Department of fair employment told about anti-semitism at Hi Point Apts

December 1, 2018

A new DFEH complaint has been filed against 1522 Hi Point St Apts LLC

the AAGLA, and the city government of Los Angeles- USPS proof of delivery number 9510 8142 4680 8309 1715 17; City claim for damages USPS 9510 8142 4680 8309 1715 24; and Department of Real Estate USPS proof of delivery 9510 8066 6481 8303 0030 01. All tenants are named in all complaints. All complaints are considered to be Public documents accessible thru Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council President Herb Wesson, etc. Herb Wesson has encouraged G. Juan Johnson to run for Council District 10.

August 11, 2018

Tenant Alert: Restricting repairman from your unit is illegal

LAMC 41.33 “Peaceful Enjoyment”. LANDLORDS – DISTURBING TENANTS. “No person, except a duly authorized officer pursuant to the authority of legal process, shall interfere with the peaceful enjoyment, use, possession or occupancy of any premises by the lawful lessee or tenant of such premises either by threat, fraud, intimidation, coercion, duress, or by the maintenance or toleration of a public nuisance, or by cutting off heat, light, water, fuel or free communication by anyone by mail, telephone or otherwise, or by restricting trade or tradesmen from or to any such tenant.”

August 11, 2018

 

SUBJECT: Supplement to the complaint to DFEH Dated April 14, 2018

FROM:  (TENANT 9 EMAIL AND NAME REDACTED)

TO: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; gloria.morales@dfeh.ca.gov;

CC: appeals@dfeh.ca.gov; thefirstjew@yahoo.com; ca_webmanager@hud.gov; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.englander@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; david.ryu@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.Krekorian@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; controller.galperin@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; thefirstjew@yahoo.com; karen.baggio@lacity.org; robert.galardi@lacity.org; angelo.shannon@lacity.org; steve.ongele@lacity.org; richard.horn@lacity.org; crystal.otero@lacity.org; corey.hupp@lacity.org; paula.hudak@lacity.org; emily.hu@lacity.org; terry.herr@lacity.org; michael.hughes@lacity.org; jonathan.hom@lacity.org; maria.a.hernandez@lacity.org; scott.matsunaga@lacity.org; info@smchamber.com; robert.hughes@lacity.org; diana@aagla.org; tenantrelationsatyourapt@gmail.com; ali4servicing@gmail.com; info@da.lacounty.gov; charles.v.garcia@lacity.org; Dan@aagla.org; matt@aagla.org; Janet@aagla.org; nia@aagla.org; Karen@aagla.org; jessica@aagla.org; Alex@aagla.org; dee@aagla.org; Maureen@aagla.org; Jennifer@aagla.org; diana@aagla.org;

Date: Saturday, August 11, 2018 5:06 PM

State Department of Fair Employment and Housing 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100
Elk Grove, CA 95758

Ravi Rangi, in official capacity and individual and personal capacity
Mimi Infantino, in official capacity and individual and personal capacity Karina Araboloza. in official capacity and individual and personal capacity Gloria Morales, in official capacity and individual and personal capacity Kevin Kish, Director, in official capacity and individual and personal capacity

AAGLA Staff

Daniel Yukelson, Matthew Farghum, Janet Gagnon, Karen Truong, Jessica Garcia, Alex Paladin, Dee Travillion, Mona Begum, Maureen Farrell, Maria Arnold, Jennifer Lee, Diana Alcaraz, Jonathan Arambel, Steve Carlson

Dear DFEH et al:

This shall verify that a package entitled “Complaint of Discrimination Under the Provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act” (signed April 14, 2018) with (1) Attachment – six pages (2) Email March 27, 2018 at 12:31 pm (3) Email April 13, 2018 at 2:00 pm (4) Email January 2, 2018 at 5:18 pm (5) City code enforcement complaint March 21 2018 city number 667856. Nine pages. was delivered to your office and signed for by L. Lopez on May 24, 2018. (Previously delivered April 18, 2018 at 11:57 am).
The allegations necessary to prove unlawful discrimination and retaliation, including sufficient facts, have been provided to the California Department of Fair Employment. I review some of those facts below but without waiver to the complaints/appeals/HUD requests. The complaint applies generally to deprivation of housing services: intercom, tandem parking stall, maintenance, and rent reductions, and general damages. Many of the emails showing facts, dates, and individuals were copied to the DFEH as the events were happening. All emails forwarded to the DFEH, as part of these complaints , show facts, dates, and individuals. The question remains how do I as a Black American receive housing service terms and conditions “intercom, tandem parking stall, maintenance, rent reductions, and general damages” at this location? The question remains unanswered.

 

Under the Fair Housing Act, this address 1522 Hi Point Apts 90035 is a covered entity, the rental agreement between unit 9 and the property owner is a covered transaction, and the allegations of discrimination based on Race, Color, age, and retaliation are covered basis of discrimination.

Respondent names, addresses and phones

HI POINT APTS LLC
Walter Barratt
226 Carroll Canal Venice CA 90291 Phone 310-895-6693
JADE BECK
HI POINT APTS LLC
Walter Barratt
226 Carroll Canal Venice CA 90291 Phone 310-895-6693
Williams Real Estate Advisors [“WREA”] 2701 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 140
Santa Monica CA 90405
310-987-7978
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY CLERK
200 NORTH SPRING STREET ROOM 395 CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES CA 90012
RSD/HCIDLA
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY CLERK
200 NORTH SPRING STREET ROOM 395 CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES CA 90012
LADBS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY CLERK
200 NORTH SPRING STREET ROOM 395 CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES CA 90012
MOZANNAR CONSTRUCTION C/O HI POINT APTS LLC Walter Barratt
226 Carroll Canal
Venice CA 90291 Phone 310-895-6693
CYNTHIA OGAN
C/O HI POINT APTS LLC
Walter Barratt
226 Carroll Canal
Venice CA 90291 Phone 310-895-6693
 Alternative addresses for Walter Barratt, Hi Point Apts, Jade Beck, Cynthia Ogan, Ali Mozannar: Walter Barratt , Hi Point Apts LLC, 14 Ozone Avenue, Venice CA 90291; HI POINT APTS LLC , 11693 SAN VICENTE BLVD SUITE 351, LOS ANGELES CA 90049-5105.
MOZANNAR CONSTRUCTION INC 10721 BLOOMFIELD ST #1 NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91602 Business Phone Number:(818) 3358175

Tenant names

This list is subject to verification by city rent stabilization department. The parking stalls cannot be verified because the Respondent refuses to release a list of parking assignments by tenant. Unit 1: Cynthia Ogan and Darren Navis, working intercom and parking for five vehicles (two tandem parking stalls, one single stall), race white; unit 2: unknown; unit 3: Hiramatsu-Hiramatsu, working intercom, race White; unit 4: unit 5: Daniel Dirgo-non-working intercom, parking single stall, race White; unit 6: Joseph Perez-working intercom, parking single stall, race White; unit 7: Heidi Cravens- working intercom, parking single stall, race White; unit 8: Tyler Ruggeri-non-working intercom; parking single stall, race White; unit 9: [two tenants names redacted], non-working intercom, parking single stall, race both Black; unit 10- Jacqueline Tilak-working intercom, parking single stall, race White; unit 11: Christina and Tony, working intercom, parking unknown, race White; unit 12: Helen Lockwood- working intercom, parking unknown, race White; unit 13: Basel Sbeini Trisha Dobbs- Oneximo Gonzalez-working intercom; parking unknown, race White; unit 14: Mary Mondrus, working intercom, parking unknown, race White; unit 15: unknown; unit 16: Sean Sinclair; unit 17: LEE KAPLAN, working intercom, parking unknown, race White; unit 18: Charlotte White and ……, working intercom, parking unknown, race two Whites.

Los Angeles City Council

councilmember.wesson@lacity.org councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org councilmember.huizar@lacity.org councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org councilmember.englander@lacity.org councilmember.bonin@lacity.org councilmember.price@lacity.org councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org councilmember.martinez@lacity.org paul.koretz@lacity.org david.ryu@lacity.org councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org councilmember.Krekorian@lacity.org councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org controller.galperin@lacity.org mayor.garcetti@lacity.org

Rent paid

Since 2014, unit 9 tenants have paid approximately $62,000 in rent monies (current) which have benefited the Respondents.

1. Direct evidence
2. Disparate treatment
3. Disparate impact
4. Arbitrary discrimination : Unruh

DIRECT EVIDENCE

I start with the direct evidence that was supplied by the DFEH presumably from all respondents, and as also regards the denial of tandem parking:

“The Respondents asserted none of the intercoms in the building were working when they took over management, but they began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had a chance to renovate the empty units.” (and)

 

“They [Respondents] stated the four units with non-working intercoms, including your apartment, are occupied by long term tenants, which is why those units continue to have intercoms that do not work.” May 18, 2016 letter from DFEH which I believe constitute unlawful discrimination.

