Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "lawsuit"

Occupy Sacramento movement expands to City Hall grounds

2011-11-09T01:30:28Z

In the wake of a rejected special permit to occupy Cesar Chavez Plaza 24 hours a day, Occupy Sacramento protesters expanded their occupation to the front door of City Hall, 915 I St., on Tuesday.

“We want to fully exercise our First Amendment right to assemble,” Kevin Carter, 55, a youth volunteer and an Occupy Sacramento outreach coordinator said. “If our grievances are going to be addressed, they need to be addressed right here.”

Protesters packed up some of their canopies, tents and information tables Tuesday and gathered at the front of Old City Hall as well as on the lawns in front of the new City Hall building, immediately behind the older building.

“Our statement is simply this,” Carter said. “If you’re going to deny us our First Amendment rights, then we’re going to come (to City Hall) and make sure you know that we’re not going to go away.”

The permit rejection letter – delivered Monday to local civil rights attorney Mark Merin, who represents the Occupy Sacramento group – stated that the permit application was incomplete when it was submitted.

The letter also stated that if the application is completed later, it will still likely be denied because it has no defined duration, and extension of park hours “is not consistent with the sound use of park resources” and “may be detrimental to the public safety or welfare.”

Protesters were unfazed by the permit rejection, according to Cres Vellucci, a legal adviser for the Occupy Sacramento group.

Instead, it inspired the group to expand its protest base across the street to City Hall, Veluccii said.

“Every code section we’ve seen in our research shows we can be in front of and behind City Hall 24 hours a day, unlike Cesar Chavez park, which has curfew hours,” Vellucci said. “Now (the movement) is out of the curfew section of the code.”

Jack Hart, 22, an unemployed musical theater actor and Occupy Sacramento coordinator, said the protest group is in no hurry to end its occupation at either Cesar Chavez Plaza or at City Hall – and may expand further “if need be.”

Hart said that protesters will attend the City Council meeting Tuesday to make public comment for the sixth week in a row.

Although there is no formal curfew for City Hall grounds, a city camping ordinance is in effect, according to the city code.

The camping ordinance states that it is “unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to camp, occupy camp facilities, or use camp paraphernalia” on any public property. Violations of this code are misdemeanors, punishable by fines up to $1,000 and up to six months in county jail.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Locke Property Dispute (part 3)

2011-11-01T08:38:57Z

Read "Locke property dispute (part 1)" here.

This is my reply to the long response of another of my neighbors in Locke to "Locke property dispute (part 2)"

RLM: It was with great interest that I read this.
Esch: Glad to have your interest, Ronnie.

RLM: I have never publicly spoken on this matter, neither verbally nor in print--not even anonymously.
Esch: According to my friend Jacquie and her friend, who visited me a couple weeks ago, you had quite a lot to say to them about it.

RLM: However, I must dispute some of the claims made. Firstly: There are two separate issues here 1" the manner in which the building at 1265 Levee was acquired by Ms. Esch and 2) the zoning of this property.
Esch: Go for it.

RLM: Before a property in Locke may be sold, it must be presented to the Locke Management Association (LMA) governing board. The LMA has the right of first refusal--they may match any offer being considered for a property in Locke and purchase it. The board has 30 days in which to make its decision. Ms. Esch is aware of this--she and I have spoken of it prior to this, though not in this context; furthermore, I believe she has been present at least one meeting when a property has been presented well prior this. RLM: “The board has 30 days in which to make its decision. “
Esch: Wrong, Ronnie. 25 days, not 29 30. Open your CC&R’s to page 8, section 2.8 and read it. The LMA board was four days late by their own rules, plain and simple.

RLM: “This building was not presented to the LMA as being for sale, nor was it presented as having an offer made.”
Esch: True, it was not put up for sale. I made an offer to the seller. She accepted it. I opened escrow through Placer Title Company, who then sent e-mail notification of my bona fide offer to LMA’s Executive Director, Shirley Roberts on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 4:08 PM (two and a half hours before the start of the LMA monthly meeting). Roberts replied to Placer Title’s e-mail 35 minutes later at 4:43 PM. Roberts and LMA Chairman Clarence Chu had the responsibility to publicly release the news of my escrow to the board and to the public during the communications portion of that meeting. They instead chose to keep the information secret. This was the first in a long series of Ralph M. Brown Act violations the LMA made, just on this property issue, alone.

RLM: “Instead, they were notified by the title company asking if there was an impediment; they were told there was--escrow had not yet closed. “
Esch: Not quite. The title company did not ask if there was an impediment. The seller’s attorney received an email on March 9, 2011 from Chairman Chu, stating that the LMA board had voted to exercise ROFR. From February 8 to March 9 is 29 days. LMA was 4 days late by their own rules. Plain and simple. With or without a petition with 12 signatures on it, not 16, taken illegally by a board member with clear conflict of interest and no public notification, the LMA board was still late.

RLM: Apparently Ms. Esch feels she is above the rules; they were not followed.
Esch: The word “buyer” is not mentioned anywhere in the LMA’s CC&R’s or in its Bylaws. The seller followed the rules. Placer Title Company followed the rules. We all waited out LMA’s 25 day ROFR period. The only entity that feels it’s above the rules is the LMA board, itself.

RLM: As for the zoning issue: Laura Ulewicz owned that home before she died. It was one of her goals to see that the zoning on her home, and of Levee Street east of Main, receive residential zoning. She had the support of everyone that lived on our street. She was successful--the zoning on our street was changed to residential. We celebrated this together.
Esch: Ronnie, sorry to break this to you, but you’re also within zone 5, the commercial/residential zone of Locke. Open up your county SPA Special Planning Area packet to the zoning map of Locke on page 14. If you can’t find your copy, here’s an online link to it: http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/planning/Documents/Zoning-Code/TitleV%20504-400%20Locke.pdf

RLM: Laura was my best friend. She was a poet (yes, a published one) and a passionate gardener. Her home, her yard, reflected her love of things growing. The entrance to our street was cool, green and shady, enlivened by flowers; our privacy was enhanced by her plantings of tall service berry shrubs, which also fed the birds. One could find many flowers and ferns growing in the understory of her plantings. In her last years, Laura often expressed the fear that all she worked for, the trees, shrubs, and flowers that she planted and nurtured, her living legacy, would be chopped down, as if she never existed. And now they are. Our street is no longer cooled and protected from prying eyes by Laura's legacy. Ms. Esch has cut them down.
Esch: Laura was my friend, too, Ronnie. I am doing my best to care take her property with respect, though I’ll never be the accomplished gardener she was. I weeded many of the shrubs that have become overgrown since Laura’s passing in 2007. That really annoyed the rats and ferule cats that were having ongoing parties in them. I did have two of the twenty-some trees cut down, I cannot lie. I invite any readers of this to stop by when I’m there and pick from Laura’s thriving fig, pomegranate, cherry, loquat, plum, peach, lime and ginkgo trees on the property, some of which I prune to hopefully yield a better crop next season.

RLM: One can walk or drive by and look in the windows.
Esch: No one can drive by. Levee Road is blocked by a permanently parked car, and in front of a different house, there are a bunch of assorted possessions, spilling onto the road (in addition to about a dozen or so cats). The windows on the two houses you’re referring to are opaque or covered in tin foil and have been for years.

RLM: The house across from her now receives the searing rays of the searing summer sun.
Esch: The house across the street from me is south of mine. Even on the summer solstice, his trees cast a shadow on mine, not the other way around.

RLM: The ambient temperature on our street has risen a few degrees during the warm weather.
Esch: The ambient temperature on Levee Road hasn’t risen a fraction of a mercurial inch. See the above photo I took this week of my property while standing on Levee Road.

RLM: I have seen tourists standing on the porch of the home directly across from her, their faces pressed up to the glass of the windows, trying to peer into this man's home.
Esch: I doubt that. He keeps tin foil taped to his window.

RLM: I have had tourists try to enter my own home, further down the street.
Esch: Yes, you’ve told me this story four or five times since 2006, Ronnie.

