BASED ON THIS BLOG POST (That somehow MAGICALLY disappeared off the Google search engines, so it MUST be something some POWERFUL folks don't want you to see. Which is WHY I am reposting it. (Wonder who could make my posts disappear off Google?):
LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY CARMEN TRUTANICH IS RUNNING FOR L.A. DISTRICT ATTORNEY. But, after promising voters, not only that he wasn't going to run for D.A., but that he was going to crack down on L.A. City corruption, THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED BY L.A. SUPERIOR COURT in October 2011, that highlights HOW CORRUPT L.A. HOUSING DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO OPERATE UNDER HIS PERVUE!
AND, THE LAW BREAKING OF LAHD, CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, AND ZUMA DOGG IS PREPARING A REPORT, BASED ON REAL PEOPLE'S STORIES TO TURN OVER TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES, WHICH I GUESS ISN'T CARMEN TRUTANICH:
AND TO HERB WESSON, ANTONIO VILLARAIOGSA & L.A. CITY COUNCIL: YOU KNOW THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST DEVASTATING COURT RULING AGAINST THE CITY, EVER! (Though ZD still likes to think his Venice Beach one was. BUT, he MUST digress to the #2 spot for this one!)
REPORT TO FBI: Los Angeles Housing Department BREAKING LAW By Citing/Enforcing Building Code [HIGHLY ILLEGAL AFTER TRUTANICHLOSES SUPERIOR COURT RULING!]
This IS the biggest shoe at L.A. City Hall, right now. Los Angeles Housing Department was found to be in violation by L.A. Superior Court, for citing and enforcing Building & Safety code. Sounds pretty innocuous. But it's kinda like of Netflix charging you late fees for your Blockbuster account, and you end up losing your DVD machine, as a result; or get to keep it, if you pay big fines.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF ISSUE THE FBI INVESTIGATES - HERE YOU GO!:
To: Desk Agent
Fr: ZD
Re: Los Angeles Housing Dept Citing and Enforcing Building Code [City LOST Superior Court Ruling.]
Dt: 02/09/2012
As a high-profile Los Angeles City Hall watchdogg/blogger, it has been brought to my attention that the City of Los Angeles lost a Superior Court ruling in October 2011, finding they are not allowed to have the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) cite and enforce L.A. Building and Safety Code.
Property owners have been forced to pay fines; have been denied registration and renewals over this matter; and properties have been put at risk of losing to the City, all while violating the law.
It has also been brought to my attention, that the city continues with this method, in light of the court ruling.
Additionally, an L.A. City building inspector says I should start asking at the L.A. City Council meetings, on-the-record, if LAHD Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) inspectors have a quota. (When he says, “ask” I believe based on my relationship with this person, that it means, there IS a quota.) If there is a quota, that gives inspectors incentive to cite property owners that may not actually be in violation of any city ordinances, but pressure from the top (quotas, probably “unwritten rule,” which is why my source said, “ask,” instead of handing me the memo”), may force inspectors to place owners into the program, anyway. Cause good paying inspector jobs are hard to find. (A somewhat related issue, as it is also under LAHD regarding enforcement that leads to loss of property to City.)
Here is a description by the court of the issue (along with case number) and some stories from the public that have been brought to my attention. - ZD
CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney
200 N. Main Street, Room 916, City Hall East
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4131
Attorney for Defendants, City of Los Angeles and City of L.A. by and through L.A. Housing Dept.
BARBARA DARWISH, Plaintiff
CASE NO. BC 398784
1. Pursuant to LAMC Section 151.05B (LAMC), Petitioner (Plaintiff) is entitled to writ of mandate because the City has a ministerial duty, under its Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), to register or renew registration of Petitioner's four rental units on Petitioner's property, upon payment by Petitioner of the fees required to register four units and upon compliance with the requirements of LAMC Section 151.05B.
2. The requirement of registration under LAMC is a revenue measure, not a regulatory measure, the purpose of which i to fund the enforcement costs of the RSO by levying a tax or fee upon a landlord for each unit that the landlord wishes to rent.
3. The City does not authorize its Housing Dept (LAHD) to use the ministerial provisions of the RSO to force a landlord to comply with the City's building code. The building code is to be enforced by utilizing the enforcement provisions contained in that code.
4. LAMC has not been amended, remains in full force and effect, and still requires that the City issue to a landlord, upon the payment of proper fees and the furnishing of an emergency phone number, the registration of rental units.
