Los Angeles, California
March 13, 2024
(Today’s Date)
February 16, 2022
(Today’s Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion, or both.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information or material added after publishing of the original blog).
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California (and the United States)
***For immediate background information and the last blogpost published about the Helen H. Davis Conservatorship, you must refer to my blog entitled “The Homelessness Crisis in Los Angeles and the State of California. . . .” For the latest blogpost, see the February 8, 2022 UPDATE.
A few days ago, I filed a motion to stay or for a mandatory injunction with the CA Supreme Court regarding new actions surrounding my mother’s (Helen H. Davis’s) home that I was recently made aware of. In researching authority for the motion, I came across a recent case, Daly v. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, NO. S260209, August 9, 2021, authored by Justice Leondra Kruger, one of two Black Justices on the CA Supreme Court, and a now considered candidate (one of three) for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Stephen G. Breyer. *The seat on the Supreme Court went to the Black Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
It was strictly a coincidence that I came across the Daly case, and it is likely that I came across it so quickly because it is recent. But, it seems altogether fitting that I, as a Black man and Black lawyer, would rely on a decision authored by a Black Supreme Court Justice in support of my motion, and this occurrence happens during Black History Month, where an emphasis is placed on Black historical moments. This is a historical moment for me as a Black lawyer, because it is the first time in my *long career that I’ve relied on the *sole authoritative opinion of a Black judge , as opposed to a white judge or other non-Black judge, to support a motion, petition, or brief. It just hasn’t happened. But, perhaps I should say that this is the first time a Black judge that I KNOW about has provided the primary *and sole supportive authority for a pleading of mine. Because I certainly haven’t researched every primary authoritative source I’ve relied on in my career to determined the author’s race or color. So, *it’s possible, though not likely, that I may have relied on a Black judge as authority before and didn’t know it. And, that’s what helps make my knowledge of judge Kruger’s case remarkable. That is, I happened to gain knowledge that the primary source of authority that I relied upon in support of my motion is Black, and I happened to discover this for the first time in my career during Black History Month.
Moreover, the case itself, that is, the Petition for review, is essentially a civil rights matter. So, that fact combined with the above, makes the discovery even more remarkable.
In the end, the motion will be decided as the Court usually decides motions to stay. Along side my motion, the University of California Board of Regents has also filed *requests to stay regarding an order requiring UC Berkeley to freeze enrollment at the same level as the 2020-2021 academic year.
My motion regard the state of my mother’s home during the pendency of the Petition. I’ve asked the Court to stay any sale or attempted sale of the home pending a decision on the Petition.
UPDATE—February 24, 2022
UC BERKELEY’S REQUEST FOR A STAY
Remarkably, in my view, Berkeley’s requests for stays do not cite or mention Justice Leondra Kruger’s Daly v. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors decision, even though it appears to be the latest decision by the Supreme Court on the subject, i.e., request for a stay, and even though the decision was produced several months before Berkeley’s requests were filed in Court. Every attorney makes his or her own decision as to what case or cases to cite in support of his or her action. So, Berkeley had no requirement or duty to cite the case, but it seems to me, the only reason Berkeley would not cite the case, is that it did not believe the case was helpful in obtaining relief, or that it was not aware of the case in drafting its petitions.
In any event, I did not make the above point to criticize UC Berkeley. I made the point because I only read Berkeley’s petitions (both in the Court of Appeal and the CA Supreme Court) after I had filed mine, and when I read its petitions, I discovered that Daly was not cited, and I was expecting it to be. So, I was surprised. I still think Daly’s absence in Berkeley’s requests for stays is remarkable (because at least one passage in Daly specifically supports UC Berkeley’s position, and because in one of its petitions, it specifically stated, “The Regents reasonably believed the filing of the appeal stayed the entirety of the judgment, as is typical on a judgment directing issuance of a writ of mandate”). Justice Kruger’s decision specifically dealt with automatic stays and mandatory injunctions.
UPDATE—February 28, 2022
THE HELEN H. DAVIS CONSERVATORSHIP APPEAL/PETITION : MS. DAVIS IS NOW 100 YEARS OLD : A MILESTONE IN LIFE ; WE CONTINUE TO WAIT
My mother, Helen H. Davis, is now 100 years old. A blessing. The Supreme Court has now extended the time to make a decision, to grant or deny the Petition. And, if the Court does not make a decision by the end of March, the Petition is considered denied. I have an opinion about that procedure, but, I will defer at this time. So, we anxiously wait.
UPDATE—March 24, 2022
HELEN H. DAVIS, UC BERKELEY, THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, AND GOVERNOR NEWSOM: HELEN H. DAVIS AND UC BERKELEY BOTH TRAVELED THE SAME PATH , ARRIVED AT THE SAME DESTINATION, AND RECEIVED THE SAME TREATMENT BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT : SO, IF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE CAN CREATE OR DEVELOP A REMEDY FOR UC BERKELEY, IT CAN AND SHOULD CREATE OR DEVELOP ONE FOR HELEN H. DAVIS AS WELL, AND THE GOVERNOR SHOULD, ONCE AGAIN, SIGN THE LEGISLATION.
Like it did with UC Berkeley, the California Supreme Court , after ordering an extension to decide one way or the other , denied the Petition and the application for a stay in the Helen H. Davis conservatorship case.
