March 30, 2018
Links to this site appear in the March 29 2018 issue on page S12 of the USC Daily Trojan Housing Guide 2018
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DETAILS CITY LOS ANGELES SUED OVER HOUSING DISCRIMINATION “Will this Court order all Ham-Jew-DNA-Kushite/Blacks across America to be lynched because this Court feels Ham-Jew-DNA-Kushite/Blacks are not entitled to protection under the United States Constitution and all laws?” Court document 120, filed 10-11-17, page ID 2747-2748.
See the online issue of Random Lengths news [of San Pedro], Feb . 22 issue and page 17.
To see additional discussions about what is fair housing and to see copies of posted Videos, click Youtube channel “Davey GJuanvalldez”
Why racism thrives in America
[Editor: As of January 29, 2018, the city rent control department Maria Wood and Rushmore Cervantes and the state department of fair employment and housing have refused to respond to recent complaints about the property. Does this make you feel safe at Hi Point? Is fair housing a joke in America? Do you want to reside at 1522 Hi Point St 90035 ]
As told to Federal Judges Julie L. Staton and Andrew J Wistrich
FIRST AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [“The Ku Klux Klan Act”] AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATIVE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
HI POINT APTS, LLC , CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, WALTER BARRATT, INDIVIDUAL, CLIFF RENFREW, INDIVIDUAL, ARMIDA OLGUIN-FLORES, INDIVIDUAL, BARBARA BRASCIA, INDIVIDUAL, ALAN CHEN, INDIVIDUAL, RICHARD BRINSON, INDIVIDUAL, CHARLES GARCIA, INDIVIDUAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-10 inclusive.
…why would two white Judges not want a Black man to have “full and equal housing services and privileges”…
LOS ANGELES- In the year 2016, a Black Man, denied for months housing services of working intercom, tandem parking stall, and rent reductions, asked two federal Judges for relief. Relief was denied.
The question is: in America in the year 2018, why would two white Judges not want a Black man to have “full and equal housing services and privileges”? The Judge’s were told the city had granted tandem parking stalls and working intercoms to over fifteen tenants who are white; that the City authorized the infamous THP which entitles the Blacks to a working intercom [at some time in the unknown future]; that the City of Los Angeles had ordered the intercom repair or replacement of units where tenants are white ; that the city had authorized the capital improvements intercom system and charged the Black tenants a rent increase even though the intercom for Blacks was never repaired or replaced; that the owner told the DFEH he was installing brand new intercoms in units. So if not for racism and corruption why did Judges Staton and Wistrich seemingly ignore their own city government agency orders just to deprive a Blackman of rights?
Apparently the court ruling only applied to the federal claims while the court said it would not rule on the state causes of action. Thus a suit could be filed in State Court based on the same set of facts and same defendants. In the initial federal complaint, the defendant city of Los Angeles admitted the allegations as true [against all defendants] because its responsive motion was untimely. The city of Los Angeles narrowly missed entry of default judgment. Then plaintiff amended the complaint voluntarily. None of the defendants filed an “Answer” to the amended complaint, thus none of the defendants denied the allegations of racism, retaliation, and pattern and practice.
…if not for racism and corruption why did Judges Staton and Wistrich seemingly ignore their own government agency orders just to deprive a Blackman of rights?…
At one point, defendants property owner Hi Point Apts LLC [Walter Barratt] and their management company Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc. of Santa Monica, mounted a motion to declare the Plaintiff Blackman “vexatious”. The defendants asked for $25,000 in advance fees and costs. The Plaintiff opposed the motion and asked for $2 million dollars against each defendant and each attorney for the defendants filing of a “frivolous” motion. The court denied the defendants’ motion. That decision may be res judicata in the next lawsuit.