Since the above statements are quoted from the DFEH letter, I will presume them to be factual as what the Respondents actually said and continue to practice to this day. As such the statements are direct evidence. “Evidence of the respondent’s discriminatory motive may be either direct or indirect.” HUD website. “Direct evidence is defined as evidence that “proves [the] existence of [the] fact in issue without inference or presumption.” HUD. Since the DFEH presented these statements for the record, then they constitute “facts, dates, and individuals”. I examine the statements for unlawful motive in light of what is “reasonable”. The respondent admits they took legal responsibility for the maintenance of the intercom system (April 2014) and they say they “began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had the chance to renovate the empty units.” It is important here that the Respondent admits their duty to maintain the intercom system, such duty which has been at the crux of the participation of all respondents. Their duty to maintenance, by their own statement, does not extend to myself and roommate as Black tenants. Maintenance is a lawful motive. But then the Respondent states he “began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises”; this becomes the beginning of the unlawful motive because by omission the Respondent clearly admits he intentionally does not install working intercoms in the units of about fourteen units, occupied by Black tenants, initially only installing intercoms to the five vacant units (replacement intercoms were installed at different times, not all at once, from 2014 to about 2016), and thus admitting as direct evidence that he intentionally did not replace the intercom of the Respondent (two Black tenants). Alternatively, if this is not direct evidence of motive, it certainly is indirect evidence of discriminatory motive because tenants unit 9 are Black which the Respondent is aware such tenants are in a protected class (covered basis of discrimination) and have complained about the denial of intercom maintenance. One by one, as the five vacant units become filled with white tenants who received a working intercom, the Respondent still denied working intercoms to Black tenants (Claimant and others). Intentional. The question I have asked, which I think any reasonable person would ask, is —-if not for unlawful discrimination and retaliation due to race and color of tenants, Black —-why did the Respondents not replace the intercoms in the units that had not been vacated and were occupied by Black tenants? There seems to be no answer here to that question in these statements by the Respondent and that do not appear in the Claimant’s rental agreement nor were they communicated to any or all tenants at the time (2014-2018). The Respondent claims work began on the intercoms “when he had a chance”. Again unlawful motive because it is not reasonable that the Respondent would install working intercoms only in vacant units, skip the occupied units, and they allege he did not have a chance (time) to replace the other intercoms of the Blacks, like myself. The DFEH never questions why between 2014- 2018, the Respondents never have the “chance” to replace the other intercoms. The Respondents second statement, alleging long term tenants, is direct evidence that the Respondent blames the tenants’ longevity for why they have non-working intercoms; I believe this constitutes further direct evidence of discriminatory motive because the phrase ‘long term tenants’ really translates to mean because they are ‘the Black tenants”. I believe similar arguments are used by the Respondents for their unlawful motives of not providing myself and roommate—both Blacks—-with a tandem parking, etc. Over the course of 2014-2018, the owner has supplied to my unit 9 bathroom working faucets, bathroom working copper tubing, kitchen working garbage disposal, working smoke and carbon monoxide detector, all new parts and while the unit is occupied —-and ignored the non-working intercom, and not once did the Respondent voice objection to the repairs and say it is because I am a long term tenant or because my unit is not vacant or because he did not have a chance.

“…the Respondents are racists…”

The preponderance of the evidence indicates the Respondents are racists, their statements to the DFEH are direct evidence, and their statements to the DFEH are alternatively pre-textual. The claim that the unit must be “vacant” to repair the intercom is not borne out by the evidence; there is no evidence in the rent agreement that the unit must be vacant for any repairs to be done. The statement that long term tenants is why the intercom does not work is not borne out by the evidence; there is no truth to the fact that tenants unit 9 did anything to cause the intercoms to stop working, nor has the Respondents made any statement to myself that I caused the intercom to stop working. An intercom is much like a light fixture, or a smoke detector, or a garbage disposal: none of them require the unit to be vacant to be maintained: repaired, replaced, or removed. Respondents assertion that the units must be vacant in order to maintain the intercoms is false.

 

Unfortunately, the record is sparse and lacking in specificity as to how much money it would take to repair the intercoms and provide tandem parking stalls; the Respondents do not reveal how much time it takes for a “chance” to repair fifteen intercoms which by some records would take no longer than one day, certainly not four years; it is not specified in the Respondents’ statement the correlation between “long term tenant” and the Respondent’s refusal to provide housing services of maintenance and parking to Black tenants. “Moreover, without any responsive pleadings or record evidence, the … (Claimant) do not have the facts they need to allege each of the elements of a prima facie case. These statements underscore the danger of dismissing a discrimination case on a minimal record.” GILLIGAN v. JAMCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , 9th Cir., Court of Appeals, 1997. No. 9556290.

Further, in order to validate the Respondent’s May 16 assertions as “reasonable” and “good faith”, the DFEH should question was any of the statements of Respondent told to tenants who occupied units with non-working intercoms, is “maintenance” and “housing services” a part of the rental agreements (mine says “including but not limited to” housing services), did Respondents have the “chance” to enter the premises (based on the fact I have provided ample evidence that the Respondents were on the premises numerous times between 2014-2018 and conducting the admitted primary renovations), are the long term tenants in four units (now three units because one unit was repaired) entitled to maintenance under any agreement or theory of law, and if not, why not? These are the questions relevant to the validity of the Respondent statements and this Complaint, but it does not appear the DFEH is able to ask those questions.

DISPARATE TREATMENT

Alternatively, again looking at the Respondents reported May 2016 statements above, I have alleged disparate treatment. According to HUD documents: “First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, if the plaintiff sufficiently establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for its action. Third, if the defendant satisfies this burden, the plaintiff has the opportunity to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the legitimate reasons asserted by the defendant are in fact mere pretext.” Going backwards for the third requirement, I have proven that the Respondents statements May 2016 are pretext, but the DFEH does not accept that. The requirements are fairly simple to establish a prima facie case: HUD: “Once these four points are shown, a prima facie case is established, and an inference of unlawful motive is created.

In a refusal-to-rent case, for example, a prima facie case would be established by proof that:

(1) the complainant is a member of a group protected by the Fair Housing Act;
(2) the complainant applied to the respondent for a unit and met the minimum qualifications for rental;
(3) the respondent, knowing that the complainant was a member of a protected class, rejected or passed over the complainant; and,
(4) the unit remained available thereafter similarly situated persons who are not members of the complainant’s protected to class.”

 

The documents submitted by me clearly show I have established the prima facie case as regards unlawful discrimination regarding the intercom and parking. I became a tenant in 2010 and when the current owner Respondent purchased the building in 2014, I qualified for all housing services particularly parking, intercom, and maintenance as they were available (present) at the time of my inception of tenancy. The new intercoms/maintenance , and tandem parking stalls, were available and similarly situated tenants, who were not Black, received such housing privileges in 2014 forward. I have repeatedly requested the Respondents to provide a working intercom and tandem parking stall and such services have not been provided after I started making my complaints in 2014 forward.

Since the Respondent clearly admitted he assumed and had the duty to maintain the intercom system, he intentionally denied such maintenance to myself because I am Black, and in retaliation because I complained (2014-current), and his statements are proven to be pre-textual and unlawful motive. If the Respondents has the duty to maintain the intercom, and they have not done so (2014- 2018) for myself or any other tenant who is Black, then their actions are unlawful motive and illegal discrimination.

“We hold that, while the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine standard orchestrates the burdens of proof in a Title VIII case, it does not dictate the required elements of a complaint. “ GILLIGAN v. JAMCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , 9th Cir., Court of Appeals, 1997. No. 9556290. “The FHA prohibits discrimination in the application process itself, and the Gilligans were denied the opportunity to inspect, or even inquire about, a rental at Verdugo Gardens. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).” and “The McDonnell Douglas/Burdine elements will be irrelevant if the Gilligans are able to advance direct evidence of discrimination. Id.; see also Kormoczy v. United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 53 F.3d 821, 824 (7th Cir.1995) ( “Where direct evidence is used to show that a housing decision was made in violation of the statute, the burden shifting analysis is inapposite.”); Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1006 (9th Cir.1985) (“[A] plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment without satisfying the McDonnell Douglas test.”)” and “Adapted to a disparate treatment claim under the FHA, the McDonnell Douglas/ Burdine proof standard requires a plaintiff to establish that she is a member of a protected class who applied for and was qualified to rent housing, that she was rejected, and that the housing opportunity remained available. See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-95, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).”

Working intercoms and tandem parking stalls remain available at this 1522 Hi Point Apts location controlled by the Respondents. The preponderance of the evidence indicates the Respondents are racists.

DISPARATE IMPACT

HUD: “In order to establish a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on the discriminatory impact theory, the complainant has the burden of proving that the respondent’s policy disproportionately excludes or otherwise harms the housing opportunities of a class of persons protected by the Act.”

Again, the alleged Respondent’s housing services policy statements above, were never communicated by the Respondents to myself as tenant, nor do I believe they were communicated to any other tenants. The statements as such, however, excludes and harms the housing services of myself and my roommate as Black tenants. According to the Respondents statements, Blacks who are long term tenants and who live in occupied units and who complain about it will be unlawfully discriminated against and denied housing services and maintenance because they are Black and because they complain. The phrase “long term tenants” is akin to “the Black tenants”. Since 2014 of not receiving intercom maintenance and tandem parking has a significant adverse or disproportionate impact on the protected class of Black tenants, myself and my roommate in particular. The class of Black tenants is those tenants who are long term tenants and are in an occupied apartment; myself and my roommate are the only Blacks in that class; whites who have the privilege of working intercom and tandem parking stall are in the class of tenants who moved into a vacant unit and are not long term tenants; this class distinction has been made by the Respondents and supported by the DFEH.