RLM: Ms. Esch has opened a store here, disregarding the fact that it is not zoned for it. She makes the claim based upon 'businesses' that have not existed for far longer than she claims--Laura came here in the 1960s; there were no businesses on this street then, nor were there thereafter.
Esch: Here we go again. Open up your SPA docs to the zoning map on page 14.

RLM: Is there prejudice in Locke? I have no doubt--we are all human, and where there are humans, it will exist. Is racial prejudice being directed against Martha Esch to wrest her building (note I don't say home, it isn't her home) from her? Nope. We just want her to go by the rules.
Esch: Okay.

RLM: BTW, I am not Chinese, I was both a CAC member who voted on and for the zoning issue/change to residential that the Sac. Board of Supervisors passed,
Esch: Page 14. SPA.

RLM: ...as well voting against the right of first refusal.
Esch: So, let’s see...you voted against ROFR and now you want LMA to apply it...right?

RLM: I was a founding board member of the LMA. I have not been a board member for several years now. I am trying to keep this honest.
Esch: I was going to reply to this, too,...but I’d better not.

Disclosure: They either love me or they hate me in Locke, anymore. Middle ground has disappeared.

Occupy Sacramento, attorneys consider lawsuit against city

2011-10-28T04:02:25Z

Occupy Sacramento protesters and attorney Mark Merin are considering legal action against the city of Sacramento for violations of their First Amendment rights if arrests of protesters for ignoring the park curfew are not stopped.

“It’s not a question of whether we will pursue legal action – that decision has been made,” Merin, a Sacramento civil rights attorney, said Thursday. “It’s just a matter of when.”

There have been close to 100 arrests made since the Occupy Sacramento movement first appeared in Cesar Chavez Plaza Oct. 6, and protesters say all of those are in violation of First Amendment protections of speech and assembly.

The nature of the Occupy movement, according to Merin, is based on the principle of the use of public space to exchange information and state grievances – fundamental principles that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“(The movement) is happening around the world, and it’s a lot bigger than anything we’ve seen in the past,” Merin said. “It unites people who have a variety of grievances – (people who are) saying there is something wrong with the system that has gotten us to this state.”

No lawsuit has been filed yet, Merin said, but the main thrust of any potential suit is that the city ordinance that regulates park hours is unconstitutional because it gives the parks director and the chief of police discretion to grant or deny exceptions to the law.

According to Sacramento city code, “The (parks) director, with the concurrence of the chief of police, may designate extended park hours for any park when the director determines that such extension of hours is consistent with sound use of park resources, will enhance recreational activities in the city, and will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare.”

“What are the standards for making such exceptions? Where are they listed?” Merin said. “They have been given broad reach to grant or deny exceptions, and this is an interference with First Amendment constitutional rights.”

City representatives say that it’s a challenge to strike a balance between citizens’ right to free speech and the government’s responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people.

Sacramento spokeswoman Amy Williams said Thursday that, since the start of the Occupy Sacramento demonstrations, city personnel have “worked cooperatively with the participants to protect their rights to assemble and speak, as well as the rights of other citizens to utilize a clean and safe park.”

Williams said that cases interpreting the First Amendment provide that a local agency like the city of Sacramento may place reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on the use of public property where those restrictions are content-neutral, are rationally related to a government interest and leave open alternative channels of communication without running afoul of the First Amendment.

When the police charge individuals with city code violations, the city attorney has a duty to review the charges on a case-by-case basis and determine whether the evidence supports prosecuting those charges, Williams said.

However, “The city attorney's personal feelings about the movement cannot be a consideration,” Williams added.

“The city attorney's duty is to prosecute city code violations in a fair, impartial and evenhanded manner,” Williams said.

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the protections of the First Amendment in a variety of cases.

In “Ward v. Rock Against Racism,” [491 US 781 (1989)], the court ruled that local governments have authority to set “time, place, or manner” regulations on free speech activities.

The restrictions, the court held, ''must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate interests” – and they must not be based solely on the content of the message.

The court also ruled that those restrictions need not be the “least-restrictive or least-intrusive means of doing so.” They simply must not be more than necessary to achieve the government's stated purpose for the law.

Setting park hours that apply to everyone equally is a reasonable “time, manner and space” restriction, according to City Attorney Eileen Teichert.

Joaquin McPeek, spokesman for Mayor Kevin Johnson, said the city has a duty to maintain a safe and healthy environment in its parks.

“The mayor believes closing Chavez Park at or around midnight each night is consistent with the city's duty to protect public safety and public health and welfare,” McPeek said in an email statement Thursday. “He also believes the city has provided ample, daily opportunities for Occupy Sacramento to peacefully assemble and speak.

“The mayor is not in favor of allowing certain, special groups to make exceptions to city ordinances. He believes our laws must apply fairly to all citizens,” McPeek said.

The Supreme Court ruled in “Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing” [486 U.S. 750 (1988)] that any statute that “vests unbridled discretion in a government official over whether to permit or deny expressive activity” is unlawful and a violation of the First Amendment.

City parks director Jim Combs said Thursday that, as it relates to special events, he has authority to extend park hours, but not as a general exception to the code.

“If it makes sense to extend the hours of the park, then I can do that,” Combs said, “but there has to be a responsible party that agrees to the regulations that we set.”

Some event restrictions that the parks department might set for a special event include the requirement for portable toilets, a fee for providing extra security and a $1 million liability insurance policy.

“We have an obligation to set conditions for the use of the park as it relates to public health, welfare and safety,” Combs said.

Combs said that, if people want an exemption to park hours, they have to spell out their activities and go through the same permit process that all other events have to go through.

When it comes to First Amendment activities, however, Combs said he doesn’t provide permits.

“People have a right to assemble, and a right to speak,” Combs said. “They are not required to get permits for that.”

Sgt. Andrew Pettit, police department spokesman, said that the recent arrests of Occupy protesters have been based on violations of the park curfew first, and – when police have asked demonstrators to leave the park so that they are no longer in violation of that city code and the protesters refuse to leave – then arrests are made based on the state penal code for refusal to disperse.

But the underlying violation of city code remains. So, if the district attorney decides not to prosecute the penal code violation, then the case can be referred to the city attorney for prosecution of the city code violations.

The decision of where the case is prosecuted does not lie with the police, Pettit said. Officers are charged with enforcing the law, not prosecuting violations of the law.

“We don’t determine fines when we’re giving traffic citations, we just enforce the law as it’s written,” Pettit said. “The same thing goes for other code violations, like park curfew hours.”

Pettit said the Police Department regularly sends cases to the District Attorney’s Office.

“If they decide not to prosecute, that’s their choice. That doesn’t mean we aren’t going to arrest if someone breaks the law,” Pettit said.

According to city code, people cannot conduct an assembly of more than 50 people in a park unless a park use permit has been issued for the event.

But the government cannot issue a permit on free speech, Merin said, so the code section doesn’t apply to Occupy Sacramento.

“I think there’s a really good legal claim in Sacramento,” Linda Lye, staff attorney with ACLU Northern California said Thursday.

“You cannot allow a decision-maker to have unbridled discretion,” Lye said, “and that is what is in the code in the city related to park closure.”

Merin said that the Occupy Sacramento group will “definitely start legal action,” but they have not yet decided when to take that action.

“First, we want to let the city come to their senses,” Merin said. “They will eventually realize there is too much public support for the movement to try to shut it down.”

Merin said participants in the Occupy movement are not eager to take immediate legal action because they don’t want to transfer the public debate to the courtroom.

“It would undermine public discussion,” Merin said.

If a lawsuit does develop, Williams said the city believes the code section in question “will pass Constitutional muster in federal court.”

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Locke Property Dispute (part 2) in the ongoing battle.

2011-10-28T00:52:32Z

Continued from "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

There was a second response – a very lengthy one - to my first article from an anonymous person posting under the name, “Locked.” I suspect “Locked” is one of my neighbors and a board member of LMA Locke Management Association, the public agency which has filed a lawsuit against me to take my property. Locked’s writing style is recognizable, accusatory, with no factual basis. Original article (part 1) is found here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/56717/Locke_property_dispute_part_1 I’ll take Locked’s questions and comments one by one...