5. The City cite no legislative enactment that permit City officers or employees to use the RSO to enforce building code. The building code itself has adequate enforcement provision for its enforcement. Nothing in this court's ruling deprives the City of its right to enforce its building code using the legislation enacted to enforce the code.
SUMMARY: Los Angeles Housing Department has been ILLEGALLY denying property owners registrations and renewals of their properties, for BUILDING & SAFETY CODE REASONS, when the court had to remind City that the ONLY issue LAHD may concern themselves with is the fee itself. Adding that if the city wants to bust people on Building & Safety code, they have to have the Building & Safety Department do that, since B & S Dept has their own enforcement system.
READ FULL REPORT, INCLUDING STORIES FROM PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HIGHLIGHT THE HARASSMENT AND RACKETEERING OF AN ORGANIZED CRIME MAFIOSA ENTITY: Los Angeles Housing Department. I WONDER WHERE CARMEN TRUTANICH HAS BEEN ON THIS LEGAL MATTER, WHILE IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN?
THIS IS THE TYPE OF ISSUE THE FBI INVESTIGATES - HERE YOU GO!:
To: Desk Agent
Fr: ZD
Re: Los Angeles Housing Dept Citing and Enforcing Building Code [City LOST Superior Court Ruling.]
Dt: 02/09/2012
As a high-profile Los Angeles City Hall watchdogg/blogger, it has been brought to my attention that the City of Los Angeles lost a Superior Court ruling in October 2011, finding they are not allowed to have the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) cite and enforce L.A. Building and Safety Code.
Property owners have been forced to pay fines; have been denied registration and renewals over this matter; and properties have been put at risk of losing to the City, all while violating the law.
It has also been brought to my attention, that the city continues with this method, in light of the court ruling.
Additionally, an L.A. City building inspector says I should start asking at the L.A. City Council meetings, on-the-record, if LAHD Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) inspectors have a quota. (When he says, “ask” I believe based on my relationship with this person, that it means, there IS a quota.) If there is a quota, that gives inspectors incentive to cite property owners that may not actually be in violation of any city ordinances, but pressure from the top (quotas, probably “unwritten rule,” which is why my source said, “ask,” instead of handing me the memo”), may force inspectors to place owners into the program, anyway. Cause good paying inspector jobs are hard to find. (A somewhat related issue, as it is also under LAHD regarding enforcement that leads to loss of property to City.)
Here is a description by the court of the issue (along with case number) and some stories from the public that have been brought to my attention. - ZD
CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney
200 N. Main Street, Room 916, City Hall East
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4131
Attorney for Defendants, City of Los Angeles and City of L.A. by and through L.A. Housing Dept.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
BARBARA DARWISH, Plaintiff
CASE NO. BC 398784
1. Pursuant to LAMC Section 151.05B (LAMC), Petitioner (Plaintiff) is entitled to writ of mandate because the City has a ministerial duty, under its Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), to register or renew registration of Petitioner's four rental units on Petitioner's property, upon payment by Petitioner of the fees required to register four units and upon compliance with the requirements of LAMC Section 151.05B.
2. The requirement of registration under LAMC is a revenue measure, not a regulatory measure, the purpose of which i to fund the enforcement costs of the RSO by levying a tax or fee upon a landlord for each unit that the landlord wishes to rent.
3. The City does not authorize its Housing Dept (LAHD) to use the ministerial provisions of the RSO to force a landlord to comply with the City's building code. The building code is to be enforced by utilizing the enforcement provisions contained in that code.
4. LAMC has not been amended, remains in full force and effect, and still requires that the City issue to a landlord, upon the payment of proper fees and the furnishing of an emergency phone number, the registration of rental units.
5. The City cite no legislative enactment that permit City officers or employees to use the RSO to enforce building code. The building code itself has adequate enforcement provision for its enforcement. Nothing in this court's ruling deprives the City of its right to enforce its building code using the legislation enacted to enforce the code.
SUMMARY: Los Angeles Housing Department has been ILLEGALLY denying property owners registrations and renewals of their properties, for BUILDING & SAFETY CODE REASONS, when the court had to remind City that the ONLY issue LAHD may concern themselves with is the fee itself. Adding that if the city wants to bust people on Building & Safety code, they have to have the Building & Safety Department do that, since B & S Dept has their own enforcement system.
READ FULL REPORT, INCLUDING STORIES FROM PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HIGHLIGHT THE HARASSMENT AND RACKETEERING OF AN ORGANIZED CRIME MAFIOSA ENTITY: Los Angeles Housing Department. I WONDER WHERE CARMEN TRUTANICH HAS BEEN ON THIS LEGAL MATTER, WHILE IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN?
Posts