“Where there is no evidence of intent to discriminate, a plaintiff may still bring a claim because the defendant’s actions had a discriminatory effect. Under this theory, proving discriminatory intent is not required. This appears to be the accepted rule among most jurisdictions.The elements of a Fair Housing Act prima facie case under this theory are an outwardly neutral practice, and proof that the practice has a significant adverse or disproportionate impact on a protected class; raising an inference of discriminatory impact is insufficient. After the plaintiff has established a prima facie case the defendant is afforded an opportunity to provide nondiscriminatory reasons for the practice. With regards to the reasons, it is unclear if the defendant must prove “compelling business necessity”, legitimate business purpose, or some standard in between.” Respondents, each and every one, have failed to offer a non-discriminatory or legitimate business reason for their actions.
At all times herein, as evidenced by the emails, code enforcement complaints, and other documentation provided to the DFEH, Respondents from 2014 forward, a significant impact, and at all times have had the “chance” and opportunity to provide the housing services working intercom, tandem parking stall, and maintenance. This is a rent controlled building under control of the City of Los Angeles, the city of Los Angeles being a political subdivision of the State of California. The acts of the Respondents are intentional to cause harm to myself, and a proximate cause of the damages to myself, continuing.

Arbitrary Discrimination of Respondents

Prohibited under Unruh as stated in the Complaint. Also see

3060. Unruh Civil Rights Act—Essential Factual Elements (Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52)

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] denied [him/her] full and equal [accommodations/advantages/facilities/privileges/services] because of [his/her] [sex/race/color/religion/ancestry/ national origin/ disability/medical condition/genetic information/marital status/sexual orientation/[insert other actionable characteristic]]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: Proven by Respondent Statements to DFEH

1. That [name of defendant] [denied/aided or incited a denial of/discriminated or made a distinction that denied] full and equal [accommodations/advantages/facilities/privileges/ services] to [name of plaintiff]; Proven by Respondents Statements to DFEH
2. [That a substantial motivating reason for [name of defendant]’s conduct was [its perception of] [name of plaintiff]’s [sex/race/color/religion/ancestry/national origin/medical condition/ genetic information/marital status/sexual orientation/[insert other actionable characteristic]];] [That the [sex/race/color/religion/ancestry/national origin/medical condition/genetic information/marital status/sexual orientation/ [insert other actionable characteristic]] of a person whom [name of plaintiff] was associated with was a substantial motivating reason for [name of defendant]’s conduct;] Proven by the Complaint

3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and Proven by the Complaint
4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm. Proven by the Complaint- totality of the circumstances

All rights reserved.

[TENANT 9 NAME. ADDRESS, PHONE]

 

2017-12-11 Email Notify DFEH of Docs Returned.pdf
“To Susie Parra at DFEH re your November 30 2017 letter re PCI- Housing Discrimination under CC 51,52 et seq and GC Housing Discrimination [12955-12957] “ email December 11, 2017

2017-11-7 Submitted by Email DFEH Complaint signed

White Privilege Defined

42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

 

Dec 11 2017

DFEH
Attention Susie Parra
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758

Via Priority Mail _______________________________

1522 Hi Point St #9 Los Angeles CA 90035

about:blank

8/10

8/11/2018 Print

See enclosed

Pre-complaint inquiry dated November 7, 2017 that was received by DFEH totaling 36 pages with proof of service.

Your November 30 2017 letter [enclosed] and return of Nov 7 complaint was postmarked December 7, 2017.

I am returning the 36 page complaint and have made corrections to page 2 as requested in your November 30 letter. This is a housing discrimination complaint under Unruh CC 51,52 et seq and Housing Discrimination[ GC12955-12957] against City government of Los Angeles, Hi Point Apts LLC, Walter Barratt, Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc, Cynthia Ogan, etc as enumerated in the complaint, for deprivation of “full and equal housing services” , deprivation of personal rights as enumerated under the Unruh act, i.e. intercom service, intercom maintenance, tandem parking stalls, and rent reductions due to reduction/removal of services[ “terms and conditions”].

1. What are the qualifications for a tenant to be assigned an intercom/tandem parking stall?
2. Which tenants by apartment number do not qualify for an intercom/tandem parking stall?
3. Which tenants by apartment number had their rent reduced because their intercom is not working or parking reduced?
4. How much was the rent reduced for tenants who did not receive a working intercom or tandem parking stall?
5. Specify the fee for intercom/tandem parking at the 1522 Hi Point and detail by corresponding apartment number, i.e apartment unit and fee for intercom service.
6. Are there any other qualifications for having an intercom/tandem parking stall at 1522, i.e race, color, sex, source of income, etc.?
7. What is Cliff Renfrew’s employment title?
8. What employee is responsible for the assignment of intercoms/tandem stalls?
9. List any tenant(s) whose apartments do not have working intercoms/tandem stalls.
10. How is first come first served applied to the assignment of intercoms/tandem stalls?
11. What state government training/certification/license have you received to be hired as a resident manager?
12. Have you received sensitivity training on the civil rights laws that govern the rights of tenants?

Enclosed as additions to the complaint are:

Email to DFEH dated November 25, 2017 at 4:49 p.m. subject “Obstruction of Civil Rights by Edmund G. Brown’s Racist Department of Fair Employment and Housing re Hi Point Apts LLC and City of Los Angeles Government et al.” [signed]
Email to DFEH dated December 3, 2017 at 10:02 p.m. subject “Docs for the November 7 2017 Pre Complaint Inquiry Housing re Hi Point Apts LLC “ with photos of the parking stalls [signed]

All rights reserved. Sincerely,

(TENANT 9 NAME AND EMAIL REDACTED)

“The entire premises must be in full compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Any and all units are subject to re- inspection and require the same uniform compliance throughout the premises.”

Garcetti inspector Alejandro Viramontes.

Attachments

2017-12-11 Email Notify DFEH of Docs Returned.pdf (81.23KB)

2017-11-7 Submitted by Email DFEH Complaint signed.pdf (1.32MB)

 

 

August 9, 2018

 

Subject: Supplemental comments to Complaint of Housing Discrimination Dated 4/14/2018 of 26 pages

From: (tenant name and email redacted)
To: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; appeals@dfeh.ca.gov; gloria.morales@dfeh.ca.gov;
Cc: complaints_office_00@hud.gov; thefirstjew@yahoo.com;

Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:33 PM

DFEH condones separate but not equal housing accommodations

Dear DFEH/Appeal/HUD:

1. I am attaching a copy of the 4-11-2016 Complaint of discrimination that was drafted by the DFEH and forwarded to me for signature, of which I signed as attached. The Complaint as signed by me, and as signed again in 2017, is substantially similar to subsequent complaints regarding continuing damages caused by the property owner Hi Point Apts LLC, the city government of Los Angeles, et al.

2. The submission of you of the 4-11-2016 Complaint to me for signing indicates that the DFEH had concluded it had the information to proceed with a complaint for investigation.

3. The 4-11-2016 complaint as submitted by you to me, indicated that you had the facts to determine whether you could take the complaint for investigation.

4. This is what I wrote to you by email February 27, 2018: “This is a continuing matter which you are well aware of since the DFEH was named in a federal lawsuit filed May 2016 of over 300 pages which I am sure your attorney brought to your attention. You claim there has been no investigation and you have not talked to any of the respondents. That would be false because you have previously communicated with the property owner and the management company, according to them. You also claim there has been no complaint issued; that is also not true as I signed a complaint April 11, 2016, which the DFEH provided to me. I signed that same complaint again November 7, 2017 which was forwarded to you and it reads “Complaint of Discrimination”. That signed complaint gives you jurisdiction. When Susia Parra supplied me with your intake number 201712-0053412, the only documents she would have had in her hand would have been the ones you received December 14, 2017. Therefore your request for documentation for case 201712-0053412 had already been provided to you. ”

5. Your July 19, 2018 letter, other than for purposes of unlawful discrimination, ignores the over 300 pages of factual documentation provided to the State Government of California (lawsuit Johnson v. Hi Point Apts, LLC filed May 11, 2016); your letter ignores the facts I had already supplied to the DFEH the case pre-intake questionnaire by December 14, 2017 as well as the “various emails” you admitted receiving.

“…there is not one Ku Klux Klan employee in the State government of California that comprehends ENGLISH…”

 

6. My March 18, 2018 email to DFEH indicates that DFEH left me a voicemail seeking “facts, dates, individuals” but ignores the voluminous amount of emails received by the DFEH with the very information you requested. If you contend that the emails and other documentation provided to you do not contain “facts, dates, and individuals,” then I contend there is not one Ku Klux Klan employee in the State government of California that comprehends ENGLISH.