Therefore, both UC Berkeley and Helen H. Davis traveled the same path, arriving at the same destination, with the same results : a denied petition for review and application for a stay, with no reasoned decision.
The path of both Helen H. Davis and UC Berkeley began with the trial court . In Berkeley’s case, an Alameda County Superior Court judge, Brad Seligman, “ordered Berkeley to cap enrollment at its 2020-2021 level of 42,357 students. To get to that level, Berkeley would have to cut admission offers by at least 5,100 to account for the share of applicants who decline acceptance. UC, in its appeal to the court, said the enrollment cap would prove particularly ‘catastrophic’ to the top-rated public research university’s goal to admit more low-income, underrepresented students (emphasis added). L.A. Times, “Why Berkeley May be forced to slash 3,050 seats”, February 20, 2022. “It was the first time any court had ever issued an injunction against UC specifically on enrollment related to long-range development plans.” Id. The lawsuit leading up to the court’s order was brought by a community group, Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, which “blamed the university for failing to adequately review the impact of its burgeoning student population and not building enough housing to accommodate it.” Id.
In Davis’s case, the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, Anna Marie Luna, ordered Davis, a then 99 year-old Black lady, to sell her home that she had lived in for over 50 years, without Davis’s consent, and especially, verified consent, and other statutory violations. The Petition for confirmation of the sale of the home was brought by Davis’s daughter, Dianne Jackson, who knew that she had not acquired Davis’s verified consent to sell the house. I argued before the trial judge that Jackson wanted to sell the house for her own personal benefit not for the benefit of Davis. In fact, it was Jackson’s decision to place Davis in a board and care in the first place, over my objection. Davis had suffered a fall at home, and I wanted to take care of her at home. Jackson chose a board and care, and the medical professionals said at the time, we both had to agree to take care of Davis at home in order for her to be cared for at home. When Jackson became conservator, over my objection, Davis has remained in a board and care.
UC Berkeley appealed to the First District Court of appeal. That Court sustained the trial court decision and denied a stay. Berkeley actually won a dismissal (demurrer), but that dismissal was reversed on appeal by the First District.
I, on Davis’s behalf, appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal. That Court, initially, issued a dismissal of the case based on “standing” , finding that I did not have standing to appeal (suffered no injury). I, in turn, filed a motion to recall the case, based on various grounds, including racial discrimination, fraud, and false statements. The Court denied the motion (after initially refusing to rule on the motion).
UC Berkeley thereafter, filed a Petition for Review and applied for a stay in the California Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court denied Berkeley’s petition and its application for stay, with two dissents, but without reasoning or explanation for the decision to deny the Petition.
Davis, through me, filed a Petition for Review, and subsequently, moved for a stay or a mandatory injunction (with some indication that there was an exchange of possession of Davis’s home). Both the Petition and motion for a stay or mandatory injunction were denied, without reasoning or explanation.
So, both UC Berkeley and Davis arrived at the California Supreme Court with important issues regarding the welfare of people of color and others. For Berkeley, it was a concern for their education of students . “UC, in its appeal to the court, said the enrollment cap would prove particularly ‘catastrophic’ to the top-rated public research university’s goal to admit more low-income, underrepresented students,” L.A. Times article, supra (emphasis added), who, invariably, are students of color. For Davis, it was a concern for the loss of her home as a 100 year-old Black lady who did not consent to the sale of her home, and where the sale of her home was made in violation of several statutory provisions, i.e., the sale was illegal, and in view of the fact that the sale of the house points to covert racial discrimination in the spirit of the Bruce Beach taking of a Black family’s property in Manhattan Beach over 100 years ago. Moreover, the sale of the house was confirmed at a time when there are few Black homeowners in the County of Los Angeles, and it is difficult for Black people , financially, to purchase homes in Los Angeles.
Yet, both UC Berkeley and Davis received the same result : a denial of the Petitions and applications for stays without a reasoned decision why the Court reached the decision that it did.
LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION
While the UC Berkeley case was pending before the CA Supreme Court, “ ‘We are exploring all options and our hope is for a remedy (via the courts or the Legislature) that will result in no need to reduce this fall’s enrollment by 3,050,’ the UC Berkeley statement said.” Id. That means Berkeley was exploring legislation while its Petition was pending, which likely included lobbying. The California Legislators responded. “California legislators are fast-tracking a rescue effort to help UC Berkeley avoid slashing its in-person fall class by more than 2,600 students to meet a court-ordered enrollment freeze, just as the university prepares to release admission decisions this month.” L.A. Times, “Push to help UC Berkeley escape cuts, March 12, 2022. “If passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the legislation would take effect IMMEDIATELY AND RETROACTIVELY—allowing UC Berkeley to proceed with its original plans to enroll more than 5,000 first-year California students, according to state Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco). . . .” Id. (emphasis added).
And why did the legislators do what they did ? “ ‘We believe this . . .allows us to continue educating deserving students,’ the legislators said. ‘When our legislation passes and allows the law to be applied retroactively, UC Berkeley will be able to resume its enrollment plan, which was disrupted by a misguided court order.’” Id. (emphasis added). And, this “misguided court order” language is equally applicable to both the Berkeley case and the Davis case, whichever court it refers to. Gov. Newsom signed the legislation. Making it law. “I’m grateful to the Legislature for moving quickly on this critical issue”, said Newsom.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ stated, “I want to thank California’s legislators for their quick and effective response.”
