The City of LA, in this pleading, asked for an extension of fewer than 30 days, which evidently is granted automatically. With this motion the City is due to respond by January 19, 2016.
The discovery process in all its glory.On Tuesday (December 8) a bunch of new documents related to the discovery process were filed in the ongoing lawsuit filed by Los Angeles Catholic Worker and the Los Angeles Community Action Network against the City of Los Angeles and the Central City East Association, which runs the Downtown Industrial District BID. I don’t have the competence to comment usefully on most of this stuff, but, interestingly, there’s a lot of discussion of how the city of Los Angeles deals with public records. This, I do know something about.
Anyway, you can find all of the new pleadings here in the subdirectory, dated December 8, 2015. First there is a brief motion to compel discovery from the city of LA, necessary because getting camels through the eyes of needles is easier than getting documents out of the city of Los Angeles. This was foreshadowed by something I missed in the the joint stipulation, discussed in my post the other day:
The City and Plaintiffs have met extensively regarding Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production and will likely require Court intervention to resolve their disagreement
Ammon Hennacy in Santa Monica in July, 1966.NOTE: Clearly I can’t read. This is wrong. The joint proposed motion filed by the parties was DENIED by the court. Trial is still set for April 26, 2016.
According to pleadings filed on November 30, 2015, settlement talks in the lawsuit filed by Los Angeles Catholic Worker and the Los Angeles Community Action Network against the City of Los Angeles and the Central City East Association, which runs the Downtown Industrial District BID, are proceeding well. The parties filed a joint stipulation stating that they
…continue to engage in settlement negotiations and are actively exchanging proposals. The parties believe future talks will continue to be productive and are amenable to participating in further sessions with Judge Woehrle [the magistrate judge in the case]. Because these early settlement conferences indicated a potential for resolution of this case, and because all parties are non-profits and government entities, the parties have attempted to delay incurring significant litigation expenses from discovery and motion practice while the parties have been actively engaged in settlement negotiations.
BID Patrol surveillance photo of Selma Park in April, 2007, after it became a target of the BID but before they opened fire. We have no hard evidence yet, but we’d say that this photo of a man dancing happily in the park was intended to depict the kind of thing that must be STOPPED!Long-time readers of this blog will recall that in late 2007 the HPOA put signs up in Selma Park in Hollywood which stated ominiously:
Children’s Play Area Only
Adults Not Accompanying Children Prohibited
Sec 653b, subdivision a, CA Penal Code
We discovered in September 2015 that these signs were placed illegally, informed the LA Recreation and Parks Commission, and they were removed within 14 days of our communication with RAP. Read here for more background. Close-up of former sign in Selma Park falsely claiming it to be a “Children’s Play Area Only.”
Our correspondent, Mike has made and continues to make innumerable requests for public records in order to help us sort out exactly what happened in that park. Today we’re going to update you on some requests that did not result in the production of records, but whose outcomes yielded interesting information nevertheless.
First, on November 16, 2015, Kerry told our correspondent that “A/I says that after looking into this, it is unlikely that any arrests ever were made by A/I in Selma Park with specific regard to the signs and penal code section you recite (as opposed to public urination, drinking, and other reasons)…” While we have no doubts at all that that’s what A/I (Andrews International) told Kerry Morrison, who on all evidence is a scrupulously honest person, their statement is flat-out not true, which to us indicates consciousness of guilt on their part. The details follow after the break.
A sunny cold November day in Selma Park with grownups sans children, just sitting around enjoying the goddamned park like God and the Recreation and Parks Commission intended them to do.Please, friends, forgive the wonkish headline, and read on to understand why it’s so important. If you haven’t been following the tragic saga of Selma Park, catch up here in the archives. The TL;DR is that the HPOA illegally proclaimed adults in Selma Park without children in tow to be in violation of California Penal Code 653b(a) and then proceeded arrest a bunch of people on these trumped-up charges. Every last one of the people arrested at that park for that crime whose cases were sent to the city attorney for prosecution had their prosecutions rejected. While we can’t (at the moment) prove that all 46 people arrested for violating that law at that park since 2008 were arrested by the Andrews International BID Patrol under the auspices of the Hollywood Property Owners Alliance, we can, as of now, prove something else that’s quite suggestive indeed. Right here, you can download a spreadsheet containing all PC653b(a) cases brought to the City Attorney’s office in the entire city of Los Angeles for as far back as electronic records are searchable. There’s one in there dated 2004, so perhaps that’s how far back they go. Continue reading Since 2004, More than 19% of all Violations of Penal Code 653b(a) Brought to the City Attorney for Prosecution from the Entire Freaking City of Los Angeles Originated at Selma Park→
Man without children enjoying Selma Park freely, as befits a free citizenry, on a beautiful Tuesday afternoon in OctoberWe have today a list of all cases referred to the City Attorney for prosecution for arrests in Selma Park for violating 653b(a) PC which, as you may recall, is the statute referenced on the recently removed and completely phony signs forbidding adults without children in the park. The list is an excel spreadsheet which we’ve edited from the original spreadsheet obtained today by Mike. That document lists everyone arrested in the park for any reason, and if you want it, you can get it from the city attorney’s office, or even just drop us an email. On July 1, 2008, Jesse Gutierrez became the first human being in history to be (falsely) arrested at Selma Park for violating 653b(a) PC and having his case referred to the city attorney for prosecution, subsequently rejected for who knows what reason.