“Whatever the DFEH claims the Respondents say, about the lack of intercom repair and denial of tandem parking, does not appear as terms and conditions in my rental agreement”

7. Your July 19, 2018 letter did not answer the questions of my February 27, 2018 email which I redact here: “An email with “Pre-complaint inquiry” complaint was received by DFEH on November 17 2017 at 10:36 pm. That email included 36 pages of attachments. I believe Susia Parra —-your employee DFEH——asked me for further documentation which I provided by USPS priority mail received by your department December 14, 2017 at 10:59 a.m. which included additional attachments. Please explain your confusion in this regard. What was the pre complaint inquiry number for the December 14, 2017 documents received by you? When and why did the 201712- 0053412 intake number arise? ” What is your discriminatory reasons for not answering my concerns before your retaliatory letter of closure of July 19, 2018?

8. You have previously alleged that Hi Point Apts LLC et al alleged that (1) unit 9 tenants are long term tenant and (2) the owner only provides new intercoms to vacant units. These alleged responses from the Respondent are not acceptable as legitimate because they do not answer the allegations posed by the Complaints; they do not respond to the racism, retaliation, etc. that is continuing. Whatever the DFEH claims the Respondents say, about the lack of intercom repair and denial of tandem parking, does not appear as terms and conditions in my rental agreement.

“…Such segregation condoned by the DFEH violates the fair housing laws…”

9. When I say I am in a class of one, I simply mean that the DFEH and Respondents have indicated a separation of tenants into long term tenants and tenants after units were vacant or short term tenants. No such separation appears as agreed upon in my rent agreement. So in my class of long term tenants, there are two Blacks and two whites. The remainder of the tenants, primarily of the White race, are short term tenants. The owner has segregated tenants into those who have new intercom replacements, and those who have old non-working intercoms, those who have tandem parking stalls who are primarily tenants who are White, and the long term Black tenants who do not have access to the privilege of tandem parking stalls. Such segregation condoned by the DFEH violates the fair housing laws.

10. Prima facie defined by HUD/DFEH *

  1. Complainant is a member of a group protected by the fair housing act
  2. Complainant applied to the Respondents for a unit and met the minimum qualifications for rental
  3. The respondent, knowing that the complainant was a member of a protected class, rejected orpassed over the Complainant, and
  4. The (unit/parking/intercom/maintenance/terms and conditions/housing services) remained available thereafter to similarly situated persons, who are not members of the complainants protected classAlternative to #4:The respondent offered more favorable terms and conditions for rental of the same or similar unit, to other persons who are not members of the complainant’s protected class

 

11. Section 10 above re prima facie is redacted from the DFEH/HUD own websites. Based on the DFEH own documentation, a prima facie complaint has been adequately presented to the DFEH, and as based on all documentation provided by me to the DFEH regardless of form, the July 19, 2018 DFEH closure letter is also arbitrary, capricious, and unjust.

12. Please proceed with the investigation against all Respondents.

All rights reserved.

(tenant 9 name and email redacted)

* Apply this to parking, intercom, maintenance, retaliation. Federal law requires that as a tenant I am entitled to same privileges available to white tenants (“white privilege”); I have been denied terms and conditions favored to whites who have the privilege of tandem parking and working intercom.

Attachments

2016-4-11 DFEH Housing Discrimination Complaint.pdf (211.58KB)

August 6, 2018

 

SUBJECT: Denial of due process by DFEH – refusal to respond to Complaint by written questions and answers as requested

FROM: (TENANT 9 NAME AND EMAIL REDACTED)

TO: gloria.morales@dfeh.ca.gov; appeals@dfeh.ca.gov;

CC: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; complaints_office_00@hud.gov; debbie.l.harmon@hud.gov; ca_webmanager@hud.gov; thefirstjew@yahoo.com;

DATE: Monday, August 6, 2018 1:31 PM

Racism and Retaliation by the DFEH California

Dear DFEH Gloria Morales et al:

I have received your letter of July 19, 2018 closing intake 201712-00534122. I ask that the case remain open as the damages are continuing at this location per the documents forwarded to you.

You allege you do not have enough facts to move forward with the investigation, but you ignore the fact that the DFEH had previously turned the matter into a complaint based on the fact it had enough facts. Since you already had turned the matter into a “complaint” which I signed, you waived any right to state you needed more facts.

The Feb 22 email from Karina asked me to repeat intake questions already answered to her numerous times, which I told her. The DFEH is proven to have an agenda which is not related to the enforcement of the housing discrimination laws.

I not only also forwarded sufficient facts for you to proceed against Hi Point Apts LLC and the city government of Los Angeles, but I also forwarded you a Complaint of 26 pages dated 4/14/18 which you have ignored.

I disagree with your decision as the damages to me are continuing based on the actions of the Respondents.

HUD and Ben Carson Asked to Investigate DFEH

I am contacting the email for Appeal but I do not waive the receipt by you of the Complaint dated 4/14/18 nor do I waive my request for the HUD to revoke federal funding based on the government unlawful discrimination against me. For purposes of appeal, the entire record on file with the DFEH is my “summary”; this email also constitutes new detailed information, and the 4/14/18 Complaint constitutes new detailed information which was not addressed in your July 19 2018 letter.

A response from HUD and Ray Brewer and Ben Carson is requested. I again ask that HUD conduct a review of these matters and this email and appeal is not considered to be a waiver of my request to HUD.

“…the DFEH under Kevin Kish is full of dog shit….”

If you do not respond to the 4/14//18 Complaint in a timely manner, I will file a new Complaint.

Your letter of July 19, 2018 is not acceptable as a resolution of the damages stated. Basically, the DFEH under Kevin Kish is full of dog shit.

All rights reserved.

 

(from tenant 9 – name and phone redated)

 

June 17, 2018

(Editor: Still no response from the DFEH on the complaint received by them on April 18, 2018. So much for getting the government to stop racial discrimination and retaliation; so much for thinking the government will enforce the fair housing laws.]

Subject: Re Hi Point Apts at 1522 Hi Point St 90035 and Request for Parking Assignment List

From: (tenant name and email redacted)
To: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov;

CC: tenantrelationsatyourapt@gmail.com; info@smchamber.com; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; karen.baggio@lacity.org; robert.galardi@lacity.org; angelo.shannon@lacity.org; steve.ongele@lacity.org; richard.horn@lacity.org; mark.salazar@lacity.org; crystal.otero@lacity.org; corey.hupp@lacity.org; paula.hudak@lacity.org; terry.herr@lacity.org; michael.hughes@lacity.org; jonathan.hom@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; info@da.lacounty.gov; emily.hu@lacity.org; maria.a.hernandez@lacity.org; scott.matsunaga@lacity.org; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; robert.hughes@lacity.org; charles.v.garcia@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.englander@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; david.ryu@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.Krekorian@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; controller.galperin@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; thefirstjew@yahoo.com; karen.baggio@lacity.org; robert.galardi@lacity.org; angelo.shannon@lacity.org; steve.ongele@lacity.org; richard.horn@lacity.org; crystal.otero@lacity.org; corey.hupp@lacity.org; paula.hudak@lacity.org; emily.hu@lacity.org; terry.herr@lacity.org; michael.hughes@lacity.org; jonathan.hom@lacity.org; maria.a.hernandez@lacity.org; scott.matsunaga@lacity.org; info@smchamber.com; robert.hughes@lacity.org; diana@aagla.org;

Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 9:39 PM

 

Dear DFEH:

The owner of this property has claimed tenants are parking all over the place. I have witnessed that tenants unit one park in numerous parking stalls even though they are technically only assigned one parking stall out of 20 parking stalls for 18 units.

Please supply me with a list of the parking assignments by parking space number, tenant apartment number, tenant name, tenant race, tenant age, tenant sex. There is no public posting on the property indicating this information even though the owner has told tenants to report other tenants who are not parking in their assigned parking stall. This property is regulated by the city rent control department that has jurisdiction over housing services like parking.

All rights reserved.

(Editor: Tenant 9 name, address, phone, redacted)

cc: HUD, AAGLA, Jade Beck at Hi Point Apts at tenantrelationsatyourapt@gmail.com, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce

GC 12955. It shall be unlawful: (a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information of that person.

 

Racism at Hi Point Apts

April 18, 2018

(Editor: This complaint was received by the DFEH on April 18, 2018 at 11:57 am and again received by the DFEH on May 24, 2018 at 11:54 am, signed for by L. Lopez. The complaint below is redacted. Note that the DFEH and online only allows you (other than the employment right to sue) to submit a Pre-Intake Inquiry. NEVER NEVER EVER FILL OUT THIS FORM. The DFEH uses this form to discourage the public from filing complaints. You want to skip to the Complaint stage and the DFEH does not allow for this. So you just draft up your own Complaint, based on the info on the pre-intake form, and entitle your document “Complaint of Discrimination” and ask that the DFEH investigate. Your Complaint must be signed under penalty of perjury. You can imitate the format I have used below. The main thing is that you must establish a “prima facie” complaint; you do not have to prove or give evidence at the Complaint stage. There are numerous copies of actual lawsuits and housing complaints online so you can use those as a guide. But mainly look up the requirements for “prima facie”. Mail your complaint by messenger, fed ex, USPS priority, and get a signature. The DFEH routinely ignores or rejects most complaints so don’t be surprised if they don’t help. To file a housing discrimination lawsuit, however, in California, you are not required to first use the DFEH nor do you need a right to sue letter from the DFEH. The DFEH enforces various statutes including the Unruh Act which supposedly protects your rights as an individual, as opposed to disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. After receiving your “prima facie” complaint, the DFEH may assign it a case number.)