HELEN H. DAVIS DESERVES NO LESS FROM BOTH THE LEGISLATURE AND GOV. NEWSOM
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Clearly, my mother, Helen H. Davis, deserves no less from both the Legislature and the Governor. Her issues are at least as important, if not more important, than Berkeley’s . While Berkeley’s issue(s), education of students , was important, Davis’s issues are fundamental. The taking of anyone’s property without their consent is stealing and wrong. And, the taking of someone’s home without the person’s consent , with the aid of the government, as in Davis’s case, is the denial of the person’s fundamental right to own property, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. With the homeless problem in Los Angeles city and county, as it is, homeownership is not only a fundamental right, but , it is an essential right.
Further, Davis was deprived of her home at least in part because she is Black, and therefore, in losing her home, she was deprived of equality in application of the law. She was not equally protected.
But, the Legislature does not have to reach the Constitution to devise a remedy for Davis. It didn’t do so for Berkeley, and it need not do so for Davis. It need only devise a remedy that will undo what has been done, immediately and retroactively, which will return Davis’s home to her, in the event of an illegal sale. It is much needed legislation for Davis and other elderly conservatees in Davis’s position in the County of Los Angeles.
I don’t have the resources to hire lobbyists and lawyers to persuade Legislators to devise a remedy for my mother, as Berkeley may have had and done for its case, so I’ll have to lobby myself. I will start with a State Assemblyman or Senator, and may end with Gov. Newsom, if necessary. However, Gov. Newsom need not wait for me to approach him to offer assistance; he may do so, in his own accord.
UPDATE—April 18, 2022
GOVERNOR NEWSOM : WE (HELEN H. DAVIS AND I) ARE CALLING ON YOU TO USE YOUR INFLUENCE WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND YOUR OWN POWER TO RETURN MY 100 YEAR OLD BLACK MOTHER’S HOME TO HER, AFTER THE HOME WAS TAKEN FROM HER BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITHOUT HER CONSENT, AND WITH RACIST MOTIVATION, IN THE SPIRIT OF THE BRUCE BEACH THEFT OF PROPERTY FROM THE BRUCES OVER 100 YEARS AGO. YOU ARE THE HEAD OF STATE, SO YOU CAN UNDO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE STATE, BY WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY.
BESIDES THE THEFT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE OTHER SIGNIFICANT REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD INTERVENE AND RENDER RELIEF :
1. THE HOMELESS CRISIS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHICH AFFECTS BLACK PEOPLE MORE THAN ANY OTHER RACIAL GROUP. WHILE YOU HAVE RECOGNIZED THE CRISIS AND PURPORT TO WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW BLACK PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THE HOMELESS P3ROBLEM, AND PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS AND INTERESTS. REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SENATOR APPOINTMENT : THE PEOPLE HAD INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED A BLACK FEMALE TO FILL THE POSITION, BUT YOU CHOSE OTHERWISE. THIS CASE PRESENTS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO SHOW BLACK PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY THAT YOU INTEND TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS. THEFT OF PROPERTY BY THE STATE HAS LEFT MY MOTHER HOMELESS. THE NURSING FACILITY WHERE SHE RESIDES IS NOT HER HOME. AND, EVEN WITH HER INCREASED DEMENTIA, SHE RECOGNIZES THIS; JUST LAST WEEK , SHE VOLUNTARILY STATED, “I’M READY TO GO HOME” (NOT RECOGNIZING AND REALIZING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH HER HOME). AND, HER HOME WAS MY HOME, SO WE BOTH WERE LEFT HOMELESS (WHERE I LIVE IS NOT MY HOME EITHER).
IT’S ONE THING TO ALLOCATE MONEY FOR THE HOMELESS PROBLEM, AND ANOTHER THING TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM, *OR TAKE DIRECT ACTION TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. RETURNING HELEN H. DAVIS’S HOME TO HER WILL ACTUALLY SOLVE HER HOMELESS PROBLEM, WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, DEFEAT THE RACISM THAT CAUSED HER TO BE HOMELESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHILE YOU INTERVENED IN THE BRUCE BEACH MATTER ON BEHALF OF DECEASED BLACK PEOPLE AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, MY MOTHER IS LIVING, AND SHE WILL REAP THE BENEFITS OF YOUR ACTION WHILE SHE IS LIVING. DON’T WAIT UNTIL SHE DIES TO GRANT HER RELIEF.
2. THERE ARE PROBABLY NUMEROUS OTHER BLACK ELDERLY CITIZENS WHO THE SAME THING HAS HAPPENED TO. YOUR ACTION ON BEHALF OF MS. DAVIS MIGHT SERVE TO HELP THEM AS WELL. PERHAPS, IT WILL INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SALE OF HOMES OF OTHER BLACK ELDERLY CITIZENS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT THEIR VERIFIED CONSENT, AND WITHOUT DETERMINING WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOMES WITH HOME CARE.
3. THERE ARE VERY FEW BLACK HOMEOWNERS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY PRESENTLY , AND IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE AVERAGE BLACK PERSON TO PURCHASE AND OWN A HOME IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, BASED ON THE COST OF HOMES IN LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY; SO, GOV. NEWSOM, IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO RETURN MY MOTHER’S HOME TO HER, YOU WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE BLACK HOMEOWNER DEFICIT.