Locked: Who's throwing stones?
Esch: LMA board threw the first stones at me when they sent me a threatening letter from their newly-hired lawyer demanding my property title and telling me I had four days to hand it over. When I did not cave, (did they really think I’d just roll over and hand them my property title?), they threw a second handful by retaliating with a lawsuit to try to seize my property. I threw some stones back at them when I filed a HUD complaint, regarding the discriminatory statement made in a March 26, 2011 letter, signed by Clarence Chu, that preference for property purchases in Locke belongs to “…400 Chinese Descendants and Ancestors of Locke...” Mr. Chu told the HUD Investigator that he didn’t read the letter before signing it and someone else wrote the letter for him. More stones back at me from LMA came in May 2011 when I was served with a second court filing. This time for an August 2011 Superior Court hearing requesting Superior Court to place a restraining order on me. Why? Because I trimmed my trees, weeded the lawn, painted the pink siding on my house brown, removed an illegal propane tank, cut down a hazardous post and opened my properly licensed business. Note: At the same time I was doing these things, the Chairman of LMA had work crews erecting two giant statues in front of the School House Museum, with none of the required building permits or Locke Preservation Committee reviews. The day before LMA’s August restraining order hearing, the judge threw their suit out, based on their frivolous complaints and scolded the LMA board for not following their own CC&R rules.

Locked: You know that there was no racism involved.
Esch: LMA’s lawsuit filing to take my property references at length the history of the racial discrimination in Locke, California, and the injustice of the California Alien Land Law of 1913 in which foreigners were not allowed to purchase land but could lease it for three years. I can only assume that LMA’s lawyer is referencing this antiquated, unfair law as LMA’s justification to take my property from me. Some have termed what LMA is doing to me as reverse discrimination, since I happen to be of a race other than their stated preferred national origin. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. You say no racism exists in Locke. Racism does not outwardly exist in Locke, but on LMA paperwork, letters, court filings, and signage, sadly, it does indeed exist. It especially exists in the direct and indirect assertions made by LMA as to their justification to take away my property deed. More to the point, favoritism runs rampant in Locke, LMA board members have not been told to obtain legal business licenses for their businesses, and they have been allowed to make major changes to their buildings and land without permits or historic preservation reviews. Also, all of the past and present seated board members who own Locke property have been given waivers to ROFR by their fellow board members, directly opposing the procedures of their own CC&R’s.

Locked: You lost the case. These are facts not stones.
Esch: I have not lost the case. The HUD investigation is open for another two years. A second HUD investigation, resulting from a discrimination complaint made by another Locke resident is presently being filed against the LMA Board.
The LMA Superior Court hearing to take away my property is scheduled for December 22, 2011 in Sacramento’s Superior Court.

Locked: I understand that you want to keep your house but what exactly do you hope to gain by spreading the false rumors that Locke is a racist town?
Esch: Locke is not a racist town, but racism (the California Alien Land Law of 1913) was at its root and founding and persists into today in an inverted way. The statement made by LMA that preference to purchase property in Locke should be given to a single national origin is certainly racist, by definition. The signs in the Boarding House Museum claim that Locke was built for and by one single national origin. Another sign says “Locke is almost exclusively populated until very recently by” a single national origin. Contrary to those claims, the 1930 US Census and earlier records in the county’s archives, Locke is and has always been a global community since its origins in 1907 when the rail yards and the cannery employed hundreds of immigrants from all around the world, not just one single origin of people. It would be refreshing to see LMA and LF Locke Foundation give credit to the other 23 nationalities that lived in Locke as well on its signage, monuments, museums, literature, website and at Locke’s street celebrations. The failure to take notice of the many nationalities that participated in Locke’s life is yet another form of racism and is perverted history.

Locked: This only harms this community. It insults the people who started this town because they could not own land in the first place because of the Alien Exclusion Act. I did not see that in your brief history of the town. Gee, I would consider that the most important part of the history and why the whole town even exists.
Esch: You’re mistaken, it is not the Alien Exclusion Act of 1920 and the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 that did that, it is the California Alien Land Law of 1913, as I mentioned, above. Instead of repeating what you’ve been told, why not explore these matters in depth, yourself, and become familiar with the actual and true facts? The people who founded this town were from many nations, not just one. I hope LMA and LF soon finally acknowledge every culture’s contributions to Locke and the Delta. One reason the town even exists is due to the contributions of many cultures.

Locked: What effect do you think it will have on tourism and your future business?
Esch: It’s time to tell the true story of Locke, originally named Lockeport. If LMA would tell the accurate history of our town, it would bring more visitors from around the world. The fabricated claims written in the 1970’s in order to gain grants and funding for buildings that needed to be stabilized and electrified and for the installation of an operational sewage system in the town served their purpose for the time. (But, what about fire protection? The incomplete exterior sprinkler system that was installed on fewer than half of the buildings with taxpayers’ monies in 2003 cannot be tested, there are broken fire hydrants, exposed dangerous wiring on some of the buildings, there is only one fire alarm in town and it is disconnected, there are no posted evacuation plans for visitors or residents, and it is questionable whether most of the fifty buildings even have an operational smoke detector or fire extinguisher.)

Locked: You want to change a residential home into a commercial one which has been residential for at least 30 years. Your closest neighbor’s home is eight feet from what will be your new commercial business’ front door.
Esch: The building I purchased is within the commercial/residential zone of Locke, as are my neighbors’ homes on Levee Road and Main Street. I invite you to look at the zoning and planning map for Locke, as I have. The county would not have issued me a business license if I were not in a properly zoned area. The house to which you refer is more like forty feet away (not eight) from my front door - was King’s Radio & TV Shop back in the 1950’s. If my neighbor chooses to live in it, but not run a business from it, that is his prerogative, just as I have the right to run my licensed business from mine, in a properly zoned area.

Locked: How would you feel if someone opened a business in front of your home after you have lived on a quiet residential street for 25 years?
Esch: If any of my neighbors had a problem with the commercial/residential zoning of Locke in 2005, they could have raised their objections at the SHRA and CAC meetings that were held in the Schoolhouse Museum. My next door neighbor told me he is considering opening a business, too. I hope he does.

Locked: Over half of the LMA board is made up of your neighbors and people who might become your fellow merchants.
Esch: Four of the thirteen LMA board members reside in Locke. Two other board members own Locke properties, including the Chairman of LMA who chooses not to live in Locke. He owns seven of the sixteen buildings on Main Street, including three unstaffed museums. If other board members wish to join me and become fellow merchants, that would be great – we need more merchants to staff the closed-up stores. However, those currently operating businesses and museums without business licenses need to do apply and obtain them just as the rest of us are required to have licenses.

Locked: These are people you are calling racists Martha, your neighbors.
Esch: Racists, no. People who play favorites, yes. People who act as a clique, yes. Elitists who practice cronyism, yes. The LMA board is on a fast path of self-destruction, and if it hopes to retain its position, it had better clean up its behavior and start using proper and fair procedures.

Locked: What will you gain by doing this? You will only alienate your neighbors and you have.
Esch: The LMA board has treated their public audience, renters and residents of Locke with disrespect for several years, disdainfully calling the residential and business renters “Invitees” and telling us we have no rights in the matters of our own town, no voting power, and no voices that will be considered on issues that concern us. LMA board has the hypocritical voice of the 1913 California Alien Land Law speaking. We hope to soon cause change in these matters. Most of my Locke neighbors are supportive and feel the LMA has been unreasonable in its actions against me and other residents. As for my neighbors, two of them hurl obscenities at the tourists who walk past their doors. A third neighbor, who is on the board, reached five feet over my fence with a chainsaw on a stick and trimmed the trunks of my tree last month without asking me. I don’t care if I alienate those three. My other neighbors defend my position.

Locked: What tourists will come to see the racist town?
Esch: The same tourists and more – and Locke is not a racist town, it is also not an “almost exclusively Chinese” town.

Locked: You are myopically focused on your one goal and are disregarding where your stones are and will be falling. You are the one throwing stones.
Esch: Myopically focused? You bet. You’d be myopically focused, too, if a public agency filed a lawsuit against you to take your legal property away and harassed you and your friends at their public monthly meetings.

