt on me , my dirt will be covered by its dirt.
For the readers who aren’t aware, the CJP complaints are centered on the removal from the bench of Second District Court of Appeal judge Jeffrey Johnson , *who is Black, and a possible defense for judge Johnson against the removal.
The reasons or purposes for the go fund me account are to retain counsel or otherwise mount legal defenses and to survive and avoid going under while asserting the defenses. The legal defenses would be both criminal and civil. The criminal defense would pertain to the unfounded and racially-motivated criminal misdemeanors I have been charged with ; and the civil defense would be the filing of civil rights actions in federal court for violations of my civil and constitutional rights, e.g., violation of the right to privacy and due process, or , a pursuit of racial justice. Another matter involves attorney fees evolving from an employment discrimination case. The civil defense would also include counsel in defense of the sale of my mother’s house, depending on the extent of the litigation. I am now a pro se party in defense of my mother, while my sister has law firms representing her. A final purpose is to avoid going under while waiting for my self-employed practice to blossom or produce income.
If you are willing and ABLE to contribute to the fund (the fund calls it a donation, I prefer calling it a contribution—a donation by another name), I would appreciate you doing so. You may donate-contribute by going to a google search at “ gofundme Laurack “ (and hit the “ fundraiser“) or the web at “gofundme Laurack”.
More next time, hopefully.
UPDATE—July 14, 2020
THE CITY AND COUNTY COULD AND SHOULD INTERVENE IN THE SALE OF THE HOME CONTROVERSY, BASED ON THEIR INTEREST IN SOLVING THE HOMELESS CRISIS IN LOS ANGELES
It seems to me that the city and county would want to make a special appearance at the hearing on behalf of Helen H. Davis , since they carry the greatest burden of eliminating homelessness in L.A. County, and the sale of the home has the potential for creating two more homeless people for the city and county to have to provide housing for.
Moreover, since the city and county have admirably admitted that racism is a major cause of homelessness in the city and county of Los Angeles, and racism has clearly played a role in the actions leading up to the sale of the home, an appearance at the hearing on behalf of Davis would tend to demonstrate to the State of California, and the People of California, that the city and county seriously intend to take steps to end homelessness in the city and county of Los Angeles, even if the State *doesn’t.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 24, 2020
REMINDER : The hearing : July 28, 2020 at 8:30 a..m. , Courtroom #79 , Superior Court, 111 N. Hill Street (1st and Hill Streets) , Los Angeles, CA, Make an appearance at or outside the courthouse. Help save Helen H. Davis’s home !
UPDATE—July 26, 2020
REMEMBERING JOHN LEWIS : THANK YOU JOHN LEWIS FOR EVERYTHING. I REGRET NOT BEING ABLE TO WALK WITH YOU AND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR IN THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON. IF THIS COUNTRY EVER DEFEAT OR OVERCOME RACISM, THE COUNTRY WILL KNOW THAT YOU WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN ACCOMPLISHING THAT FEAT.
Rest in Peace , *Congressman and Mr. Lewis.
UPDATE—July 29, 2020
HEIDI MARSTON : THE MORE I HEAR ABOUT MS. MARSTON AND HER REPRESENTATION OF THE HOMELESS, THE MORE I AM IMPRESSED WITH HER ATTEMPT TO ACT FAIRLY IN HANDLING THE HOMELESS CRISIS; AND HER ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE MOST IN NEED, YET , OFTEN OVERLOOKED, ARE RECOGNIZED AND ASSISTED .
“Marston said an approach that focused too narrowly on where people live as opposed to what their health condition is could attract more people to the underpasses as they hear that more resources will be provided to people living under freeways.” L.A. Times, “Where next after the freeway exit ?”, July 27, 2020. And, it has been shown that most of the people who live at the underpasses are white, and the people with the most serious health conditions are non-white. *So, those most in need of housing, temporary or permanent, may not be getting it. Certainly, it doesn’t appear that any priority is being given to them. But, Ms. Marston, please, don’t give up and don’t give in. Otherwise, any hope of solving the overall homeless problem, that is, for the entire homeless population, may be lost forever.
Thanks, Heidi.
I’ll speak on the hearing later.
UPDATE—August 4, 2020
THE ABUSE OF PROCESS APPEAL : A BIASED AND PREJUDICED DECISION AND PART OF THE 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT’S NOTION OF SYSTEMIC RACISM
First of all, this appeal, B295168, although judge Laurie Zelon apparently recused herself, was no different than my past appeals before Division 7. And, because judge Dennis Perluss , who wrote the decision, is the presiding judge of the Division, and more is expected of him in terms of conducting fair and impartial proceedings, it made the bias worse. As in my past appeals before this Division, there is at least one or more false statements in the decision. I will point them out later. But now, the bias and prejudice in this case that caused me to “lose” the case.
I charge that the bias was based on both race and gender. I am a Black male. But, even if race wasn’t a factor, you, the reader, will be able to see that the appeal was wrongly decided. The race factor only provides the “why” it was decided the way it was. The major conduct contributing to the bias and prejudice in the case is judge Perluss’s intentional OMISSION of critical and determinative facts regarding the DEFAULT issue. The bias itself can be ascertained simply by reading the court’s decision. It’s clearly one-sided. The purpose of this blogpost is to give my side, i.e., the omissions.
In addition to the court’s decision being bias and prejudice, it was also misleading. One way it is misleading is it makes the reader of the decision believe the judgment on the pleadings claim, Dianne Jackson’s claim, was the most important decision in the case, when, in fact, it is the other way around—the default claim was the most important because if the default was established, and it was, there wouldn’t be any need to reach the judgment on the pleadings matter . Moreover, the default claim should have been addressed first in the court’s decision, because it appeared first in the progression of the case, but the court intentionally reversed the order, and thereafter omitted critical facts.
THE CRITICAL AND DISPOSITIVE FACTS ABOUT THE DEFAULT WHICH WERE INTENTIONALLY OMITTED BY JUDGE PERLUSS
Omission #1 : The greatest omission by Perluss was my constitutional argument. I charged the clerk’s office dealing with the default with violating my constitutional rights, both due process and equal protection, by, among other things, informing Jackson of certain information that benefited her and NOT informing me of certain information that would have benefitted me. My constitutional argument was briefed (raised and argued in my Opening Brief) and it was referred to and addressed at oral argument. Yet, it was NOT even MENTIONED in the court’s decision. This was not error. This was not abuse of discretion. This was intentional conduct.
Omission #2 : The other major omission was the facts showing that Jackson defaulted at least 3 times. The first time she defaulted was when she failed to file her Answer within 30 days after a Statement of Damages had been served on her. The statement was served on Jackson on October 17, 2017, which means that Jackson’s Answer was due on or about November 17, 2017. But, Jackson’s Answer was not filed until November 20, 2017. There was a pending request for entry of default, which should have been entered. The second time Jackson defaulted was when her November 20, 2017 filed Answer was VOIDED based on the failure of Jackson to pay filing fees after her request for a WAIVER of fees had been denied. Once her Answer was voided, an entry of default should have been entered based on a second request for entry of default filed on December 1, 2017 (which was after her voided November 20, 2017 Answer). The third and final time Jackson defaulted was when she failed to file a legal and paid-for Answer over 30 days after the summons and complaint was served on her. The summons and complaint was served on Jackson on September 6, 2017. Jackson did not file a legal and paid-for Answer until December 28, 2017, over 2 months after it was due (on or about October 6, 2017).
Without the above omissions, I would have prevailed on the default issue, both the entry and judgment. And, the court would not have reached the judgment on the pleadings issue unless it chose to. Consequently, I will not engage in a discussion of that issue here. But, if viewed objectively, I believe I would have prevailed on my abuse of process claim as well.
THE FALSE STATEMENTS
As with the past decisions by Division 7 in my cases, there is at least one false statement or misrepresentation in this Decision. I will identify two.
1. At p. 2 of the Decision, Perluss states “Bray previously resided in a home OWNED by Jackson and Bray’s mother, Helen Davis.” (Emphasis added). This is false. My mother, Helen H. Davis, is the only owner of the home. Jackson, like I, before the illegal eviction, has a possessory interest in the home, but my mother is the home owner. See the Decision at p.4, where “Bray’s abuse-of-process complaint. . .alleged. . ., resulting in his unlawful eviction from THEIR MOTHER’S HOME.” (Emphasis added). And see Jackson’s Petition for approval to sell conservatee’s real property, App. No. BP159733, where, by Jackson, “An unlawful Detainer was needed to evict Bray because he lived in Davis’ personal residence” and “Up until 2016, Jackson was also living in DAVIS(‘) home. . . .” CT at 24. Emphasis added. And, finally, “Jackson has discussed with Davis, the sale of her personal residence.” Id. at 26. The significance of the false statement is that it would give Jackson a greater legal right with respect to the U.D. proceedings and her authority to charge me rent and evict me, and for the abuse of process claim, it would provide her with a greater legal argument and defense.
2. At p. 3 of the decision, at p.3, Perluss states “Bray then sought a restraining order to prevent his eviction, arguing again Jackson had no authority to proceed” (without citing to any record). This is a false statement. I did not seek a restraining order in the trial court to prevent my eviction.
My appeals before Division 7 will cause me to view “unpublished” decisions in a wholly different manner henceforth, now knowing what I know about how they can be deceiving.
JUDGE GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF FROM APPEARING ON THE PANEL OF MY APPEAL BASED ON HER MARRIAGE TO CITY ATTORNEY MIKE FEUER.
I’ve discovered after the decision in the case that judge Feuer is married to City Attorney Mike Feuer. And, I’ve charged that Mike Feuer was retaliating against me in charging me with a criminal misdemeanor. Judge Feuer should have recused herself from hearing the appeal. So, I will request a rehearing before a separate and independent panel.
THE 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT IS DIRECTED TO THE CONDUCT IN MY APPEALS BEFORE DIVISION 7 : INSTITUTIONAL OR SYSTEMIC RACISM
When the Movement began, it was a protest against the murder of George Floyd by police in Minnesota. That is , Black Lives Matter. George Floyd’s life matters. But, it evolved into a protest against racial injustice of all kinds, in all places or institutions, and by any and all persons perpetrating the injustices. Therefore, the courts are included. And, my cases before Division 7 are examples of the injustice.
This is the end of the abuse of process appeal discussion.
FROM THIS POINT ON IN THIS BLOG, THE BLOG IS DEDICATED TO REP. JOHN LEWIS AND THE 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT (BLACK LIVES MATTER).
Next time, the July 28, 2020 hearing on the confirmation of the sale of my mother’s home.
UPDATE—August 10, 2020
JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER’S HOMELESS ORDER : IT IS WITH SOME RELUCTANCE, THAT I MUST OPINE THAT I BELIEVE JUDGE CARTER’S ORDER SHOULD BE APPEALED, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH JUDGE CARTER MAY HAVE HAD GOOD INTENTIONS IN CRAFTING THE ORDER, THE ORDER APPEARS TO HAVE A DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT ON A SELECT HOMELESS POPULATION THAT MAY BE MOST IN NEED OF HOUSING AND SERVICES.
While I have hinted to it before, I am being more direct now. I believe U.S. District Judge Carter’s order, while perhaps not intending to do so, has created or produced a discriminatory effect for and/or on non-white or “most vulnerable” homeless people. According to the L.A. Times, judge Carter, on Friday, met with members of the L.A. City Council for each member to provide “updates on the progress of their efforts to create more shelter “for homeless people camped near freeways and underpasses.” And, the problem is, it has been determined that most, though not all, of the people “camped near freeways and underpasses” are white, and therefore, white people are being given priority treatment and access to services to the disadvantage of not only non-white people, but , to those who may have more serious illnesses and may be in greater need of housing and other services.
“(H)omeless service providers and officials from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. . . say that fulfilling the order will distract from keeping the most vulnerable alive.” L.A. Times, “Where next after the freeway exit ?”, July 2, 2020. Per Heidi Marston, executive director of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, “I think that a lot of my frustration comes from the fact that we’re in the middle of a global pandemic, and it just doesn’t feel consistent with what we need to be looking at right now as a response.” Id.
“Marston and other homeless care providers have felt cut out of a process that will be influential in determining who gets help and who doesn’t.” Id. Therefore, it appears the only way to address the discriminatory effect of the Order and represent those affected thereby, is to appeal the judge’s order on behalf of those suffering the discriminatory effect, including the most vulnerable.
Here are reasons why I believe the judge’s order should be appealed :
1. Even though judge Carter has set forth as his main reason, I believe, for the priority given to the areas around freeways, is gas emissions that may be harmful to the homeless living near freeways, I haven’t read where evidence was produced as to the health effects of the emissions on the homeless population. That is, were there complaints by the homeless people concerning the gas emissions and other hazards identified by the judge, or is it the judge’s assessment ? Candidly, I don’t know. On the other hand, reasons have been set forth by the homeless population around the freeways saying that they desire to stay around the freeways : (1) Some has chosen to live “under or near a freeway because it affords some measure of safety compared with other spots where homeless bed down.” Id. (2) “Many who could be forced to move said they were leery of going into temporary shelters, tiny prefab houses or sanctioned camping sites, because they felt confined by rules that prevented them from leaving after certain hours, and put them in shared spaces that they would otherwise avoid.” Id.
2. Someone needs to represent the interests of those suffering from the discriminatory effect of Carter’s order. And, the representation should be made to a different judge for another opinion. It appears that the only way that is going to be done is to appeal the judge’s order (through an extraordinary writ). It appears that Ms. Marston wants to represent the most vulnerable, but she feels powerless. An appeal would provide her with some power, and another judicial opinion.
3. I still believe it is better to allow the homeless to remain in their tents, including those around the freeways, until permanent housing can be provided. And, it is a misuse of money to spend money on temporary housing that could be used for permanent housing, except for certain necessary temporary housing, e.g., for the pandemic, if necessary.
4. If an appellate court would otherwise decide that Carter’s order is not constitutionally permissible, based on the discriminatory effect of the order, then appellate action should be pursued NOW, before it’s too late, i.e., before resources are exhausted and before the homeless are displaced from their “tent” homes.
Finally, although judge Carter commented, “Remember, skid row was created by all of us”, his order is not directed to the residents of skid row (who are among the most vulnerable) . Rather, it is directed to residents of freeway underpasses (who are among the less vulnerable).
GOOD LUCK, MS. MARSTON.
THE CONFIRMATION OF SALE HEARING AND JUDGE ANA MARIA LUNA : SIMPLY MORE OF THE SAME
Judge Luna, over objection and/or opposition, granted the petition and confirmed the sale of my mother’s home. And, I have now appealed.
The only difference between the original order allowing the sale of property issued by judge Elizabeth A. Lippitt and the confirmation of sale order issued by judge Luna is that I did receive a due process hearing on Dianne Jackson’s petition for confirmation of the sale of my mother’s home before judge Luna. I received proper notice, the petition (which I didn’t receive at the Lippitt hearing) and the hearing. I didn’t receive a due process hearing before judge Lippitt (because I didn’t receive the petition from Jackson).
After receiving the hearing, what occurred at the hearing was more of the same thing that happened at the Lippitt hearing. There was a disregard of applicable California law, especially that law requiring a showing, in writing, that other alternatives, including, but not limited to , in-home care, were considered. Further, there was no showing that my mother consented to the sale of her home.
And, one of the most important indications that systemic racism was involved was when I argued that my mother was Black and that black people and brown people suffered most from the coronavirus disease and that nursing homes were having the greatest problem with infections and deaths, and that if my mother had to leave the nursing facility, she wouldn’t have a home to go to if her home was sold, judge Luna just nodded her head up and down as I was speaking.
Her basic overall response was that the sale of the home had been affirmed on appeal, so all she was there at the hearing to do was confirm the sale (implying that any requirements for confirmation were not important). And that says it all in terms of due process.
However, one of the most important reasons why the sale could not be confirmed is a requirement of the petition itself : that the sale be in the best interest of all interested parties. I am an interested party, and clearly and ABSOLUTELY, the sale is not in my best interest. Moreover, my mother is an interested party as well, and, the sale is not in her best interest either. The only one whose best interest the sale is in is my sister, Jackson.
Yet, Jackson and her attorney, Robin Chow, swore, under oath, that the sale was in my best interest.
And, since it is not in my best interest, that means the statement is false. And, that bespeaks of perjury.
THE CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE HAS FAILED THE TEST
Above, I stated that this case, the confirmation of sale of my mother’s home, was a test case for whether the city and county really intended to take steps to resolve the homeless problem, after they found that racism was a cause of the homeless problem. That is, were they going to try and produce solutions to the homeless problem. It’s clear that the city and county don’t really have any serious intentions of solving the homeless problem. They could have and should have intervened to assure that two more people , especially Black people because of their disproportionate share of the homeless population, do not become homeless. They did not do so. And, it is the best evidence that all that they are doing for homeless people is simply outward appeasement. They don’t really care about homeless people, and part of that don’t care sentimentality is based on racism. The very racism that it has admitted is a major cause of homelessness.
Just imagine, if there has been or is now, many cases like Helen H. Davis’s, where a home has been vacant for over three years, and the home could have been occupied by a homeless person during that same period of time, and the city and county is aware of this and do not take any action, when they could have, to rectify the situation to provide the homeless person with a home. And, where the city and county and state is in full knowledge that the the sale of the home is resulting in the homeowner, especially a Black homeowner in the city and county of Los Angeles, becoming homeless. This would be , and is, outrageous neglect and failure on the part of the city and county in not taking steps (such as intervention—even if the intervention is not successful; there at least would be an attempt) to correct the situation by intervening for the sole purpose of resolving the homeless problem in the city and county of Los Angeles. Not to help one party or the other in the litigation, but to address and solve the homeless problem. But, necessarily, they will be helping the homeless person if their intervention is for the purpose of preventing the party from becoming homeless.
But, the city and county could still intervene on appeal.
However, the local press and/or media won’t print or televise any of these matters to the public, especially the tax paying public (who voted to allocate funds to aid the city and county in resolving the homeless problem), so this protects the city and county from being scrutinized by the public regarding their efforts in resolving the homeless problem and the racism problem that contributes to the homeless problem.
More next time.
January 11, 2020
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion or both.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information or material added after the publishing and first printing of the original blog)
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California (and the United States)
When I first started this blog, it was centered on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s State of the State address, where it was stated by the L.A. Times :
“With tens of thousands of people living on the streets of California , the homelessness crisis has become the state’s defining issue. For Gov. Gavin Newsom, the emergency had become so dire that he devoted his entire State of the State address. . .to the 150,000 Californians without homes.”
“ ‘Let’s call it what it is : It’s a disgrace that the richest state in the richest nation, succeeding across so many sectors, is falling so far behind to properly house, heal and humanely treat so many of its own people,” Mr. Newsom told lawmakers in Sacramento. “Every day, the California dream is dimmed by the wrenching reality of families and children and seniors living unfed on a concrete bed .’”
“Mr. Newsom called homelessness a national crisis in his speech. . . .” “California Governor Declares Homeless Crisis ‘a Disgrace’”, February 19, 2020.
There has been a break since I first began the blog and the now continuation. Nevertheless, I am continuing the blog now.
While I have written several blogposts on homelessness and homelessness in Los Angeles as part of (or included in) other blogs, this blog and future blogposts included therein will be specifically directed to the issue of homelessness, in Los Angeles and the State of California, primarily, but, generally, in the United States as well.
Readers, especially the regular readers, you likely do not remember, but sometime ago I argued and contended that homelessness should be considered and treated as an "emergency". I will cite the passage in one of my earlier blogs to refresh your memory :
“(H)ere, on the West coast, . . .where the number of homeless people on the streets of skid row and other places in Los Angeles have increased (and most of them are Black and/or Black males), we can’t get the courts (state or federal) to treat homelessness as an “emergency”.