GOV. NEWSOM, YOU ACTED ON BEHALF OF DECEASED BLACK PEOPLE IN THE BRUCE BEACH MATTER; YOU ACTED ON BEHALF OF POTENTIAL STUDENTS OF UC BERKELEY IN THE BERKELEY MATTER; NOW, I’M ASKING YOU TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LIVING AND REAL HELEN H. DAVIS . RETURN HER HOME TO HER.
Finally, I contacted the office of Senator Steven Bradford in an effort to garner assistance, but, other than a referral to another agency, all I received was the run around from his staff, initially Sacramento, but ending with Inglewood, CA (“Jasmine”) even after they requested and received some documentation. I don’t know if Sen. Bradford even received notice that I was seeking assistance. But, the bottom line is, I received no assistance from his Office (and didn’t get to speak with him personally), therefore, I received no assistance from him.
I will send a copy of this blogpost to Governor Newsom.
GOV. NEWSOM : PLEASE, DO THE RIGHT THING.
UPDATE—April 25, 2022
GOV. NEWSOM : WHEN YOU HELD A PUBLIC SIGNING OF THE LEGISLATION FOR THE BLACK BRUCE FAMILY, DID YOU HOLD THE PUBLIC SIGNING BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO BLACK PEOPLE AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT YOU INTEND TO DEFEAT OR REVERSE THE TAKING OR STEALING OF BLACK PEOPLES’ HOMES AND/OR OTHER PROPERTY BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THROUGH COVERT RACISM ; OR, DID YOU HOLD THE PUBLIC SIGNING BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HELP SECURE THE BLACK VOTE FOR YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN ?
*IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO RETURN MS. DAVIS’S HOME TO HER, AS YOU DID FOR THE BRUCES, BLACK PEOPLE AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WILL KNOW THAT YOU HELD THE PUBLIC SIGNING (AS OPPOSED TO A NON-PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ONE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE BLACK VOTE IN YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. *AND THAT YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO CURTAIL THE THEFT OF BLACK PEOPLES’ HOMES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THROUGH COVERT RACISM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
UPDATE—May 10, 2022
ISAIAH LEE AND DAVE CHAPPELLE : GOVERNOR NEWSOM AND THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE , DID ISAIAH LEE, INDIRECTLY, ON BEHALF OF BLACK HOMEOWNERS, ESPECIALLY ELDERLY BLACK HOMEOWNERS, IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, GET YOUR ATTENTION ?
BLACK POLITICIANS OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY, DID ISAIAH LEE, ON BEHALF OF BLACK RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY, GET YOUR ATTENTION ? SAY SOMETHING; DO SOMETHING. OR, DO YOU CONDONE THE GENTRIFICATION ?
OTHER POLITICIANS OF LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY, IN THE SPIRIT OF SUPERVISOR JANICE HAHN, DID ISAIAH LEE GET YOUR ATTENTION ?
LOCAL LOS ANGELES BROADCAST AND PRINT MEDIA, DID ISAIAH LEE GET YOUR ATTENTION ?
A few days ago, during a “Netflix is a Joke Festival” comedy show at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, a man, Isaiah Lee, tackled comedian Dave Chappelle while Chappelle was engaging in a comedy presentation. Chappelle was not hurt (rather, it was Lee who ended up hurt, with “a swollen eye and his right arm in a sling, bearing injuries from when he was detained by security”). Most times when the police partake in investigating crimes when the crimes were not committed in their presence, they almost always claim that they don’t know the MOTIVE for the crime, and that they are trying to determine the motive while investigating.
Well, thanks in large part to Dave Chappelle himself, law enforcement, and some of the public (those who were able to pickup on the brief presentation by the broadcast media) were able to ascertain that Lee’s MOTIVE for tackling Chappelle at the comedy show was, according to news reports of Chappelle’s conversation with Lee, Lee wanted the tackling incident of Chappelle at the public and publicized event “TO DRAW ATTENTION TO” Lee’s GRANDMOTHER from Brooklyn, “who had been FORCED OUT OF HER NEIGHBORHOOD due to GENTRIFICATION”. Since Lee is Black, I assume his grandmother is Black (but, in this day and age, I could be wrong).
By coincidence, this is nearly the precise issue that I, as a Black man, together with my Black, 100 year-old year mother, am facing in Los Angeles County. As with Lee, I am acting on behalf of my mother in trying to get Gov. Newsom and the Legislature to act to return my mother’s home to her after it was taken through ILLEGAL and racially-motivated GENTRIFICATION (as opposed to sometimes facially legal gentrification). But Lee’s act, which did not cause injury to Chappelle, was more courageous than my act of writing a blogpost, in trying to DRAW ATTENTION to the plight of his grandmother AND the issue of GENTRIFICATION, especially as it affects poor Black folks. If I had done what Lee did, surely the local broadcast media and the L.A. Times would have had to announce my name and my mother’s name in their reporting of the incident (right now, the local broadcast media and the L.A. Times deliberately do not mention my name in their broadcasting and writing, *based on bias or racism—and, the Times article I read on the Lee-Chappelle incident DID NOT include a mention of the gentrification matter—I wonder why), which would have “drawn more attention” to the taking of my mother’s home through covert racism and/or gentrification.