Locked: You fail to mention in your article the public petition presented to the LMA asking them to vote to exercise the RFR.
Esch: Oh, yes, let’s talk about that. Curiously, and quite illegally, in late February 2011, one of the LMA board members, accompanied by a multiple property owner in Locke, went door-to-door with a petition for the LMA to buy the property for which I was already in legal escrow. Thirteen (13) people of the sixty (60) residents signed the illegally-administered petition.

Locked: The e-mails sent by owners also.
Esch: Yes, at the March 8, 2011 LMA meeting, LMA board member, Deborah Mendel stated that she had received several e-mails from friends and neighbors during the 25 day ROFR period, wishing to buy the property for which I was already in legal escrow. Mendel’s confidential e-mails are part of a series of serious Ralph M. Brown Act violations by LMA board that apparently occurred on the issue of my property purchase.

Locked: Over half the property owners in Locke requested that the LMA exercise the RFR.
Esch: There are fifty (50) properties in Locke. Thirteen (13) signatures on an illegally-administered petition are about one-fourth, not over half. Perhaps you are counting thirteen as the majority of property owners in Locke, due to the odd voting power structure on matters of homeowners of Locke. In 2004 when the LMA was formed, Locke was parceled by the SHRA Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency and property owners (including many long-time squatters) were given property deeds - most for the first time according to Sacramento County records. Sixteen of the fifty-some buildings had no interested buyers, were not publicly listed, and were purchased by three people who, along with all the other new parcel owners, did not have to go through ROFR Right of First Refusal and its 25 day waiting period. These three individuals control the majority of the voting power in Locke today with one vote granted per one parcel. Since LMA is a public agency, it must abide by Federal and State laws and it is questionable whether one vote per parcel, not one vote per person, is even constitutional. Additionally, the LMA board has allowed the ROFR 25-day period to be waived early of passed with no actions taken for all of their fellow board members who have purchased Locke property since 2005 when they were formed. Cronyism, plain and simple.

Locked: The people of this community joined together and spoke out.
Esch: And many more in this community and other communities are speaking back.

Locked: We are not racists. Most of the people are the same race as you. It was a dirty card to play, false and you continue to promote this cause in the press. It only hurts us all.
Esch: Based on the LMA’s written statement that a single national origin must be “notified due to their own preference to purchase the Locke property,” racism is hurting me, as I do not fit LMA’s preferred nationality, and am now saddled with fighting their lawsuit against me. I agree with you on one thing, though, the LMA’s pursuit of this vindictive and ultimately fruitless lawsuit only hurts us all.

Continue to "Locke property dispute (part 3)"

Disclosure: If Locked replies a third time, I will not respond again unless he or she reveals their true identity in their public reply posting. The same goes for any other anonymous posters. Thank you to everyone for your support and interest. ~ Martha Esch

The Arc California prepares local fundraiser as lawsuit looms

2011-10-14T18:15:00Z

A marathon of litigation lies ahead in Arc California’s emerging legal battle with the State of California – but for now, they’ll look to start things off with a 5K.

“As California taxpayers, we fully appreciate the State’s need to reduce costs, but we cannot allow the State to endanger its citizens and risk their basic civil rights,” Arc California executive director Tony Anderson said in a statement released on the Sacramento-based organization’s website.

Filed jointly in federal court by Arc California and United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) of San Diego, both agencies which serve as advocates for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, a law suit against the State of California filed on September 28 alleges that the State has “abandoned people with developmental disabilities and exposed them to health and safety risks by failing to provide reasonable support services.”

As has been the grim, ongoing case with most state-funded agencies, services for individuals with developmental disabilities continue to face looming budget cuts. While Arc California and its partnering organizations scramble to hold much-needed fundraising events for their programs, such as the Harvest 5K Run in Roseville on October 23 (see further details below), the law suit against the State looms as a critical measure in the fight to keep these services in continued operation.

“It’s illegal to slash basic support services that allow Californians with developmental disabilities to live safely in their communities,” Anderson said. “These basic civil rights cannot be compromised or bargained away as part of a budget deal. The State of California must follow the law and honor its commitment to serve and protect the rights of Californians with developmental disabilities.”

The suit alleges that the State has violated federal law by failing to adequately fund services necessary for individuals with such disabilities, specifically by ignoring the Federal Home and Community Based Service Providers (HCBS) waiver program in reducing rates and reimbursements without federal approval.

Further, the suit accuses the state of failing to live up to the promises outlined in the Lanterman Act, a key piece of human services legislation enacted in 1969 by then-Governor Ronald Regan that guarantees the state provide support services necessary for independent living to those with developmental disabilities.

Citing “a decade of funding neglect” and outlining, among other items, $174 million in funding cuts this summer alone, the suit alleges that existing laws which guarantee the proper funding of these services have been violated, and it is asking the federal court to ensure proper enforcement of these laws.

California DDS could potentially issue additional trigger cuts of up to $100 million before year’s end if the State’s monthly revenues continue to fall short of expectations.

“Despite repeated warnings from top state experts and the State Auditor General, California continued to withhold necessary funding and push these programs to the brink of collapse,” UCP San Diego executive director Dave Carucci said in the statement.

“It’s not right, fair or legal and must be stopped, Carucci added. “The State’s neglect has left Californians with developmental disabilities at great risk, their health and safety is in jeopardy.

“All we are asking is that California comply with both state and federal law to ensure the basic needs of these individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities are met.”

The First Annual Harvest 5K Run & One Mile Fun Run will be held on Sunday, October 23 at Maidu Park, 1550 Maidu Drive in Roseville. The event is being put on jointly by Arc California and Placer ARC. All proceeds from the race will go directly towards Placer ARC and Arc California-run programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Registrations for the race begins at 8 a.m., with the race beginning at 9 a.m. The cost is $25 for the 5K, $15 for children or students with ID, and $10 for the Fun Run. The 5K features a men’s and women’s competition, with cash prizes ($25-$75) awarded to the top three men’s and women’s finishers. The Fun Run is ideal for younger children and families (costumes are not required, but certainly welcome). For more information, visit www.placerarc.org or call (916) 781-3016.

Disclosure: Aaron Davis is the Grant Writer/ Outreach Coordinator for Placer ARC, a member of Arc California

City appeals decision in homeless class action suit

2011-09-23T02:50:07Z

On the same day that activists and supporters rallied together for homeless rights at the Safe Ground Jubilee, attorneys for the city of Sacramento were busy filing a motion to appeal a Federal Court decision in a contentious homeless class action lawsuit.

“Our rationale for appeal is based primarily on procedural and evidentiary rulings that came up in the trial,” Brett Witter, supervising deputy city attorney for Sacramento said Thursday.

The motion for appeal was filed Sept. 14 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by attorney Chance Trimm, on behalf of the city.

According to court documents, the city is appealing a May 24 Federal Court decision that found the city liable on two of six claims by plaintiffs that the city “had a custom and practice of violating (plaintiffs’) constitutional rights concerning their personal property.”

(Read court documents on Lehr v. City of Sacramento HERE.)

“We’re not appealing the jury’s decision,” Witter said, “instead, we’re challenging the way the evidence was presented to the jury.”

Witter said that, among the issues brought up in the city’s appeal is an amendment made to the plaintiffs’ complaint late in the game.

“(The amendment) came literally a couple of weeks before the trial,” Witter said. “We felt the late amendment was inappropriate. That’s just one of the problems (with the trial) we want to discuss.”

Mark Merin, the attorney representing the homeless class action group, said Wednesday that the city has no basis for the motion to appeal.

“An appeal can only happen after a final judgement,” Merin said. “In this case, there hasn’t yet been one.”

Because the jury decided the city is liable but hasn’t set damages yet, Merin explained, the case is not considered “final” or completed.

Merin filed a motion with the court on Sept. 20 to dismiss the appeal for “lack of jurisdiction.”

The homeless class action against the city began in 2007 when Merin, representing homeless individuals, filed suit in Sacramento Federal Court alleging that homeless plaintiffs’ belongings were illegally taken and thrown away by Sacramento police officers between August 2005 and May 2009.

Once the court made its decision in May 2011, Merin said, the next step should be negotiating a claims procedure to compensate individuals for damages and property loss.

“It’s not just compensation for the actual property,” Merin said. “It’s also loss of use of property. The (class action petitioners) are also entitled to damages for the violation of their rights.”