State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

Complaint of Discrimination Under the Provisions of the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act

DFEH NUMBER ______________________  HUD NUMBER _____________________

PROPERTY TYPE NO. OF UNITS  – Apartments :  18

I ALLEGE THAT I EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION ON OR BEFORE APRIL 14, 2015

BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED AGE, RACE, RETALIATION BECAUSE I COMPLAINED

AS A RESULT, I WAS DENIED FULL AND EQUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS; DENIED FAIR HOUSING

  1. Since on or around April 14, 2015, I have been discriminated against in my current place of residence located at 1522 Hi Point Street, #9, Los Angeles, CA   90035.
  2. I believe the discriminatory practice is denial of full and equal terms and conditions due to my Race/Color and Age. This is a violation of Government Code section 12955(a) and Housing Act which incorporates the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Civil Code section 51.2 My beliefs are based on the following:

a. On or around April 14, 2015, and continuing to the date of this complaint, the Respondents each and every one denied me full and equal terms and conditions to maintenance of the intercom system, which would include repair, replacement, or removal; and denial of the assignment to a tandem parking stall. The owner has renovated and repaired 15 of 18 units. All the newly repaired units have working intercoms majority of which are occupied by White/Caucasian tenants, under the age of 55.

b. On or around April 14, 2015, I contacted the WREA (Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc.), City of Los Angeles, City LADBS, City HDICLA/RSD, property owner, Ali Mozannar at Mozannar Construction, resident manager Cynthia Ogan and eventually Jade Beck. Despite my multiple requests and complaints to all Respondents, to date I have not been assigned a tandem parking stall and the intercom for two Black tenants unit 9, has not been repaired, replaced, or removed.

c. As a result, the Respondents have denied me full and equal terms and conditions to have rent reductions/reimbursements, denied me maintenance to the intercom, and denied me assignment to a tandem parking stall, due to my Race, Color, Age, and because I have complained about discrimination, from April 14 2015 to current.

d. At all times Respondents were duly notified of my complaints to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

e. I believe I am in class of one because I am the only tenant who has complained about rent reductions/reimbursements, maintenance to the intercom, and assignment to tandem parking stalls, for the length of time stated herein.

f. At all times mentioned herein, I was in a protected class due to my age over 55, Race/Color Black, and because I complained of discrimination.

g.  At all times mentioned herein, I —-as well as my roommate another Black tenant —- qualified for intercom maintenance, rent reductions/reimbursements, tandem parking, because I was a tenant, because my rent was current, and due to the provisions of the rental agreement.

h. I was denied maintenance to the intercom and I was denied tandem parking, rent reductions/reimbursements during the time period stated herein.

i. Other tenants, who had not engaged in complaining about discrimination, and who were White, and under the age of 64, received working intercoms and tandem parking stalls.

j. I am in a class of one, individual,  because no other tenant has complained  about denial of intercom repair due to Race, Age, to tenants in unit 9 and no other tenant has complained about denial of tandem parking to tenants unit 9, and denial of rent reductions/reimbursements.

California Constitution Article 1 Declaration of Rights

“Sec. 7(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”

GC 12927.  As used in this part in connection with housing

accommodations, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the

context:

   

   (c) (1) “Discrimination” includes:

refusal to sell, rent, or lease housing accommodations;  includes refusal to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of housing accommodations; includes representation that a housing accommodation is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when that housing accommodation is in fact so available; includes any other denial or withholding of housing accommodationsincludes provision of inferior terms, conditions, privileges, facilities, or services in connection with those housing accommodations; includes harassment in connection with those housing accommodations; includes the provision of segregated or separated housing accommodations;

Attached: (1)  Attachment – six pages

(2) Email March 27, 2018 at 12:31 pm

(3) Email April 13, 2018 at 2:00 pm

(4) Email January 2, 2018 at 5:18 pm

(5) City code enforcement complaint March 21 2018 city number 667856. Nine pages.

All rights reserved.

SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

By submitting this Complaint, I am declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct of my own knowledge, except as to matters stated on my information and belief, and to those matters I believe them to be true.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINAINT: DATE: APRIL 14, 2018

_______________________________

(tenant 9 name redacted)

2018-4-14

Attachment to DFEH Complaint

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758

Name of who this complaint is filed against:

HI POINT APTS LLC Walter Barratt 226 Carroll Canal Venice CA  90291 Phone 310-895-6693

JADE BECK HI POINT APTS LLC Walter Barratt 226 Carroll Canal Venice CA  90291 Phone 310-895-6693

Williams Real Estate Advisors [“WREA”]  2701 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 140  Santa Monica CA 90405 310-987-7978

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CITY CLERK 200 NORTH SPRING STREET ROOM 395 CITY HALL LOS ANGELES  CA   90012

RSD/HCIDLA CITY OF LOS ANGELES CITY CLERK 200 NORTH SPRING STREET ROOM 395 CITY HALL LOS ANGELES  CA   90012

MOZANNAR CONSTRUCTION C/O HI POINT APTS LLC Walter Barratt 226 Carroll Canal Venice CA  90291 Phone 310-895-6693

CYNTHIA OGAN C/O HI POINT APTS LLC Walter Barratt 226 Carroll Canal Venice CA  90291 Phone 310-895-6693

Because of: Age Race Retaliation because I opposed practices made unlawful by the Unruh Act et al. and Government Code 12900 FEHA.

That the property owner by statements alluded to by the DFEH in a letter dated May 18 2016, has admitted to illegal discrimination against myself due to my race, Black, and age over 60.

The reasons given by the Hi Point Apts, in conspiracy with the city, county, DFEH, and HUD, for denial of housing services intercom and tandem parking stall are pretextual; I believe the real reasons are due to my race, Black, age over 60, and because I complained about and opposed discrimination made unlawful as defined under Government code 12927. The owner reasons — I have not received any verified statement by the owner written to me so I consider the DFEH statements as self-serving hearsay — nevertheless, do not meet the HUD requirements of substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest. These are the statements from the May 18, 2016 DFEH letter which I believe constitute unlawful discrimination:

“The Respondents asserted none of the intercoms in the building were working when they took over management, but they began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had a chance to renovate the empty units.”

“They [Respondents] stated the four units with non-working intercoms, including your apartment, are occupied by long term tenants, which is why those units continue to have intercoms that do not work.”

HUD regulations state “a facially-neutral policy or practice that has a discriminatory effect violates the Act if it is not supported by a legally sufficient justification”.

The statements above attributed to the owner which he has not denied, are not supported by a legally sufficient justification are discrimination as defined under these sections of GC 12927, as they apply to the owner’s et al. denial of apartment with working intercom and denial of apartment with tandem parking stall:

(GC) 12927.  As used in this part in connection with housing

accommodations, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:

  (c) (1) “Discrimination” includes:

refusal to sell, rent, or lease housing accommodations; includes refusal to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of housing accommodations;  includes representation that a housing accommodation is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when that housing accommodation is in fact so available; includes any other denial or withholding of housing accommodations; includes provision of inferior terms, conditions, privileges, facilities, or services in connection with those housing accommodations;  includes harassment in connection with those housing accommodations; includes the provision of segregated or separated housing accommodations;

   (d) “Housing accommodation” means any building, structure, or portion thereof that is occupied as, or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families and any vacant land that is offered for sale or lease for the construction thereon of any building, structure, or portion thereof intended to be so occupied.

   (e) “Owner” includes the lessee, sublessee, assignee, managing agent, real estate broker or salesperson, or any person having any legal or equitable right of ownership or possession or the right to rent or lease housing accommodations, and includes the state and any of its political subdivisions and any agency thereof.

California Civil Code

51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(b) 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, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

California Civil Code 52.1. (a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated.

(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct as described in subdivision (a).
“52. (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6,
is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.

(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following:

(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages.

(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice. “

The retaliation and denial of rights by the property owner, aiding and abetting with the city government, state government, and HUD employees, has violated the law as enumerated under California Civil Code section 52 above and under civil code section 51(b) I have been denied as a Black tenant over the age of 60, and because of my race and age,   full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever”. 

“Federal law

Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful–

(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. “

LAMC. Housing Services

Services connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to, utilities (including light, heat, water and telephone), ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance, including painting. This term shall also include the provision of elevator service, laundry facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities, janitor service, resident manager, refuse removal, furnishings, food service, parking and any other benefits privileges or facilities. (Amended by Ord. No. 154,808, Eff. 2/13/81.)

The DFEH is aware that numerous Black tenants vacated the premises without receiving the required THP agreement. With the participation of city employees, the owner made tenants sign agreement induced by the fraud that such agreements violated their due process rights as Black Americans and such agreements to waive any civil rights and constitutional claims were not authorized by the city or state fair housing laws and rent control regulations. The City and the owner participated together in denying Black tenants a working intercom and the due process THP applications and double damages for not complying with the city rent control regulations, a violation of those tenants rights under fair housing laws.