And so, especially since Dave Chappelle did not get hurt, I THANK Mr. Lee for his efforts in bringing the issue of gentrification to the forefront. MR. LEE : YOUR EFFORTS WERE AT LEAST A PARTIAL SUCCESS. As an aside, the $30,000 bail amount set for Mr. Lee‘s release is *illegal and/or unconstitutional per the California Supreme Court in In re Humphrey. BREAKING NEWS : The trial judge has just denied Lee reduced bail, e.g., release on his own recognizance, in a follow up hearing, thereby maintaining the $30,000 bail. The public defender MUST appeal the trial court’s decision, to protect Lee’s rights; and, if it chooses to, by filing a writ of * mandate * or prohibition in the Court of Appeal. *NOTE : Lee has now been charged with attempted murder, purportedly based on an incident involving a roommate at a transitional house, where Lee is alleged to have stabbed the roommate. But, why an attempted murder charge ? as opposed to an assault charge ? Could it have anything to do with Lee’s bail ? And why is the charge being brought now, rather than earlier (on or before the Chappelle charge) ? And, why is the charge being brought after I questioned Lee’s bail amount and bail status ? It doesn’t pass the “smell” test. In any event, it doesn’t change Lee’s indigent status regarding bail, and it doesn’t change his motive for tackling Chappelle, i.e., drawing attention to GENTRIFICATION . *NOTE : When the broadcast media, e.g., television, report on Lee’s case now, it doesn’t mention “motive” anymore, because the motive is not what they expected it to be, and not what they (broadcast or print) want it to be. *NOTE : Lee has another scheduled hearing tomorrow (5/20/2022), now, with the NEW charge.
GOV. NEWSOM : YOU HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY KICKED OFF YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN . HOWEVER, WITH THE ADVENT OF ISAIAH LEE’S ACTION AND DISCLOSURE OF THE GENTRIFICATION PROBLEM FACED BY HIS GRANDMOTHER (BE IT IN BROOKLYN OR HERE) AND WITH MY DISCLOSURE OF THE GENTRIFICATION PROBLEM BEING EXPERIENCED BY MY MOTHER, AND LIKELY OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED BLACK ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS HERE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, I MUST STATE GOVERNOR : WITH YOUR ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE OF THE ILLEGAL TAKING OF MY MOTHER’S (HELEN H. DAVIS’S) HOME WITHOUT HER CONSENT AND IN VIOLATION OF OTHER CALIFORNIA LAWS, AND WITH YOUR POWER AND/OR AUTHORITY TO TAKE SOME ACTION (AS YOU DID FOR UC BERKELEY) TO RETURN HER HOME TO HER; IF YOU DO NOT TAKE SOME ACTION TO DO SO BEFORE ELECTION DAY, YOU WILL NOT GET THIS BLACK VOTE.
AND IF OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED BLACK ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS AND OTHER BLACK PEOPLE IN SUPPORT THEREOF FEEL THE SAME WAY, HOPEFULLY, YOU WILL NOT GET THEIR VOTES EITHER.
FOR YOU NOT TO ACT MEANS THAT YOU CONDONE THE RACIALLY-MOTIVATED GENTRIFICATION EXERCISED IN MY MOTHER’S CASE, AND LIKELY OTHER CASES INVOLVING BLACK ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, BLACK ELDERLY CONSERVATEE HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; AND, WITH THAT IN MIND, I COULD NOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, VOTE FOR YOU.
UPDATE—May 18, 2022
WHETHER IT’S BUFFALO, N.Y. OR LOS ANGELES, CA; WHETHER IT’S OVERT OR COVERT; AND WHETHER IT’S VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT, RACISM IS RACISM, AND, IT’S ALWAYS DEBILITATING AND DE-HUMANIZING. IN BUFFALO, THE RACISM WAS OVERT AND VIOLENT, AND RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF LIFE OR LIVES TO 10 BLACK PEOPLE , MANY OF THEM ELDERLY OR SENIORS. HERE, IN LOS ANGELES (THE DAVIS CASE), THE RACISM IS COVERT AND NON-VIOLENT, AND RESULTED IN THE THEFT OF A HOME OR PROPERTY (LIKELY HOMES AND PROPERTIES OF OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED BLACK SENIORS) OF AN ELDERLY BLACK LADY (AND LIKELY OTHERS). WHILE THE MAGNITUDE OF THE LOSSES BETWEEN THE BUFFALO CASE AND THE LOS ANGELES CASE CANNOT BE COMPARED, THE EFFECT OF THE RACISM IS THE SAME IN BOTH CASES, DEBILITATING AND DE-HUMANIZING.
BUT, GOV. NEWSOM, ONE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BUFFALO CASE AND THE LOS ANGELES CASE IS : WHILE THE LOSS OF LIFE IN THE BUFFALO CASE CANNOT BE CORRECTED, THAT IS, THE LOSS OF LIFE CANNOT BE RESTORED OR REVERSED; THE TAKING OF THE HOME IN THE DAVIS CASE CAN BE AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED OR REVERSED. AND YOU, GOV. NEWSOM, HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO CORRECT OR REVERSE IT, OR, AT LEAST, TO DO YOUR PART. “The Newsom administration has called on the Legislature to quickly pass the budget proposal, so the governor can sign it into law by July 1.” Emphasis added. L.A. Times, “Details are few on costs for homeless program”, May 17, 2022. SO, GOVERNOR, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING IF YOU CHOOSE TO.
IF YOU DO NOTHING, GOVERNOR, YOU ARE, IN ESSENCE, SUPPORTING THE RACISM. AND IF YOU SUPPORT THE RACISM, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ?