Merin said there isn’t any way to accurately estimate the final amount of damages, but he estimates the amount may be as much as $1 million or more.

“As long as the case is unresolved, it has a real impact on the many homeless people in Sacramento,” Joan Burke, director of advocacy for Loaves & Fishes, said Thursday.

Burke said that more than 1,000 homeless people in the city are forced to sleep outside every night because there is a lack of shelter space available.

“Anyone forced to sleep outside is subject to arrest,” Burke said. “When people are arrested, they have to worry about their stuff.”

Typically what people have with them when they are living outside, Burke said, are “survival items” – such as clothing, eyeglasses or medical prescriptions – or more sentimental items like photographs and family mementos.

“When you have to minimize what you carry around,” Burke said, “you get it down to what is really most important to you.”

In June, the city filed additional motions for summary judgment – to essentially “cancel” the jury decision – as well as a motion for a new trial.

Both actions were denied by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., the presiding judge of the case, on Aug. 15.

“(The City) has done all they can to delay the reckoning,” Merin said, “and it just won’t work.”

Witter said that, if the appeal is denied, city attorneys will go back to the City Council to get direction on what to do next.

Merin said he expects the court will make a decision on the motion to dismiss by the end of October.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Co-op lawsuit dismissed

2011-09-09T23:35:50Z

A lawsuit against the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op has been dismissed at the request of those who filed it, members of the co-op who earlier this year sought to ban the sale of Israeli-made products at the grocery store.

“We, the petitioners, chose to dismiss this case,” said Sharon Adams, Berkeley-based attorney for Maggie Coulter and Robin Kristufek.

The lawsuit, filed June 30, alleged that the co-op’s board was violating its bylaws by not allowing a ballot initiative to ban Israeli-made products to go to a vote by the full membership.

The Sacramento County Superior Court denied a request to expedite the case on July 28, which could have brought a resolution in advance of ballots going out in August.

Adams said Friday that the purpose of the lawsuit was to get the measure put on the ballot, and there is no purpose now that the ballots have been mailed and will be counted over the weekend.

“We chose to dismiss the case,” she said. “It was just strategic.”

The case, however, was dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning the same lawsuit cannot be filed again at a later date.

“When you dismiss with prejudice, it is just this particular narrow issue.” Adams said, “I think the strategy is to go forward politically rather than (with) litigation.”

Two people supportive of the boycott on Israeli products ran for election to the co-op board, voicing their intentions at a candidates forum Aug. 2.

Co-op Board President Steven Maviglio said in an email Friday that he is pleased with the dismissal.

“While the Board is pleased to have this burdensome litigation behind it, certain members of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) group continue to threaten continued litigation,” he wrote. “The Board will continue to oppose these and other efforts that violate the Cooperative Principles, our Bylaws, and the law.”

One of Maviglio’s earlier concerns with the lawsuit was spending co-op funds in a costly legal battle, but he wrote in the email Friday that the co-op received pro-bono legal services from the Pillsbury law firm in Sacramento.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.

Locke property dispute (part 1)

2011-09-07T20:39:39Z

Public Agency Lawsuit to Seize $21,000 Home from Rightful Purchaser near Sacramento, California...

In the rustic, antique wood-built town of Locke, California, founded from 1912 to 1920s, the Locke Management Association (LMA), a thirteen (13) member board put in place in 2003 to maintain, preserve and manage the town is prioritizing its limited $60,000 operating budget to attempt to undo a recent property purchase that occurred. The buyer, Martha Esch, struck a deal to purchase one of the town’s dilapidated properties with seller, Dona LaBlanc for a $21,000 purchase price. The LMA claims both women circumvented the agency’s rules in order to complete the sale. The property was previously owned by LaBlanc’s cousin, Laura Ulewicz, who died in 2007.

A brief summary of the Town of Locke
The tiny town currently has approximately the same number of residents as it has buildings (about fifty (50)), mostly renters and a few owners. Several of the buildings are vacant. Locke is a well-kept secret and a favorite destination on weekends for in-the-know tourists, photo clubs, artists, bikers, and car clubs. It’s loaded with colorful history of its immigrant ancestors. In 1930, the U.S Census recorded 410 residents in Locke whose origins were from China and nineteen (19) other countries. There is an iconic Main Street bar called “Al the Wops” which is still in business under the same name given it in 1934, by its Italian founder, Al Adami. Al began selling his famous steaks there in 1934 and the steak tradition (among others) continues. The one-block-long town looks like an old-west movie set. In fact, Clint Eastwood and a few other silver screen actors and directors have used the town for their movie sets - most recently, “On the Road,” a soon-to-be-released big screen adaptation of Beat Generation novelist, Jack Kerouac.

Despite the occasional fame Locke enjoys, the parks and side streets go largely unmaintained, the sidewalks are in terrible disrepair, and basic fire response safeguards, such as fire extinguishers and accessible alarms are virtually non-existent. A connective sprinkler system was put on the exterior of most of the Main Street buildings in 2002, but residents have been told by fire officials that the system cannot be tested without turning the entire chain of pipes on and a building would have to be engulfed in flames before they’ll kick on automatically.

The Dispute
Regarding LMA’s quest for Esch’s property, in a March 26, 2011 letter signed by LMA’s Chairman, Clarence Chu, a statement was made: “… to enable the LMA to carry out its legal obligations to its Historic Preservation purposes. (This includes our responsibility to notify the 400 Chinese Ascendants and Descendants of Locke of their own priority to purchase the Locke property).” The “400” statement has been the only reason given by the LMA for its option to exercise its ROFR (Right of First Refusal) on the property.

LMA’s pursuit to give preference to a single ethnic group to buy the property is in probable violation of State and Federal laws. Locke Federal HUD investigators immediately began an investigation on the LMA and its parent organization, the SHRA (Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency) for the discriminatory statement made in the March 26 letter and the LMA’s policy regarding ROFR (Right of First Refusal) – a rule in LMA’s CC&R’s (Codes, Covenants & Restrictions) which allows the agency to match a bona fide offer on any property in the town or to assign the right to purchase - provided they act within 25 days of receiving notification by the seller of the offer.

LMA’s lawyer, Stephen J. Beede has an additional hurdle to convince a Superior Court Judge - that the 25 calendar days had not expired by the time they finally got around to acting - yet, it had expired by four days. Esch, an Ohio-born artist and art teacher says she, LaBlanc and Placer Title Company waited out the time period, completed the property transfer legally and has she believes she has every constitutional right to retain its ownership.

While the LMA board members voted unanimously 6-0 to exercise its ROFR (which raises the question whether the six directors in attendance who voted unanimously in favor of exercising ROFR actually constituted a majority of the 13-member board); there was no discussion of funds allocation for the purchase, hence no vote for allocation of funds from LMA’s sparse budget; additionally, there had been no closed door meeting previous to their March 8, 2011 meeting to fall back on.

Although the Buyer is not mentioned anywhere in the policies and procedures of the LMA’s CC&R’s, Attorney Beede’s lawsuit holds Esch party to the action based on the fact that she was in the audience at the March 8, 2011 meeting and sat silent, making no objection when the board members voted unanimously to exercise its ROFR on the property for which she was in escrow. Esch says she knew that they were late to vote, but it was not her responsibility to educate the board members how to count to twenty-five. She adds that if she’d said anything, she would’ve been scolded for interrupting. At many prior LMA meetings she and others have been referred to by the former Chairman disrespectfully as “invitees,” (non-property owning renters) and are told frequently not to speak to issues until their three minutes during public comment at the end of the meeting.

Esch points out the LMA has made other improprieties, such as opening their own escrow with Old Republic Title Company in Lodi, CA on the property the day before her own escrow with Placer Title closed on March 15, 2011. She believes they were trying to block Placer Title from closing her escrow. LMA opened their escrow without LaBlanc’s or her permissions or knowledge and without any public or noticed closed-door meetings for their escrow – all probable violations of the Brown Act.

The LMA, a public 504-C3 non-profit, falls under the Brown Act which is in place to ensure public transparency. The Brown Act requires public agencies to give advance public notification of its closed and open meetings, timely and adequate information on meeting agendas, summaries of meeting minutes and actions taken, and the opportunity for the public to voice their opinions on matters of discussion at meetings.