The names of former or current tenants at the 1522 Hi Point St property include Hiede Cravens, Karen Byers, Sharon L. Duda, Rachel Connell, Andrew Connell, Lorrie Sakauchi, Trisha Dobbs, Cynthia Ogan, Danni Johnson, David Johnson, Hayley Bojorquez, Michael Walker, Nary Riveral, Mathew Estrada, Daniel Dirgo, Tyler Ruggeri, Marquis Anderson, Darren Davis.

DATE OF INJURY: MAY 18 2017 AND CONTINUING.

Damages (amount redacted)   Punitive damages (amount redacted)

I look forward to your response. All rights reserved.

(Tenant #9)

APRIL 14, 2018

(Editor: attachments 2,3,4 appear elsewhere on this website)

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.

http://www.randomlengthsnews.com

To see additional discussions about what is fair housing and to see copies of posted Videos, click   Youtube channel “Davey GJuanvalldez”

March 18, 2018

 

Subject: Attention Jerry Brown-Kevin Kish-Karina Arabolaza re Racism and Retaliation by Hi Point Apts LLC Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc City of Los Angeles et al

From: (tenant 9 name and email redacted)
To: karina.arabolaza@dfeh.ca.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov;

Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:54 PM

The DFEH Game of Stretching Out the Statute of Limitations

Dear DFEH et al:

You will continue to hear from me, but communication by phone WITH the DFEH is pointless and ceases at this point.

Your voicemail left of March 12 completely ignores my prior communications to you to strictly communicate in writing by email or US mail. Your voicemail indicates you do not comprehend English and that you do not intend to enforce my rights under the state Unruh Act and other state and local civil rights statutes or ordinances. All federal funding received by the State of California should be revoked due to its participation in unlawful housing discrimination and retaliation. See the February 22, 2018 issue of Random Lengths newspaper online, page 17.

You act in retaliation against me because I asked you to communicate in writing and you have refused to do so.

You keep repeating that you do not know if you have the authority to proceed —-a violation under GC 815.6—but you neglect to mention that you already exercised your authority to proceed by the “complaint” you forwarded to me which I signed on April 11, 2016 —your case number 712769- 195727— and I again filed a new “complaint” dated 11-7-2017. It would be a lie for you to say you don’t know if you have jurisdiction to pursue the denial of “full and equal housing privileges and advantages, services” etc. when it is you who authorized the “complaint” in the first place. Your voicemail fails to acknowledge receipt of the 11-7-2017 complaint and fails to explain the existence of your “pre-complaint inquiry” number 201712-0053412 . You have not answered the concerns of my Feb 25 2018 email to you.

What are the rules of your bullshit game, Karina-Kish-Jerry- Walter-Matt?

I transcribe your March 12, 2018 voicemail below:

March 12 2018 10:10 am

“Hi Mr. (tenant 9 name redacted)  my name is Karina I’m calling from the Department of Fair employment and Housing. I am following up concerning the complaint that you filed with our department. I had time to review the information that you did submit to us and I understand the allegations that you are presenting. However we still need to conduct an intake interview and to obtain facts for each of the allegations that you’re raising. So I was wondering if you may be available this coming Friday the 16th to speak to me over the phone so we can discuss each of the allegations that you’re raising so we can secure facts, dates, the individuals involved, etc. To be able to assess if we have jurisdiction to be able to assist you with your complaint or not. So at your earliest convenience please contact me at 213- 337-4520, 213-337-4520 . Thank you so much.”

 

“…all your questions have already been answered in the voluminous documentation provided to you; you admitted as such by submitting the ‘complaint’ to me dated April 11, 2016…”

To reiterate, your voicemail as recalled above violates GC 815.6 and is disingenuous; you claim you need to conduct an intake interview and obtain facts, dates, the individuals involved, etc. Well, all your questions have already been answered in the voluminous documentation provided to you; you admitted as such by submitting the “complaint” to me dated April 11, 2016, such complaint revised and submitted to you 11-7-2017. As I said, submit your questions in writing and I will review them to see if I have already answered them; at this point since I have already answered your questions, there is no need to write me with any more questions. Since you turned the matter into a complaint dated April 11, 2016, updated November 7, 2017, this proves I have provided the necessary facts you requested. However I would appreciate answers to the concerns of my Feb 25 email to you.

Please have your supervisor communicate with me by email or US mail to explain your lack of diligence in this matter.

You will continue to hear from me, but communication by phone WITH the DFEH is pointless and ceases at this point. Your voicemail is not acceptable as a resolution of the latest claim for damages against the DFEH and State of California. I will continue to file complaints with the DFEH until the matters are resolved, or until hell freezes over, whichever occurs first.

I will be leaving you a similar message at your voicemail. All rights reserved.

(from tenant 9 phone and email redacted)

 

(Editor: on April 18, 2018, a new complaint was received by the DFEH re Hi Point Apts and the City of Los Angeles. See complaint above.)

February 20, 2018

 

Subject:   Voicemail Call to Jerry Brown’s DFEH – DFEH case Number 201712-0053412 to Lindsay Anderson 

From:      [tenant name and email redacted]

To:            contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; lindsey.anderson@dfeh.ca.gov; lindsay.anderson@dfeh.ca.gov;
Cc:            mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org;

Date:       Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:43 PM

DFEH:

“Hello, you have reached the department of Fair Employment and Housing, If you know the name of the person you are trying to reach, please press “1”, to file a complaint, press “2”, to reach the enforcement division, press “3”; [a number is pressed]. Using the keys on your touchtone phone, please enter the name of the party you wish to reach, last name first. Press star at any time to return to the main menu. The party you have called—Lindsey Anderson—is not available, You may leave a message after the tone. [Beep]”

TENANT:

“Hi, this call is for Lindsay Anderson, today is February 19, 2018, at 10:47 p.m. This is [TENANT NAME AND PHONE REDACTED].  Your case number is 201712-0053412…in reference to Hi Point Apts, LLC and others. This response is to two recent phone calls received from you. I was told this complaint would proceed to investigation with you sending me any questions, if any at all, by email, which I would respond to you by email, so please forward me any questions you have in this investigation and I will respond to you by email. You have my email already….again, today is February 19, 2018, and this call is to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, State of California. Thank you.”

1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035

 

[Editor: Continuous complaints have been filed with the DFEH the last three years but none of the complaints have resulted in Black tenants at Hi Point Apts receiving “full and equal housing services and privileges”,  intercom repair and parking stall, as required under state law. This email references a current complain that names the city government of Los Angeles, property owner Walter Barratt aka Hi Point Apts LLC, and Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc.]

 

January 6,  2018

 

Subject: Attention Susia Parra – Complaint Nov 7 2017 pre-complaint inquiry DFEH- Revised received by you December 14 2017

From:  [Tenant name and email redacted]

To:       contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; matt@williamsrea.com; 

Date:  Saturday, January 6, 2018 10:31 PM 

Dear DFEH:

1. Please include email of today’s date into the above mentioned complaint against Hi Point Apts LLC et al. The email chain is attached.

2. As regards the lack of repair or replacement to the intercom, I believe part of the racism and retaliation by respondents is that the repair/replacement is taking an unreasonable and inordinate amount of time to occur. All of the other fifteen intercoms were installed in apartments in less than two months time each. The intercom of tenants unit 9 has not been repaired or replaced in over two years.

3. The owner cannot claim that the intercom repair has not occurred because I am a long term tenant or because he only gives new parts to vacant units; neither of these alleged excuses of the owner are in the rental agreement therefore they are not valid. As regards he only puts new parts into vacant units, this is not true either; in June 2017 after a series of my complaints, the owner installed new bathroom faucet and copper pipes and installed a new kitchen garbage disposal.

4. Finally the owner and his agents, and any others, cannot claim that unit 9 tenants are not entitled to intercom repair or replacement simply because it is the owner and the city of Los Angeles government who approved the THP application which includes complete plumbing and electrical redo and new intercom, as has been the custom with the other 15 units. This written document is proof positive that the City and Owner intend unit 9 to have a new intercom, and this proof invalidates any claims by any agents or government entitles who may claim I am not entitled to intercom service and maintenance.

5. I have already forwarded you a copy of the THP approved by the owner and city; I now attach for purposes of this complaint a copy of the decision after appeal of the THP, dated 11-13-2015, further authorizing the intercom repair or replacement; this 2015 eleven page city document is undisputed.

6. As far as I know, the THP appeal decision has not changed and the THP is still valid, nor has any court or otherwise ruling invalidated the THP. Failure to follow thru with the THP by the owner I believe would entitle me to in the least double damages of $34,000.

All rights reserved.

[Tenant #9; address and phone redacted]

c: Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc. agent for Hi Point Apts LLC

Attachments

2018-1-6 Email Chain w WREA.pdf (236.27KB) 2015-11-13 THP Appeal Decision 1522 Apt 9.pdf (4.28MB)

Dec 11 2017

Fair Housing Complaint Names City government of Los Angeles, Hi Point Apts LLC, Walter Barratt, Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc, Cynthia Ogan- 36 pages

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

Attention Susie Parra

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100

Elk Grove, CA 95758

Via Priority Mail

9505 5000 1177 7345 0003 71

See enclosed Pre-complaint inquiry dated November 7, 2017 that was received by DFEH totaling 36 pages with proof of service.