“(T)his emergency (deciding whether a Black male in Los Angeles County has and keeps his home or is evicted and made homeless) is . . .to possibly save a person’s life, where that person could end up homeless on skid row, remain there for years, and possibly, die there.”
Finally, I stated, “I know of no instance where (the ACLU) has taken a position that the homeless situation in Los Angeles is an “emergency”. From the blog, Attorney Armen D. Gregorian and Judge David J. Cowan. . .,et. al. #2.. . , UPDATE—January 9, 2018.
Fast forward to October , 2019 , where “Casting about for solutions, some officials in Los Angeles County—including Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who co-chairs a state task force on homelessness, and L.A. City Councilman Joe Buscaino—are calling on California Gov. Gavin Newson to declare a state of emergency on homelessness.” L.A. Times, Editorial, October 4, 2019. And, “The result is that some available units sit empty for weeks or even months. That’s ridiculous in a county where homelessness is an emergency.” L.A. Times, Editorial, March 2, 2020.
But, I don’t expect city, county, or state officials, or the L.A. Times to give me credit for my ideas, although they have adopted several of them (but has not IMPLEMENTED them, e.g., my Homeless Resolution Committee (HRC), after I continue to criticize them for their uncaring nature when it comes to the homeless, especially the Black or African American homeless. As I have stated before and repeat here : these officials don’t really give a damn about solving the homeless problem, especially about the Black male homeless, who disproportionately represents a greater portion of the homeless.
I, even in my poor or indigent state, offered to assist the county, and necessarily, the city, with pro bono assistance as to one aspect of its problem, e.g., an organizational plan evolving from the integration of the various actors which are necessary for a REAL solution to the homeless problem. That is, the HRC. As I have stated before, the city, county, and state will not solve the homeless problem, at least not in an expeditious manner, without an organizational model such as the HRC (Homeless Resolution Committee).
I didn’t receive a response from either Supervisor K. Barger or Mark Ridley-Thomas. And how can they refuse any colorable assistance when, after receiving money from two taxpayer measures, i.e., measures H and HHH, HHH is a bond measure approved in the city in 2016, and measure H is a tax increase passed countywide in 2017, there has been no substantial impact on the homeless population. That is, most of the homeless before measures HHH and H, continue to be homeless after the measures. Further, also included in the mix of funds the local officials have had at their disposal is federal funding, “Generally, funding to help the homeless comes from the federal government and goes directly to local agencies that coordinate homeless financing and services across the state. That federal effort has provided around $100 million annually over the past four years to an agency that covers much of Los Angeles County. At the state level , major programs that included homeless housing subsidies, such as a 2006 bond measure and a $1-billion annual property tax set aside for affordable housing, have run out of money or were eliminated over the past four years.” L.A. Times, “Billions of dollars to help California’s homeless population are piling up—and going unspent”, March 25, 2018. Yet, most of the homeless remain homeless after city , county, state, and federal contributions.
* “Despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent to curb homelessness, the number of people without a home in Los Angeles grew last year for the fifth time in the last six years, officials announced. . . . And that was before the pandemic.” L.A. Times, “Homelessness worsens in L.A.”, June 12, 2020.
“An average of about three homeless people die each day in L.A. County, while countless others suffer monstrous madness in full public view.” L.A. Times, “Trauma is rife on Hollywood streets”, November 18, 2019.
Now, with the advent of the coronavirus, a federal judge, U.S. District Court judge David O. Carter, has ordered that perhaps thousands of homeless people be moved away from freeways in Los Angeles, based on considerations of health risks from tailpipe emissions and car crashes. The city and county have less than 10 months now within which to do it.
While I applaud the judge’s concern for the homeless and his willingness to take some action to move the homeless away from dangerous areas, I have reservations about moving the homeless out of the tents into hotels for at least two (2) reasons : (1) it is very likely that the move to hotels will only be a temporary move; and the homeless will end up back in the tents under the freeways anyways. And the money that was spent on temporary housing could have been spent on permanent housing. (2) it allows the city and county to point to actions that they are taking to help the homeless without producing permanent housing in a timely manner. That is, using the hotel moves to delay the provision of permanent housing.
But, I want to be clear, on behalf of the homeless, I thank the judge for his concern for the welfare of the homeless, and for ordering actions out of that concern.
More next time.
UPDATE—June 17, 2020
AT LAST : THE LOS ANGELES GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR HOMELESSNESS IN LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY IS RACISM
While I’ve said all along that the homelessness problem in Los Angeles is a product of the racial discrimination or racism directed against Black males, with the remaining homeless population being collateral damage, the Los Angeles government, city and county, have now confirmed my assertions.
“The homeless population continues to be about two-thirds male. The racial dynamics of homelessness continue to be stark. Black residents account for 8% of the population in Los Angeles County, but 34% of those who are homeless. (Heidi) Marston said that structural racism mean that Black men and women are four times more likely to experience homelessness.” L.A. Times, “Pre-pandemic homelessness worsens”, June 12, 2020. “Institutional racism propels Black people into homelessness at a grossly disproportionate rate.” Id.
“In a presentation on the (homeless) count, Heidi Marston, the homeless authority’s executive director, repeatedly said systemic racism is behind the inequities in homelessness.” L.A. Times, “Racism blamed in L.A.’s homelessness report”, June 13, 2020. “A 2018 report by a homeless authority -appointed commission on Black people without housing called homelessness ‘a byproduct of racism’ and detailed structural barriers in education, criminal justice, housing, employment, healthcare and access to opportunities.” Id.
From City Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson : “We desperately need to reinvest our resources into Black communities to prevent the types of disparities we continue to see when it comes to homelessness”. Id. “He (Harris-Dawson) called for passage of a resolution declaring racism as a public health crisis in Los Angeles , but also said the problem ‘cannot be resolved quickly or locally. We need the federal government to acknowledge and address how slavery and systematic racism contribute to these outcomes.” Id. Harris-Dawson is Black and Marston is white or Caucasian , so the assertion of racism comes from diverse racial voices.
Of course, I disagree with Harris-Dawson that the problem cannot be solved “locally”. I believe it can be, with input from others of course, e.g., the federal government. And, the taxpayers, i.e.,Measures H and HH, apparently think so as well.
Back to the racism : “The commission found it took longer for Black people to get housing, and less time for them to be evicted for breaking rules, White (member of commission) said.” Id. “(D)espite official acknowledgments that systemic racism is driving homelessness—and a major study on show to address it—the persistent and staggering over-representation of Black people in L.A.’s homeless ranks barely budged this year, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s homeless count report (just released)”. Finally, “the vast majority of homeless people on skid row—I’d say 75% or more—are Black.” Lopez, S., L.A. Times, “Black people in L.A. deserve a home”, June 14, 2020.
First, on behalf of the Black males of Los Angeles city and county, I thank Ms. Marston and Councilman Harris-Dawson for their candor and courage in admitting that racism is the main source of homelessness in Los Angeles. While I believe their candor and courage was made easier by the George Floyd riots , protests, and /or demonstrations, it nevertheless took some candor and courage to admit that racism is the main cause of the homeless problem in L.A. city and county.
Second, now that we have admitted that racism is the problem. The next step is to identify the sources of the racism. At least four possible sources are : housing administrators, landlords, court administrators, and courts themselves. I know from news reports that evictions, after racism, is the second main reason for homelessness in L.A. county.
Third, once the sources have been identified, some action must be taken to correct or eliminate the source of the racism. That is, penalties, retractions, suspensions, firings, removal from office, vacation or reversal of orders leading to evictions, etc. If nothing is done about the racism causing homelessness, quite naturally, the homelessness will continue.
More next time.
***Next time, I will provide a live or current example of the racism causing homelessness. We’ll see if the city, county, or the courts will do anything about it. Action speaks louder than words.
UPDATE—June 23, 2020
SO FAR, SO GOOD : I AM IMPRESSED WITH HEIDI MARSTON AND HER ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE BLACK HOMELESS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
In my passage above, I thanked Ms. Marston, along with Councilman Harris-Dawson, for her courage and candor in admitting that racism is the main cause of the homelessness problem in Los Angeles County. Now, she has continued on that path by pointing out that most of the homeless that live at freeway or other bridge under-passes are mostly white, per news source. And that fact causes my reservations about judge Carter’s order to be enhanced.
THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE HOMELESS LIVING UNDER OR NEAR FREEWAYS ARE WHITE, IF TRUE, ENHANCES MY RESERVATIONS ABOUT JUDGE CARTER’S ORDER
My reservations are enhanced because it appears that not only will there be a delayed production of permanent housing, but, now it appears that the people most in need of the temporary housing, e.g., the Black homeless, may not be receiving it. And, that’s especially so in the context of the coronavirus, with statistics showing that Black people are the most affected group of people, especially as it pertains to deaths from COVID-19. Finally, it appears that settlement or satisfaction of the judge’s order will , at most, only provide the homeless people with “beds”, but, beds are not “homes”. “If people can be moved into the new beds, ‘ I’m confident we’ll see the first reduction in homelessness in five or six years’ (Mayor Eric Garcetti) said.” LA.Times, “6,000 beds slated to clear freeway camps”, June 19, 2020. Again, “beds” are not homes. Beds are what they have in shelters; Beds are what were provided Black people during Hurricane Katrina. But, a bed is not a home. Therefore, the provision of beds for the homeless cannot solve the homeless problem.
The only way one cannot be homeless, is for one to have a home. A bed *alone is not a home.
THE TEST CASE : IN THE MATTER OF HELEN H. DAVIS : DO THE CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THE HOMELESS PROBLEM AFTER THE CITY AND COUNTY ADMITS THAT RACISM IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE HOMELESS PROBLEM IN L.A. CITY AND COUNTY ?
Helen H. Davis is a 98 year old Black lady, and my mother. She owns a home that she has lived in for over 50 years. At around age 92 , she suffered a fall at her home (at the time, both my sister and I —adult children—were living with my mother). Because of the fall , she was hospitalized. Upon release from the hospital, hospital medical officials told my sister and I that we had the options of taking care of my mother at home or placing her in a nursing facility. I chose to take care of my mother at home, and my sister chose to place her in a board and care. Because both my sister and I had to agree to take care of my mother at home for home care, and my sister did not agree , my mother was placed in a board and care. My sister was subsequently appointed conservator, over my objection, to manage my mother’s person and estate. She has now maintained my mother in a nursing facility and is now attempting to sell my mother’s house and home.
HOW RACISM CAUSED ME TO BE HOMELESS AND IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE MY MOTHER TO BE HOMELESS
The Conservatorship
The racism began with the appointment of the conservator for my mother’s affairs. Judge David Cowan of the Superior Court of California, *a white judge, exercised racism when he appointed my sister conservator rather than me. And, he did so because I am a Black male. First , judge Cowan asked my sister and I : Who pays your mother’s bills ? I responded, “I do”, with a silent concurrence by my sister. I believe this disappointed Cowan. Second, I provided Cowan with specific reasons why my sister should not be appointed conservator. Cowan gave little , *if any, regard to my reasons.
Readers : You’ll have to get the record and read the transcript for the specific reasons. Third, Cowan relied on a lie or false statement submitted by my mother’s court-appointed attorney to support his grant of the conservatorship to my sister.
My sister and I filed cross petitions for appointment as conservator. Cowan granted hers and denied mine. He did so because I am a Black male. Therefore, it was racism that determined the conservatorship appointment, and if my sister had not been appointed conservator, she would not be in position to try and sell my mother’s home.
Judge Cowan should be removed from office.
*(deleted)
*(deleted)
UPDATE—June 27, 2020
The Conservatorship Appeal
The appeal replicated the trial court’s action, that is, Division 7 of the Second District Court of Appeal, lead by judge Laurie Zelon, who wrote the decision, relied on a false statement of the evidence contained in the trial court record. Briefly, Zelon asserted that the trial record, in part, showed that I did not care for my mother. In truth, the record testimony, through my sister, showed that I did provide care for my mother. So, based in part on this false evidence, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant my sister’s petition for the conservatorship , and deny mine. And, when the Court affirmed judge Cowan’s decision to deny my petition for the conservatorship, it also affirmed his decision to deny my petition because I am a Black male. So, the racism continued.
The Unlawful Detainer Action And My Eviction
Once my sister succeeded in obtaining the conservatorship, she decided she would try to get me evicted, or out of the way. It seems clear now, that one of her reasons for doing so, was to sell my mother’s house and home. Another reason is, at this point, we simply didn’t get along, for various reasons. My being at home presented an impediment for her controlling my mother’s affairs her way. So, likely with the encouragement of others, she initiated unlawful detainer proceedings to get me evicted.
One of the reasons that makes it clear that my eviction was racially-motivated was that there was no legal basis for my eviction. My mother didn’t require either one of us to pay rent, and there was no other legitimate reason. I was evicted because I am a Black male.
A. Stage 1 - Notice
The beginning of all unlawful detainer (U.D.) cases begin with notice to the evictee that eviction from the premises at issue is being sought. Usually, only one notice (of unlawful occupation) is required. But, in my case, since my mother was allowing me to live in her home without paying rent, and for an uncertain length of time, per the California Supreme Court and a California Rule of law, two notices were required. At the initial UD appearance for trial, prior to being assigned a trial, I informed the judge, a Black female judge, that 2 notices were required and I had only received 1, and I told her that I could cite her the case that said so. She simply said in jest, “I’d like to see your case”. But, she never did. She simply moved on and said “we only require one notice”. So, after she denied me a jury trial because I hadn’t paid for the jury trial beforehand (even though I could have paid for it then—no jury trials had been per-assigned or set up), she sent me to get assigned a judge for a bench trial.
NOTE : Before I proceed further, I must state that at this point, the UD proceeding should have been dismissed, with prejudice. It should have been dismissed because I wasn’t served with 2 notices, and it should have been dismissed “with prejudice” because there was no legal basis for bringing the UD in the first place. It wasn’t dismissed for two reasons : (1) bias against tenants, and (2) I was a Black male tenant.
B. Stage 2 - The Trial.
This was an easy call. It was the same : bias against tenants and discrimination against me as a Black male tenant. The most compelling and determinative factor showing the prejudice against me was the judge, Joseph R. Kalin, stating, at the outset, after my sister stated her position, “you don’t have any defenses”. This was after he had discounted the 2-notice requirement, and I had requested to present my defenses (several of which I had identified in my Answer to my sister’s complaint). Finally, after I had raised the issue of my sister not having authority to initiate the UD action, Kalin said that he would check with the Probate Court. He postponed the trial for one day, and the next day he comes back and says the supervisor at the Probate Court says that she can do it, without citing to any law, and the supervisor apparently not citing any law for his or her position (because the judge did not identify any).
Kalin entered a judgment in favor of my sister. I was subsequently evicted, and homeless. I had no other home. I remain homeless. I’m living in a shared house, but, even a house is not necessarily a home. And, in my case, it is not. I’m not on Skid Row, but, it’s within reach. *And, government racially-motivated or racist misconduct, e.g., illegal surveillance, is trying to send me there. But, I’m not there yet.
*Kalin should be disqualified from acting as a judge.
C. Stage 3 - The Appeal
The appeal was before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. The focal point of the appeal was the 2-notice requirement , because there was no trial transcript. But, the way the Court decided the case is telling. In order for the Court to deny me relief, it had to refuse to follow California Supreme Court precedent, i.e., the 2-notice requirement. While the Court purportedly “distinguished” the case, it could not be distinguished . The California Supreme Court’s decision is clear. Two notices are required. The appeals court affirmed the trial court because I was a Black male, pro se appellant, while my sister was represented by a white female counsel and member of a law firm. It had nothing to do with the skill level of counsel. I believe the outcome would have been the same , even with my sister proceeding pro se. I am a Black male, versus a Black female.
*The Appellate Division that decided my case should be removed from the bench or otherwise disqualified from being judges, not only because of the racism, but also because they refused to follow precedent of the California Supreme Court in doing so.
The Attempted Sale Of My Mother’s Home Without Her Consent
Now, with me out of the way at my mother’s home, my sister is attempting to sell my mother’s only home. She apparently has secured a buyer, and is now petitioning the court for confirmation of the sale.
A. The initial grant of the petition to sell my mother’s house
After my sister filed her first petition to sell my mother’s home, the trial judge, Elizabeth A. Lippitt, granted her petition, even though her petition was not verified, as required by law (which demonstrated that my mother’s consent, if she consented at all, was not verified—and I assert that she did not consent at all); even though there was no hearing on the petition, because I was not served with the petition prior to the hearing—there was a hearing, but not a hearing on the petition; even though the proceeding was brought as an ex parte proceeding , but did not include Declarations, as required by law; and MOST importantly, even though her petition did not include a required demonstration that other alternatives, including in-home care, was not available or feasible before selling my mother’s home. This provision protects my mother from losing her home even against herself, in the event she actually consented to a sale of her home. And, at this time, it is difficult for the average Black person to obtain or purchase a home.
Lippett claims she was granting the petition because there was an emergency. But, there was no emergency. And, the only one opposing her decision was a Black man, me, without counsel. Racism played a role in Lippitt’s decision.
*Lippitt should be removed from office, not solely because of any racism, but because she allowed my sister to sell my mother’s house with all of the above-identified deficiencies in meeting the requirements to sell the house, which results in the taking of my mother’s property without due process of law. And, the taking of my mother’s house without her consent is stealing or theft.
B. The appeal
Another easy call. This was Division 7 again, and this was judge Zelon again, and consistent with her decision in the conservatorship appeal, she made another false statement about me. This time she claimed I didn’t cite authority regarding verification when , in fact and truth, I did. And, I pointed it out in a subsequent writing. And, keep in mind, her decisions, although not published in the formal Reports, and therefore , are deemed “unpublished”, they still are published otherwise, and therefore, are defamatory in nature. And, I have no opportunity to respond in a like published decision, other than my blog, which do not have the exposure her opinions have.
But, it’s clear that Zelon’s decisions in my cases before her are racially-motivated.
*Zelon should be removed from office.
C. Causing my mother to be homeless
In Zelon and Division 7 exercising racism against me, it transfers to my mother regarding the sale of her home. And, if her home is sold, she will be homeless. She has no other home. While she is in a nursing home now, if anything happens, especially concerning the coronavirus, and she has to leave the nursing home, she will have nowhere to go and will be homeless. And, the reason my mother is in a nursing home is because my sister did not want to take care of her at home. So, if my mother has to leave the nursing home, and her home has been sold, she will have to rely on my sister to care for her (and upon my knowledge and belief, my sister lives with a boyfriend herself). In any event, it will not be my mother’s home.
I will do everything within my power to stop the sale of my mother’s home.
I am opposing a proposed petition for confirmation of the sale of the home, and I’ve identified specific reasons why the house should not be sold, including the current coronavirus and COVID-19, where nursing homes have been found to be the most affected facilities by the virus, and with Black people, particularly Black seniors, presenting the most cases and the most deaths evolving from the virus. My mother is a 98 year old Black lady living in a nursing facility. If her home is sold, and subsequently, there is a problem at her nursing facility, prompting a need for her to leave the facility, where will she go ?
There is a scheduled hearing on the petition for confirmation of the sale of the home on July 28, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Courtroom #79, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012.
While no one outside the actual participants *likely can actually attend the hearing because of the virus, anyone supporting us can certainly express that support outside the courthouse. *Or, anyone or a family member or friend who has experienced the same or similar circumstances as those in this case, i.e., have been wrongfully evicted or have had their property or house or home wrongfully taken in or by the court system. For example, if anyone know of an elderly person who has had their house sold by a family member or other person or entity, *and thereafter placed in a nursing home, or simultaneously placed in a nursing home, WITHOUT having first determined whether there were alternatives to selling the house or home. You should come to voice your objections or other opinions.
UPDATE—June 27, 2020
***MOST ASTONISHING , IN VIEW OF THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS IN L.A. COUNTY, THE HOUSE , MY MOTHER’S HOME, THAT I WAS EVICTED FROM, HAS REMAINED VACANT SINCE MY EVICTION.