UPDATE—May 23, 2022
GOV. NEWSOM : YOU MAY FEEL CONFIDENT THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE, NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR SUPPORTING COVERT RACISM, BUT, THERE ARE OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT, AND, IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO DEFEAT COVERT RACISM, ONE OF THOSE CANDIDATES WILL GET MY VOTE, AND HOPEFULLY THE VOTE OF OTHERS WHO DO NOT SUPPORT COVERT RACISM.
MY CHOICE AT THIS TIME WOULD BE : JOEL VENTRESCA (BASED ON HIS CANDIDATE STATEMENT)
UPDATE—May 30, 2022
READERS : IF YOU WANT SOME FURTHER INSIGHT INTO WHY GOV. NEWSOM IS SUPPORTING RACISM AND IS TREATING MY BLACK MOTHER AND THE THEFT OF HER PROPERTY THE WAY HE IS, I REFER YOU TO A RECENT L.A. TIMES ARTICLE ENTITLED “ ‘CARE Court’ is no solution for unhoused people in California”, May 27, 2022, WHERE THE WRITERS CRITICIZE AND POINT OUT THE MISTREATMENT OF HOMELESS PEOPLE IN A PROGRAM PROPOSED BY GOV. NEWSOM.
I will offer here a few excerpts from the article :
“In March, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposed framework to force some people living with mental health conditions to undergo treatment under court order. On Wednesday the California Senate passed a bill to enact this framework and create the deceptively named Community Assistance Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Court. There is nothing empowering about involuntary treatment.” Emphasis added.
“State officials have misleadingly promoted CARE Court as ‘diversion to prevent more restrictive conservatorships or incarceration.’ In fact, people can be compelled into CARE Court without being accused of a crime or qualifying for conservatorship. The CARE plans are enforceable court orders, which can include coerced medications as well as submission to treatment modes not chosen by the person who must comply. Those who do not comply may be set on the path to conservatorships, which allow the state to lock people up and rob them of their autonomy.” Emphasis added.
“Under international human rights standards, treatment should be based on the will and preferences of the person concerned. Housing or disability status does not rob a person of their legal capacity or right to personal autonomy. The expansive , involuntary CARE Court process denies these rights.” Emphasis added.
“The potential for abuse in this program is astounding. A family member could wield a petition or threat of a petition as a weapon of control over a less powerful member (as in this, the Davis matter, the conservator, Davis’s daughter, over Helen H. Davis, the conservatee, in the sale of Davis’s home without her consent)”. Emphasis added.
Finally, “Disturbingly, CARE Court would place Black and brown Californians disproportionately under more court control because discrimination in housing, lending, employment and healthcare has pushed these groups into high rates of houselessness. . . .” Emphasis added.
These are just a few excerpts from the article, written by Olivia Ensign and John Raphling.
UPDATE—June 2, 2022
READERS AND THE PEOPLE (THE REAL PEOPLE) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA : DO NOT LET GOV. NEWSOM TAKE YOU AND YOUR VOTE FOR GRANTED. DO NOT HAVE HIM SUPPORT RACISM AND STILL EXPECT YOUR VOTE. BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE DO NOT LET NEWSOM SPIT IN YOUR FACE AND STILL EXPECT YOUR VOTE.
I WILL NOT LET HIM SPIT IN MY FACE AND SPIT IN MY MOTHER’S FACE, AND STILL VOTE FOR HIM. HE WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. *AT THE RECALL ELECTION, I VOTED FOR HIM AND AGAINST HIS RECALL. BUT, NOT THIS TIME. *THE REAL GOV. NEWSOM HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED. *THIS TIME, I WILL VOTE FOR JOEL VENTRESCA.
*READERS AND THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA , I URGE YOU TO VOTE FOR JOEL VENTRESCA FOR GOVERNOR (HE WANTS TO “END HOMELESSNESS & POVERTY (AND) REVERSE ECONOMIC INEQUALITY.” AND, HE WANTS TO “CREATE (A) JUST, LIVABLE & FLOURISHING CALIFORNIA FOR ALL”, AND “PUSH TO REDUCE EVICTIONS, DISPLACEMENT, AND GENTRIFICATION”).
UPDATE—June 6, 2022
See above at (* ).
UPDATE—June 9, 2022
GOV. NEWSOM IS HEADED TO A RUN-OFF IN NOVEMBER AGAINST A REPUBLICAN OPPONENT : THE MESSAGE TO BLACK CALIFORNIANS : WHOEVER WINS, YOU LOSE.
With 50% of the vote in, Newsom leads with 56% of the vote followed by Brian Dahle with 17%.
I haven’t discovered any real platform that Newsom has (but, I know he supports covert racism) and Dahle says Californians can count on him to “clean up the (homeless) mess.” I wonder how ? Anti-encampment laws ? Or encampment sweeps ? Neither of their positions have the welfare of Black people in mind. So, whoever wins in November, Black folks lose.
Joel Ventresca, the Democratic candidate for governor with the humanitarian platform, received 1% of the vote ( as did 10 others). That should tell you something *about the true views of many Californians, despite California’s “liberal” label. *I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, California might be liberal for white folks and Hispanic immigrants, but it ain’t that liberal, if at all, for Black people.