The absence of public or closed-door noticed discussion of escrow funds allocation and subsequent opening of its own escrow on the property on March 14, 2011 were done in total secrecy and may constitute a contractual tort in addition to alleged violations of the Brown Act. Several other Brown Act violations by the agency have been alleged to have occurred during and since the property was deeded to Esch on March 21, 2011. Lisa Kirk, a friend of Esch and business owner in Locke has been keeping records of the series of Brown Act violations the LMA board has made.

In early April, Esch refused to cave to the LMA lawyer’s written demand for her title and signed a HUD complaint regarding the discriminatory policies of the LMA, giving preference to a single national origin. Esch began actively rehabilitating her property to transform it into an art and music studio with residential quarters, such as the one she rented and operated since 2005 across the street.

A few weeks later, without any written or verbal complaints from the LMA that she’d done anything wrong, she was served with a second lawsuit filing from Attorney Beede - an injunctive restraining order: for trimming her trees; painting her wood siding and her propane tank brown; for removing an abandoned sign post from in front of her building; and for opening her art and music studio, an unauthorized use of the building, according to Beede. However, two weeks prior to receiving the second lawsuit filing, the county had granted Esch a business license for the location. Esch feels the restraining order Beede filed on behalf of LMA is retaliation for refusing to hand over her title and for filing the HUD complaint.

Additionally, the agency has refused to accept and record her monthly $100 assessments, which she now deposits directly to their bank account through the bank teller, despite Beede’s recent objection, and won’t acknowledge receipt of them. LMA has refused her written requests to view its recorded meeting minutes and agendas; and it has stonewalled her requests for its Historic Review subcommittee to review her building plans so she can obtain required Sacramento County building permits and proceed with having the repairs and updates done to her building.

Esch is represented by Sacramento Attorney Mark A. Wasser, who has filed a demurrer to Beede’s first action of demand for title to the property.

On August 17, 2011, Sacramento Superior Court reviewed Beede's additional filing for the injunctive restraining order to be placed on Esch to prevent her from further trimming of trees, painting, making necessary repairs and using her business license within the property. The injuctive hearing filing was denied by the court, due to lack of evidence that Esch had done anything wrong, countered by the evidence that Esch's attorney Mark Wasser presented which included the fact that Locke Management Association had violated one of their own CC&R's by not giving Esch any prior written or verbal notice of their complaints before filing for the injunction with the court.

The property dispute hearing is scheduled to be heard on December 22, 1011 in Sacramento Superior Court.

FURTHER INFO View online: Sacramento Bee front page article of June 28, 2011

http://www.sacbee.com keywords: Locke dispute

Continue to "Locke property dispute (part 2)"

Disclosure: A friend who is adept at journalism assisted me to present my side.of this ongoing challenge the LMA has put on my shoulders. I welcome all opinions and encourage fair statements from LMA board and its attorney on this public forum.

Ask the County Law Librarian -- Public Access to Mug Shots

2011-08-25T19:46:42Z

Q. Is it possible to obtain an individual's booking photo using the booking number at a County jail?

Thank you,

Rebecca

A. There are several reasons a person might want to see booking photos (also known as “mug shots”). They are a popular part of news stories on crime, especially when celebrities or particularly newsworthy crimes are involved. In some cases, a person may want a photo to help them identify a person who may wish them harm, but whose appearance may have changed. Academic or other studies may be another potential use for booking photos.

Although a few police or sheriff’s departments routinely release booking photos, and some even post them online, in many cases they are reluctant. You can start by simply contacting the sheriff department or jail records department and requesting the photo. You may find, however, that many—including the Sacramento county jail—will not release them in response to a simple request.

Your next step could be to file a request under the California Public Records Act (California’s equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act). The CPRA (California Government Code Sections 6250 through 6276.48) requires public agencies to permit inspection of their records.

According to the advocacy group First Amendment Coalition, it’s unclear under California law whether the police are required to release booking photos.

Booking photos are a “public record” (“any writing [including photographs] containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency”). (Cal Government Code 6522(e).)

However, records of investigations and investigatory files compiled by law enforcement agencies are exempt from the CPRA requirements. (Cal. Government Code 6524(f).) In 2003, the California Attorney General issued an opinion that mug shots fall within this exception. 86 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 132, 135 (2003). As a result, law enforcement agencies may, but are not required to, disclose them. Attorney General opinions do not have the force of law, but courts tend to give them great weight when deciding a legal question for the first time.

The 6524(f) exemption itself has an exception: the agency must release the arrested person’s “physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight,” in addition to the name of the person and information about the circumstances of the arrest. The First Amendment Coalition suggests that “[o]ne could argue that a booking photo falls into this category of records that must be released, since it does no more than visually show information that a law enforcement agency is required to release anyway.”

To use the CPRA to get a booking photo, your first step is to write a request letter. The First Amendment Coalition has a sample of what such a letter should include.

If the letter does not work, you can try re-filing the request with a higher-up official, or you can file a lawsuit to enforce your CPRA rights right away.

If you file a lawsuit, and the court agrees that the records should have been released, you are entitled to reimbursement of your fees and any attorney costs. The First Amendment Coalition has a useful page on filing such a lawsuit. They also offer a Find-A-Lawyer service to match potential litigants with First Amendment specialists, sometimes at reduced rates.

Do you have a question for the County Law Librarian? Just email sacpress@saclaw.org. If your question is selected your answer will appear in next Thursday's column. Even if your question isn't selected, though, I will still respond within two weeks.

Coral Henning, Director
@coralh & @saclawlibrarian
www.saclaw.org

Co-op lawsuit won't be heard until after election

2011-07-29T01:48:45Z

A request for an expedited hearing by two shoppers suing the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op was denied Thursday, according to court documents, meaning that the case will not be heard before board elections this fall.

The lawsuit was brought against the co-op earlier this month and claims that the co-op is not following its bylaws as board members refuse to ban Israeli-made products from the store’s shelves.

According to the documents released Thursday, the plaintiffs, Maggie Coulter and Robin Kristufek, “will not suffer irreparable injury if the hearing is heard according to the Court’s normal procedures.”

It was unclear Thursday evening when the case will be heard.

Had the expedited hearing been granted, it would have occurred at 11 a.m. Friday at Sacramento County Superior Court.

“It won’t be heard until after the (co-op board) election,” Coulter said Thursday evening, calling the decision “a disappointment.”

Steven Maviglio, the co-op board’s president, said he is pleased with the court’s decision, but is not happy that Coulter plans to go forward with the lawsuit.

“It’s a real tragedy that she doesn’t understand what a damage this is to the store,” he said. “We will continue to educate our members about the dangers of the politicization of the co-op and the efforts of (the Boycott, Divest, Sanction [BDS] group).”

He added that the co-op will continue to fight the lawsuit.

To read more about the issues behind the lawsuit, click here.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.

Lawsuit challenges new redevelopment legislation

2011-07-19T00:54:53Z

The League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association filed a petition in the California Supreme Court Monday challenging the constitutionality of recent legislation affecting redevelopment agencies in the state.

Assembly Bills AB1x26 and 27 were signed into law along with the state budget in June. According to the petition, both violate Proposition 22, a constitutional amendment passed by California voters in November 2010.

“AB1x26 eliminates redevelopment agencies,” Kathy Fairbanks, California Redevelopment Association representative, said in a press release.

“AB1x27 allows agencies to continue to exist (albeit on life support) if they agree to pay their share of $1.7 billion this year and $400 million annually in perpetuity,” she said.

The lawsuit requests a stay to prevent the legislation from going into effect until the court can rule on the merits of the case.

According to the petition, Proposition 22 was passed by voters to “prohibit State politicians in Sacramento from seizing, diverting, shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending, or otherwise taking or interfering with” revenue dedicated to local government.

Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, said Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature have “blatantly ignored the voters.”

“We must now go to the Supreme Court to uphold the voters’ will and the Constitution by overturning this unconstitutional legislation,” McKenzie added.