In view of the severe homeless problem that we in Los Angeles County are facing, it is ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING that the courts would allow me to be evicted and homeless while the home I was evicted from remains vacant. The house has been VACANT for TWO YEARS AND 9 MONTHS, almost three years, *while I REMAINED HOMELESS throughout this nearly three-year period. Why ? Because my mother would not allow anyone else in the house, and my sister knows this. And, my sister just wanted me out of the house, she didn’t care about the house being vacant. BUT, the COURTS should have cared, in the interest of fairness and the homeless crisis. *However, the lack of care is probably indicative of the discrimination against Black males or racism causing homelessness in Los Angeles County, as determined by the city and county.
The courts knew, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, about the homeless situation in L.A. county from the beginning of the eviction process through the sale of my mother’s home. News sources or the press, in addition to Skid Row and tent city, informed everyone in L.A. county about the seriousness of the homeless problem. Yet, no judge in the eviction process or the home sale process asked me, as a Black man living in Los Angeles county, “Mr. Bray, are you going to be able to get another home after you are evicted ?” I must emphasize, that while under ordinary circumstances and absent the homeless crisis, the courts would not be expected to ask such a question of a Black man, pursuant to the homeless crisis in Los Angeles, and under the circumstances of my case, i.e., a resulting VACANT or EMPTY house after the eviction, they were required to *ask. And, *it is *highly likely that, but for *the invidious discrimination against Black males in L.A. County, or racism , at least one of the judges *during the entire process(s)(conservatorship to sale of the home) would have asked.
THIS IS THE TEST CASE : WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO RACISM CAUSING HOMELESSNESS IN MY CASE AND ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE HOMELESSNESS IN MY MOTHER’S CASE ?
More next time.
UPDATE—July 3, 2020
ONE SOLUTION IS : STOP THE SALE OF THE HOUSE AND HOME OF HELEN H. DAVIS
That will automatically prevent my mother from being homeless. Additionally, the court can order that my status as tenant at will be reinstated, and order that I re-take possession of the premises. Then that will be two people eliminated from a homeless list, and two people the city, county, and state of California will not have to worry about providing housing for.
UPDATE—July 6, 2020
A SMALL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE : A CIVIL ACTION RE THE U.D. ACTION
After my sister filed the U.D. action and secured a judgment, I filed an abuse of process claim against her, basically arguing that she used court processes for an ulterior motive, e.g., malice.
After my sister obtained another pro bono lawyer, Public Counsel and Heather Shook, that lawyer filed a motion called judgment on the pleadings. After a hearing on the motion and opposition, the court, judge Gregory W. Alarcon , granted the motion. I disagreed with his decision, so I appealed.
I don’t believe his decision was racially-motivated. But, I believe he was wrong. Even if it was racially-motivated, I have no reason to believe that it was. So, I will assume that it wasn’t.
BUT NOW : DIVISION 7 OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.
Once again, my appeal is to be decided by Division 7, after I have filed a continuous objection to Division 7 hearing my appeals, based on racial bias. And, the bias has already started. The trial court Clerk‘s Office or the Appeals Office omitted parts of the record that I requested. So, I requested the clerk to supplement the record with the omitted documents. They didn’t do so. Moreover, I had attached the missing documents as an Appendix to my Brief, but the court said that wasn’t allowed. *But, the Court had the discretion to allow it. So now, the court is hearing the appeal without having the documents before it. And, the documents went to having a default judgment granted on appeal. Yet, the Court has allowed the Respondent to augment the record with various documents that shouldn’t be allowed.
A main issue on appeal with be my sister’s default. Her default is clear. The clerk, in its bad faith actions, provided my sister with information intended to be warning notice and date, but, the date was wrong, and my sister relied on the wrong date and defaulted. And the date was meant for me, but, my sister relied on it.
According to the Court’s notice, judge Laurie Zelon is not scheduled to be on the panel for my case. But, I’ll have to wait and see what happens. She was supposed to have recused in an earlier appeal, but didn’t do so. In any event, it is still Division 7, therefore, I have no confidence in receiving a fair appeal.
And, while the city and county has determined that the main reason for homelessness is racism, the STATE of California has made no such determination or admission. So, apparently, it does not join the city and county, so that’s likely reflected in its effort to solve the homeless problem, notwithstanding governor Gavin Newsom’s State of the State address. And, the Court of Appeal is a state entity.
Oral argument is scheduled for : July 10, 2020, at 1: 30 p.m., at the Court of Appeal, 300 S. Spring Street, 2nd Flr., Los Angeles, CA, 90013. *However, the argument will not be in the courtroom, rather, it will be via video-recording or telephonic. The public’s access will be via “streaming”.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 8, 2020
MY GO FUND ME ACCOUNT
I have now started a go fund me account. If I wouldn’t have started one before, I have been prompted to start one now based on what I believe is the government’s illegal surveillance of me , resulting in interference with my my personal and professional or business affairs (to include employment). I believe that surveillance has included contact with individuals associated with my personal and business affairs.
I believe the persons responsible are the same or connected to the individuals who burglarized my car and stole certain documents therein , i.e., complaints filed with the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) and other associated documents, and who burglarized my storage facility and stole letters from the CJP addressed and sent to me. And, clearly, the burglary incidents are government-related. So, I conclude that the surveillance is also government-related.
NOTE : This case presents another example of how the government takes advantage of poor people. If I were rich, the government would be reluctant to perform this type of misconduct. Because I would have the resources at my disposal to perform counter-surveillance, e.g., investigators, technicians, etc., and a privately retained attorney to sue the government in federal court for civil rights violations. However, since I’m not rich, the government is taking advantage of that fact.
Finally, even if the government finds some dirt on me , my dirt will be covered by its dirt.
For the readers who aren’t aware, the CJP complaints are centered on the removal from the bench of Second District Court of Appeal judge Jeffrey Johnson , *who is Black, and a possible defense for judge Johnson against the removal.
The reasons or purposes for the go fund me account are to retain counsel or otherwise mount legal defenses and to survive and avoid going under while asserting the defenses. The legal defenses would be both criminal and civil. The criminal defense would pertain to the unfounded and racially-motivated criminal misdemeanors I have been charged with ; and the civil defense would be the filing of civil rights actions in federal court for violations of my civil and constitutional rights, e.g., violation of the right to privacy and due process, or , a pursuit of racial justice. Another matter involves attorney fees evolving from an employment discrimination case. The civil defense would also include counsel in defense of the sale of my mother’s house, depending on the extent of the litigation. I am now a pro se party in defense of my mother, while my sister has law firms representing her. A final purpose is to avoid going under while waiting for my self-employed practice to blossom or produce income.
If you are willing and ABLE to contribute to the fund (the fund calls it a donation, I prefer calling it a contribution—a donation by another name), I would appreciate you doing so. You may donate-contribute by going to a google search at “ gofundme Laurack “ (and hit the “ fundraiser“) or the web at “gofundme Laurack”.
More next time, hopefully.
UPDATE—July 14, 2020
THE CITY AND COUNTY COULD AND SHOULD INTERVENE IN THE SALE OF THE HOME CONTROVERSY, BASED ON THEIR INTEREST IN SOLVING THE HOMELESS CRISIS IN LOS ANGELES
It seems to me that the city and county would want to make a special appearance at the hearing on behalf of Helen H. Davis , since they carry the greatest burden of eliminating homelessness in L.A. County, and the sale of the home has the potential for creating two more homeless people for the city and county to have to provide housing for.
Moreover, since the city and county have admirably admitted that racism is a major cause of homelessness in the city and county of Los Angeles, and racism has clearly played a role in the actions leading up to the sale of the home, an appearance at the hearing on behalf of Davis would tend to demonstrate to the State of California, and the People of California, that the city and county seriously intend to take steps to end homelessness in the city and county of Los Angeles, even if the State *doesn’t.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 24, 2020
REMINDER : The hearing : July 28, 2020 at 8:30 a..m. , Courtroom #79 , Superior Court, 111 N. Hill Street (1st and Hill Streets) , Los Angeles, CA, Make an appearance at or outside the courthouse. Help save Helen H. Davis’s home !
UPDATE—July 26, 2020
REMEMBERING JOHN LEWIS : THANK YOU JOHN LEWIS FOR EVERYTHING. I REGRET NOT BEING ABLE TO WALK WITH YOU AND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR IN THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON. IF THIS COUNTRY EVER DEFEAT OR OVERCOME RACISM, THE COUNTRY WILL KNOW THAT YOU WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN ACCOMPLISHING THAT FEAT.
Rest in Peace , *Congressman and Mr. Lewis.
UPDATE—July 29, 2020
HEIDI MARSTON : THE MORE I HEAR ABOUT MS. MARSTON AND HER REPRESENTATION OF THE HOMELESS, THE MORE I AM IMPRESSED WITH HER ATTEMPT TO ACT FAIRLY IN HANDLING THE HOMELESS CRISIS; AND HER ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE MOST IN NEED, YET , OFTEN OVERLOOKED, ARE RECOGNIZED AND ASSISTED .
“Marston said an approach that focused too narrowly on where people live as opposed to what their health condition is could attract more people to the underpasses as they hear that more resources will be provided to people living under freeways.” L.A. Times, “Where next after the freeway exit ?”, July 27, 2020. And, it has been shown that most of the people who live at the underpasses are white, and the people with the most serious health conditions are non-white. *So, those most in need of housing, temporary or permanent, may not be getting it. Certainly, it doesn’t appear that any priority is being given to them. But, Ms. Marston, please, don’t give up and don’t give in. Otherwise, any hope of solving the overall homeless problem, that is, for the entire homeless population, may be lost forever.
Thanks, Heidi.
I’ll speak on the hearing later.
UPDATE—August 4, 2020
THE ABUSE OF PROCESS APPEAL : A BIASED AND PREJUDICED DECISION AND PART OF THE 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT’S NOTION OF SYSTEMIC RACISM
First of all, this appeal, B295168, although judge Laurie Zelon apparently recused herself, was no different than my past appeals before Division 7. And, because judge Dennis Perluss , who wrote the decision, is the presiding judge of the Division, and more is expected of him in terms of conducting fair and impartial proceedings, it made the bias worse. As in my past appeals before this Division, there is at least one or more false statements in the decision. I will point them out later. But now, the bias and prejudice in this case that caused me to “lose” the case.
I charge that the bias was based on both race and gender. I am a Black male. But, even if race wasn’t a factor, you, the reader, will be able to see that the appeal was wrongly decided. The race factor only provides the “why” it was decided the way it was. The major conduct contributing to the bias and prejudice in the case is judge Perluss’s intentional OMISSION of critical and determinative facts regarding the DEFAULT issue. The bias itself can be ascertained simply by reading the court’s decision. It’s clearly one-sided. The purpose of this blogpost is to give my side, i.e., the omissions.
In addition to the court’s decision being bias and prejudice, it was also misleading. One way it is misleading is it makes the reader of the decision believe the judgment on the pleadings claim, Dianne Jackson’s claim, was the most important decision in the case, when, in fact, it is the other way around—the default claim was the most important because if the default was established, and it was, there wouldn’t be any need to reach the judgment on the pleadings matter . Moreover, the default claim should have been addressed first in the court’s decision, because it appeared first in the progression of the case, but the court intentionally reversed the order, and thereafter omitted critical facts.
THE CRITICAL AND DISPOSITIVE FACTS ABOUT THE DEFAULT WHICH WERE INTENTIONALLY OMITTED BY JUDGE PERLUSS
Omission #1 : The greatest omission by Perluss was my constitutional argument. I charged the clerk’s office dealing with the default with violating my constitutional rights, both due process and equal protection, by, among other things, informing Jackson of certain information that benefited her and NOT informing me of certain information that would have benefitted me. My constitutional argument was briefed (raised and argued in my Opening Brief) and it was referred to and addressed at oral argument. Yet, it was NOT even MENTIONED in the court’s decision. This was not error. This was not abuse of discretion. This was intentional conduct.
Omission #2 : The other major omission was the facts showing that Jackson defaulted at least 3 times. The first time she defaulted was when she failed to file her Answer within 30 days after a Statement of Damages had been served on her. The statement was served on Jackson on October 17, 2017, which means that Jackson’s Answer was due on or about November 17, 2017. But, Jackson’s Answer was not filed until November 20, 2017. There was a pending request for entry of default, which should have been entered. The second time Jackson defaulted was when her November 20, 2017 filed Answer was VOIDED based on the failure of Jackson to pay filing fees after her request for a WAIVER of fees had been denied. Once her Answer was voided, an entry of default should have been entered based on a second request for entry of default filed on December 1, 2017 (which was after her voided November 20, 2017 Answer). The third and final time Jackson defaulted was when she failed to file a legal and paid-for Answer over 30 days after the summons and complaint was served on her. The summons and complaint was served on Jackson on September 6, 2017. Jackson did not file a legal and paid-for Answer until December 28, 2017, over 2 months after it was due (on or about October 6, 2017).
Without the above omissions, I would have prevailed on the default issue, both the entry and judgment. And, the court would not have reached the judgment on the pleadings issue unless it chose to. Consequently, I will not engage in a discussion of that issue here. But, if viewed objectively, I believe I would have prevailed on my abuse of process claim as well.
THE FALSE STATEMENTS
As with the past decisions by Division 7 in my cases, there is at least one false statement or misrepresentation in this Decision. I will identify two.
1. At p. 2 of the Decision, Perluss states “Bray previously resided in a home OWNED by Jackson and Bray’s mother, Helen Davis.” (Emphasis added). This is false. My mother, Helen H. Davis, is the only owner of the home. Jackson, like I, before the illegal eviction, has a possessory interest in the home, but my mother is the home owner. See the Decision at p.4, where “Bray’s abuse-of-process complaint. . .alleged. . ., resulting in his unlawful eviction from THEIR MOTHER’S HOME.” (Emphasis added). And see Jackson’s Petition for approval to sell conservatee’s real property, App. No. BP159733, where, by Jackson, “An unlawful Detainer was needed to evict Bray because he lived in Davis’ personal residence” and “Up until 2016, Jackson was also living in DAVIS(‘) home. . . .” CT at 24. Emphasis added. And, finally, “Jackson has discussed with Davis, the sale of her personal residence.” Id. at 26. The significance of the false statement is that it would give Jackson a greater legal right with respect to the U.D. proceedings and her authority to charge me rent and evict me, and for the abuse of process claim, it would provide her with a greater legal argument and defense.
2. At p. 3 of the decision, at p.3, Perluss states “Bray then sought a restraining order to prevent his eviction, arguing again Jackson had no authority to proceed” (without citing to any record). This is a false statement. I did not seek a restraining order in the trial court to prevent my eviction.
My appeals before Division 7 will cause me to view “unpublished” decisions in a wholly different manner henceforth, now knowing what I know about how they can be deceiving.
JUDGE GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF FROM APPEARING ON THE PANEL OF MY APPEAL BASED ON HER MARRIAGE TO CITY ATTORNEY MIKE FEUER.
I’ve discovered after the decision in the case that judge Feuer is married to City Attorney Mike Feuer. And, I’ve charged that Mike Feuer was retaliating against me in charging me with a criminal misdemeanor. Judge Feuer should have recused herself from hearing the appeal. So, I will request a rehearing before a separate and independent panel.
THE 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT IS DIRECTED TO THE CONDUCT IN MY APPEALS BEFORE DIVISION 7 : INSTITUTIONAL OR SYSTEMIC RACISM
When the Movement began, it was a protest against the murder of George Floyd by police in Minnesota. That is , Black Lives Matter. George Floyd’s life matters. But, it evolved into a protest against racial injustice of all kinds, in all places or institutions, and by any and all persons perpetrating the injustices. Therefore, the courts are included. And, my cases before Division 7 are examples of the injustice.
This is the end of the abuse of process appeal discussion.
FROM THIS POINT ON IN THIS BLOG, THE BLOG IS DEDICATED TO REP. JOHN LEWIS AND THE 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT (BLACK LIVES MATTER).
Next time, the July 28, 2020 hearing on the confirmation of the sale of my mother’s home.
UPDATE—August 10, 2020
JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER’S HOMELESS ORDER : IT IS WITH SOME RELUCTANCE, THAT I MUST OPINE THAT I BELIEVE JUDGE CARTER’S ORDER SHOULD BE APPEALED, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH JUDGE CARTER MAY HAVE HAD GOOD INTENTIONS IN CRAFTING THE ORDER, THE ORDER APPEARS TO HAVE A DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT ON A SELECT HOMELESS POPULATION THAT MAY BE MOST IN NEED OF HOUSING AND SERVICES.
While I have hinted to it before, I am being more direct now. I believe U.S. District Judge Carter’s order, while perhaps not intending to do so, has created or produced a discriminatory effect for and/or on non-white or “most vulnerable” homeless people. According to the L.A. Times, judge Carter, on Friday, met with members of the L.A. City Council for each member to provide “updates on the progress of their efforts to create more shelter “for homeless people camped near freeways and underpasses.” And, the problem is, it has been determined that most, though not all, of the people “camped near freeways and underpasses” are white, and therefore, white people are being given priority treatment and access to services to the disadvantage of not only non-white people, but , to those who may have more serious illnesses and may be in greater need of housing and other services.
“(H)omeless service providers and officials from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. . . say that fulfilling the order will distract from keeping the most vulnerable alive.” L.A. Times, “Where next after the freeway exit ?”, July 2, 2020. Per Heidi Marston, executive director of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, “I think that a lot of my frustration comes from the fact that we’re in the middle of a global pandemic, and it just doesn’t feel consistent with what we need to be looking at right now as a response.” Id.
“Marston and other homeless care providers have felt cut out of a process that will be influential in determining who gets help and who doesn’t.” Id. Therefore, it appears the only way to address the discriminatory effect of the Order and represent those affected thereby, is to appeal the judge’s order on behalf of those suffering the discriminatory effect, including the most vulnerable.
Here are reasons why I believe the judge’s order should be appealed :
1. Even though judge Carter has set forth as his main reason, I believe, for the priority given to the areas around freeways, is gas emissions that may be harmful to the homeless living near freeways, I haven’t read where evidence was produced as to the health effects of the emissions on the homeless population. That is, were there complaints by the homeless people concerning the gas emissions and other hazards identified by the judge, or is it the judge’s assessment ? Candidly, I don’t know. On the other hand, reasons have been set forth by the homeless population around the freeways saying that they desire to stay around the freeways : (1) Some has chosen to live “under or near a freeway because it affords some measure of safety compared with other spots where homeless bed down.” Id. (2) “Many who could be forced to move said they were leery of going into temporary shelters, tiny prefab houses or sanctioned camping sites, because they felt confined by rules that prevented them from leaving after certain hours, and put them in shared spaces that they would otherwise avoid.” Id.
2. Someone needs to represent the interests of those suffering from the discriminatory effect of Carter’s order. And, the representation should be made to a different judge for another opinion. It appears that the only way that is going to be done is to appeal the judge’s order (through an extraordinary writ). It appears that Ms. Marston wants to represent the most vulnerable, but she feels powerless. An appeal would provide her with some power, and another judicial opinion.
3. I still believe it is better to allow the homeless to remain in their tents, including those around the freeways, until permanent housing can be provided. And, it is a misuse of money to spend money on temporary housing that could be used for permanent housing, except for certain necessary temporary housing, e.g., for the pandemic, if necessary.
4. If an appellate court would otherwise decide that Carter’s order is not constitutionally permissible, based on the discriminatory effect of the order, then appellate action should be pursued NOW, before it’s too late, i.e., before resources are exhausted and before the homeless are displaced from their “tent” homes.
Finally, although judge Carter commented, “Remember, skid row was created by all of us”, his order is not directed to the residents of skid row (who are among the most vulnerable) . Rather, it is directed to residents of freeway underpasses (who are among the less vulnerable).