The same thing applies to Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta and his run-off opponent, Republican Nathan Hochman, who received 54% and 19% of the vote respectively. Whoever wins, Black people lose. *Hochman intends to solve “out-of-control homelessness”. I wonder how ? And, as to Bonta, I based my assessment on personal experience with him and/or his office (which disputes his statement that he “launched first-in-the-nation efforts to ensure every person—regardless of their race or income—is treated equally before the law (emphasis added)). I’m still waiting for it to happen.
UPDATE—July 10, 2022
THE BRUCE BEACH PROPAGANDA : THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERSUADED BY THE PROPAGANDA ARE THE UNINFORMED, THE MISINFORMED, OR UNEDUCATED
First, let me make clear, that I do not include County Supervisor Janice Hahn among those who are putting out this propaganda, trying to convince Black people of Los Angeles County that this single act of kindness, redemption, or justice is the beginning of a pattern of justice to stop the racist taking of Black peoples’ property unlawfully and against their will; or, that this single act of justice will cleanse the on-going record of injustices perpetrated against Black people in Los Angeles County. Supervisor Hahn did a good thing, and she should be thanked for her efforts, as well as the others who assisted in the return of Charles and Willa Bruce’s property to the Bruces and their descendants.
However, the news media, the broadcast media, i.e., television stations, as well as the print media, have attempted to transform a good deed into a perception of intended action and change that they KNOW is not happening in Los Angeles County AT THIS TIME, that is, returning Black peoples’ property, which has been unlawfully taken through racist motivation, to them. And, of course, my mother’s, Helen H. Davis’s, home is the best evidence of this. Moreover, while the media broadcast and print the Bruces’ story of their property being returned, both locally and nationally, after a racially-motivated taking in the PAST, it doesn’t broadcast or print anything about the actual unlawful or racist taking of Black peoples’ property NOW, or presently.
In showing some of the propaganda, I will rely on, at least in part, quoted statements from L.A. Times’ articles. From the Times, “Many say Bruce‘s Beach could forge a path for those seeking to reckon with past injustices that violently dispossessed Indigenous people and blocked Black people, Latinos, Japanese Americans and many others from owning property and building wealth in this country.” And what about “current injustices” ? What about forging a path for those seeking to reckon with “current” injustices that “block( ) Black people. . . .from owning property and building wealth in this country” ? The implication is that there is no racially-motivated “blocking” of Black people from owning property and building wealth TODAY, so we only need to address past injustices or past blocking of Black people . . . from owning property and building wealth in this country. And, we all know that’s not true. Therefore, it’s propaganda.
The Times: Referring to county staff and pro bono counsel, “They’ve received support from state lawmakers and reparations advocates — as well as from Gov. Newsom, who authorized the transfer last September and codified into law that the property had been wrongfully taken” (emphasis added). The implication is that Newsom took the action he did because the Bruces’ property was wrongfully taken (not necessarily because of the racism). If that’s the case, why didn’t he take the same or similar action in the Davis case ? Davis showed that her home was at least wrongfully taken, putting aside the racism. The further implication is that Newsom would do the same thing for another Black family if their home or other property was wrongfully taken through governmental action. The Davis case showed that this isn’t true as well. So, the statement is propaganda.
Finally, from the Times, quoting a part of the decision of L.A. Superior Court judge Mitchell Beckloff, dismissing a case challenging the transfer of the Bruce property, “Righting a government wrong perpetrated in breach of our core and fundamental constitutional principles works to strengthen governmental integrity, represents accountability in government and works to eliminate structural racism and bias”. Clearly, this is a good principle to operate under. But, where is this principle in the Davis case ? Nowhere. But, the implication of the statement is that whenever the courts identify a government wrong in the taking of Black peoples’ property, such as the Bruces’, that wrong will be or should be “righted” by action geared towards the elimination of “structural racism and bias”. And, we know that’s not happening in other cases in L.A. County, e.g., the Davis case. So, it’s propaganda. Not by judge Beckloff, but by the Times publishing the principle without proper context or the full picture.
From the L.A. Wave : Quoting one of the Bruces’ family members, “Our culture and society has changed.” The family member apparently truly believes this. And, the implication is that the Bruces’ circumstance, situation, and outcome (having their property returned after it had been taken or stolen) is evidence of a change in the mindset of white people as a whole in not taking or stealing Black people’s property unlawfully. But, we all know this is not true. Again, the Helen H. Davis case is a perfect example of this (not to mention the likely many others). Thus, the statement, out of context, is publicized propaganda.
THE BOTTOMLINE : Supervisor Hahn made an important contribution to the civil rights movement when she initiated the process of returning the Bruces’ beachfront property stolen through acts of covert racism. But, we shouldn’t make this out to be more than it is. It was simply a single act of relief to a single Black family. And , at the same time that the Bruces’ property is being returned to them, other Black people are simultaneously having their property taking or stolen by white people through the same or similar type of covert racism as was utilized by the city officials of Manhattan Beach and the courts of the State of California in the Bruces’ case. So, when the media produce stories on cases like the Bruces, they should place the coverage in proper context, otherwise , those uninformed listeners or readers might be misled into believing the circumstances are what they are not.
UPDATE—February 28, 2023
TODAY, MRS. DAVIS IS 101 YEARS OLD
Happy birthday, Mamma! God has blessed you. *And, I love you. “I’ll always love my mamma. She’s my favorite girl”.