John Shirey, executive director of theCalifornia Redevelopment Association, said, “Since the budget bills passed, many redevelopment agencies have notified us that they cannot afford the ransom payment and will cease to exist. This legislation is a job killer and an opportunity killer for many local communities in need.”

Cities have until Oct. 1 to notify the state that they are going to make the required payments to continue their redevelopment activities, according to the terms of AB1x27.

The petition filed on Monday asks the Supreme Court to make an initial ruling on the request for stay by Aug. 15.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter with The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Jury deliberates in Sacramento homeless case

2011-05-19T00:35:12Z

Jurors are deliberating in federal court whether homeless citizens’ belongings were illegally taken and thrown away by Sacramento police officers between August 2005 and the present.

The trial, which centers on homeless people’s constitutional rights and their personal belongings, began May 9 at the Sacramento Federal Courthouse at 501 I St.

Plaintiffs attorney Mark Merin represented Linda McKinley, who was homeless in the past, and a group of homeless people in the class-action case against the city of Sacramento, according to court documents.

Merin is a supporter of the Safe Ground group, which presses Sacramento city leaders to designate land for homeless people to live.

In closing arguments on Wednesday, Merin claimed that city police officers have violated the U.S. Constitution by throwing out homeless citizens’ personal items.

“Nobody got their property back because it was tossed away,” Merin said.

Specifically, Merin has accused the city of violating the 14th Amendment by not giving homeless people sufficient warning that their belongings would be trashed. He also contends that the city has taken homeless citizens’ items in an “unreasonable search and seizure” manner that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Merin claimed in an April 1 court document that the police have taken away and thrown out homeless people’s belongings such as tents, bedding, clothing and medication. Photos and an urn with ashes have also been taken by police, he claimed in the document.

Police officers take items from the homeless when they enforce the city’s ban on overnight camping, he further claimed.

In Judge Morrison England’s courtroom Wednesday, Merin referred to the homeless campground that formed in 2009 and gained immense international media exposure.

“Tent City developed because there was no place for homeless people to go,” Merin said.

Meanwhile, the city of Sacramento disputes Merin’s claims.

“We don’t feel we violated any of the homeless individuals’ constitutional rights,” Senior Deputy City Attorney Chance Trimm said outside the courtroom.

The city claims that it did not throw out homeless people’s belongings. “Assuming any camping paraphernalia is taken from violators of the city’s camping ordinances, such property is booked and maintained at an evidence collection location by the Sacramento Police Department,” Trimm wrote in an April 1 court brief.

Merin wants the jury to order the city to give back homeless people’s personal items, according to court documents. The plaintiffs also want a court order against the city, and for the city to pay damages and attorney fees.

The Sacramento Press will report on the jury’s verdict when it becomes available.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Mountain Lions lawsuit resolved out of court

2011-03-16T01:30:04Z

A Feb. 4 breach-of-contract lawsuit brought against the United Football League concerning the Sacramento Mountain Lions Team is being resolved out of court.

The lawsuit filed Feb. 4 by Runyon Saltzman & Einhorn Inc., a public relations and marketing firm representing the Mountain Lions, sought more than $250,000 in the lawsuit.

“It is being resolved,” said Scott Rose, vice president of Runyon, Saltzman and Einhorn. “We’re in the process of working through that right now and signing agreements and arrangements for payments.”

Rose added that both parties are pleased with the outcome, and that the agreement was reached within the last week.

“It’s being amicably resolved and will be settled out of court,” said Russ Edmondson, public relations director for the Mountain Lions. “We were very pleased with the services that Runyon Saltzman & Einhorn provided for us. And the financial matter is now being closed so we can move forward with the 2011 season.”

The original contracted work period has passed, and Rose said it has yet to be determined if the firm will represent the team in the future.

“We’d certainly be open to working with them,” he said.

According to a Feb. 18 article in the Sacramento Business Journal, Runyon Saltzman & Einhorn, Inc. was contracted to receive $10,000 per month for staff time from February to November last year as well as other costs.

The total amount of the lawsuit, according to the Business Journal, was $264,892.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Ball not so stable - Kings file complaint over Garcia's 2009 training camp accident

2010-12-02T23:58:35Z

Working out is supposed to be rewarding. For some, even fun.

On Oct. 9, 2009, for Sacramento Kings forward Francisco Garcia it was neither.

Garcia was in training camp preparing his body for the rigorous NBA season. During a bench press exercise, while laying on his back on an exercise ball known as the Gymnic – “Burst Resistant” Plus Stability Ball, the ball suddenly burst open and sent Garcia crashing to the floor while still holding on to the weights. Garcia broke his right forearm and damaged ligaments in his wrist in the fall and missed all but 25 games of the 2009-10 season.

Roger A. Dreyer of the law firm Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood, attorney for the Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership and Maloof Sports and Entertainment, announced Wednesday that they have filed a product liability action against the manufacturer, seller and another company in federal court on behalf of the organization. The lawsuit covers three claims – strict product liability, negligence and breach of warranty.

Dreyer, who recently was recognized as California’s 2010 Consumer Attorney of the Year, said that the time in between the time of the accident and today has been filled with the Kings attempting to deal with the responsible parties and get the matter handled without litigation.

“What the Maloofs and the Kings organization wanted to get out was that this ball was dangerous,” Dreyer said. “The users and consumers of the ball had to be aware of that, and the manufacturer and distributor were not telling people that piece of information back at the time these balls were purchased. They had been told by the distributor, Perform Better, that they could and should use the ball in a fashion that ’Cisco Garcia was using the ball at the time of the incident.”

Perform Better is a distributor of workout products for most if not all NBA teams. On the company’s website at the time of the incident, there were diagrams showing a stick figure using weights while working out on the ball. Sometime after the accident at the King’s training facility, the website pulled those images off and now has an annotation in small print below a picture of someone working out on the ball reading “Stability Balls are not intended to be used with weights.”

Dreyer said that the “burst resistant” ball used by Garcia has been examined by a well-respected laboratory, and it was determined that the ball was not abused or misused before it exploded.

“The ball was completely in good shape,” Dreyer said. “There was no failure on the part of the ball in terms of misuse or abuse.”

Dreyer said that for the manufacturer and at least one of the distributors, this is not the first time they have been sued for the catastrophic failure of the ball. Starting in 2000, lawsuits have sprung up in Colorado, San Diego, Tennessee and New York where the ball has failed.

Calls to Mitch Popham, the attorney representing Ledraplastic, the stability ball’s manufacturer, were not returned.

Dreyer closed the press conference reiterating that the Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership and Maloof Sports and Entertainment wants the parties at fault to acknowledge that they know there is a problem and they’re not letting the consumer know.

“The users have a responsibility to use the product in a fashion.” Dreyer said. “But we don’t have as consumers the information that the manufacturer has. We don’t know that they’ve been sued multiple times. And if they’ve been sued multiple times, you can be pretty much assured that they’ve had many occasions where the balls have failed. From our perspective, the civil justice system affords the ability to hold manufacturers accountable for the consumer, and that’s were doing here today. With the help from the media, now that information will get out.”

Former Sac Bee Writer Heads Ethics Workshop

2010-08-20T02:41:12Z

About 30 local writers, journalists, students and public relations professionals met at The Sacramento Press office Wednesday evening to attend a media ethics workshop headed by assistant professor of journalism at California State University, Sacramento, Molly Dugan.

Dugan hooked her audience by posing hypothetical questions like “If I see a public official strangling a baby, can I write about it?” The answer is yes, but it’s best to seek legal counsel before targeting someone with the means to hire a good attorney.

Dugan warned journalists against using anonymous sources whenever possible, encouraged them to keep notes and documents as long as possible for personal protection, and to use common sense and check facts before writing. Truth, she said, is the best protection against a libel lawsuit.

After going over the history of ethics in the media, Dugan took questions from participants and opened discussion on ethical problems that arise while gathering information or taking photographs for use in the media. The workshop participants were eager to get practical advice from Dugan, who is also a former Sacramento Bee staff writer.

In attendance was a retired construction contractor and author Richard Lingensjo, who said he’s not a journalist, but wanted to get some insight from a professional writer now that he’s retired and has more time to focus on writing.

Lingensjo said he started attending Sacramento Press workshops about two months ago.