GOOD LUCK, MS. MARSTON.
THE CONFIRMATION OF SALE HEARING AND JUDGE ANA MARIA LUNA : SIMPLY MORE OF THE SAME
Judge Luna, over objection and/or opposition, granted the petition and confirmed the sale of my mother’s home. And, I have now appealed.
The only difference between the original order allowing the sale of property issued by judge Elizabeth A. Lippitt and the confirmation of sale order issued by judge Luna is that I did receive a due process hearing on Dianne Jackson’s petition for confirmation of the sale of my mother’s home before judge Luna. I received proper notice, the petition (which I didn’t receive at the Lippitt hearing) and the hearing. I didn’t receive a due process hearing before judge Lippitt (because I didn’t receive the petition from Jackson).
After receiving the hearing, what occurred at the hearing was more of the same thing that happened at the Lippitt hearing. There was a disregard of applicable California law, especially that law requiring a showing, in writing, that other alternatives, including, but not limited to , in-home care, were considered. Further, there was no showing that my mother consented to the sale of her home.
And, one of the most important indications that systemic racism was involved was when I argued that my mother was Black and that black people and brown people suffered most from the coronavirus disease and that nursing homes were having the greatest problem with infections and deaths, and that if my mother had to leave the nursing facility, she wouldn’t have a home to go to if her home was sold, judge Luna just nodded her head up and down as I was speaking.
Her basic overall response was that the sale of the home had been affirmed on appeal, so all she was there at the hearing to do was confirm the sale (implying that any requirements for confirmation were not important). And that says it all in terms of due process.
However, one of the most important reasons why the sale could not be confirmed is a requirement of the petition itself : that the sale be in the best interest of all interested parties. I am an interested party, and clearly and ABSOLUTELY, the sale is not in my best interest. Moreover, my mother is an interested party as well, and, the sale is not in her best interest either. The only one whose best interest the sale is in is my sister, Jackson.
Yet, Jackson and her attorney, Robin Chow, swore, under oath, that the sale was in my best interest.
And, since it is not in my best interest, that means the statement is false. And, that bespeaks of perjury.
THE CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE HAS FAILED THE TEST
Above, I stated that this case, the confirmation of sale of my mother’s home, was a test case for whether the city and county really intended to take steps to resolve the homeless problem, after they found that racism was a cause of the homeless problem. That is, were they going to try and produce solutions to the homeless problem. It’s clear that the city and county don’t really have any serious intentions of solving the homeless problem. They could have and should have intervened to assure that two more people , especially Black people because of their disproportionate share of the homeless population, do not become homeless. They did not do so. And, it is the best evidence that all that they are doing for homeless people is simply outward appeasement. They don’t really care about homeless people, and part of that don’t care sentimentality is based on racism. The very racism that it has admitted is a major cause of homelessness.
Just imagine, if there has been or is now, many cases like Helen H. Davis’s, where a home has been vacant for over three years, and the home could have been occupied by a homeless person during that same period of time, and the city and county is aware of this and do not take any action, when they could have, to rectify the situation to provide the homeless person with a home. And, where the city and county and state is in full knowledge that the the sale of the home is resulting in the homeowner, especially a Black homeowner in the city and county of Los Angeles, becoming homeless. This would be , and is, outrageous neglect and failure on the part of the city and county in not taking steps (such as intervention—even if the intervention is not successful; there at least would be an attempt) to correct the situation by intervening for the sole purpose of resolving the homeless problem in the city and county of Los Angeles. Not to help one party or the other in the litigation, but to address and solve the homeless problem. But, necessarily, they will be helping the homeless person if their intervention is for the purpose of preventing the party from becoming homeless.
But, the city and county could still intervene on appeal.
However, the local press and/or media won’t print or televise any of these matters to the public, especially the tax paying public (who voted to allocate funds to aid the city and county in resolving the homeless problem), so this protects the city and county from being scrutinized by the public regarding their efforts in resolving the homeless problem and the racism problem that contributes to the homeless problem.
More next time.
UPDATE—October 20, 2020
THE ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIM , THE FEUERS, AND MY PETITION FOR A REHEARING
Above I stated that after oral argument in the abuse of process case I discovered that Judge Gail Feuer was married to City Attorney Mike Feuer, and that I would petition for a rehearing before an independent panel , because judge Feuer should have recused herself from hearing the appeal.
Well, after I filed the the petition, the Second District, through a court clerk , for the court, declared that the Petition was filed too late (about 2 days, if that—only the clerk knows for sure because the Petition was sent by regular mail. It clearly was mailed before the expiration date, so the only question is when it was received by the court, and only the court knows for sure.
Next, I filed a motion for reconsideration directed to to the presiding administrative judge, Elwood Lui, arguing that the widely known fact of the delay in mail by the postal service due to the new Postmaster’s new procedures and/or instructions should excuse any minor lateness, i.e. a few days. This time, rather than a response by Lui, a Division 7 clerk, Melissa Uriba, determined that the reconsideration motion was also late, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction, based on another court rule. I think both actions, resulting in the return of the documents, were at least an abuse of discretion, and at most, intentional conduct, as part of systemic racism.
And now, the court has issued a remittitur. Therefore, the court has successfully avoided the issue of judge Feuer’s required recusal and of providing me with an independent panel to decide the appeal.
So, my only alternatives were to seek relief in the California Supreme Court with a weak record or refer to Governor Gavin Newsom . I will refer to the Governor, since he needs to know about this and related matters.
THE END OF PROJECT ROOMKEY
Project Roomkey, the program that provided temporary housing for certain homeless people, has now ended, with most of the homeless checking out of the hotels and motels thus far (about a third of all who checked in, according to news sources) returning to the street. And this is the main problem that I had with the program, i.e., that after spending money on temporary housing, the homeless would eventually return to the streets, and the money spent on the temporary housing subtracted from money that could have been used for permanent housing. So, the homeless is right back where they were before Project Roomkey, only now with less money to spend on permanent housing.
On the face of it, the homeless are no closer to obtaining permanent housing and the reduction of homelessness than they were before California citizens voted to provide funding for housing for the homeless. And local officials refuse to accept help or assistance in solving the problem, even though their problem-solving is not working. But, as has been shown, much of the defective problem-solving in regard to the homeless and the lessening of homelessness is due to racism.
More next time.
UPDATE—October 29, 2020
THE COMBINATION OF JUDGE CARTER’S ORDER AND THE PROPOSED L.A. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE AND AMENDMENTS TO THAT ORDINANCE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE BLACK HOMELESS AND OTHER NON-WHITE HOMELESS ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND ARE SUFFERING FROM SYSTEMIC RACISM, WITH NO HELP IN SIGHT.
As I stated above, the order of U.S. District Judge David O. Carter which orders that temporary homes be found for people living under or near freeway underpasses or overpasses because of what he views as a health hazard, has a discriminatory effect because it has been found that the vast majority of the people living near, under, or around the freeways are white people. Therefore, white people are being given priority to available temporary housing over the most vulnerable, which in most cases are non-white people. And, the most vulnerable (whom also, proportionately, are largely Black and non-white) are generally most in need of the housing for health and mental health reasons. And, while judge Carter views living around the freeways as a health hazard, I have not thus far seen where anyone, either supporters of the judge’s order or homeless advocates, produce evidence of health hazards suffered by the freeway homeless which have been complained about and relayed to the judge.
Thus, the judge’s order, well-intentioned or not, has a discriminatory effect on the most vulnerable, and the most in need of the housing and prioritizing . Therefore, the discriminatory effect is, in fact, discrimination against Black and other non-white people. So far, none of the homeless advocates, while at times complaining, has challenged the judge’s order by way of an appeal. Consequently, the discrimination continues.
To add insult to injury, and in furtherance of the discrimination, the City Council is proposing an ordinance “that would allow authorities to remove homeless camps anywhere in the city if they first offer shelter as an alternative to living on the street.” L.A. Times, “L.A. camping law up for vote”, October 28, 2020. And a proposed amendment “would effectively prohibit anyone from camping in public anywhere in the city if authorities offer shelter as an alternative.” Id. And, as a matter of public record, many homeless people object to shelters for various reasons.
But that’s not the worst discriminatory damage. Another part of the proposed amendments “would ban camping in specific locations. If adopted , they would allow the city to remove homeless camps within 500 feet of freeway underpasses and homeless shelters. In those areas, the offer of housing would not apply.” Id. So in this case, the Black homeless who violated the ordinance, would truly end up homeless, both de jure and de facto.
Thus, it appears that the main objective of the proposed ordinance and amendments is to get Black people, and mainly Black males (who are the most visible and are the mainstay of Skid Row), and other non-whites off of the streets without providing them with permanent housing.
“There were never enough beds in all the bridge shelters to come close to housing every homeless person on the street. There aren’t enough beds in all the shelters in the city to house everyone who is homeless here.” L.A. Times, “Not a homelessness solution”, October 27, 2020.
Therefore, the combination of the discrimination against Black people and other non-whites in reference to the freeway underpasses order and the City Council’s proposed ordinance, which makes matters and the discrimination worse, is evidence of the systemic racism in the city and county of Los Angeles, and the treatment of the Black and other non-white homeless people is just one aspect.
Finally, while some homeless advocates have complained about judge Carter’s actions, such as Heidi Marston, Executive Director of the Homeless Authority, and the City Council’s proposed ordinance, “What breaks my heart is seeing you (city council) pull out all the tactical and legislative stops to quickly pass something so cruel to our most vulnerable Angelenos, when we have never seen this kind of urgency for a motion that might actually help us,” by Sophie Strauss, homeless advocate,” L.A. Times, supra, no one has taken any ACTION to challenge the discrimination, therefore, for the Black and other non-white homeless , the discrimination and systemic racism continues, and there is no relief in sight.
More next time.
UPDATE—November 10, 2020
THE ELECTION AND THE HOMELESS : SAME-OH, SAME-OH; STILL NO HOPE OF A BETTER DAY FOR THE HOMELESS, ESPECIALLY THE BLACK HOMELESS, AND MOST ESPECIALLY, THE BLACK MALE HOMELESS
If anyone thought the addition of new City Council members might help bring about change or new potential for hope for the homeless, expect disappointment. Although the election has produced three new council members, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Kevin de Leon, and Nithya Raman, who purport to give particular emphasis to homelessness when they take office, expect them to sing the same old song, i.e., more shelters or other temporary housing. Nothing is being said about permanent housing or evictions (but, I bet you something will be said about evictions when the pandemic is over). *See what Steve Lopez of the L.A. Times said, “And it looks as though there will be greater emphasis on interim housing, rather than permanent supportive housing because that might move people off the streets faster and at a lower cost.” L.A. Times, “Biden is not the cure for all of the state’s ills”, November 10, 2020. And that’s the point, while interim or temporary housing may “move people off the streets faster” , it will not cause the homeless people to have a home. It will only move the homeless people off the streets, which a lot of white people, and some non-white people, want and have wanted for years—out of sight, out of mind. But, it will not provide the homeless with a home. The homeless will continue to be homeless. Only PERMANENT supportive housing will eliminate the homelessness. And, if the city and county of Los Angeles and the state of California want to solve the homeless problem, they can solve the homeless problem, notwithstanding the cost of permanent housing. The first thing they must do is cut through the systemic, institutional, and systematic racism. In doing so, it will allow them to seriously explore ways of solving the homeless problem, which may involve accepting outside ideology or assistance. For any of you who didn’t know, the greatest cause of homelessness in L.A. County is evictions. And I assure you, many , if not most, of those evictions are illegal or unconstitutional. But, unfortunately for the homeless, when the pandemic is over, the city, county, and state, will not have the opportunity that they had before the pandemic to concentrate on illegal or unconstitutional evictions, because they will have to concentrate on legal evictions arising from conditions of the pandemic.
And what set of evictions do you think will get priority when the pandemic is over, illegal or unconstitutional evictions or legal evictions ? And while mostly Black and other non-white homeless people would be the beneficiaries of proven illegal or unconstitutional evictions, who do you think will be the beneficiaries of the legal evictions ? Mostly white landlords, of course. *And some of these same landlords were the beneficiaries of the illegal and unconstitutional evictions.
And, if the Black homeless are being pushed to the back of the line now, what do you think is going to happen when the pandemic is over?
More next time.
UPDATE—November 11, 2020
See the * cited above in the Nov. 10, 2020 update.
UPDATE—December 1, 2020
THE EVICTED PEOPLE OF EL SERENO
I have stated before that the City and County of Los Angeles and the State of California DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE HOMELESS. The latest evictions of the people occupying the homes owned by the California Department of Transportation only adds fuel to the “don’t give a damn” fire. Here’s why :
It is clear that the homes where the evictions are or have been conducted are owned by the State of California. It is also clear that the homes were not being occupied or used for any other reasons before the homeless people began occupying them. Therefore, they were simply vacant or unoccupied homes serving no purpose. Rather than allow homeless people to occupy the homes, especially during the pandemic (but before the pandemic as well), the State prefers to maintain the people’s homelessness rather than allow them to occupy the homes, even if just temporarily, until the State decides what it intends to do with the homes and until the State actually dispenses with the homes or put the homes to use.
This is invidious conduct, and part of the systemic and institutional racism of the State of California, local governments included, when it comes to black and brown people. The main or primary evidence of this is that the main reason offered by the State for evicting the people is insufficient to overcome a facial observation of neglect and callous indifference to the plight of homeless people and homelessness in general in the State.
According to news sources, the reason provided by the state is that the “vacant homes along the 710 Freeway were ‘unsafe and uninhabitable’” (and “As such, Caltrans requested the CHP remove trespassers so that the properties can be re-secured and boarded up”). This reason was supported by records of the L.A. Times from 2015, showing that “37 of the El Sereno homes were listed as ‘uninhabitable’, including two dozen apartment units.” The main reason why this reason or justification is insufficient is because the homes could and should simply be made “habitable”, at much less a cost than building new permanent housing. So this uninhabitable excuse is nothing more than an excuse , and a poor one at that, for callous, indifferent, and racially-motivated treatment of the homeless. The uninhabitable excuse is the same as no excuse. Unless the properties are so dangerous to human life and occupancy that the properties are required to be torn down or demolished , they can be made habitable for occupation. It has been found that “more than 400 properties, including houses, apartments, commercial buildings and vacant lots” are “surplus” for Caltrans. There are 87 single family homes vacant. So , why not use the property to help solve the homeless problem ? Finally, it is said that “The state agreed to lease 22 properties to the housing authority for up to three years”. But why is the state leasing the property to the housing authority when it has its own responsibility to help solve the homeless problem, and could simply dispense with the property to and for the homeless itself.
Moreover, the method of evicting the homeless people was also callous, indifferent, and racist. The CHP went in like storm-troopers, dressed in riot gear, as though they were pursuing hardened criminals, when, in fact, a number of the people, perhaps most, were families. Parents trying to put a roof over their children’s heads. But even for those who weren’t parents, they didn’t deserve to be treated that way. I doubt if most of the people would have disobeyed a command by the CHP that they leave the premises, followed by a warning that if they did not do so , physical action would be taken. Especially the parents with children. In view of the grave homeless problem in the city and county of Los Angeles, and the non-use and availability of multiple units of housing in the county, regardless of who owns the property, the eviction of the homeless people was despicable . Some of the repairs or other actions necessary to make the properties habitable could be performed while the people are living in the properties.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND HERE WITH VISIBLE PROOF, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HAVE NO INTENTION OF SOLVING THE HOMELESS PROBLEM; *PRIMARILY , BECAUSE OF ENTRENCHED RACISM.
*WILL THE NEW ALL-FEMALE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE HOMELESS AND HOMELESSNESS PROBLEM IN LOS ANGELES ? We shall see.
*The Answer is “No” (May 3, 2021)
UPDATE—January 6, 2021
THE LETTER TO GOV. NEWSOM IS ON ITS WAY
I have now sent the letter to Gov. Newsom regarding the dismissal of my petition for a rehearing and motion for reconsideration (regarding omissions in his opinion by judge Purless and required recusal by judge Feuer) by court clerks. See above at August 4, 2020 entry. I will await a response from the Governor.
*THE SALE OF MY MOTHER’S HOME : TRYING TO AVOID THE APPEAL
Now, the respondents are attempting to avoid the appeal by filing a motion to dismiss, claiming I don’t have “standing” to appeal (even though I am my mother’s son). They probably received assistance from the civil appeals section by its delay in producing and filing the record, which provided respondents with the opportunity to file this pre-appeal motion. *But, if the civil appeals section had nothing to do with the the timing of the filing of the motion, I would owe it an apology. *But, we’ll see. Respondents are simply trying to rely on Division 7’s bias (past and present) to succeed on this motion. They know the appeal doesn’t look promising because the trial judge failed to make a crucial determination.
*Note : I don’t owe the appeals section an apology, the production of the Record was intentionally delayed by someone in the appeals section. When I called to inquire about the status of the Record, the record was produced soon thereafter, thanks to certain young lady (clerk) working in the section.
I opposed the motion, in a timely fashion (which the respondents also wish didn’t happen—which would cause an easy dismissal), so I await the Court’s decision.
UPDATE—February 12, 2021
The Court of Appeal has now denied the Respondents’ motion to dismiss. Thus, the case will proceed in ordinary appellate process or procedure. However, the Court of Appeal, through judge Perluss, ruled that the Respondents can raise the issue of standing again during the appeal itself. Perluss is still ruling on my cases. *And, I’m still awaiting the Record to be produced.
UPDATE—February 15, 2021
JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER HAS MADE A SHIFT IN EMPHASIS TOWARDS THE MOST VULNERABLE IN HIS OVERSIGHT OF THE HOMELESS SITUATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY : THAT’S A GOOD THING! AND, IT’S ALSO THE FAIR THING.
Judge Carter has now shifted his emphasis in presiding over homeless litigation, from freeway or bridge overpasses, *where mostly white people reside, to skid row, where some of the most vulnerable homeless people, *disproportionately Black and Latinx , reside. This is a much-needed and welcome change. Carter held a hearing on skid row about two weeks ago to get an update on the status of efforts by the city and county to find remedies for solving the homeless problem in L.A. County. Clearly, it doesn’t appear that he is too happy with local officials in terms of any progress that they are making in providing solutions to the overall homeless problem. And, well he shouldn’t be happy with them. They continue to squander taxpayer money on piecemeal projects, or to use federal monies on piecemeal projects, rather than a broad and major long term solution encompassing the resources of all major players who are necessary to produce a major impact on the homeless situation, i.e., players who can provide local government with assistance with new and EXISTING housing; they refuse to deal with unlawful evictions, which could provide substantial housing in itself, and they refuse to take other steps that could prevent some people from becoming homeless.
Now, judge Carter is contemplating implementing a federal solution to the problem, i.e., federal oversight, and now local officials are complaining that “they’d prefer to see elected officials and not a judge supervise the response to the crisis,” or they’d “prefer the city and county to stay in control.” But, judge Carter spoke of a “long period of inaction by local government officials” and apparently speculated whether there should be real federal oversight by federal authorities and the courts to try and resolve the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles County.
The city and county have the audacity to state that they want to be in control of resolving the homelessness crisis , when they have been provided unfettered control and opportunities to do so and have failed miserably . It is likely a mixture of systemic racism, *i.e., where the L.A. City and County homeless are disproportionately Black and male, incompetence, and arrogance, i.e., they refuse to accept any outside assistance that could help in resolving the crisis.