Your November 30 2017 letter [enclosed] and return of Nov 7 complaint was postmarked December 7, 2017.

I am returning the 36 page complaint and have made corrections to page 2 as requested in your November 30 letter. This is a housing discrimination complaint under Unruh CC 51,52 et seq and  Housing Discrimination [ GC12955-12957]  against City government of Los Angeles, Hi Point Apts LLC, Walter Barratt, Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc, Cynthia Ogan, etc as enumerated in the complaint, for deprivation of “full and equal housing services” , deprivation of personal rights as enumerated under the Unruh act, i.e. intercom service, intercom maintenance, tandem parking stalls, and rent reductions due to reduction/removal of services[ “terms and conditions”].

1. What are the qualifications for a tenant to be assigned an intercom/tandem parking stall?

2. Which tenants by apartment number do not qualify for an intercom/tandem parking stall?

3. Which tenants by apartment number had their rent reduced because their intercom is not working or parking reduced?

4. How much was the rent reduced for tenants who did not receive a working intercom or tandem parking stall?

5. Specify the fee for intercom/tandem parking at the 1522 Hi Point and detail by corresponding apartment number,     i.e apartment unit and fee for intercom service.

6. Are there any other qualifications for having an intercom/tandem parking stall at 1522, i.e race, color, sex, source of income, etc.?

7. What is Cliff Renfrew’s employment title?

8. What employee is responsible for the assignment of intercoms/tandem stalls?

9. List any tenant(s) whose apartments do not have working intercoms/tandem stalls.

10. How is first come first served applied to the assignment of intercoms/tandem stalls?

11. What state government training/certification/license have you received to be hired as a resident manager?

12. Have you received sensitivity training on the civil rights laws that govern the rights of tenants?

Enclosed as additions to the complaint are:

  • Email to DFEH dated November 25, 2017 at 4:49 p.m. subject “Obstruction of Civil Rights by Edmund G. Brown’s Racist Department of Fair Employment and Housing re Hi Point Apts LLC and City of Los Angeles Government et al.” [signed]
  • Email to DFEH dated December 3, 2017 at 10:02 p.m. subject “Docs for the November 7 2017 Pre Complaint Inquiry Housing re Hi Point Apts LLC “ with photos of the parking stalls [signed]

All rights reserved.

[Tenant name redacted] 1522 Hi Point St, Los Angeles CA   90035

[Editor Note: The DFEH rather than take “complaints” has this nasty little most likely illegal habit of making the Public submit pre-intake questionnaires; if the DFEH likes your questionnaire, then they will turn it into a Complaint. NO-NO–NO! The “qualification” process should be separate from the Complaint process. The DFEH,  a law enforcement agency, should not be allowed to reject someone’s complaint because it does not comply with the questionnaire; this is how the DFEH illegally discourages people from filing complaints. A complaint is a complaint regardless of the DFEH format. DFEH takes from you a pre-intake questionnaire, they reject your questionnaire, and they close your case; in this instance you were denied opportunity to file a complaint. Second scenario, they turn your questionnaire into a complaint and ask you to sign it; be careful because only your name is on the complaint and they may have worded it in a way you have given up your rights. Giving you a questionnaire and rejecting your questionnaire is probably illegal and denial of due process rights to file a complaint.]

The DFEH needs to be shut down. They do more harm than good.

 

November 25, 2017

Subject:

Obstruction of Civil Rights by Edmund G. Brown’s Racist Department of Fair Employment and Housing re Hi Point Apts LLC and City of Los Angeles Government et al.

From: [Tenant name redacted]

To: james.cortes@dfeh.ca.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; manuel.a.alvarado@hud.gov; complaints_office_00@hud.gov;

Date: Saturday, November 25, 2017 4:49 PM

        

Action

Resolution

Enforcement

Do you do any of this or are you just sitting on your ass?

 

DEPARTMENT FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING [“DFEH”]

2218 KAUSEN DRIVE SUITE 100 ELK GROVE CA 95758

Dear DFEH:

I have received the letter of DFEH employee James Cortes dated November 17, 2017. The DFEH letter is not acceptable as a resolution to the issues herein.Edmund G. Brown is the Governor of California; Kevin Kish is the Director of the DFEH.

Below is a partial list of the numerous amount of contacts I have had with the DFEH since 2015, and the voluminous amount of documentation, almost three years ago, regarding the denial of housing services intercom, maintenance, and parking at this herein plantation address 1522 Hi Point St 90035 [“Hi Point Apartments LLC”]. I am still damaged, as a Kushite-DNA-Jew-Black, and denied a working intercom, denied maintenance to the intercom, and denied tandem parking stall, and denied terms and conditions to get a working intercom and parking stall, and denied “full and equal housing services and privileges” Unruh CC 51,52, Government code 12955 et al.

“…My objective here is to obtain the housing rights I am entitled to under law; your objective is to shuffle the paperwork…”

Interestingly, but indicative, the DFEH letter of November 17, 2017, doesn’t mention any of the laws the DFEH is supposed to enforce.

“We order your intercom to be repaired or replaced today; we order the owner to assign you a tandem parking stall today. We award damages to you of XXX,XXX dollars”; It takes about fifteen seconds to say/write that sentence. But I do not see those words in the DFEH November 17, 2017 letter. My objective here is to obtain the housing rights I am entitled to under law; your objective is to shuffle the paperwork.

YOUR LETTER [attached]

Your letter states, paragraph 1, “this correspondence is in response to your appeal of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing recommendation for closure that was submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as our department. Director Kevin Kish, has asked me to respond to your concerns.”

My response:

Other than the intent and practice of racial discrimination and retaliation by the DFEH, as evidenced in your letter, your letter is unresponsive to my concerns. As for an appeal to the DFEH, HUD, I don’t recall mounting an “appeal” document. Obviously you don’t have one because you don’t mention the date of one; if you have one that is dated and signed by me to you or HUD, allow me to examine it, and I will stand corrected; otherwise I consider your statement of “appeal” as abuse of process and abuse of discretion. Your letter is unresponsive to my concerns.

“…the DFEH has taken a previous stance on the intercom [and parking] that is not in compliance with the dictates of my rent agreement, thus such stance violates my contracts rights under applicable federal law and state law”

Your second paragraph, recall of the September 6, 2017, and your fourth paragraph, interview is inaccurate and self serving. You fail to mention in that paragraph that the interviewer heard me ask about the two different case numbers and that she at no time told me that they were in reference to the same issues or that they referred to a paper complaint and an online complaint; none of this was told to me prior to the interview either; therefore I was denied fair opportunity to adequately prepare for the interview. On September 6 —you fail to mention—that I was prepared for a 30 minute interview yet when I got on the phone the interviewer said the interview would last one hour, which I was unprepared to do because of my 30 minute lunch. Even now, while you have mentioned the two case numbers , I do not have a date as to what paper intake complaint you are referring to. You state that after I asked the interviewer about the department knowledge of what an intercom is —-in your Nov 17 letter you still don’t reveal if the department knows what an intercom is, and this is crucial to understanding the complaint—that I was “unsatisfied by this response, you concluded the interview”; my response is that I was “satisfied” with her response that she did not have knowledge, as a state employee, as to does the DFEH know what an intercom is. Contrary to your recall of the September 6, at about 1:00 pm I emailed the DFEH : “DFEH: This shall verify that I was available today at 12 noon.I spoke with Camilla on the phone from 12:10 pm to 12:20 pm which I believed was adequate interview time for the two inquiry numbers which the DFEH claimed were the subject of the interview, and pursuant to the exhibits already provided to the DFEH. I asked Camilla if she knew what an intercom system is, her answer to be on behalf of the DFEH. Camilla replied that she generally knew what an intercom system was but that she was not speaking on behalf of the DFEH. The interview concluded at about 12:20 p.m. [Tenant name and phone redacted].” As is clearly shown, I felt the interview time was adequate considering the voluminous amount of documents already provided to the DFEH prior to the interview [see list of emails below that occurred on Sept 2 prior to the interview]. I only used the 890665-298276 number because that was the number given to me in emails setting up the interview; I would not realize to right before the interview that I did not have any record of that numbered complaint; it seems prudent that rather than an “appeal” that the interview should be rescheduled with the proper notice of which complaint will be heard and advance notice of written questions from the DFEH, which I am sure the DFEH and its resources are capable of providing. Under the circumstances, it was prejudicial and retaliatory for the DFEH to close the inquiry.

“…Anti-Semitism practiced by the California DFEH…”

A new intake has been forwarded to the DFEH.

One exhibit supplied to you on September 2 was an email “Anti-Semitism practiced by the California DFEH Personal rights under the state Unruh Act Last date of harm: Continuing” ; there were at least another more than 42 pages of docs supplied to you. Presumably most complainants do not supply such large amount of documents with a pre-intake inquiry, but it does not appear your interviewer considered any of those documents before the interview, because if she did, she would not have to ask me an hour’s worth of questions.

“…institutionalized, intractable, and systemic racism practiced by the DFEH…”

I remind you that the DFEH has taken a previous stance on the intercom [and parking] that is not in compliance with the dictates of my rent agreement, thus such stance violates my contracts rights under applicable federal law and state law.