“Everyone here has been really nice and helpful,” he said. “And that’s why I’ve continued to come.”

Hina's Tea in legal battle

2010-04-02T02:42:05Z

Hina's Tea announced Monday that it will close soon. Owner Hina Soni, who has been in a legal dispute with her landlord, Gary Orr, since mid-2007, learned last week that Orr was entitled to repossess the property until litigation is complete.

Soni and Orr declined to comment, saying to contact their lawyers.

There are more than 100 court documents attached to the case, number 07AS02841 on the Sacramento County Superior Court's website, some reaching 330 pages.

According to the most recent court order, there are several key disputes unresolved. "There is a triable issue of fact as to the amount of back rent, if any, owed," according to the document. "There also is a triable issue of fact as to when, if ever, the lease commenced."

It also found that Hina's Tea is an unlawful detainer of its property, adding that Orr "is entitled to possession of the premises while the parties litigate the issue of damages."

According to older documents, the disputes of rent owed and whether a lease exists arose in 2006, when Soni and Orr initially met to discuss the property rental. Orr was said to have offered to remodel the property for a certain price and to ensure it complied with building codes. The lease was said to be contingent on these renovations, which didn't go according to plan.

"The allegation (is) that in Orr's role as architect, designer, agent and construction manager, the work performed was substandard, over budget and in need of costly repairs," said another document.

Orr's law-firm don't see it that way.

"Hina's commenced this (legal) action in bad faith with the intent to cease payment to my client," said Dan McGee of Ellis, Coleman, Porier, Lavoie & Steinheimer, which is representing Orr. "The bottom line is we have a business who has been operating from the premises rent free."

Calls to Radoslovich Law Corp., which is representing Soni, were not returned.

"In response to Mr. Orr’s attorney’s comments that Hina’s Tea refused to pay rent without justification, Hina’s Tea does not refuse to pay rent," said a written statement on the business's behalf. "Hina’s Tea believes Mr. Orr was paid all that he is due and that he failed to meet numerous obligations ... These issues, among others, remain subject to ongoing litigation with Mr. Orr and it will be left to the Court to resolve them."

McGee said a trial is set for Sept. 29 to resolve remaining issues.

Property dispute at latest "Safe Ground" location

2009-09-17T01:04:14Z

For about 30 years, the Hernandez family has owned the only house on the block of 13th Street between B and C Streets. Until Aug. 21, the rest of the block surrounding their home was filled with vacant lots.

"Safe Ground" came to the block when Sacramento lawyer and homeless advocate Mark Merin, who has owned several of the adjacent lots since 2007, teamed up with non-profits, businesses and other individuals. Tightly fit rows of matching tents complete with a "Safe Ground" logo (click here for photograph) began filling the one vacant lot directly behind the Hernandez's house, and for nearly a month, tents have housed about 40 homeless people on the property.

Monday, the Hernandez family, with the support of attorney Aldon Bolanos, filed a lawsuit against Merin on the grounds that the encampment on the property is a private nuisance. Though the tenants of the house are Pedro and Gracilla Hernandez, who are both in their early 70s, their daughter owns the title for the house.

The city had already filed a similar suit on Sept. 9 against Merin for the property being a public nuisance .

Bolanos met the Hernandez family when he was walking his dog. He stopped to watch the campers move onto the Merin-owned property, and the Hernandez family struck up a conversation with him as they watched the tents being installed.

Bolanos also lives in the Downtown area, but further from the camp area. After hearing the Hernandez's story, he felt compelled to take the case, he said.

The dispute over the property began in March 2007 when Merin purchased the plot of land behind the Hernandez residence. Because it was too small to build upon based on city code, he wanted to connect it to an even smaller piece of property he owns on the corner of 13th and C Streets, also next to the Hernandez residence.

After finding out that the only way to do this was through the Hernandez's plot, Merin approached Pedro Hernandez, 72, to try to purchase their backyard. When Hernandez refused, wanting to keep his yard, Merin sued him, alleging a property line boundary dispute.

The suit dragged on for over a year, costing the Hernandez family north of $100,000 in legal fees. But when they won the case last October (the dispute was unfounded), Merin was forced to settle the case out of court.

"It's called playing dirty," said Bolanos, referring to both the lawsuit and Merin's use of the property as a "Safe Ground" location. Since the encampment has taken residence, the Hernandez family has complained about loud noise, garbage, urine, feces, cockroaches, rats and even drug transactions including crack, heroin and meth, Bolanos added.

"[Mr. Hernandez] has observed these campers urinating on his home," Bolanos added. "It's tough for them, and they have a host of health problems, so this has made it a lot worse for [them]."

"You tell me how you would feel if you had this problem in your backyard," Hernandez, 72, said in a Sacramento Bee article. "You can imagine how [my family and I] feel."

Because the encampment is a violation of a city ordinance that prohibits camping for more than 24 hours, police have been regularly entering the property, arresting campers and confiscating tents and other camping equipment. Tents and camping equipment have been donated after every raid.

"I'm sympathetic to the plight of homeless, and if somebody wants to live outside, that's fine with me," Bolanos said. "But to do it in the Downtown core of a major city--and they do it in a manner that affects other people; other people's rights have to be considered, too."

Bolanos expects both the public and private nuisance suits to be combined since they are "substantially similar," he said. If all goes according to plan, Bolanos said the campers might be restricted from Merin's property beginning Thursday, Sept. 17.

He also said that Merin could receive an injunction against campers on his property as early as Tuesday, Sept. 22. But the court's decision on whether Merin violated the law and provided an opportunity for "unlawful camping" could take up to 10 months, Bolanos added.

City Council to Throw Out Fair Election Ordinance

2009-03-31T19:04:00Z

Today's (Tuesday, March 31st) Sacramento city council meeting includes an item on the "consent calendar" (meaning a group of items expected to be non-controversial) that would eliminate portions of Sacramento's campaign finance law. This change would remove any fundraising limits for organizations called "independent expenditure committees" and also raise campaign contribution limits for political candidates.

What is an "independent expenditure committee," you might ask? Wikipedia defines them as: "In elections in the United States, an independent expenditure is a political activity intended to assist or oppose a specific candidate for office which is made without their cooperation, approval, or direct knowledge. Most commonly, this takes the form of advertising. In some cases, independent expenditures may far exceed direct spending by the candidates' campaigns. Groups which frequently make use of independent expenditures include political party committees, political action committees, and 527 groups."

Some examples of "independent expenditure committees" include groups like MoveOn.org or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (527 groups) or the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee (political party committees.)

The full report can be found here:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=80&meta_id=174038

The reason given for this change is the risk of a court challenge. During the last election cycle, attorneys representing independent expenditure committees, one supporting former Mayor Fargo and one supporting current Mayor Johnson approached the city. They wanted to spend money beyond the current spending limits to support their respective candidates, and threatened to sue the city over their campaign-finance laws based on the following precedents:

N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir 2008) and Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540 (W.D. Ark. 1998)

The city, faced with the threat of lawsuit, declared that the city would not enforce its spending-limit laws during the last weeks of the election. Now, the city government plans to eliminate these laws entirely. It is not being discussed as a city council issue, but passed with a series of purportedly non-controversial regulations. Its result will probably be an even greater level of influence for developers and other moneyed interests, while restricting the ability of members of the public who are not wealthy or backed by the wealthy to run for public office.

If you are interested in providing feedback to the City Council, or asking them to take this item off of today's consent calendar, please call the City Council members at the numbers below. The item in question is Item 5 on the consent calendar: Ordinance Amendment: Ordinance Amending and Repealing Various Sections of Title 2 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to the City's Campaign Chapters (Contributions and Spending)

Kevin Johnson
Mayor
Mayor's Office
916-808-5300

Ray Tretheway

Ray Tretheway
District 1
916-808-7001

Sandy Sheedy
District 2
916-808-7002

Steve Cohn
District 3
916-808-7003

Robert King Fong
District 4
916-808-7004

Lauren Hammond
District 5
916-808-7005

Kevin McCarty
District 6
916-808-7006

Robbie Waters
District 7
916-808-7007

Bonnie Pannell
District 8
916-808-7008