Therefore, it appears that the federal government and courts must get involved in order to try and provide an overall, long term or permanent, and expeditious solution to the homeless crisis. And judge Carter could start by entertaining a hearing on what are the real causes of homelessness in L.A. County and what have the city and county done to address those causes. *The main cause is evictions. I believe the Court will find that local government and the State of California, through its agencies and its courts, including the administrative aspects, have done little or nothing to actually solve the homeless problem, other than provide temporary housing, which is important, and I give mayor Eric Garcetti credit in trying to provide temporary housing, notwithstanding it is a piecemeal solution—but, a necessary one. But much more can be and should be done if local government and the State of California, perhaps with the force of the federal courts, intend to seriously address the homeless crisis and demonstrate that the crisis is not an intended one, i.e., systemic racism.
I (or someone similarly-situated as myself) certainly could be a main witness and testify as to the cause of my homelessness (and its various stages) and the potential homelessness of my mother, and demonstrate that the city, county, and state of California, rather than trying to solve the homeless problem, instead, perpetuates it. And, judge Carter or the federal Court ( simply by assuming, without actual testimony, that what is happening to me and my mother is happening to other citizens) could conclude that these circumstances could be a major cause of the homelessness problem in L.A. County and the State of California. And, the next question would be : what is the remedy or solution ? And that’s where federal jurisdiction would come in to play. The federal Court can order solutions that local government refuses to utilize for its own personal reasons or purposes, e.g., systemic racism or protecting landlords (*some who likely have unlawfully or illegally caused many people to be homeless—but, rather than address this problem as well, local government chooses to concentrate on producing new housing).
*According to news reports, in the skid row hearing, judge Carter “openly wondered if Los Angeles’ homelessness crisis warranted similar, far-reaching action” as the “robust efforts by federal authorities and the courts” in enforcing the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision “in its landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education”. I believe that’s PRECISELY what is needed.
That’s all for now.
UPDATE—February 22, 2021
WHILE I CONTINUE TO CONDEMN THE CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR NOT SERIOUSLY ATTEMPTING TO SOLVE THE HOMELESS CRISIS IN L.A. COUNTY, I SUPPORT MAYOR GARCETTI IN A FEW OF HIS LATEST DECISIONS AND/OR RATIONALE
To begin with, I am relying on two L.A. Times articles for the factual basis for my responses in this blogpost. First, “Garcetti vetoes plan to reallocate LAPD money”, December 23, 2020, and second, “Critics Question Mayor’s Promised Funding”, February 22, 2021.
I have stated before on several occasions, that I don’t believe the city, including Mayor Eric Garcetti, and county of Los Angeles, or the state of California really give a damn about the homeless, and that most of their efforts are for appeasement rather than seriously trying to solve the homeless crisis. However, I strongly support Garcetti in a few of his latest decisions or rationale, because I believe they are the right decisions for the right reasons. For instance, he vetoed “a proposal backed by the City Council to spend money diverted from the Los Angeles Police Department’s budget on an array of services, including sidewalk repairs.” As an example, it was noted that Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson wanted $16M for , among other items, “street and alley resurfacing, tree trimming, and other initiatives”. Garcetti’s response was that a lot, not all, of the requested items was just “kind of business as usual.” I agree. And, I think Garcetti’s final response was classic : “I don’t think people hit the streets for us to fix the sidewalks”. ABSOLUTELY! “They hit the streets for us to get out there and make some lasting change.” ABSOLUTELY! I agree. “Garcetti , in his letter, said he would get behind a revised spending plan that focuses on community engagement on issues such as RACIAL JUSTICE and income INEQUALITY ; protect jobs for city employees facing layoffs, particularly those hired through a program that targets individuals from UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS. . . .” Emphasis added. ABSOLUTELY!
I agree with Garcetti and support his rationale. The 2020 Racial Justice Movement was(is) just that, a movement for racial justice, with the projected outcome in mind that with the achievement of racial justice, other things , such as street and alley resurfacing and tree trimming in low income communities , will be automatically or easily achieved, for there will not be the racial barriers in place that prevent low income communities from being treated fairly.
What this tells me that I didn’t know before is that Garcetti is not the major obstacle to resolving the homelessness crisis, it’s the city council, the county, and the State of California. This is not to say that Garcetti has no responsibility for the problem, because he does. But, clearly , he is not a MAJOR obstacle, because he is the only one who appears to be placing the achievement of racial justice and the eradication of homelessness as a priority. I clearly see indications of the city council as a whole taking some actions on behalf of the homeless, e.g., “In September the City Council voted to commit $200 million in federal relief funds for homelessness initiatives”, but, it appears that Garcetti is the one that places priority on achieving racial justice , while striving to solve the homelessness problem as well. “The mayor said the money (from cuts in the budget) would be focused on L.A.s Black community ‘as well as communities of color and women and people who have been left behind.’ ”
Next, the use of federal funds allocated under the CARES program. Garcetti said those funds “went to programs to address homelessness, which disproportionately affects Black residents.” “The city has allocated those funds to provide various forms of relief, including $100 million for rent subsidies and as much as $50 million to help Angelenos with their utility bills.” I agree with the direction of the allocations.
Finally, according to the Times, Melina Abdullah, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, stated “Addressing homelessness is not shorthand for addressing Black issues”. That may be true, but it certainly is at the top of the priority list for Black issues to be addressed in L.A. city and county. And, in referring to federal funds being allocated to the homeless, she “argued that the mayor was simply ‘regifting’ the federal funds.” Who received the initial “gift” ? And, if the federal funds were “regifted” to the homeless, its because the homeless is most in need of the gift.
Most disturbing to me is that somewhere in Abdullah’s regifting statement is the statement that the “gift” to the homeless is somehow unwarranted or un-deserved , or, to put it another way, that the homeless’ lives DO NOT MATTER. How ironic, for an organization that advocates Black Lives Matter. I have often wondered why I don’t see BLM in the homelessness discussions. Now, I know why. *I doubt if Abdullah was homeless herself, that she would view the “regifting” the same way.
UPDATE—March 3, 2021
GARCETTI’S VETO WAS EFFECTIVE; IT RESULTED IN A NEW AND BETTER SPENDING PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL; ONE MORE DIRECTED TOWARDS RACIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR THE UNDERSERVED OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY
Although the City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Garcetti’s veto of an initial spending plan by the council (on Tuesday), the result of the override was a better spending plan in terms of striving for racial justice and economic equality. The council’s new plan will involve, rather than any emphasis on street and alley resurfacing and tree trimming, “a universal basic income pilot program in Councilman Curren Price’s South L.A. and downtown district”, which, “Under the program, the greatest share of the money will go to districts with the greatest number of census tracts experiencing poverty and unemployment.” (News sources).
Therefore, Garcetti , as do I, support the new spending plan, as evidenced by Garcetti’s remarks, “From the beginning, this conversation has been about making bold investments that lift up our communities and speak to the URGENCY OF RACIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE. . . . Emphasis added. The latest version of the council’s spending plan does that, and I support it.”
BUT, THE HOMELESS CRISIS IS STILL NOT BEING PROPERLY ADDRESSED BY THE MAYOR OR THE CITY COUNCIL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE NEW SPENDING PLAN
It is clear that neither the mayor nor the city council is placing the proper emphasis on the homeless crisis, and that is where my support of the mayor stops. I believe neither he nor the city council is properly addressing the homeless crisis. They can and must do more. An example of their ranking the homeless crisis at the bottom of the priority list is a statement by City Council President Nury Martinez. Martinez, after the override vote, stated “The council should affirm its intention that these funds be used to address areas of MOST concern to our residents, including youth programming, city services, jobs and economic development, community and nonprofit investment, reimagining public safety, AND (finally) homelessness.” Emphasis added. That says it all. The ranking, with a proper concern *for homelessness, should be reversed. None of the other things have high value without a home, especially for a family or children.
So, the mayor and the city council , as do the county and the state of California FAIL miserably when it comes to solving the homeless crisis. And, based on President Martinez’s priority list, IT IS INTENTIONAL.
Incidentally, it appears that even Abdullah, after my blog, has come around. Remember, when the mayor said that he had allocated federal funds to address homelessness, “which disproportionately affects Black residents”, Abdullah said the mayor was “regifting” the federal funds. Now, she says, “dollars need to go into housing, especially for Black people.” But, we need as many hands on board as we can get to reach the goal of eliminating homelessness. So, I welcome Abdullah‘s change of heart.
UPDATE—April 8, 2021
THE ATTEMPTED SALE OF MY MOTHER’S HOME
Now, my sister’s appellate attorney, Susan Allison, a partner in the law firm of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, has , pursuant to a CA Rules of Court rule, 8.153, requested to “borrow” my appellate Record (to be used for briefing) rather than purchasing her own Record, which she has done in the past for her appeals. And, in * all cases, ordinarily, that is the usual practice. This borrowing of another party’s record is, to my knowledge, absolutely extraordinary (because even if one cannot afford to purchase the record because of indigency, he or she can usually obtain a waiver of fees from the court). So why is Allison requesting to borrow my Record this time , instead of purchasing her own Record (composed of Clerk’s transcript , “CT”, and Reporter’s transcript, “RT”, one small volume of each, 50 pages in CT, and 10 pages in RT) ?
I inquired at the appeals section as to whether it maintained a separate copy of the Record, after issuing the requesting parties their copies of the record. According to the appeals section, it doesn’t maintain a copy, especially the reporter’s transcript. Once the parties have been issued the record by the clerk’s office, and the original is sent to the Court of Appeal, no extra copy is maintained by the clerk’s office.
I filed an opposition to the request to “borrow” my record in the Court of Appeal, arguing the Respondent had no legitimate reasons to borrow the record. And, that my record was being requested for a bad faith reason. Moreover, the Rule is there for people who had not purchased the record when they made the request to borrow the record. Here, the Respondent had purchased part of the record, the RT, when making the request, which disqualified Respondent from borrowing the Record. That, alone, was enough for the Court to deny the request. Moreover, Allison said that she tried to purchase the record from the Court of Appeal, but was unable to. That proved that she had the ability to purchase the Record. And, she didn’t even try purchasing the record at the appeals section (Superior Court), and that’s the office that produce the original Record for the Court of Appeal and my copy. Yet, her request was granted, and guess who granted it ? Judge Perluss. And, get this : Even though Allison admitted that she has the RT, Perluss ordered me to hand over the entire Record, including my copy of the RT (which is the same RT that she has).
I have an idea why the Respondent wants my Record. But, I don’t know. However, there is a suspicious document in the record. In any event, I have now filed my Opening Brief in the case, and sent a copy of my brief and the Record to Allison. She is required to return the Record when she serves me with her brief.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE—April 28, 2021
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER’S LATEST HOMELESS ORDER (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) : AGAIN, PERHAPS GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT, AGAIN, IT HAS A DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT, PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE BLACK HOMELESS ON SKID ROW ; BUT, ALSO, AGAINST THE HOMELESS IN LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY PROPER. FURTHER, WHEN YOU LOOK BENEATH THE SURFACE, THE BIGGEST WINNERS OF THE JUDGE’S ORDERS ARE MOSTLY WHITE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS; AND THE BIGGEST LOSERS ARE BLACK PEOPLE LIVING ON SKID ROW. EVERYONE ELSE,
I.E., OTHER HOMELESS PEOPLE, POLITICIANS, DEVELOPERS, ETC., ARE IN THE MIDDLE.
Once again, on its face, the injunctive order issued by judge Carter, appears to be issued with good intentions on behalf of the judge, “At the heart of Carter’s injunction is the argument that a long history of state-sponsored racism in Los Angeles has driven Black people into homelessness.” L.A. Times, “Judge’s Skid Row Order Faces A Fight”, April 25, 2021. “The injunction was necessary, Carter wrote, because the city and county failed to fix the problem despite numerous opportunities and resources to do so.” Id. Finally, “Homeless Angelenos cannot be left to die while long-term housing is in progress — no harm could be more grave or irreparable than loss of life.” Id., “Judge amends order on homelessness funds”, April 27, 2021.
However, as with his previous order regarding the homeless living near freeway overpasses, his solutions are both wasteful and discriminatory. Among other things, the judge has ordered the city and county to provide shelter or housing to everyone on Skid Row by October, or in approximately 6 months. So, almost necessarily, that shelter or housing will be temporary , because clearly the city or county will not be able to produce permanent housing in that short of a time. And, again, I assert that it is a waste of money and other resources to spend major money, e.g., the $1 billion mayor Eric Garcetti says he has planned to use , in part , on homelessness measures, *on temporary housing, such as shelters. It is better to leave the homeless alone in their tents until the city and county arrive at a viable solution to providing the homeless with permanent homes, even if it takes federal intervention to get there. So, I don’t have a problem with judge Carter intervening on behalf of the homeless, because it’s probably necessary, and it’s the city and county’s fault. They refuse to receive outside help, even though it’s clear that they are incapable of solving the homeless problem themselves. And, until now, they have refused to challenge judge Carter’s orders, even though the orders have discriminated against the homeless, in general, and the Black homeless, in particular. And even now, though the city and county are appealing, see infra, their major reason is not to address the discrimination against the Black homeless, rather, it’s for another reason or reasons (control and money).
Judge Carter’s major injunctive relief is clearly discriminatory, in favor of the downtown business owners and residents and against the Black homeless living on Skid Row and downtown. That is, the main objective of the business owners is to remove the homeless from the sidewalks of Skid Row, by any legal means necessary. And, judge Carter’s order provides them with that means. In the 9th Cir. decision of Boise v. Martin, the Court held that “criminally punishing homeless people for sleeping outdoors when there are not enough shelter beds or housing violated the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment”. Which means, when there ARE enough shelter BEDS or housing for the homeless, criminally punishing them for sleeping outdoors does NOT violate the 8th amendment, and they CAN BE criminally punished or removed from the streets and jailed. So, what does judge Carter order ? That “housing or shelter be offered to everyone on skid row (where the “everyone” is disproportionately Black and male) by the middle of October.” Therefore, if the city and county carry out the judge’s order, at the middle of October and after, the police can legally remove the homeless from the streets, because the city and county would have offered them a shelter bed or other housing. And , to add insult to injury, Carter states, in a Sunday amended order, the “court notes that under the terms of the preliminary injunction, while the city is ordered to offer (a) housing option on this timeline, skid row residents are not required to accept and may decline these offers”. And what happens if or when they decline the offer ? They are hauled off to jail. And, the fact that any homeless people are still on the streets after the middle of October would be evidence that they declined, so that they would just be swept up and hauled off to jail. So, the business owners and residents of downtown would have gotten what they wanted , i.e., removal of the homeless from downtown, including skid row; and the Black homeless, and others, would remain HOMELESS.
LET’S BE CLEAR, WHILE THE CITY AND COUNTY HAS DECIDED TO APPEAL, THEY ARE NOT APPEALING FOR THE BLACK HOMELESS , OR BECAUSE THE BLACK HOMELESS ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST; THEY ARE APPEALING BECAUSE JUDGE CARTER HAS EXERCISED SOME CONTROL OVER THEIR AUTHORITY, AND OVER THEIR CASH; OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD HAVE APPEALED EARLIER, WHEN I SUGGESTED THAT THEY DO SO, WHEN IT REALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON BEHALF OF THE BLACK HOMELESS , NOT JUST ON SKID ROW, BUT IN L.A. CITY AND COUNTY OVERALL.
But, hopefully, when the Ninth Circuit decides the *injunction, it will place some emphasis on the best interest of the homeless, all homeless, and provide some meaningful direction for all concerned towards a fair and equitable solution for all , especially the homeless, for they are the ones who stand to suffer the most.
UPDATE—May 3, 2021
THE POINTS MADE IN A L.A. TIMES’ PUBLISHED ARTICLE REGARDING JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER’S LATEST ORDER REGARDING SHELTERS AND THE HOMELESS, I’VE ALREADY MADE : SEE ABOVE .
Today, the L.A. Times published an article entitled, “An order to shelter homeless people won’t solve crisis”. If one reads this article without having read my blog, see above, one would likely conclude this is the first time these points were made. However, my readers know that it is not the first time the points were made. But, I’m flattered. The main points of similarity are the fact that even if U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter’s orders are carried out by the city and county, Black people living on Skid Row will “remain homeless”; and the result of the judge’s orders will be to allow the legal incarceration of mostly Black people, but all homeless people, living on Skid Row.
For instance, the article states in part, “(S)helter provides some protection, but they (the homeless) are still homeless”. I pointed out that even if the judge’s orders (i.e., providing the skid row homeless with temporary shelters) were put into effect, the homeless “would remain HOMELESS” (see above).
Second, the article states “Even worse, the court explicitly states that once shelter has been offered to the residents of skid row, it will again allow Los Angeles to criminalize sleeping on sidewalks and in parks.” I pointed out “when there are enough shelter BEDS or housing for the homeless, criminally punishing them for sleeping outdoors does NOT violate the 8th amendment , and they CAN BE criminally punished or removed from the streets and jailed. . . . Therefore, if the city and county carry out the judge’s order, . . .the police can legally remove the homeless from the streets, because the city and county would have offered them a shelter bed or other housing.”
The article even uses a similar word as I do in my blog, in a similar fashion. To begin one paragraph, the article states “I want to be CLEAR” (emphasis added). In my blog above, I began a paragraph with “Let’s be CLEAR (all caps in the blog)”.
I look past the actual author of the article to the L.A. Times publishing the article in view of my blog, and AFTER my blog. But, I chalk it up to the Times’ bias and racism. But, again, I’m flattered that my work has the quality for duplicating * by others.
UPDATE—July 1, 2021
THE BRITNEY SPEARS CONSERVATORSHIP : ANOTHER REVELATION OF CALIFORNIA’S NEGLECT AND/OR MISTREATMENT OF CONSERVATEES, INCLUDING MY MOTHER, HELEN H. DAVIS. PERHAPS, NOW, OR IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THE MATTER WILL REACH FEDERAL COURTS; IT’S DOUBTFUL THAT CALIFORNIA WILL STOP THE MISTREATMENT ON ITS OWN.
Britney Spears description of her treatment, as a conservatee, by the California Court system, should not be shocking to any of my readers, for I have written about the conservatorship of my sister, Dianne Jackson, over my mother, Helen H. Davis, who is a 99 year old Black woman residing in a nursing facility (based on Jackson’s action—which I opposed). At this time, Jackson , supported by the courts, including my mother’s court- appointed attorney, is trying to sell my mother’s home without her consent and without complying with a California statute which requires that the conservator demonstrate that she has considered other alternatives to selling the conservatee’s home, such as, but not limited to, in home care services. One judge, Elizabeth Lippitt, allowed Jackson to sell the home anyway, notwithstanding a lack of consent and non-compliance with the statute. And, the Second District Court of Appeal, judges Laurie Zelon , Dennis Purless, and John Segal, affirmed Lippitt’s decision (I charged the panel with bias and prejudice). Now, the conservator is attempting to get the sale confirmed. The trial judge, Ana Marie Luna, granted the *petition for confirmation : refusing to enforce the aforementioned statute, overlooking the lack of my mother’s consent, and disregarding my mother’s welfare, as it pertained to the pandemic and it’s effect on elderly Black citizens living in nursing homes—if my mother had to leave the nursing home, where would she go without a home ? Luna didn’t care. Luna’s decision is now on appeal.
But, back to Britney. My mother’s case, as egregious as it is, doesn’t reach the level of mistreatment of Britney (although both cases are in the same ballpark). Britney Spears is being abused by the conservatorship process, and all the related players : the judge or judges, the conservator or co-conservator—her father (even if his intentions were well meaning or good), the people hired by the father, and the court-appointed attorney (who was appointed by the original judge—I am not aware of how many judges were involved throughout the entire process), and the people hired by the court-appointed attorney, e.g., Jodi Montgomery, the co-conservator of Britney’s person. I base my assessment, in part, on the L.A. Times article, “Spears’ conservatorship claims concern experts”, June 26, 2021, and Britney’s purported claims or assertions contained in the article.