There are 46 people on the list, which means that at least that many were arrested, possibly more. We can’t tell yet who arrested all of these people, but since the arrests started in July 2008 (the list we obtained began in 2002) we’re guessing it’s the BID Patrol rather than the LAPD who’s responsible. Some of them we can be sure were arrested by the BID Patrol because we have their pictures. In any case, note the fact that every single one of the 46 case numbers begins with the letter “R.” The ever helpful Mike Dundas, who’s the CPRA contact over there, tells us that that means the case was rejected for prosecution. Unfortunately records which explain why cases were rejected are exempt from production. Oh well. Continue reading At Least 46 People Arrested for Being in Selma Park Without Children Since July 1, 2008, All 46 Cases Rejected for Prosecution by LA City Attorney→
The open gates of Selma Park, shimmering in the miraculous light of the golden hour in lovely Los Angeles, once again welcome all people into their loving embrace as God and the Department of Recreation and Parks intended.A little more than two weeks ago, we reported that, despite the fact that someone, probably the HPOA, had posted a bunch of signs to the contrary, Selma Park, at the corner of Selma Avenue and Schrader Blvd., was, according to the LA City Recreation and Parks Commission, actually open to all people, including adults without children in their care. At the time he received this information from RAP, our correspondent told the commission about the signs and the arrests and asked if they could remove the signs. He never heard back, but when walking by this afternoon, he was pleased to note that the signs were gone. So, he tells us, he sat in the park for an hour reading and also took some pictures! Before and after picture of the area to the right of gate. Note unfaded paint beneath former location of sign in most recent (right-hand) picture. Click to enlarge.Now, this is a very good thing. And we look forward to many fine hours eating lunch in the park and playing checkers on the super-cool built-in tile boards on the picnic tables.
One of three mysterious signs at Selma Park which appear to restrict the park’s use to children and caregivers only, even though the LA Recreation and Parks Department has stated explicitly that Selma Park is open to the general public except for the playground.The Andrews International BID Patrol has been arresting people without children and ordering people without children out of Selma Park in Hollywood at least since 2008, as shown by their very own reports to the Joint Security Committee. They justify these actions by claiming that Selma Park is “for children and parents only.” And indeed, there are three signs in the general park area which state this as policy.1 We wondered how this park had come to be off-limits to all the citizens of Hollywood and so directed our faithful correspondent to find out. His first stop was the May 2008 BID Patrol Report, wherein it is stated that:
On 05-31-08, we participated in ‘Family Day at Selma Park’. The park had been a hostile environment for children as certain people used the space for sleeping, urinating in public, and drug and alcohol abuse. We attempted to address this problem along with Kerry Morrison and her staff, Council 13 staff, LAPD, and the City Attorney’s Office. As a result, signs were made signifying that the park would now be only available for people with children. We hung the signs and began enforcement. For several months we have been advising violators and asking them to leave the park. One of the legitimate, Recreation and Parks Commission approved, signs at Selma Park stating that use of the playground is restricted to children and caregivers.
This, of course, is a typical destroy-the-village-in-order-to-save-it tactic of the HPOA. They can’t just kick homeless people out of the park, so they kick everyone out of the park except people with children. Christ, they’d probably privatize the entire city if they could, just so they could arrest homeless people for being in it. Anyway, we thought we’d find out what the Department of Recreation and Parks had to say about this. Imagine our surprise when our correspondent received a letter from the RAP Commissioners stating explicitly that
“Selma Park is a pocket park that is open to the general public, and is not limited exclusively to only children. The existing signage at Selma Park which indicates that adults without children are prohibited from the restricted area was installed for the designated children’s play area only.”
What rights are being violated here? What torts being committed? Is the photographer violating trademarks? Performance rights? Rights of publicity? False light?!? Are we violating any of these rights by republishing this photo? I guess we’re gonna find out! At least the BID Patrol can’t pop old Elmo for violating LAMC 41.47.2. At least not this time…We recently had occasion to write about the HPOA’s continent-spanning conspiracy with a bunch of their creepy counterparts in Manhattan to abuse intellectual property law, to violate California Penal Code §158, to constructively violate the first amendment, and both stridently and characteristically to act the fool with respect to the burning issue of street characters. You can’t trademark breasts, so what are they going to do about topless street characters when they get to L.A.? One might argue that women can bare their breasts legally in New York but not in California. That’s not the kind of law that’s going to withstand any pressure, though. It just hasn’t been rigorously tested here….yet!
Since last we examined this issue, the NYPD has gone nuclear by asking Disney and Marvel to sue the street characters, something which those companies seem to have proved unwilling to do. Of course, what the city and the local BIDs really don’t like is the naked ladies. Some of the information we were missing then we’ve obtained now. First, you will recall that in a finger-down-throat-fawning set of emails Kerry Morrison advised Tom Cusick, the dude who’s her counterpart at the Fifth Avenue BID, that they hadn’t had much luck with their criminal attempts to incite litigation against street characters. She mentioned to Tom, though, that the HPOA had managed to get Sesame Street to send cease and desist letters to Big Bird and Elmo one time under special circumstances. We now have copies of those letters. Read on for analysis. Continue reading Kerry Morrison and/or Minions Almost Certainly Lied to Sesame Street to Evoke Anti-Big-Bird, Anti-Elmo C&D Letters→