Good news: Black plaintiff beats out racist owner’s bid for $25,000
[Keep in mind that if a Court says you have not presented enough facts or not worded your complaint properly, it does not necessarily mean the defendants are not liable. It just means you did not present your case properly. In this case, the Judges did not grant the relief requested, but they also did not tell the defendants they are not liable to follow civil rights laws. Further, in this case, the continuing rent agreement and non-compliance, etc. represents new and continuing damages so the court decision may be inapplicable to continuing and new evidence.]
Excerpts from court documents
[Editor: This has been redacted. The original Court filed amended complaint is 335 pages including Exhibits. Notes in brackets or large bold headings below do not appear in the court filed complaint.]
Causes of Action First Amended Complaint filed September 9, 2016
[Federal law claims]
42 USC section 3604 Housing Discrimination
Civil Rights Act 1964 Title II Public Accommodation
42 USC section 1981 Fourteenth Amendment Equal Rights
42 USC 1983 The Ku Klux Klan Act
Title VI Civil Rights Act 1964 Race Discrimination in Federally Funded Program
42 USC section 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
42 USC section 2000a Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
[State law claims]
Health and Safety Code 17920-17928
California Government Code sections 12955-12956.2 Housing Discrimination
CC 51,52 Unruh Act and Unlawful Retaliation
CC 51,52 Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
GC 12940(h) Retaliation
CC 1942.3 Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability
BC 17200-17210 False and Deceptive Business Practices
Accounting/Co-Mingling of Funds
CC section 1940.4 Tenant Posting of Signs
CC section 1714(a) Negligence
CC section 1740 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
LAMC sections 151-155 Los Angeles Rent Control Ordinance
Breach of Contract Rental Agreement
CC 41.33 Implied Covenant Quiet Enjoyment
Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Violation of Mandatory Duties Under GC 815.6
CC 1942.5 Retaliation for Exercising Rights
Failure to Act in a Reasonable Manner
JUDGE: Hon. Julie L. Stanton
Magistrate Judge: Hon. Judge Andrew J. Wistrich
Case No. CV 16-03236-JLS (AJW); Central District Los Angeles, original complaint filed May 11, 2016.
Defendants Armida Olguin-Flores, Barbara Brascia, Richard Brinson, and Charles Garcia are employees of he City of Los Angeles, California, they are sued herein in their official capacity and individual capacity.
…The quandary posed herein is can the Plaintiff , who is perceived as a “Nigger” by the defendants, get fair housing in America?…
Defendant ALAN CHEN is an employee of the County of Los Angeles, California and the Department of Public Health. At all times in the Complaint he is sued in his official and individual capacity.
The quandary posed herein is can the Plaintiff ,who is perceived as a “Nigger” by the defendants, get fair housing in America? Is the Plaintiff as a Ham-Jew-DNA-Kushite/Black, race/color, over the age of 60, entitled to fair housing in America? Is an intercom a housing service? Is a tandem parking stall a housing service? Can the defendants state a legitimate business interest for treating the Plaintiff like a “Nigger”?
…the Ku Klux Klan, which was denying citizens their civil and political rights…
Can the Plaintiff, as a Black man in America in the year 2016, get housing services at the 1522 Hi Point Apartments, 90035? Is arbitrary and circumstantial discrimination actionable in America? White tenants in the building have the privilege of an intercom but the Plaintiff, a Black, does not for over two years.
The catalyst for the enactment of the Act 42 U.S.C. section §1983 was the “campaign of violence and deception in the South, fomented by the Ku Klux Klan, which was denying citizens their civil and political rights.
[Editor: Which begs the questions, do two Judges who are white know what an intercom and parking stall are? I guess they know it is a privilege for Whites.]
Under the United States Constitution, Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
“…The State has denied Plaintiff equal protection of the federal and state civil rights law that prohibit housing discrimination…”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The State has denied Plaintiff equal protection of the federal and state civil rights law that prohibit housing discrimination.
Tenants who are white at the 1522 HI POINT St address continue to enjoy the advantage and privilege of a working intercom and tandem parking stall while the Plaintiff, a Black, is deprived of such housing terms and conditions.