The main reason Britney was abused, rather than simply mistreated, was because she was denied multiple basic rights as a conservatee. Her conservatee rights were or have been generally ignored. Such was the case with my mother as well. Only Britney’s case is more egregious. For instance, “Every conservatee has the right to be treated with understanding and RESPECT and to have his or her wishes considered” . From the outset of her conservatorship, Britney was not granted this right. She had a court-appointed attorney imposed on her, rather than her own chosen attorney, who would likely TRULY represent her interests. “The judge didn’t allow Spears to hire her own attorney”. Next, after receiving the court-appointed attorney, Samuel D. Ingham III, “her court-appointed attorney according to Spears’ testimony. . . never told her that she could file a petition to terminate the conservatorship”; and, finally, “against Spears’ objection, the judge did not appoint a neutral conservator but selected her father, with whom she was known to have a rocky relationship.” A court-appointed attorney is usually provided for those with limited means. Britney has the means to retain her own chosen attorney, but she was denied the right to do so. *This was a crucial right violated, not by Britney’s father, Jamie Spears, but by the court, judge Reva Goetz, who “deemed Spears (Britney) incapable of hiring her own attorney”, which is nonsense without Britney having undergone and failed a competency hearing or a similar mental or psychological analysis. *NOTE : In fairness to judge Goetz, I have now discovered through a news source that judge Goetz did purportedly rely on a report from Britney’s court appointed attorney, Ingham , and testimony from a psychiatrist, a one James Spar, to support her decision. But, I believe, based on Britney actually selecting two lawyers and other factors, that she had the mental capacity to select a lawyer herself or have someone assist her with selecting a lawyer of her own choosing.
*NOTE : “Britney Spears and her lawyers have yet to formally file a request to terminate the conservatorship, as she has promised to do.” ABC News, GMA.
More on Britney later.
UPDATE-July 5, 2021
BRITNEY’S RIGHTS
To back up a little, I will return to the conservatorship in the beginning. As stated above, “Every conservatee has the right to be treated with understanding and respect and to have his or her wishes considered.” Clearly, this is one of the most important rights violated by the *earlier court in reference to Britney, because it requires and required the court to act in the best interest of Britney in selecting the proper conservator for her. And, the court could not have acted in Britney’s best interest in selecting the father, after Britney had let it be known that she objected to the father, Jamie Spears, being selected because she did not consider him to be a “neutral” or fair conservator, notwithstanding that he was her father. Therefore, unless everything he did for Britney would prove to be satisfactory or better for her, especially in her eyes, Jamie’s appointment would be, and was , all downhill for Britney from its inception. Perhaps, if the circumstance was considered urgent, the court could have appointed Jamie temporarily, but only long enough to appoint a separate and independent conservator, hopefully to Britney’s liking, because it doesn’t appear that she was opposed to the conservatorship altogether, she was just opposed to her father being appointed.
However, in fairness to Jamie Spears, he could not , and cannot, be held responsible for all of Britney’s abuse or mistreatment, because for most of Britney’s conservatorship, he has only been a co-conservator, rather than the sole conservator. In fact, he began the conservatorship as a co-conservator with one Andrew Wallet serving as the other co-conservator. When Wallet resigned in 2019, Jamie became sole conservator. But this was short-lived, because in that same year, he became co-conservator again, with one Jodi Montgomery serving as the other co-conservator. Jamie as conservator of the estate (and finances) and Montgomery as conservator of Britney’s person (or her personal affairs). So, most, if not all, of the abuse suffered by Britney regarding her personal affairs or her body appears to be attributed to Montgomery, if attributed to the conservators.
Britney “described how one day she didn’t want to do a ‘dance move’ that her manager wanted. ‘Ma’am, I’m not here to be anyone’s slave. I can say no to a dance move,’ Spears said she told the manager. ‘I was told by my at-the-time therapist. . . that my manager called him in that moment and told him that I wasn’t cooperating or following the guidelines in rehearsals.” But, “The conservator must give due regard to the preferences of the conservatee and to encourage the conservatee’s participation in decision-making.” Thus, this right or principle was violated by the conservator or her contractors as to Britney during her dance rehearsals. Britney also complained about not being able to remove an IUD, so that she can have more children, and she has expressed a desire to have more children, i.e., procreate. We are not living in early China (with a limit of one child per family). “Every conservatee has all basic human rights and the right to be well cared for by his or her conservator.” And, if the IUD matter is considered a medical matter, a conservatee also has “The right to make her own medical decisions.”
Finally, Britney complained that the conservator, likely Montgomery (or her contractors) , took all her possessions away, including credit cards and cash. But, a conservatee has the right to “Directly receive and control his or her salary.” Consequently, nearly every act complained of by Britney was not only mistreatment, but also a violation of conservatees’ basic rights (as identified by the Judicial Council of California, January, 2008). This helped cause the numerous acts of mistreatment against Britney to be abusive.
NOTE : The present judge, Brenda J. Penny, likely was acting in Britney’s best interest in denying an earlier request to remove Jamie Spears as conservator at this time, in order to protect Britney’s estate and its financial assets, since it does not appear that a replacement for Jamie has been offered at this time (even though she also approved Bessemer Trust Company as a co-conservator of Britney’s estate as well--but now Bessemer wants to withdraw as well because of Britney’s complaints).
Some have waived a flag of criminality for the acts directed against Britney, e.g., sex trafficking. But, the conservatorship would likely provide too great a shield to overcome for criminal conviction based on the facts that I am aware of so far. That is, no fraud, embezzlement, forgery, falsity, perjury, etc.
However, her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law is another matter (I doubt very seriously if Britney was a man that she would be treated the way she has been treated. Basically, after her initial emotional breakdown(s) requiring intervention, she has been treated as though she is a child, even though she is now 39 years old and has acted as an adult in all ways in her latter years, including her performances in Las Vegas, which produced multi-million dollar income ). The conservatorship will not provide a shield for constitutional violations, especially in federal court.
*AND, the constitutional violations provide Britney with BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS (so constitutional violations would be an EXCEPTION to what I just stated above as to the conservatorship being “to great a shield to overcome for criminal conviction”. I believe she has a strong case for criminal conviction for constitutional violations regarding some of the acts she complained of at the hearing, e.g., the IUD matter, taking her credit card and cash, etc. It has been reported that Britney stated to the court, at the June 23rd hearing , that “Ma’am , my dad , and anyone involved in this conservatorship, and my management, who played a huge role in punishing me when I said no—-Ma’am, they should be in jail.”
Well , Britney, the Constitution and federal criminal law provide you with a means to put them there.
UPDATE—July 21, 2021
HELEN H. DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL (REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED SALE OF HER HOME) : THE SECOND DISTRICT HAS NOW SCHEDULED ORAL ARGUMENT IN MY APPEAL (IN DAVIS’S CASE) BEFORE JUDGES’ PERLUSS , FEUER, AND SEGAL OF DIVISION 7, WHOM I HAVE CONSISTENTLY OBJECTED TO BASED ON RACIAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE EXERCISED IN SEVERAL APPEALS ; AND, THE COURT HAS NOTIFIED ME (AND OTHERS) THAT THE ARGUMENT IS TO BE DELIVERED VIA VIDEO OR TELEPHONIC MEANS, RATHER THAN IN OPEN COURT. I WILL OBJECT AND MOVE THE COURT TO HOLD A COURTROOM HEARING.
I have now received a notice from the Second District informing me that oral argument is scheduled to be heard on August 6th, a Friday, at 9:00 a.m., before Division 7 of the Court, Dennis M. Perluss, John L. Segal, and Gail R. Feuer. The argument is noted or directed to be heard “through video conference, telephone conference or other electronic means”, due to a “current health emergency”. I have previously lodged a continuous objection to Division 7 hearing any of my appeals. I will object and move the Court to hold an open court and courtroom hearing for my argument on appeal.
UPDATE—August 1, 2021
HELEN H. DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL : A MOTION TO OPEN THE COURT, INCLUDING THE COURTROOM, OF THE 2nd DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED : THE SECOND DISTRICT IS THE ONLY COURT IN LOS ANGELES WHICH HAS CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN A CLOSED COURT AND COURTROOM AFTER THE STATE’S REOPENING OF THE ECONOMY HAS TAKEN PLACE : WHICH MEANS : THE 2nd DISTRICT IS THE ONLY COURT IN LOS ANGELES THAT DENIES LITIGANTS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THAT DENIES THE PUBLIC ITS ACCESS TO THE COURT, INCLUDING THE COURTROOM.
As of July 29, 2021, a motion has been filed in the 2nd District Court of Appeal requesting the Court to open its court and courtroom to the litigants (and the public). While I specifically filed the motion on behalf of myself as a litigant, legally, and on behalf of my mother , conservatee Helen H. Davis, generally, it is also filed on behalf of the public, secondarily and generally. Argument is presently set for August 6, 2021. However, the Court has announced that litigants can request that argument be set on a different date than originally scheduled and for “exceptional good cause” , the request will be granted. I have requested that the date for argument be continued to another date, where necessary, to allow for disposition of my motion. My “exceptional good cause” is the protection of my constitutional rights.
As aforementioned, the 2nd District has continued to keep its doors closed even after other courts, e.g., the Superior Court of L.A. and the U.S. District Court, L.A., have re-opened their doors. At the Court of Appeal, one must still make an appointment to enter or transact business at the Clerk’s Office. One cannot file documents and receive a stamped copy; rather, one must leave filings in a drop-box in front of the clerk’s office or mail the filings in. And, if you mail in court filings, unless you send important filings by special mail, i.e., other than first class, you have no proof of when your filings were received, so that if timeliness becomes an issue, you may lose a case, if the persons receiving the mail were not honest as to when the mail was received.
Briefly, the litigants and the public. The litigants must now argue via video : “You will need a strong, reliable internet connection. Avoid using Wi- Fi”. “Avoid using a mobile device if possible. Although tablets (iPads) and smartphones can be used, they are very limited, and the performance is inferior. Video screens should be large enough to ensure adequate viewing of all participants,”, etc. And what if you don’t own or have access to this equipment ? “In the event that you lose internet connection or are having any other technical issues with your device, we ask that you CALL in to oral argument and NOT attempt to JOIN or re-join via computer.” Emphasis added. Or, telephone conference : Litigants do not get to see the judges and the judges do not get to see the litigants. And the public : “The public will have access to the argument via live STREAMING on the Court’s website (emphasis added). “If your client or another INTERESTED PARTY (i.e., the PUBLIC) would like to watch oral argument, please direct them to the Court’s website at. . . .” Emphasis added. And what if some members of the public don’t have access to computers, i-Pads, or the internet ? = NO PUBLIC ACCESS !
BRITNEY SPEARS AND DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL : THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP, AND AS SUCH, SPEARS SUPPORTERS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE DENIAL OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL
Britney Spears has consistently charged her conservator, and father, Jamie Spears, and/or others , with conservator abuse. And, she has argued that someone should be “jailed” for the abuse. If Spears attempts to go forward with any actions related to the abuse, as she insinuates with her charges or accusations, be they civil or criminal, she likely would want to refer to Davis’s case in support of her claims. And, her supporters may want to attend the hearing of this matter to help assess the validity of her claims, or the validity of any support Britney might derive from Davis’s case, i.e., corroboration, especially when it comes to conservator actions of abuse. While Davis’s claims are not as plentiful as Britney’s, they CLEARLY are as SERIOUS. And, the conservators in both cases are CLOSE family members. In Britney’s case, it’s her father; and in my case, it’s my sister.
Finally, while lawyers in cases on the Court of Appeal calendars have an obligation to inform their clients of the Court’s closure (so the client can determine whether he or she wants access and what to do about it), and a pro se litigant can inform his or her family and friends—and if they want access, they must determine what, if anything , they should they do; but, what about the general public ?
Who, besides this blog of course, informs, or should inform , the general public of the Court’s closure, and any right of access they might have ? Is it the local media or press ?
UPDATE—August 4, 2021
HELEN H. DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL : PERLUSS HAS NOW DENIED MY MOTION FOR AN OPEN COURT (AND COURTROOM) ARGUMENT : BUT, THERE’S NO RULING ON MY MOTION FOR AN INDEPENDENT PANEL TO RULE ON THE APPEAL (BASED ON AN ASSERTION OF RACIAL PREJUDICE BY PERLUSS AND DIVISION 7, TO INCLUDE JOHN L. SEGAL AND GAIL R. FEUER) , SO I AWAIT A RULING.
Judge Dennis M. Perluss has now arbitrarily (and without a response to the motion) denied the motion to open the court and courtroom of the Second District Court of Appeal for my appeal argument (and for the appeal argument of all other litigants on the Court’s calendar). As I stated above, in the previous blogpost, the Court announced that it did grant continuances (and Perluss , in his arbitrariness and prejudice, didn’t rule on my request for a continuance, it was simply impliedly denied), but, I wasn’t granted one. Even regarding an issue of constitutional significance, i.e., due process.
The 2nd District continues to assign Perluss to rule on my appellate matters , which means the actions are intentional on its part. I’ve filed criminal complaints against Perluss with the District Attorney and the new Attorney General, yet, he continues to be assigned to my appellate matters. Conceivably, if Perluss was tried and convicted of a crime, and then released on bail, pending appeal, he would still be assigned to decide my appellate matters while out on bail.
My motion regarding an open court and open court argument was a duel motion, for an open court and for an independent panel to decide my appeal. My motion for an independent panel was based on my assertion of racial prejudice exercised against me by Division 7 (based on multiple discriminatory appellate decisions by Division 7). Although Perluss denied the motion for an open court hearing, there was no ruling on the motion for an independent panel to decide the appeal. So, that motion remains open and undecided.
Actually, I suggested-requested that an independent panel decide the motion for an open court as well, i.e., “The motion also should be decided by an independent panel.” And, you can see what happened to that suggestion-request.
Thus, I still await a decision regarding my motion for an independent panel to decide my appeal. At this time, I am still not sure who will decide the appeal, but, the tentatively assigned panel is Perluss, Segal, and Feuer.
UPDATE—August 8, 2021
HELEN H. DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL : A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGES PERLUSS, SEGAL, AND FEUER : I COULD FEEL THE PREJUDICE AS IT TRAVELED VIA TELEPHONIC WAVES FROM THE JUDGES’ SETTING TO MINE.
I began my argument by objecting to the panel of judges Dennis M. Perluss, John L. Segal, and Gail R. Feuer and/or Division 7 hearing my appeal, based on racial prejudice. There was no response.
My argument generally covered standing to bring the appeal, whether the sale of my mother’s home was in her best interest or my best interest, and other matters. Since one is only allowed 10 minutes for argument, I could not possibly argue some of the other important issues that were briefed, e.g., the necessity of my mother’s consent for the sale of her home. But, I informed the court that any issues I couldn’t argue orally , I would rely on my brief for the argument.
A point of interest : even though Perluss had denied the Respondent’s motion to dismiss based on “standing” prior to oral argument, he, nevertheless, allowed Respondent to raise the issue again *in her brief and at oral argument. Therefore, I, necessarily, had to argue the matter again, *in briefing and at oral argument, otherwise, the court * could dismiss the appeal without reaching any of the other issues going to the real merits of the appeal. Consequently, I had to spend a substantial amount of time during oral argument addressing the issue of standing; *time that could have been spent on the real issues of the appeal, i.e., the merits.
An interesting point showing the difference between open courtroom argument and telephonic argument : I made the argument of the sale of my mother’s home being harmful to my mother because she wouldn’t have a home to go to should she have to leave the nursing home she’s in because of COVID-19 or the Delta virus, because the viruses affect Black people more severely than other races (and my mother is a 99 year old Black lady). I made the argument to the trial judge, Ana Marie Luna, in the context of the sale of the home not being in the best interest of my mother, and in argument before the panel, the context was standing to appeal, i.e., I would be aggrieved if any harm came to my mother by the sale of her home, e.g., her having to leave the nursing facility because of the virus and not having a home to go to.
When I presented the scenario to judge Luna, she just silently nodded, as if to say “yea, I hear you, but I’m not moved”; so, I could see Luna and her reaction. But, during the hearing before the panel, I couldn’t see the panel’s reaction or any bodily expression, although I know they were silent. But, as I stated above, I could feel the prejudice being spewed in my direction, because I have felt it before.
Next time, key points to look for in the pending decision.
I will UPDATE—August 11, 2021
HELEN H. DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL : WHAT TO LOOK FOR WHEN THE DECISION ARRIVES
As we await the Court of Appeal decision in the Helen H. Davis case, there are a few points that should be kept in mind when it arrives.
Point #1 : “STANDING” TO APPEAL
When judge Dennis M. Perluss found and ruled that I had standing (was aggrieved sufficient to appeal) to appeal and, therefore, DENIED the conservator’s motion to dismiss the appeal, I had offered several reasons why I had standing. AND, when judge Perluss decided to provide the conservator with another opportunity to raise the defense of lack of standing at oral argument, I continued to rely on the same reasons that I had relied upon initially, PLUS an additional or new reason, a state statute, Probate Code , sec. 1850(b), which I argued provided me with statutory standing.
Point #2 : NO FINDINGS
The trial court, judge Ana Marie Luna, did not make or produce any findings (of fact); BUT, California law requires that she did so.
Point #3 : NO EXAMINATIONS
The trial court was required to or “must examine into the necessity for the sale, or the advantage, benefit and interest of the estate in having the sale (of the home). . . .” The trial court did not perform these examinations.
Point #4 : NOT AN INTERESTED PERSON IN A CONSERVATORSHIP PROCEEDING
Judge Luna concluded or ruled that I was NOT an interested person in a conservatorship proceeding, only in a situation where my mother had died. BUT, California Probate Code, sec. 1850(b) states, “The court may, on its own motion or upon request by any interested person, take appropriate action including, but not limited to, ordering a review of the conservatorship, including at a noticed hearing. . . .”.
Point #5 : NO CONSENT FROM MY MOTHER (CONSERVATEE HELEN H. DAVIS) TO SELL HER HOME
The conservatee did not consent to her home being sold. AND, California law required her unequivocal consent.
Remember these points when the decision arrives.
UPDATE—August 25, 2021
HELEN H. DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL DECISION : A MODERN-DAY BRUCE BEACH ACTION ; MORE FALSE STATEMENTS ; AND A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND /OR RACIAL PREJUDICE.
The Second District Court of Appeal, Division 7, through an unpublished decision, of course, has dismissed my appeal, purportedly based on “standing” or the lack thereof (to bring an appeal). But, you, my readers, know what the real reason is : racial prejudice. I am a Black male and my mother is an elderly Black lady. And, the initial taking of my mother’s home (initial because the the taking is not yet complete because I still have an opportunity to petition the California Supreme Court for relief—and I will, I must, for my mother; but, more on that later) is no different from the taking of Willa and Charles Bruces’ beach property in Manhattan Beach over 100 years ago. The Bruces’ were Black. When city officials seized the Bruces’ property under the auspices of eminent domain, they didn’t do it because they really intended to put the property to good use for the citizens of the city of Manhattan Beach. They stole the Bruces’ property because the Bruces were Black, and the city officials simply did not want a Black family to own the land or be landowners. So, the real reason for the officials taking the Bruces’ property was subtle racism. And, evidence supporting that fact was that the property after being seized by the city sat vacant and unused for decades (even though the city said the property was to be used for “an urgent need for a public park”).
The same reason or principle applicable in the Bruces’ case, subtle racism, is applicable in this, the Helen H. Davis appeal. The main reason the court officials (in this case, judges Perluss, Segal, and Feuer) are taking Davis’s property WITHOUT HER CONSENT is not because it is necessary to support her estate, but because she is a Black landowner in the city of Los Angeles and Black landowners are dwindling in the city, and, it is difficult presently for the average Black person to purchase a home in the City. Moreover, Davis’s son, myself, is a Black male, who stands to inherit the house, along with his
sister, and that presents a greater or more urgent reason to take the home (which is to be sold to, probably, a non-Black person) from Davis.