UPDATE—May 11, 2023
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS NOW DECIDING A PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE FOR A 94-YEAR OLD WIDOWED GRANDMOTHER; TOO BAD MY MOTHER COULD NOT HAVE JOINED THE CASE BEFORE IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT; MAYBE SHE COULD BE GETTING HER HOME BACK SOONER.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering and deciding a case out of Minnesota dealing with the constitutional rights of a 94 year-old widowed grandmother regarding the county seizing and selling her condominium for unpaid property taxes and not returning the remainder of the sum of the sale to her after the property taxes were deducted. The lawyer for Ms. Geraldine Tyler, Christina Martin, argued that the county’s action amounted to a taking of property without just compensation. Tyler’s children had convinced her to give up her condominium and move into an assisted-living facility.
My mother, Helen H. Davis, would be a Black 101 year-old widowed grandmother whose house-home the State of California illegally authorized the sale of without due process of law and equal protection of the law. The State of California indirectly seized her property without her permission and sold the property (through a conservator agent), I assume, and turned over the proceeds to her (Davis), I assume. Davis, like Tyler, had one of her children place her into an assisted care or nursing facility (and arrange for the sale of her home without her consent). I believe the Court’s pending decision would apply the same to both cases. That is, if the decision is positive for Ms. Tyler, it would be positive for Ms. Davis as well, although the cases have some different facts.
Too bad we couldn’t hook up with the Tyler people prior to the case being submitted to the Supreme Court. Then there would have been two over 90 year-old senior widowed women arguing that their property had been taken unconstitutionally by separate States (to include the Counties).
It is anticipated that the Court will reach a decision by the end of this Term.
HAPPY PRE-MOTHER’S DAY MRS. DAVIS
UPDATE—June 15, 2023
The Supreme Court has now decided the Tyler case. It decided that Hennepin County, Minnesota was in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause when it retained the excess value of Ms. Geraldine Tyler’s home above her tax debt. The Court also found that the County violated the Eight Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
As I stated above, if the Court acted favorably in Ms. Tyler’s behalf, I believe it would also act favorably on my mother’s behalf were the issue of the State of California taking her home (or allowing the taking of her home, without her consent), placed before it. But, I knew the Davis taking was not only unconstitutional, but also intentional, for various reasons, including denying me, a Black man, my interest in my mother’s home. And the beat goes on, in Los Angeles County.
**UPDATE—March 12, 2024
ANOTHER PETITION; THE SAME DISCRIMINATORY FLAVOR
In October of last year, I filed two petitions regarding the assumed sale of my mother’s , Helen H. Davis, home. One petition was for an accounting by the conservator (Dianne Jackson) of Davis’s personal and estate property, to determine the status of the property at this time, especially regarding the status of Davis’s home after the Court of Appeal gave Jackson permission to sell Davis’s home without Davis’s consent. That is, after the Court approved the sale of the home, Jackson has not provided an accounting of whether the sale was executed or not, and, if so, what happened to the proceeds of the sale.
I also filed a petition for removal of Jackson as conservator for various reasons, including the sale of Davis’s home without Davis’s consent. Another reason was that Jackson had failed and/or refused to take my mother to the burials of either of her (my mother’s) last remaining two living sisters, both over 100 years old as well when they passed. And, as for the last remaining sister, Ruby Wheeler, Jackson picked and chose who to inform of the burial amongst our various relatives. And, she did not inform me as well. And so, I don’t want Jackson to be the final decision maker regarding my mother’s passing when that time comes.
After I filed the petitions, the probate office assigned dates and times for the petitions to be heard, January, 2024. When I appeared in January, at the outset, the discrimination began. The judge was Lynn H. Scaduto, who appeared to be a white female.
After my case was called, after being continued from the 8:30 am calendar to the 10:30 am one, I approached and stated my appearance. Jackson’s counsel, Robin Chow, made an appearance remotely or telephonically. The first thing Scaduto said was that I did not give notice. This was false as to Jackson, because I did give notice, otherwise, how did Chow know to appear ? Subsequently, Scaduto, after going through the record further, discovered the proof of service and opined that it was different or unusual.
Next, she addressed a past restraining order that has expired (and which never should have been granted in the first place, being based on lies). And she entertained feedback from Chow, who indicated that Jackson was still fearful or something to that extent. Chow indicated that she planned to file objections. So, Scaduto continued the hearing to February, 2024, and directed me to give notice to my mother’s court-appointed attorney.
Mind you, up to this point, Scaduto never mentioned the Petitions themselves, or what the case was about. So that anyone attending the hearing would have had no idea what the case or petitions were about.
Thus, sometime after the hearing, I filed a CCP 170 against judge Scaduto, charging her with being prejudiced against me, and claiming that I cannot receive a fair hearing before her.
That expired restraining order has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the current petitions, other than a display of racial and gender discrimination.
Following my submission of the CCP 170, there was a change in assignment of judges, but who did the Probate Court assign as the new judge ? Judge Deborah Christian, who is Black, and who had denied me my right to a jury trial in an unlawful detainer case (brought by Jackson) several years ago, and after the jury trial right was denied, the case was assigned to a judge who further denied my rights by relying on the word of a probate supervisor rather than the law to resolve a legal dispute (i.e., whether Jackson had the legal authority to evict me from my mother’s home) which was resolved against me, a Black male.
Now, I will probably file another 170 against judge Christian, when I appear before her, trying to obtain a fair judge. If Christian keeps my case, I will conclude that the Probate Court intends to deny me my constitutional rights.