As regards the rest of your letter, yes, I do have a hearing disability and learning disability which precludes me from understanding the procedures for the institutionalized, intractable, and systemic racism practiced by the DFEH … [This] requires me to have the written questions a week in advance of any interview so I can determine the relevance of such questions and if they have already been answered by documentation already supplied to the DFEH.

Under the circumstances, the matter should not have been processed for closure. It was processed for closure not because of any action of mine or inaction, it was processed for closure due to your own unfair, capricious, and unjust favor to apartment owners and their agents. I appear to have no recourse to remedy my housing entitlements thru the law enforcement agency DFEH.

“We order your intercom to be repaired or replaced today; we order the owner to assign you a tandem parking stall today. We award damages to you of XXX,XXX dollars”; It takes about fifteen seconds to say/write that sentence. But I do not see those words in the DFEH November 17, 2017 letter.

What is the magic number of intakes I have to file before I get relief? What is the magic number of interviews I have to go thru before I get relief?

Again, your letter is not acceptable as a resolution to the continuing damages claim 9-10-2017 against the DFEH, nor is it a resolution to the DFEH intake dated November 7, 2017 [36 pages], nor is it acceptable as a resolution to any other issues herein.

[Tenant name, address, phone redacted]

Kushite-DNA-Jew-Black

Summarized from the California Fair Employment and Housing Act website.

“…the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating … for these reasons foments domestic strife and unrest.”

[Editor: An Inglewood Small Claims Court Judge in September 2017 ruled in favor of white defendants who twice never even appeared in Court. The Judge was shown by other white defendants pictures of Blacks protesting racism. If those who are white can get relief without even “showing up”, what do we need Judges for?]

November 7,  2017

City employees and Tenants Named in Housing Complaint

Los Angeles- A 36 page complaint has been filed with the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing [“DFEH”] against the City government of Los Angeles, code enforcement, Hi Point Apts LLC and Cynthia Ogan resident manager. City employees and apartment tenants are named in the November 7 2017 complaint. City code enforcement complaint 646723 is an exhibit in the Complaint.

The current DFEH complaint is being handled by racist KKK State employee James Cortes.

Below are pictures of the parking lot provided to the DFEH, to prove discriminatory assignment of parking stalls where two white tenants have parking for four cars while two Black tenants have consistently been provided only one parking stall. The city government has determined parking stalls in this area, if denied, are worth $200 per month rent reimbursement to tenants.

 

 

[Editor note: Do Not Use the DFEH unless it is your last resort. They are known to be racist, corrupt, intractable, institutionalized, systemic racism, that favors property owners, does not enforce Black tenants legal rights as individuals, and a host of other transgressions under color of law. They have known about racism at Hi Point Apts 90035 since 2015 and turned a blind eye in favor of racism.  They should be shut down.]

September 4, 2017

Los Angeles- The property owner Walter Barratt [Hi Point Apts LLC] and Williams Real Estate Management Inc. have released to the department of fair employment the names of numerous tenants in the inquiry into housing discrimination at Hi Point Apts 90035.

Tenant names released to the public include:

Darren Navis, Cynthia Ogan, Mathew Estrada, Hayley Bojorquez, Zachary Burch, Munehito and Naho Hiramatsu, William T. Barnhart, Mary Joe Evans, Daniel Dirgo, Joseph Perez, Hiede Cravens, Tyler Ruggeri, Jacqueline Tilak, John Stiner, Ellie Tsutsumi, Sarah Cohen, Oneximo Gonzalez, Trisha Dobbs, Morgan Tyler Coleman, Sean Sinclair, Derek Martin, David Johnson, Danni Pietz, Tanya Seamon Johnson.

For DFEH case 890665-298276 re  CITY OF LOS ANGELES HCID AND CODE ENFORCEMENT re upcoming September 6 Interview

TO:       contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; julia.araneta@dfeh.ca.gov

CC:        thefirstjew@yahoo.com
DATE:  Thursday, August 31, 2017, 10:42:34 PM PDT – SEPTEMBER 4, 2017

Anti-Semitism practiced by the California DFEH

Personal rights under the state Unruh Act

Last date of harm: Continuing

[The “Tuskegee” Experiment on Blacks at Hi Point Apartments]

Dear DFEH, Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Kevin Kish, Julia Araneta, State of California:

DFEH: do you know what an intercom is?

DFEH: prepare a brief chronology of events that detail how the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing subjects Blacks/Jews to discrimination, harassment, and/ or retaliation based on their protected status. Include the names of all state government employee witnesses as well as the names and phone numbers of any tenants at 1522 Hi Point Street, Los Angeles, California and a brief summary of the state DFEH’s intractable, institutionalized racism against Blacks.

WITNESSES: Alan Yochelson Ali Mozannar * Angelo Shannon Arthur Belis Bryan Kirkness Byron Fuentes Charles Garcia Christine Ritsky Cynthia Ogan * Daniel Williams David Burkhead David V. Gomez David Whitehurst Denton Lorenzo Derrick Spencer Donald Matt Williams * Edward Zavala  Frank Bush Gail Owsley Gary Eshay Gregory Pomish Ian Yeom Ifa Kashefi Jade Beck * James Blythe Jeffrey Fulton Jennifer Montana John Weight Karen Baggio Ken Gill LADBS Lee Smith Manuel Hernandez Martin Hurtado Mayor Eric Garcetti Michael Alvarez Michael Kuhn Michael Soto Noel Ramirez [gave final approval to intercom replacement for select tenants and excluding Black tenants] Presiliano Sandoval Raymond Chan Richard Garcia Richard Schindler Robert Aldape Robert Galardi Rushmore Cervantes Steve Davey Steve Ongle Walter Barratt * [* Agents of city rent control building owner Hi Point Apts LLC, not city employees]. Jack Upchurch, Marshall Rumpf, Rick Horn, Jesse Barboza.

[Personal rights] “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, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. Unruh Civil Rights Act 

HOW THE GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATES IN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION

THE DFEH under Governor Jerry Brown, and Secretary of State Alex Padillo acts in contradiction to the requirements of the state Unruh act and the federal housing discrimination laws. The DFEH has decided that the Black Americans in unit 9 are denied working intercom because they are long term tenants and new parts are only provided to tenants whose units are vacant; these actions by the DFEH are interference with equal protection of the law, interference with the rental agreement. The rental agreement does not state that tenants #9 are to be denied repair, replacement, or maintenance to the intercom system; none of what the DFEH states, about denial of repairs, is in the rental agreement.

 The actions of the DFEH, as stated herein and attached damage claim, violate the California Constitution.

All rights reserved.

[TENANT NAME ADDRESS PHONE REDACTED]

[EDITOR: This email has been redacted from a series of emails to the DFEH]

 

Subject: MANAGER AS TENANT – Please remove Cynthia Ogan as resident manager- to Williams Real Estate Advisors Inc. et al

From: [tenant name and email redacted]

To: matt@williamsrea.com; welcomehome@williamsrea.com; maintenance@williamsrea.com; amozannar@gmail.com; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org;

Cc: robert.galardi@lacity.org; lee.smith@lacity.org; presiliano.sandoval@lacity.org; thefirstjew@yahoo.com; daniel.williams@lacity.org; bryan.kirkness@lacity.org; james.blythe@lacity.org; angelo.shannon@lacity.org; karen.baggio@lacity.org; info@da.lacounty.gov; walter.barratt@gmail.com; washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org; actso@naacpnet.org;

Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:06 PM

Anti-Semitism at Hi Point Apts

To whom it may concern:

The intercom at this apartment remains unusable and not maintained. The resident manager is Cynthia Ogan. I have also not received a rent reduction for the non-working intercom housing service, thus you have illegally demanded an illegal rent.

“The resident-manager is a manager, custodian, housekeeper, or other responsible person who resides on the premises and acts as the owner’s agent in maintaining the premises.” RAC section 920.

“WHEN IS A RESIDENT MANAGER ALSO A TENANT AND SUBJECT TO THE RSO? “A resident manager has tenant status when he/she receives free rent and no additional compensation, partially free rent, or partial rent and paid compensation. Resident managers are subject to the RSO and the RAC Rules and Regulations.” Redacted from city Rent Stabilization bulletin. RAC Guidelines section 920.

On this basis, please remove Cynthia Ogan from the position of resident manager for failure to maintain the premises. This may be posted to the worldwide web.

All rights reserved.

[Tenant name and address redacted]

Ham-Jew-DNA-Kushite/Black

1522 Hi Point St Los Angeles  CA   90035

**********************************************

*Darren Navis, Cynthia Ogan, Mathew Estrada, Hayley Bojorquez, Zachary Burch, Munehito and Naho Hiamatsu, William T. Barnhart, Mary Joe Evans, Daniel Dirgo, Joseph Perez, Hiede Cravens, Tyler Ruggeri, Jacqueline Tilak, John Stiner, Ellie Tsutsumi, Sarah Cohen, Oneximo Gonzalez, Trisha Dobbs, Morgan Tyler Coleman, Sean Sinclair, Derek Martin, David Johnson, Danni Pietz, Tanya Seamon Johnson.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s