Finally, if one were to peruse the eminent domain papers of the Manhattan Beach city officials, unless they used some overt racist language like “the city needs the niggers property to use for a public park“, the face of the eminent domain papers probably did not reveal the city’s real motives for taking the Bruces’ land, i.e., to deprive a Black family of their land or of being landowners. It’s no different here, judge Perluss’s decision does not contain any signs of overt racism or the court’s real reason for taking Davis’s home, through its ruling, but an analysis of the entire decision shows its real motives, i.e., a racially discriminatory taking of a Black lady’s home, which deprives her of home ownership, and her Black male son of prospective home ownership.
I will end this section of the blogpost with a passage from the court’s decision, first, in part, then with the addition of the omitted part :
“Bray’s concern for his mother’s well-being in her current residential care facility and how her health might be adversely affected by the sale of the home, however sincere it may be, is NOT an interest PERSONAL to Bray. . . .” Emphasis added. If the health and welfare of my 99 year old mother is not an interest personal to me as her son, then, what is ? Especially when it concerns COVID-19 and the Delta virus and the high rate of deaths of Black seniors, especially those living in nursing facilities.
The omitted part reads as follows, “that is properly recognized as a basis for standing.” So, the entire passage reads this way : “Bray’s concern for his mother’s well-being in her current residential care facility and how her health might be adversely affected by the sale of the home, however sincere it may be, is not an interest personal to Bray that is properly recognized as a basis for standing.”
Next time : false statements and a pattern of misconduct and/or racial prejudice.
UPDATE—August 26, 2021
THE HELEN H. DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL DECISION : FALSE STATEMENTS AND A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND/OR RACIAL PREJUDICE
Before proceeding to the false statements and pattern of misconduct or racial prejudice, I just want to point out a few general things about the decision. First, in my entry above at Update, August 11, 2021, I identified several points you should look for in the decision after its arrival. In review : POINT #1, the cited Code, Probate Code Section 1850(b) is not mentioned in the Court’s standing discussion. POINT #2, I raised the lack of findings issued by the trial judge as an issue on appeal. No mention of findings in the decision. POINT #3, there was no discussion as to whether the trial court for this appeal, judge Ana Marie Luna, had made the examinations. What the Perluss court found, in THIS APPEAL, was that “Our decision in Bray IV (a separate appeal) affirmed the probate court’s (in Bray IV) finding that the sale was necessary.” So Perluss used the finding of a different trial judge in a different case to show that Luna had made the examination through that judge’s decision; in other words, Luna didn’t have to make the examination because another judge in a different case had already made the examination. However, Luna was required to perform her own examination, per the requirements of the Petition to confirm the sale. And, she did not do so. POINT #4, I was (am) an interested person in a conservatorship proceeding, as a matter of statutory law, case law, and the Petition itself. Therefore, Luna erred as a matter of law in her ruling, and the Court of Appeal should have REVERSED the trial court’s decision based on this error alone. POINT #5, I argued in my brief that Davis’s unequivocal consent was required to sell the house. Here’s the Court’s comment in its decision regarding Davis’s consent, “The petition also described Davis’s consent to the sale, while acknowledging ‘that Bray’s statements to Davis he would take her home caused her to vacillate about the sale when he made them’.” First of all, this entire quoted language is that of judge Laurie Zelon from her opinion in Bray IV. But, here is the actual quoted language of Dianne Jackson, the conservator and my sister, from her Petition in Bray IV, “Davis vacillates back and forth about selling her personal residence because Bray tells her he will take her home.” Does that sound like unequivocal consent to you ?
The False Statements
There are multiple false statements made in Perluss’s decision, but I will not address all of them here, only one, in an attempt to condense or shorten this blogpost. But the ones not identified here will be addressed in another forum. The false statement that I will address here is the same statement that I previously addressed in the above August 25th Update, because it is the essential point and evidence that proves that I had standing to appeal, which is supported by the Court’s own cited case, which demonstrates that Perluss KNEW the statement was false when he made it.
That statement again is : “Bray’s concern for his mother’s well-being in her current residential care facility and how her health might be adversely affected by the sale of the home, however sincere it may be, is NOT an interest personal to Bray THAT IS PROPERLY RECOGNIZED AS A BASIS FOR STANDING.” Emphasis added. The capitalized portion of the statement is what causes the entire statement to be false. Truthfully, and as a matter of law, the preceding portion of the statement IS properly recognized as a basis for standing. Remember, Bray is the conservatee’s son or child, and he has an interest in her well-being as his mother. In the case of Estate of Pringle, 173 Cal.App.4th 119 (2009), cited by judge Perluss, the Court stated two principles that proves that I had an interest sufficient for standing : 1. “Subdivision (a) of Probate Code section 48 provides a list of interested persons, such as heirs. . . and children,” and 2. “(T)he ‘interested person’ standard of Probate Code section 48 CONFERS STANDING on ‘ANYONE having AN INTEREST in an estate which may be affected by a probate proceeding.” Emphasis added.
A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND/OR RACIAL PREJUDICE
Judge Perluss performed the same type of acts in the last appeal of mine, e.g., false statements and omissions, that he has performed in this appeal. Therefore, there is a pattern of misconduct or racial prejudice directed against me as a Black male in both of his decisions.
Finally, this conservatorship matter , from beginning to end, has involved “uninterrupted racism”. There has been nothing fair about the entire process in either the trial court, beginning with judge David Cowan, or the Court of Appeal, ending at this point with judges Perluss, Segal, and Feuer or Division. 7.
UPDATE—September 27, 2021
JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S INJUNCTION DECISION : AS A MATTER OF LAW AND PROPER SOLUTION, HE WAS WRONG. BUT, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, I.E., STRUCTURAL RACISM, HE WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND, ON BEHALF OF THE BLACK HOMELESS OF SKID ROW, ESPECIALLY THE BLACK MALES, I THANK YOU, JUDGE CARTER, FOR YOUR EXQUISITE ADVOCACY.
The Ninth Circuit last Thursday vacated, or otherwise overturned , a preliminary injunction order issued by federal judge David O. Carter, which imposed an October, 2021 deadline for the city and county to offer housing (of some kind, e.g., shelters)—most of which probably had to be temporary housing, because time and money restraints would preclude permanent housing in the amount of time imposed—to the skid row population of Los Angeles. In the case of L.A. Alliance for Human Rights v. County of L.A., brought mostly by a group of white downtown business owners and residents, the 9th Circuit found the preliminary injunction could not be sanctioned because of some basic legal deficiencies,e.g., lack of standing and inadmissible evidence (based on “unpled claims and theories”).
WHY WAS JUDGE CARTER WRONG IN THE LAW AND SOLUTION ?
While judge Carter had good intentions, that is, he attempted to argue the “real or true” reasons why the injunction should be granted : structural racism and constitutional violations; *HIS intentions or reasons were not the reasons offered by the real Plaintiffs in the case, i.e., the real plaintiffs offered such reasons as : “the County and City’s policies and inaction have created a dangerous environment in the Skid Row area and that the situation is only deteriorating”, and “the County and City’s failures to curb rising homelessness. . . , have resulted in violent crime, the deterioration of public order, unsanitary conditions, needless death, the usurpation of public sidewalks, and damage to the natural environment. Plaintiffs also allege that this crisis has negatively affected property values in downtown and Skid Row, harming Plaintiffs’ ability to sell, rent, and operate their properties.” Therefore, since judge Carter granted the injunction based on his reasons , e.g., structural racism, rather than the real Plaintiffs’ reasons, e.g., the homeless negatively affected property values in downtown, the real Plaintiffs could not obtain the injunction. The 9th Cir. found that the real Plaintiffs did not have “standing” to assert claims that should have been asserted primarily by Black people (and none of the Plaintiffs had shown that they were Black), and therefore, judge Carter abused his discretion, the law, when he granted the injunction in view of this occurrence. Had the real Plaintiffs argued what judge Carter argued (on behalf of Black Skid Row residents) they would have stood a better chance of having the injunction sustained on appeal, but, probably, and hopefully, the 9th Cir. would have overturned Carter’s order on other grounds.
I was the first to advocate, on behalf of the homeless, NOT the City or County, that a judge Carter order should be appealed, with the hope that it would be reversed or vacated, because I believed, as I do now, that Carter’s orders were detrimental to the homeless, especially the Black homeless of Skid Row, whom the orders were mostly directed to. The injunctive Order, just vacated by the Ninth Circuit, tended to criminalize the homeless to the extent that they could be swept off the streets with the offer of housing (any kind, e.g., shelters) and refusal to move; and, the offer and/or production of temporary housing still would not be PERMANENT housing, which is most needed for the homeless. Therefore, judge Carter’s solution, the production of , probably , temporary housing, in 180 days, was not the right solution for the overall homeless problem.
WHY WAS JUDGE CARTER ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IN PRINCIPLE ?
I will begin by stating that my assertions and opinions about judge Carter’s positions are based on the 9th Circuit’s revelations of judge Carter’s position and statements in his decision. I didn’t read Carter’s decision myself. I hope to do so in the future, time permitting.
The 9th Circuit stated, “The district court’s order was premised on its finding that structural racism — in the form of discriminatory lending, real estate covenants, redlining, freeway construction, eminent domain (Bruce Beach ring a bell ?), exclusionary zoning, and unequal access to shelter and affordable housing — was the driving force behind Los Angeles’s homelessness crisis and it’s disproportionate impact on the Black community.” Judge Carter is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! The window-dressing “affordable housing” reason that a great many white and other non-Black people like to offer for the homeless problem is just that, window-dressing. The real reasons are those judge Carter has identified. Thank you, sir.
The 9th Cir. goes on to say, “The district court found that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of six claims : violations of due process rights under state-created danger and special relationship doctrines; violation of equal protection on the basis of race; violation of substantive due process rights of Black families to family integrity; violation of California’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000;. . . .” If judge Carter’s findings regarding structural racism had been asserted by the Plaintiffs, those findings would have supported his findings of likelihood of success on the merits here. But, since the Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the structural racism claims asserted by judge Carter, they also lacked standing to assert the constitutional claims derived therefrom.
But, because I believe that judge Carter was right in his structural racism findings, I also believe those findings would support the constitutional claims that he identified. But, unfortunately for the Black homeless, none of the legally sufficient parties who could have represented the Black homeless’s interest, by asserting judge Carter’s positions, did not do so (including the intervenors, and amicus curiae, for argument only). And, the intervenors, unlike judge Carter, had standing to assert judge Carter’s positions (as their own), and they could have, thereafter, requested a different remedy from that ordered by judge Carter, i.e., “ordered the city to offer some form of shelter or housing to the entire homeless population of skid row in 180 days”; but, the intervenors did not do so. And, perhaps if a different remedy had been presented to the 9th Cir., it would have sustained the injunction (and required the city and county to perform a methodology that would actually help, rather than pacify, the Black homeless of Skid Row and others). I suggested a methodology, that I named the “Homeless Resolution Committee (HRC)”, some time ago, that I am certain would have decreased the homeless population substantially by now, with substantial permanent housing. And all permanent housing does not have to be new housing or newly-built housing. But, the County just ignored the offer of help. Instead, the city and county continue to waste taxpayers’ money, while producing temporary housing for a temporary time, for the ulterior motive and purpose of displacing the homeless, i.e., Echo Park and Venice Beach. And, California has agreed to accept Afghan refugees for caring. Anyone care to wager whether the Afghan refugees will receive better housing than the Black people of Skid Row (who are citizens of this country) ? And, whether the Afghan refugees will be treated better ?
THE BOTTOMLINE : The fact that none of the parties, including the intervenors, involved in the injunction litigation adopted and urged judge Carter’s positions, which advocated on behalf of the Black homeless people of Skid Row, shows what everybody in Los Angeles County knows or should know : Black people of Skid Row, especially Black males, have no one to turn to for help in the city and county of Los Angeles. But, at least, judge Carter tried.
UPDATE—November 1, 2021
THE HELEN H. DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP DECISION : A MOTION TO PUT BEFORE THE COURT THE REAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE : FALSE STATEMENTS AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY AN APPELLATE PANEL; “ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS”.
I have now filed a motion to set aside the decision of Division 7 in this case, so that the real issues involved in the case can be presented to the Second District Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court, if need be, rather than the sole issue of “standing”, which the current decision is purportedly based on. The real issues in the case are fraud and racial discrimination. I clearly had standing to appeal the action or decision of the trial court, and Division 7 and the Court of Appeal knew this when judge Dennis Perluss denied the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on standing prior to hearing argument on the merits of the appeal. And, nothing changed regarding standing when the matter came on for argument on the merits.
Yet, Perluss allowed my sister and her white female counsel to raise the standing issue again , and this time, he granted the motion, and dismissed the appeal, realizing that my sister could not prevail on the merits. As a matter of law, with no changed circumstances, and there were none, the dismissal motion could not be raised again during argument on the merits.
My current motion discusses the Unruh Act, “Bruce Beach”, and the California Constitution. The discrimination is not based on discriminatory words, rather, it’s based on discriminatory actions. “Action speaks louder than words”.
As I did for the appeal itself, I have requested that an independent panel be appointed or assigned to hear and decide the motion, because it is clear that I cannot receive a fair and impartial hearing from Division 7.
UPDATE—November 3, 2021
MARY’S KITCHEN AND THE CITY OF ORANGE : AN EASY DECISION; THE KITCHEN MUST REMAIN OPEN AT ITS PRESENT LOCATION: AID TO THE HOMELESS WHILE TRYING TO SOLVE THE HOMELESSNESS PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA HAS PRIORITY.
To begin with, my opinion here regarding the Mary’s Kitchen controversy is based on the facts presented in the L.A. Times’ article entitled, “To Mary’s Kitchen city plan is half-baked”, October 30, 2021.
The controversy revolves around the City of Orange wanting to close down Mary’s Kitchen, which provides services to the poor and homeless in the city. Apparently, the City wants the kitchen shutdown because it (the City) claims the kitchen is the source and/or cause of crime on the street where the kitchen is located, and apparently concludes that if the kitchen is closed down, the crime will go away. Even if that was true, the services provided by the kitchen under the circumstances of the homelessness crisis in California, *I believe, takes priority over the isolated level of crime that appears to be the case in the controversy.
But beyond homelessness being a priority, there are other legal and practical reasons why the Kitchen should not be shutdown. First, legal; from my understanding of the matter, the City is subject to and under the restrictions of a lease, which is legally enforceable for at least three more years. Thus, the City, ordinarily, would be precluded from forcing the Kitchen to close down and move because of the lease. However, and undoubtedly *(and assuming—I have not seen or read the lease agreement) there is some provision in the lease that allow the city to break the lease or breach the agreement early, in the event of criminal activity in the area. But, the city, * I assume, has to show the level of crime in the area is not only sufficient or drastic enough to allow it to breach the lease, but also, that the crime is caused by the Kitchen, to the satisfaction of a judge; in this case, it would be judge David O. Carter. But, it appears to me that the City would also have to show that there are no other reasonable alternatives other than shutting down the Kitchen, before the Kitchen is shutdown, and I think there are other alternatives, especially one important one, see infra.
Second, the practical reason why the Kitchen should not be shutdown. The City has suggested that with the shutdown of the Kitchen, the homeless people that the Kitchen serves can be transitioned out to a few surrounding shelters. But, as a counsel for the Kitchen stated, “It forces more than 300 unhoused persons to travel to other cities in search of replacement services with no consideration for their disabilities, or the time involved in going from city to city to meet basic needs, all of which are now available in one location at Mary’s Kitchen.” So, the closure of the Kitchen is impractical. Why should the homeless people be put to the burden of having to travel to multiple locations for aid when their needs can be met at one single location ? Not to mention, some homeless people do not wish to attend or live at a shelter. And, “one of the food providers, Second Harvest (which has agreed to provide a food service if the Kitchen is closed), has agreed to provide 600 bags of food over a two-week period. Mary’s Kitchen provides about 300 meals a day.”
Finally, the easy solution or decision. If, as counsel states, “the city and police seem to be unfairly blaming Mary’s Kitchen for crimes that are being committed on the street where the non-profit is located”, then the City could and should assign a couple of “beat-cops” to walk the beat around the area. You know, “police protection” ! Ever heard of that ? The taxpayers of the city, including Mary’s Kitchen, are paying for it anyway. Perhaps, it will only need to be a temporary thing, or maybe permanent (if the crime is as bad as the city and police are claiming it is). But, that’s an easy solution to solve the controversy at this initial stage, where other alternatives have not been attempted, and where there appears to be a NEED in the community for Mary’s Kitchen (especially, in view of the homeless crisis—where Mary’s is providing an important contribution to a homelessness solution).
THE BOTTOMLINE : Mary’s Kitchen should stay where it’s at. It should not “actively seek( ) a new home and. . . agree to move within 18 months”. If the City of Orange is not willing to at least try the beat-cop option or alternative, or a similar alternative, to shutting down the facility, Mary’s Kitchen should proceed to court and stand on legal grounds, beginning with the lease and breach of contract (based on an insufficient showing of a significant crime pattern caused by the Kitchen). *But, the decision is Mary’s to make.
UPDATE—November 8, 2021
HELEN H. DAVIS’S CONSERVATORSHIP DECISION : NOW, AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID RULING ON THE PENDING MOTION
A few days ago, I received the motion to recall the remittitur (which is the only motion at issue now—a motion to vacate was an alternative motion—regarding filing of the motion) submitted to the Second District Court of Appeal last week. The motion was returned without filing by the Clerk’s Office, through a letter or notice authored by Deputy Clerk C. Lynch, purportedly identifying the “reasons” it was not filed. NONE of the reasons provided are valid or legitimate reasons for not filing the motion. So, I’m going to return the motion to the Court for filing and determination, together with the explanation of why it must be filed (which is already known or should be known to the clerk and the Court).
Here are the reasons provided by the clerk and Court for not filing the motion :
1. “Inadequate or lack of service on Superior Court”. Response : First, the Superior Court is NOT required to be served. Second, BUT, the statement or reason is not true because I served the Superior Court anyway, because of the nature and particular circumstances of the motion. And, the Supreme Court of California was served with a copy of the proof of service .
2. “A search of our records shows that there are no actions pending in our court regarding this matter”. Response : First, the statement is not true, because for the purpose of this motion, to recall the remittitur, the Court’s decision in the case is pending. Second, even if the case is considered “closed” by issuance of the remittitur, leaving “no actions pending”, the nature of a motion to recall the remittitur reopens the case.
That is, “recall” the case. For curious readers, see CA Rules of Court, Rule 8.272 (c)(2).
3. “Remarks : This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case. The remittitur to the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued 10/21/2021.” Response : This reason is false. The Court has specific jurisdiction over THIS case, pursuant to Rule 8.272, supra. And, the issuance of the remittitur is what provides the Court with jurisdiction over the case, in reference to the motion to recall the remittitur. One can only seek to RECALL the remittitur AFTER the remittitur has issued.
Moreover, I have filed a motion to recall the remittitur in THIS COURT, before THIS Division, 7, before or at another time, and the motion was filed and decided. And there were no reasons provided for not filing the motion, which give credence to the conclusion that the action in not filing the motion this time is nefarious or invidious.
Again, I’m going to return the motion to the Court for filing, and it must be considered filed retroactively.
I consider the letter HARASSMENT, and a deliberate violation of my constitutional DUE PROCESS rights. I’m in the process of preparing a complaint to be filed with the U.S. Justice Department. I will include this letter and action as part of the Complaint. I’ll let the Justice Department decide whether the deputy clerk, C. Lynch, is solely responsible for the letter, or whether it is the product of a conspiracy.
UPDATE—November 19, 2021
THE HELEN H. DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL DECISION : THE MOTION TO RECALL THE REMITTITUR HAS NOW BEEN FILED AND DECIDED ; AND RIGHTFULLY SO. NOW, THE CLAIMS FACING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WILL BE FRAUD, DISCRIMINATION, AND “BRUCE BEACH”, RATHER THAN “STANDING”.