The State of California and DFEH has used the state civil rights statutes to deny Plaintiff equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment and full and equal terms, conditions, advantages, privileges, and accommodations at 1522 Hi Point Apartments.
…Each defendant is responsible for plaintiffs’ injuries by personally participating in the unlawful conduct; acting jointly and in concert with others…
The City of Los Angeles , and its departments, has used the city Rent Control Ordinance to deny Plaintiff equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment and full and equal terms, conditions, advantages, privileges, and accommodations at 1522 Hi Point Apartments.
Upon information and belief, one or more of these Doe defendants failed adequately to train CITY and COUNTY personnel and to promulgate appropriate policies to prevent race-based practices, and all of them have established, implemented and enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and practices that have caused plaintiffs’ injuries.
Each defendant is responsible for plaintiffs’ injuries by personally participating in the unlawful conduct; acting jointly and in concert with others who did so; authorizing, acquiescing or failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; promulgating policies and procedures pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred; failing and refusing, with deliberate indifference, to implement and maintain adequate training and supervision; and/or by ratifying the unlawful conduct.
At all times, defendants ratified and condoned the discriminatory conduct of each other in their scheme to deny Plaintiff fair housing.
[Editor: Standing in the Apts House Door:]
Plaintiff has had numerous communications with public officials over the last years. None of them have been able to get the Plaintiff a working intercom and tandem parking stall. The public officials/emails and others acting under color of law include: but are not limited to : Marilyn G London, Fred Pippin, Lorrie Sakuchi, Cynthia Ogan, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Gilbert Cedillo, Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, David E. Ryu, Paul Koretz, Nury Martinez, Felipe Fuentes, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren D. Price, Jr., Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Mike Bonin, Mitchell Englander, Mitch O’Farrell, Jose Huizar, Joe Buscaino, Javier Nunez Raymond D. Chan, Frank Bush Jeffery J. Daar, Tai Glenn, Jose Oliva, Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman PittsPaula Leftwich Jane Paul, Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator, Araceli Sophia Gonzalez, Supervisor; Javier Nunez, Raymond D. Chan, Frank Bush, Jeffery J. Daar, Tai Glenn, Carole Brogdon, Leonora Gershman , Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane, email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org), RSO Contact (email@example.com); Fair Housing Doj (firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org); Hi LLC (email@example.com); Cliff Renfrew (firstname.lastname@example.org); David Greene (email@example.com); Charles Garcia (firstname.lastname@example.org); Lincoln Lee (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com); Rodney Arias (firstname.lastname@example.org); David Casian (email@example.com); Steve Ongele (firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org); Ifa Kashefi (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com); Jeff Paxton (firstname.lastname@example.org); Debbie L. Harmon, (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org ,(email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org ,(email@example.com) .
By their actions each and every one, the defendants have determined that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the protections and benefits of the federal and state constitutions and civil rights laws.
“…Unlawful discrimination can be circumstantial, arbitrary, disparate treatment, disparate impact, indirect, direct, or consequential…”
At all times, defendants City of Los Angeles, California, County of Los Angeles, California, and State of California and its employees, Alan Chen, Armida Olguin-Flores, Richard Brinson, Barbara Brascia, Charles Garcia, acted under color of law.
California government code section 8557 states, (b) “Political subdivision” includes any city, city and county, county, district, or other local governmental agency or public agency authorized by law.
Government code section 811.2 states: “Public entity” includes the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State.
Unlawful discrimination can be circumstantial, arbitrary, disparate treatment, disparate impact, indirect, direct, or consequential.
Based on information and belief, Plaintiff states that thousands of tenants are at risk of the threat of injury due to the racist practices of the city and county government entities named, that such actions are pattern and practice of the city and county governments.
“…The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 3614(a)…”
As of the date of this Complaint, the resident manager Cynthia Ogan, a white, has been given parking for three cars. Tenants Apt 9, both Black, have been given parking for only one car. The property owner and the city Rent Stabilization Department and the State of California, and State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, are liable for this disparity and denial of full equal terms and conditions, advantages, and privileges that has damaged Plaintiff.
Discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a rental dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, in violation of federal and state civil rights laws applicable to private individuals, persons, and government entities, in violation 42 U.S.C. section 3604(b)
The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 3614(a).
None of the defendant’s have stated to the Plaintiff when the intercom will be repaired.
None of the defendants has stated to Plaintiff, a Black American, when he will will receive the full and equal privilege of a tandem parking stall.
The city government of Los Angeles and Armida Olguin-Flores, Richard Brinson, Barbara Brascia, and Charles Garcia have admitted the allegations of this complaint as true.
HI POINT has by ignoring many of Plaintiff’s inquiries, has engaged in knowledgeable inaction, violating Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The owner’s direct participation in the discriminatory practice is not necessary; punitive damages may be awarded where the owner ignored its duties under the law or otherwise engaged in “knowledgeable inaction.” HI POINT knowingly ignored its duties under the law.
“…The city government of Los Angeles and Armida Olguin-Flores, Richard Brinson, Barbara Brascia, and Charles Garcia have admitted the allegations of this complaint as true…”
That “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Civil Code 51, 52 Unruh Act. By their actions, the Defendants, each and every one, have unreasonably decided that Plaintiff is a “Nigger” and is not a “person” who is entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
That all defendants who received complaints about the intercom needing maintenance have failed to act in a reasonable manner.
That Plaintiff, a Black American, has been “practice and pattern” systematically excluded from the use of the common area intercom.
The usage and deprivation of rights because of Plaintiff’s race was a pattern and practice over the last 12 months or more enforced by officials of the State of California, State Department of Fair Employment and Housing and “political subdivisions city and county, county, district, or other local governmental agency or public agency authorized by law”, and more specifically by the City of Los Angeles, California, the County of Los Angeles, California, the county Public Health Department of Los Angeles County [county and Public Health for the intercom only], and the City of Los Angeles Code Enforcement, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and Los Angeles City Housing and Community Investment Department.
[In the court case CV16-03236 JLS, other attorneys and defendants have linked the Ashcroft v. Iqbal terrorism case to 1522 Hi Point Apartments (90035). The terrorism case is used in court documents by defendants Hi Point Apts, LLC, the State of California, and the City of Los Angeles government and employees Armida Olguin-Flores, Barbara Brascia, Richard Brinson, Charles Garcia, as stated in court document 103, filed 11-7-2016, page ID 2610, paragraph 25. Lawyers for same defendants included Martin Ageson, Robert P. Moore, Mike Feuer, Jared A. Barry. The court judges are Hon Andrew J. Wistrich and Hon. Julie L. Staton.]
COURT RULING BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER 22, 2017. DOCKET ENTRY 117 [redacted from 19 page ruling]:
“It is hereby adjudged that plaintiff’s federal claims against all defendants except Walter Barratt and Cliff Renfrew are dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, and the action is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Baratt and Renfrew.”
[Editor: This has been redacted. The original Court filed amended complaint is 335 pages including Exhibits. Notes in brackets or large bold headings do not appear in the court filed complaint. The case can be viewed for free at the courthouse, or for cost downloaded online at pacer.gov.]
[Editor: I believe this country’s government has a master plan to exterminate all Blacks in the next 20 years. Black birthrates are down. Asians and Latino numbers are way up. Where will YOU be when America becomes China? Did you know the term “Justice” originated from the term “Just-Us”?]
28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Good news but did you miss the Ardon Lawsuit
The lawsuit, called Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, case number BC363959, was filed by a Los Angeles resident who believes that the City improperly required telephone service providers to collect tax on telephone services that were not legally taxable. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that prior to March 15, 2008, the Los Angeles UUT should have been collected only on local telephone service and long distance service where charges for calls varied by both time and distance. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated taxpayers. The City denied and continues to deny that the UUT was improperly collected.
For more info click here https://www.lataxrefund.com/faqs.aspx .