After my returning the motion to the Second District for filing, the motion has now been filed and ruled on, and, of course, denied, by judge Dennis Perluss and Division 7, rather than by an independent panel.
So, now, rather than placing before the Supreme Court a single issue , standing, which was not the true reason for the Second District Court affirming the sale of my 99-year old Black mother’s home, I will place before the Supreme Court the several issues, such as fraud, racial and gender discrimination, and the Bruce Beach type of discrimination , which were the real reasons. I’m pretty sure there are other Black people in Los Angeles who have had their property taken from them through the modern-day “Bruce Beach” type of discrimination, either by city or county action, or , as in my case, court action. So, they may be interested in what the Supreme Court has to say about it. Luckily, for the Bruces, some of their descendants will be able to recoup some of their property without court action, thanks to Supervisor Janice Hahn and State Senator Steven Bradford (a Senator to believe in).
I know one Black man living on Skid Row or visiting someone living on Skid Row, who relayed to me an experience a person he knew who was in the process of losing her home to a taking by either the city or County (I’m not sure which one) where the only thing that prevented the taking was the pandemic. I don’t know what the status is now. I was on Skid Row trying to get some of the homeless to attend the hearing on the sale of my mother’s home.
Next, the California Supreme Court.
UPDATE : January 10, 2022
THE HELEN H. DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP PETITION FOR REVIEW : WHEN YOU ARE POOR (AND ESPECIALLY BLACK), IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS A LONG, WINDING, AND BUMPY ROAD TO OBTAINING JUSTICE (IF YOU RECEIVE IT AT ALL) : HERE, AGAIN, FILING THE PETITION
When I filed the Petition for Review ( of the Second District’s denial of my motion to recall the remittitur), I included with the Petition an ORDER from the Court of Appeal’s Administrative Presiding Judge ordering waiver of the fees for filing the Petition. The Order applied to both Court of Appeal filing fees as well as Supreme Court filing fees. And the Judge issued two original copies of the Order.
After submitting the Petition for Review, along with the Court of Appeal fee waiver Order, I received a letter from the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office. The Deputy Clerk, *Tao Zhang, issuing the letter (who *should remain nameless * because I believe he was ultimately following the directions of his supervisor, who I believe is the Clerk, Jorge E. Navarrete—even if Navarette wasn’t the immediate supervisor, he would be the ultimate one responsible for the actions of the Clerk’s Office *—but, Zhang’s role is too important) informed me that “we did not receive filing fee. . . or completed fee waiver form (FW -001)”; and that “You must now submit the filing fee for a petition for review. . . or submit a properly completed FW- 001 form with information that demonstrates that you are eligible for a fee waiver.” This passage was followed by “You have Ten (10) days from the date of this notice to pay your fees and costs, or submit your fee waiver, failure to do so may result in the court striking the filing of your petition for review”.
Prior to receiving the letter, the deputy clerk , as a courtesy, contacted me via telephone (voicemail) to inform me of the FW -001 requirement and that the letter would be forthcoming. I eventually returned a call to the clerk and we discussed the matter further. By the end of the conversation, the clerk relied on the fact that his supervisor had directed that I had to file the FW -001 Form, notwithstanding the Administrative Judge’s fee waiver Order. Between the telephone calls and the letter from the clerk, two important points were established : 1. The Clerk’s Office did receive the Court of Appeal Administrative Judge’s fee waiver Order that I included with the Petition for Review, notwithstanding that the Order was not mentioned in the letter the clerk sent to me (the clerk admitted that the Order had been received) and 2. The Clerk’s Office referred to the Order as a “form” (and technically, it is, Form FW - 016), and thereafter concluded that it was not “the correct form” that had to be submitted to obtain the fee waiver.
Consequently, to protect my rights and my mother’s rights, I submitted another FW -001 Form (twice).
OBSERVATIONS :
1. If I were rich, there would be no filing fee controversy. Only a poor person has to concern himself or herself with filing fees in exercising his or her right of appeal and review; and only a poor person has to give up his or her right to privacy of his personal and private information in order to exercise a right to appeal and petition for review. And, when you are poor and Black, the problem is exacerbated.
2. When the Clerk required me to file the Form FW -001, I had already filed the form and given up my right to privacy. In fact, I had to complete and submit that form in order to secure the fee waiver Order from the Court of Appeal. Therefore, when the Supreme Court Clerk required me file the form again, unnecessarily, and without my consent (and I submitted the form over OBJECTION), it was a violation of my right to privacy.
3. The Clerk (which includes the deputy clerk) stated that the fee waiver Order was not the correct “form”. But, while it is a form, more importantly, it is an Order, which the Clerk is required to obey. And, the Order is the “correct” form, because it’s the same or similar form that will result from the Supreme Court’s grant of a fee waiver.
4. The Clerk basically ignored, disregarded, and disobeyed a Court Order, which subjects him to be held in contempt of court. But, rather than pursue that course at this time, which would only cause a delay in the prosecution of the Petition, I filed ANOTHER Form FW -001. However, the fee waiver Order was(is) clear, there is nothing confusing about it. It’s title states, “Order on Court Fee Waiver (Court of Appeal or Supreme Court)”. And, the Order states, “The court grants your request and waives your court fees and costs listed below. You do not have to pay fees for the following : Filing notice of appeal, petition for writ, or petition for review.” Therefore, there was no mistake, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation. The Clerk simply disobeyed a court order, and meant to do so. Regardless of what the Order states, he had to find out my personal information again, to assure himself and the Court that I qualified.
5. Facially, the reason the Court of Appeal Administrative Judge is authorized to waive the fees for the Supreme Court is to prevent the very thing that happened here : having a person file another fee waiver form in the Supreme Court, after having already filed one in the Court of Appeal. That is, the purpose is to impose a one-time disclosure of one’s personal information for the entire appeals process.
Thus, a long, winding, and bumpy road in my quest for justice regarding the Helen H. Davis Conservatorship and Sale of Property/Home case. Nevertheless, the Petition is considered filed, subject to being stricken, pending completion of the fee waiver process.
I consider the Clerk’s actions a violation of my privacy rights, harassment, and a violation of my civil and constitutional rights.
UPDATE—January 17, 2022 HAPPY MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY
ON M.L. K, JR. DAY : A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOMELESS FOR THE DE-CRIMINALIZATION OF THE HOMELESS : ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF THE HOMELESS SHOULD PETITION OR MOVE THE NINTH CIRCUIT TO AMEND ITS DECISION IN MARTIN V. BOISE TO HOLD THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CANNOT ENFORCE A STATUTE PROHIBITING SLEEPING OUTSIDE AGAINST HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WITH NO ACCESS TO “PERMANENT HOUSING”.
Upon consideration of the the latest actions by city and county officials in basically criminalizing the homeless for sleeping on the streets in encampments by going through the back door of the 9th Circuit’s latest decision striking down District Judge David O. Carter’s injunctive Order (requiring the city and county of Los Angeles to provide shelter for all the homeless in the city in six months), and considering it’s MLK’s Day, I have a counter-proposal for the city’s actions. Even though the Court struck down judge Carter’s Order on technical grounds, it, nevertheless, struck it down. Now, the city is attempting to enforce judge Carter’s order anyway, as though the 9th Circuit had, in fact, granted it, by providing the homeless with “temporary SHELTER or other housing, thereby complying with the 9th Cir.’s Martin v. Boise decision in its PRESENT state (i.e., temporary housing or shelter) and forcing the homeless to accept the shelter to avoid being swept away, including their encampments, or possibly jailed for remaining on the sidewalks after an offer of shelter has been made and refused.
The criminalization comes in the form of the new anti-camping ordinance (and associated posted signs) “to bar homeless people from sleeping on certain sidewalks and other outdoor locations”, when they are offered temporary shelter or housing of any kind (e.g., some say some shelters or housing have jail or prison-like conditions). So, as long as they are offered temporary housing, the homeless can be cited or jailed, or otherwise removed (and their belongings or tents). They may NEVER receive permanent housing. So, the city and county are succeeding in removing the homeless off the streets, without any assurance that they will ever acquire permanent housing. And, as long as they can do this and get away with it, the city will continue to do so. The 9th Cir. has made it too easy for the city and county to avoid providing the homeless with permanent housing.
THE SOLUTION : The 9th Cir.’s decision in Martin v. Boise should be amended to state that the 8th Amendment precludes “the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative” PERMANENT HOUSING (as opposed to the current “alternative shelter”). That would mean that the homeless and their tents could not be removed until they are provided with permanent housing. And, this would mean that the city and county would have added pressure to provide the homeless with permanent housing. But, it‘s up to the homeless advocates to petition or motion the 9th Circuit to amend its decision.
The permanent housing provision would also apply to the city’s new ordinance, which would prohibit the city from putting up these signs until permanent housing is provided, with certain exceptions such as parks, beaches, etc., the public should have a right to enjoy certain areas without being confronted with the homeless (temporary housing would be sufficient for these areas)(because many in the public utilize these areas for their own mental health and well-being).
I am convinced that homelessness can be eradicated, with the proper cooperation of city, county, state, and federal entities, and with the resources of each, both money and property. Part of the solution may need to be a homeless “village”. And, another major effort will be to crackdown on illegal and unconstitutional EVICTIONS, which is the MAJOR REASON OR CAUSE of homelessness in Los Angeles City and County. The major reason is NOT lack of affordable housing or unemployment, as alleged by some.
And, keep in mind, once the homeless crisis is reasonably resolved, then the government will be able to legitimately criminalize sleeping on the sidewalks, because it truly will be a matter of choice, e.g., loitering, rather than a necessity.
UPDATE—February 8, 2022
THE HELEN H.DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL AND PETITION FOR REVIEW : JUST WHAT I PREDICTED MIGHT HAPPEN, HAS HAPPENED : MY MOTHER, CONSERVATEE HELEN H. DAVIS, HAS NOW TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AT THE NURSING FACILITY WHERE SHE IS BEING CARED FOR ; WITHOUT A HOME, SHE COULD NOT GO HOME.
At the hearing in the trial court regarding the confirmation of sale of my mother’s home, I argued that a main reason for the court not permitting the confirmation of sale of the home was because should there be an outbreak of COVID cases at her facility, she would not have a home to go to if she had to leave the facility because of the outbreak. Well, what I surmised might happen has happened : initially, several other patients in the nursing facility contracted the coronavirus or, at least, tested positive for it, while my mother tested negative. The facility was then placed under quarantine, so that I could not and cannot visit her at this time. Then, another test was given, this time my mother tested positive for the virus. And, upon information and belief, she has now been placed in a hospice for further care and treatment. The nursing facility continues to be placed under quarantine.
THE BOTTOMLINE : One of the main reasons that I provided to the trial judge, Anna Maria Luna, and the Second District Court of Appeal judges, Dennis M. Perluss, John L. Segal, and Gail Ruderman Feuer, for not approving the confirmation of the sale of my mother’s home was that she would not have a home to go to if she wanted to escape from a nursing home outbreak. None of the judges gave much thought or consideration to my reason or argument. Now, the reason has fully developed, and were it not for my fight for my and my mother’s rights, she would not have a home to go home to.
UPDATE—May 30, 2022
MY PICKS FOR MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES : KAREN BASS, KEVIN DeLEON, GINA VIOLA , AND MEL WILSON
As for Rick Caruso, generally, once a Republican, always a Republican. I see no exception in Caruso.
With no other considerations but her platform as to how she would address and deal with the homelessness problem and systemic racism, particularly the plight of Black people in Los Angeles County, I would vote for Gina Viola for mayor of Los Angeles. As to the homelessness problem, I like her position that housing is a “human right”; and her idea of “eco-housing” or little homes, with bathrooms and kitchens; and her rejection of and/or opposition to anti-camping laws, particularly to that one of the L.A. City Council. She believes that anti-camping laws are cruel and inhumane, so do I. As for systemic racism, Viola believes that racism is part of the homeless problem, so do I. She says she would focus on anti-Black racism, not because there is not, perhaps, other racism in the city, such as anti-Asian racism, but because there has been Black “erasure” in Los Angeles. She states “The Black demographic is the only demographic that has seen a decline” in Los Angeles. Black people are being priced out and “choked out”. She’s right. She stated that Black people has gone from having around one million people in 2002 to having less than 400,000 people in 2020. Finally, she says that she would put people of color at the highest level of her administration.
Unfortunately, for Viola, there are other considerations at issue in the mayoral election, e.g., race, political party, and publicity. Viola is white and unknown, and she was not a former Democrat immediately preceding the election. Consequently, I have to consider other candidates. That leads me to Bass, DeLeon, and Wilson. I consider Wilson, who is Black, because I saw him campaigning in the community, and I give him credit for that. But, after reviewing his campaign platform, particularly regarding his position on endorsing anti-camping laws without a viable solution for permanently housing the homeless, I couldn’t vote for him.
That leaves Bass, who is Black and DeLeon, who is Hispanic or Latino. My main concern for all of the candidates to address is homelessness and how the candidates intend to address it. I base my selection of a candidate between Bass and DeLeon on, among other things, their respective answers to questions posed by “laist.com” in the interviews of the the two. Both Bass and DeLeon were evasive in answering the squestions related to : the anti-camping law enacted by the City Council; the removal of encampments, the primary cause of homelessness, and how to solve the homeless problem. Viola, who also was interviewed, generally answered the questions or was otherwise responsive. She was not evasive. Neither Bass nor DeLeon cited the element of racial discrimination or racism as a cause of the homeless problem (Viola did). But, in order to defeat Caruso, I would have to vote for Bass or DeLeon, because I just don’t believe many Democrats are going to flip and vote for Viola, even though I believe she is the best candidate for mayor. BUT : It did happen with Bernie Sanders (he didn’t win, but it was close. And I voted for him. However, Sanders was well-known prior to the Presidential election, and many Democrats flipped and voted for him. Maybe in the future, if one of the Democrats in the mayor’s race this year do a poor job, Viola can try again, and then, she will be well-known. I just don’t think this is her time. Maybe she will prove me wrong.
As for Bass and DeLeon, they are both similar with respect to dealing with the homeless *(both emphasize temporary housing—DeLeon has emphasized “tiny homes”, and he should get credit for the number of tiny homes built in his district; but, tiny homes without bathrooms and kitchens are still just temporary housing—as opposed to permanent housing) and policing (incidentally, I don’t believe the police should be defunded—and neither should there be any increase beyond its usual budget *(however, I would support a decrease before an increase in funding), but, I believe the police should swiftly get rid of BAD cops—and if they do not, someone should be held accountable. Based on who will stand the best chance of defeating Caruso, I choose Bass *(she has a broader state and federal background which include a consistent record of representing the minority community). “Bass founded Community Coalition , a group that advocates for racial justice in South L.A., in the 1990s and, while in Congress, worked on criminal justice legislation, including the historic George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in 2020.” Those facts serve Bass well. However, I’m hopeful that the top two will be Bass and *either Viola or DeLeon. I’ve read in a L.A. Times article that “DeLeon touts his efforts to clean up homeless encampments”. What does that mean ? It sounds like “sweeping up” encampments, pursuant to the anti-camping law or otherwise, and generally, I would be opposed to that, *without providing the encampment people with permanent housing. So that leaves an opening for Viola.
So, MY FINAL PICK FOR MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES IS : KAREN BASS
***The TV ads attempting to smear Bass’s character only cause me to support Bass more.
UPDATE—September 12, 2022
MORE HARASSMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA : THIS TIME, EDD
Above, at the January 10, 2022 entry of this blog, I charged that the controversy regarding the fee waiver form was simply HARASSMENT. Now, another incident of harassment by state administrative officials.
Because I am self-employed (and have been so throughout my legal career), I applied for and was granted unemployment benefits through the federal CARE program, which was administered by the state (California) Employment Development Department (EDD). After the program had concluded, the EDD required program participants to “verify” their employment or self-employment during the applicable period regarding receiving benefits. One had to “provide documents to show you were, or planned to be, self-employed. . . at some point (during the applicable period of time)”. And, “at least one form of document” was(is) “tax returns”. Finally, “Providing more than one document could help but is not necessary” (emphasis added).
So, I chose the tax return as the form of document to show that I was self-employed during the applicable period. And, more specifically, I chose two documents from the tax return which showed that I was self-employed during the applicable period : (1) the signature page of the tax return, which I signed under the penalty of perjury that the contents, which include a self-employment tax form, were true, and which indicated my occupation as a lawyer; and (2) the Self-Employment Tax form, which evidenced that I was self-employed during the period.
I supplied this evidence to the EDD the first time in January, 2022. This should have ended or concluded the matter. It didn’t. The EDD then sent me a notice of disqualification for benefits, which implied that it had not even received the documents I sent the first time. So, for the second time, I sent the same documents, containing the same date in which they were sent the first time, to the EDD again. And, for the second time, the matter should have ended or been concluded. It wasn’t. Now, after acknowledging that it received the second production of the documents, the EDD has required that I attend a hearing. And, it did not indicate what the hearing is for, or the purpose of the hearing.
It’s HARASSMENT. As alluded to above, I have always been self-employed as a lawyer in California. And, the evidence I provided the first time should have been sufficient to prove my self-employment during the applicable period. All required further proceedings by the EDD after my first submission of proof is harassment. *Especially, without informing me of the deficiency.
UPDATE—September 17, 2022
THE EDD HEARING : UNNECESSARY
The only useful thing for the hearing was for the hearing officer, administrative law judge *Paul (corrected) Lee, to determine that I needed to submit documents from the tax return for the year 2019 instead of 2020. But, it wasn’t necessary to hold a hearing to inform me of this and the 2019 documents could have been submitted without a hearing. I will note that this was a telephonic hearing. But, no hearing was required or needed. One other thing I will note that occurred during the hearing : When Lee was going through a packet of documents that was sent to me and that he was marking as exhibits, he skipped over a document that I am principally relying on to prove that the documents that I submitted are sufficient as proof of my self-employment. I pointed out to him that I would be relying on the document as evidence. The document is entitled “Verify your Employment or Self-Employment for your Pandemic Unemployment Assistance claim”, and it provides for various ways of showing proof of self-employment. He was silent, and did not comment. And, when I was giving testimony about how long I have been self-employed, he interrupted me. Lee allowed me until Monday to supply the 2019 documents by fax.
A hearing was not necessary. And, it’s clear that I was self-employed during any required applicable period , because I have always been self-employed (for over 25 years). That suggests that the hearing was not called for me to prove that I was self-employed during the required applicable period, rather, it was called for other reasons.
**UPDATE—December 20, 2022
ADMIN. JUDGE *PAUL (corrected) LEE : THE DECISION : FROM BIAS TO FALSE STATEMENTS
Administrative Judge Paul Lee has now issued a written decision regarding my case, and as expected, he concluded that I should be denied benefits. As noted above, 9/17/2022, Lee displayed a level of bias during the hearing, so I am not all surprised at his written decision, but, his written decision went beyond bias to providing false statements, in order to try and substantiate his decision to deny me relief. Basically, he claimed that I did not submit any documents, when he knows I did.
So, now, I was provided a final appeal of Lee’s decision, as part of the administrative process. And, I did file and/or submit the appeal. However, my appeal of Lee’s decision is purportedly based only on the hearing Record itself, i.e., the recording of the hearing and the documents which were part of the record at the hearing; and not on Lee’s written decision. In other words, a “de novo” review, to the exclusion of Lee’s written decision. So, my written appeal response did not include a discussion of Lee’s written decision, although I mentioned it in passing. But, even with a de novo review, if the appeals panel decide to affirm Lee’s decision, it will necessarily be affirming the false statements in his written decision as well. *However, I should prevail on the merits of the de novo appeal, excluding Lee’s written decision.
I await the decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment