City LA officials named in housing racism case

(LOS ANGELES COURT NEWS)

(Editor note: In the hearing below, Thomas Khammar said that their management company and Hi Point 1522 LLC is represented by the law firm Felman Daggenhurst El Dabe Toporoff & Spinrad)

Subject: Revised – RACISM AND CORRUPTION CITY OF LOS ANGELES – Memorialize Court Hearing Johnson v Hi Point 1522 LLC and Power Property management

From: GJohnson
To: 09e41e7459a05677911c@powerpropertygroup.mailer.appfolio.us; cynthia@powerpropertygrp.com;

brent@powerpropertygrp.com; frontdesk@powerpropertygrp.com; highpoint1522@gmail.com

Cc: gavin@gavinnewsom.com; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; hcidla.reap@lacity.org; mayor.helpdesk@lacity.org; controller.galperin@lacity.org; gilbert.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; contactcd4@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley-thomas@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.kevindeleon@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; info@housingrightscenter.org; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; jivar.afshar@lacity.org; fred.wong@lacity.org; lisa.yancey@lacity.org; joe.velasquez@lacity.org; bruce.todd@lacity.org

Date: Sunday, May 15, 2022, 05:53 PM PDT

Rent Control Agent

Lies to the Court – racist

Khammar speaks

How the city government helps deny housing services

(1522 HI POINT ST IS A RENT CONTROLLED BUILDING ALSO ACCUSED OF ILLEGAL HOME SHARING)

Dear Hi Point 1522 LLC, Power Property Management, Liliana Morales (PPM), Ann Sewill, Director, Catherine Taylor-Gomez, Tricia Keane, Mike Feuer: KALEENA WILEY, Thomas Khammar, Brent Parsons, Liliana Morales, Jacqueline Gallardo, Jennifer Cleveland, Renee Henderson, Giovanni Dubon, Kassandra Harris, Kristopher Gordon, Jason Ortegon:

The new owner is Hi Point 1522 LLC, managed by Hi Point 1522 Managers LLC, managed by Hi Point 1522 Managers LLC, managed by Hi Point 1522 Managers Holdco LLC, managed by Todd Jacobs, associated with Hi Point 1522 TJ Entity LLC, managed by Anthony Jaffe. The property management company for this site is Power Property Management which is at the same address as the other 1522 Hi Point LLC entities above.

On May 28, 2019, court case 19STCV18302, Walter Barratt and Fox Hills Drive Apt, LLC and Power Property Management were named in a lawsuit for failure to repair a call -box intercom. Los Angeles.

In another court case, naming Hi Point Apts LLC (owned by Walter Barratt), the court issued judgment against Walter Barratt and in favor of tenant Geary J. Johnson, thus attaching monetary value to the loss of intercom and parking services. CASE 21STSC04574.

In another court case, number 19STSC14394, the court issued judgment in favor of Geary J. Johnson, the court denied the cross complaint of Walter Barratt (Hi Point Apts LLC) and Power Property Management Inc., another win for Geary J. Johnson; the core action was dismissed without prejudice, another win for the plaintiff.

This shall memorialize and summarize the SC hearing held May 11, 2022. case 21STSC04819, Johnson vs Hi Point 1522 LLC and Power Property management. This summary is meant to be indicative but not all inclusive. All rights reserved. This summary is based on court filed documents as well as notes taken at the May 11, 2022 remote court hearing.

Numerous city officials like the Mayor and Council are named in Exhibits filed with the Court. “Answer” to SC-105 filed 2/7/22. Email dated Feb. 1, 2022, sent at 11:38 p.m. Exhibit 6.

This lawsuit I specifically asked the court to order the repair of the intercom and assignment to tandem parking. I also asked for damages.

Only the head of the management company appeared and he also appeared for the owner. Thomas Khammar is employed by Power Property Management and is contracted to Hi Point 1522 LLC.

Excerpts.

One of my exhibits was a Feb 1 email to the management company and owner. The Judge asked Khammar repeatedly if he had received that email in which I asked for the intercom repair and tandem parking. Finally Khammar admitted he had a copy of the email in front of him. The Judge asked repeatedly had the new owner received communication from me about the issues and Khammar said no. Certainly he did not deny receiving the lawsuit around February 22. Interestingly, the Feb. 1, 2022 email mentions that I had contacted the owner/management company “numerous times over the years or months” (new owner started July 2021). So basically, the new owner knew about the suit thru the management company.

INTERCOM

Khammar said the intercom is not working because the entire building has to be re-wired. I disagreed and I am not sure the owner was being truthful. The Judge seemed not to believe Khammar but I had no proof otherwise. Something I will have to do for the next hearing: get proof of what it takes to repair it.

PARKING

I am seeking a two car stall or parking for two cars. Khammar said that our current space #8 is a two car stall and he said it repeatedly. I disagreed and told the Judge our current stall is only a single stall and that the rent agreement says we have parking for two cars. Why would Khammar lie about this? There was no record kept of the hearing but I did take written notes.

I realize today that I think too slow. The hearing was remote zoom. My laptop was less than ten feet from the window on the driveway. All I had to so was ask the court to let me open the blinds and she would immediately see the single car parking stall behind me!!!!!!!! Well, all for next time.

CONCLUSION

1. I think I have good odds with the intercom because I think the Judge could sense Khammar was lying. She can order it repaired, order damages, both or neither.

2. I think I have better odds with the parking. Khammar —I think in order to avoid judgment—said the current stall is tandem. It all depends on who the Judge believes or how she reads the rent agreement. Since Khammar said we already have a tandem stall, she could order Khammar to show proof of the stall or she could just repeat that Khammar said we already have a tandem stall. That essentially would be an order requiring them to provide the tandem stall they admitted to.

FURTHER NOTES

The lawsuit also asks for damages under the city harassment ordinance section 45.30 municipal code.

Numerous city officials like the Mayor and Council are named in Exhibits filed with the Court. “Answer” to SC-105 filed 2/7/22. “The actions stated herein of Hi Point 1522 (LLC) are because they are racist towards me as a Black male. (Source: see Unruh Act).” (p. 4). “The actions of the defendants are intractable, tortious, and racist, and are the cause of the damages to me.” (p. 7). “What race do I have to be to get a working intercom? What race do I have to be to get a tandem parking stall?” (p.9)

Parking
The attached CFO for the building shows that stall 8 is a single parking stall. Why would Thomas Khammar lie to the Judge? Numerous pictures have been forwarded to Khammar of the parking lot and posted to the internet showing that stall 8 is a single stall.

Thomas Khammar has engaged in civil and criminal fraud. I believe he acts on behalf of the Mayor and Council and other city employees, and he represents the defendants. Khammar lied about the parking. Khammar lied about the intercom by telling the Judge that the entire unit must be rewired to repair the intercom. The truth is that the intercom breaker box and wiring is in the hallway; the entire unit does not need to be re-wired to repair the low voltage intercom. Khammar commits criminal fraud on behalf of the Mayor and and city council and other government housing employees. Khammar is an example of the city government corruption.

I ask that Khammar write the Judge, and copy the LA County District attorney and Police and myself, that you acted on behalf of the mayor and council, and that you lied under oath for purposes of criminal fraud and taking of rent monies to lie that stall #8 is a tandem stall when you know that stall 8 is a single car stall. Also indicate in your letter that you lied about the need for re-wire of the entire unit to repair the intercom.

The court heard the case without defendants filing an authorization to appear, as the court noted, and the court allowed them to submit an authorization to appear after the case was heard. (IMO sounds improper.)

The court did not rule on the Def. request for Judicial notice, as she noted that such document cannot be submitted in small claims cases.

The defendants claimed res judicata based on a previous lawsuit but the Judge noted that the parties in the previous lawsuit (dismissed without prejudice) were not the same parties as the current lawsuit.

Notes from hearing

COURT: I will hear from Mr. Johnson first. You have the burden of proof.

JOHNSON: Thank you, your honor. I speak here today and my testimony is based on every document that is on file in this action. I do want to remind the court that your honor did hear a different case on this issue but similar facts. You heard it was versus the same Power Property Management that appears here today. And in that case you dismissed it without prejudice. So I wanted to bring to your attention I may be repeating facts brought to your attention in a different case number and different time period.

COURT: The court is aware that requests for orders have been made by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant on this matter. The defendant has alleged that the issues that are going to be raised in today’s claim for $7,820 in damages, have already been ruled on by the Court. The court did not grant or deny the requests for orders; it merely stated those would be addressed at today’s hearing on the trial on the merits. So there are issues of res judicata in the court’s opinion that may apply to this claim, however I am going to hear the matter on the merits first before making any determination on the prior case being referenced by Mr. Johnson applies and that was case number 19STSC14394.

JOHNSON: “It is a landlord tenant situation. I have been trying to get repairs to my intercom system for over 3 years. It is an 18 unit building and fifteen units the intercom has ben repaired or replaced. For some reason the owner does not want to repair mine even though I pay rent every month about $1500 and the last twelve months I have paid $18,000 in rent and the repairs have not been made. I do have a picture in my exhibits of the intercom that is in my unit (since the hearing is by remote zoom, I hold up the new intercom part back and front for the court to see). I will show it to you. This is just the one I bought from Amazon for $21.00. And the owner refuses to install it. The owner refuses to respond to my requests for repairs. That is kinda why we ended up on court. I have spent money trying to get it repaired; I have not been able to get a maintenance person myself because when they find out I don’t own the building, they will not talk to me. I put in an alarm system to try to compensate and the alarm system costs me about $65.00 per month the last three years. The second issue here is the parking stall.

“The rent agreement shows we contracted for two parking stalls which was in the form of a tandem parking stall, which is two cars parked behind each other, and the owner took that (tandem stall) away from us. And the value of that, the owner says the value is $50.00 per month and the city says the value is $200 per month. So somewhere in there, there is (monetary) value to the parking although in our rent agreement it says parking is included. At some point the owner said we will give you the parking for $50 more per month for an extra stall (or tandem) since we have one stall already, I believe in my exhibits I have a copy of that agreement with the owner and management company and that has not been (14:07) honored. They have refused to respond on the issue of parking. The parking is in a secured parking lot where there is a gate around the lot, so it is health and safety issue substantial to me because parking is important. I park on the street right now and I get damages from the sprinkler system and I did receive a parking ticket that would not have happened if I was able to park in the parking lot. I clarify that in the previous lawsuit it was a different owner; the owner now is Hi Point 1522 LLC. I have the different laws I quoted in my papers and if you have questions, that is my testimony.”

COURT: (The court verifies that the building was sold in August 2021 to new owner Hi Point 1522 LLC but the management company remained the same.) (The court says the prior ruling in case 14394 applied only to the prior owner Hi Point Apts LLC).The court notes the current complaint is claiming damages from November 24, 2018 to November 24, 2021. The court says for that period she had already entered judgment for 14394 for part of that time period, for issues raised today, so the court says the date of this claim is from 8/1/2021 to 11/24/21 because this claim can only apply to the new owner. “I will let you address that”. (editor note: the court is disregarding the effect of the “without prejudice” ruling against Power Property Management, Inc.)

JOHNSON: The owner in the previous (case) hearing said the parking (tandem) was valued at $50 per month. So the owner has offered, and I believe the new owner would continue that condition, that if I pay $50 per month, I would get the additional parking stall. I am basing my damages on that.

COURT: Are you currently being given parking for one car?
JOHNSON: Yes.
COURT: So it is the second stall you are referencing?
JOHNSON: Yes, and I also received a street sweeping ticket for $73.00 which I did put down as damages.

COURT: Do you have a car parked in the one stall?

JOHNSON: My roommate has a car also so he parks his car there.

COURT: So you have a roommate?
JOHNSON: Yes.
COURT: Is your roommate on the lease?

JOHNSON: Yes.

Khammar: “Obviously the plaintiff has sued us before, numerous times, four or five times, he has gone to fair housing and been rejected, he has gone to Los Angeles housing and been denied. Los Angeles housing, which is the Los Angeles rent stabilization board, it has an amenities reduction program, and if he lost an amenity, he is entitled to file for that under the Los Angeles rent stabilization ordinance and get a credit for it. Unfortunately he is denied because per his lease your Honor his parking space is number 8 which is a tandem space. Ok. I completely agree with the plaintiff that it is inconvenient to have two gentlemen living in an apartment with a tandem parking space but that is what is on his written lease. His lease says space number 8, tandem, he has space number 8 tandem, the reason why the plaintiff is confused, is when the prior owner purchased the building, in 2015 or prior, the owner at that time had extra parking available and sent out an email and said for extra money you can take individual parking, and of course he declined it, and life goes on. He got his space number 8. There is noissue with parking, he continues to have space number 8. He has two parking spaces. One parking space that fits two cars. All that is referenced in his own discovery that he gave you and I apologize but I don’t know how you guys are seeing it but it says Exhibit 4 (page 6 of 22) , you see a white BMW it appears and in front of it is the space for the other vehicle.”

Comments by GJJ for this email:

(Mr. Khammar is correct that the space at stall #13 is a tandem stall. But stall #8 is not a tandem stall. The white/grey car in the picture is not owned by myself or my roommate. See picture attached which was used as Exh 4 by myself. Until today, I was never told that we are to park in stall #15. You can clearly see “13” at stall 13. Is this want Khammar is saying, that we are to park in stall 15?)

The court asked Khammar if he had any exhibits to submit. He said no. He said he would rely on the exhibits of the plaintiff.

KHAMMAR: : “In regards to the intercom, him getting an alarm system and because he does not have an intercom, does not even make sense, an alarm system is made for somebody to protect, to protect you from.someone entering his specific unit and so I want to make sure the court is separating the two, the intercom is to allow you entry into a building and/or see when someone is at the door. Not all intercoms allow you to open up the entry gate door. A lot of intercoms in the apartment I lived at years ago prior to being married with no gray hair and kids, the intercom would only alert me that someone is downstairs, I would have to manually walk downstairs and open the door to let them in. There is no security in the sense of an intercom. The intercom program, the intercom itself requires in order for us to do an intercom for the whole building, we would have to rewire the electrical per unit. The city of Los Angeles has a THP program…for when you are going to do extensive work in his unit. I believe back in 2015, he appealed and fought the owner on the THP program and the owner could have given him additional funds to vacate but why would we do any of that if we are giving him an upgrade. He did not want the upgrade and he fought us on the THP and at the time we just simply said no problem we won’t do it. His unit and two others in the building do not have the updated intercom. (Editor note: All 18 units had intercoms which the owner decided were not working. The owner installed a new control box and only wired it to 15 units, excluding three units like mine but the city ordered us to pay for the intercom repairs anyway. The wires are in the hallway connected to a hallway breaker box). The courts are backlogged and we have three cases currently open for this same matter. I realize there are different parties and we are affiliated with each and every case. And the court has also ruled numerous times before on identical issues. Obviously he changes a few words here and there but there are identical issues and I have a list of them, the Inglewood courthouse ruled in 2014, Judge threw out the case. (Editor note: the issues were not identical in that case.). All he needs to do if he has a true issue, is go to the Los Angeles rent stabilization board, who will listen to his loss of amenities, and once again they are going to deny it over and over and over again. That is why he is not going thru the proper process.”

COURT: Let me first advise you. if the prior owners that were Hi Point (1522) LLC were the named defendants in this claim, we would not be hearing this claim. (Editor note: The Judge seems to be ignoring the definition of “dismissed without prejudice”.) But since there are new owners, and making similar claims against new parties, that is very relevant to him being able to bring a new claim. Now, the three units that do not have updated intercom systems, how many units are in the building?

KHAMMAR: He does have another case with us as defendant to the prior owner after you ruled on the prior case. (Editor: Not true. Khammar is confused. Only this case is pending. Another case, where PPM is not a party, is on appeal.) 18 units.

COURT: You said the intercom unit to be installed for each apartment, would require re-wiring of the whole building?

KHAMMAR: Rewiring of the electrical to the whole building. It is a hard wire electrical system, so in order to get it to the plate, that goes in front of your door, each unit has to be re-wired. I mispoke, I told you three units, it is actually only two units that do not have them (working intercoms).

COURT: So I am a little confused. So you must have re-wired the whole building because 16 units have the intercom, correct?

KHAMMAR: As tenants vacate, we go in and open up the wall, and do all that stuff. Court: Why have you not rewired his particular intercom system?

KHAMMAR: We have to do it by permit and in order to do work inside a unit, you have to apply for a tenant habitability plan (THP), the tenant has the ability to appeal a THP. Mr Johnson appealed the THP, therefore we said no problem. We won’t do it on your unit. Since then, rates have gone up.

COURT: Just so I am clear. In order to rewire an apartment unit in the building, you need a permit from the city of Los Angeles. Correct?

KHAMMAR Yes.
COURT: In order to get the permit, it is under the THP?

KHAMMAR: Yes.
COURT: In order to get consent with a permit under the THP, the tenant must consent? Correct?

KHAMMAR The tenant has the ability to appeal it and be heard by a board as to why he is appealing it. We as owners have the ability to say no problem, we will back down since you appealed it. That is what we did.

COURT So you applied for the permits and you are alleging that Mr. Johnson appealed the application for the permit and the owner then just said alright, we are withdrawing the permit request because he does not want it. Is that all factually correct?

KHAMMAR: That is all factually correct.

COURT: When was the last time. If you can give me a date or a month, or a year, when you applied for the permit, and Mr. Johnson appealed the permit application? If you can only give me a year, that is ok.

KHAMMAR: 2015.

COURT: So that is the prior owner. From 2015 to the present date, has Mr. Johnson in writing informed the new owner I would like to have the intercom installed, I will not be appealing the THP?

KHAMMAR: No, he has not.
COURT: Has he told anybody since 2015 in the property management line? Khammar: Specifically, your question he has not.

COURT: Ok, Mr. Johnson, you have five minutes rebuttal.

JOHNSON: Mr. Khammar said I did not have any communication about the intercom or about the parking with the new owner. Let’s see Exhibit pages 14-18, an email I wrote on Feb 1, 2022, this year, to the Property Management and the new owner, asking for intercom repair and tandem parking. So that is at page 14. Mr Khammar misspeaks about some of the facts. Obviously he knows and he cannot say I have not communicated to the new owner about the parking and intercom because when I communicate to the management company which is him, that is a communication to the new owners. Security, as far as the intercom, Khammar claims the intercom is not for security purposes, (I disagree), it is for security purposes. So you can screen people at the front of the building. I can’t get my mail all the time, I can’t get deliveries all the time, because mine (intercom) does not work. People are constantly walking thru the building because they got in somehow and there is no way to screen them if you do not have the use of the intercom. I believe the previous case was dismissed without prejudice and just from my standpoint, I am not a lawyer, without prejudice means that there was no adjudication of the merits in terms of Power Property Management who is the defendant here today. Mr. Khammar misspeaks when he talks about the tandem parking. Stall 8 is not a tandem parking stall. Number 8 is a single stall, only available for one car to fit. Mr Khammar knows that because he has pictures of the parking lot. He knows there is 18 units of apartments, he knows there are 20 parking stalls, he knows that maybe half of them are tandem, and half of them are single. He knows we are not in a tandem parking stall. And he has been the property management company 2014, 2015, they left and came back 2019 to now, they are the property management company and I have sent them fed exes, letters, emails, so he is well aware of the problem. Our garbage disposal was replaced recently, sink faucet replaced recently, smoke alarm was replaced recently, within the last 2 or 3 years. The intercom is just as simple to replace as those from my standpoint. I am not an electrician but I was here when 15 units received intercoms. It did not take more than 2 months for those repairs to be done. Mr Khammar speaks of the THP program but those units were not subject to THP because they were vacant, not tenants, and not subject to the THP.

COURT: (Interrupts) Let’s just talk about your unit. Are you denying that you appealed THP?

JOHNSON: In the THP, he has to submit an application to the city, there was no mention, absolutely positively of the intercom system by the owner in the THP. I took the THP as an opportunity to bring up the intercom system between my oral testimony and written testimony in 2014-2015, I mentioned the word intercom 42 times and there was not one response from the owner’s representative whether it would be repaired or not. I have never been told by anybody in the defendant’s employ that they would have to do a THP in order to fix my intercom or anything else in my unit. Their THP application said that they were spending $18,000 dollars—I have that in writing—per unit. I, as a tenant, have no way of stopping them from doing the THP, if that is what they choose to do, but Mr. Khammar knows that in order to do the THP, we have the option as tenants to stay in the unit, and if we do he has to temporarily relocate us at whatever cost that is, then we have the option to come back as tenants. It is one or the other, keep us as a tenant, or give us a buyout amount of money. They never never offered us a specific buyout amount of money and that is why we are still here. I tried to engage in that, but they would not respond. So basically his interpretation of the THP process is not correct. It does not take a THP for $18,000, it doesn’t take a rewire of the whole building to fix our intercom. All other repairs took half hour maybe 45 minutes and did not need THP. The intercom is the same thing, an electrical device, he already put a brand new system in, he does not have to get permits, he already had the permit to put fifteen intercoms in and it is a brand new box, I have it in my exhibits, the picture of the new intercom system, which he put in, in 2015. And he could have fixed mine then.

COURT: I am going to stop you, because what I have concluded is that neither you nor Mr. Khammar has provided this court for this hearing with any documentation other than your testimony sworn given regarding THP in 2015 your appeal so they could not install it nor evidence that there was an application to install it. Neither one of you have provided that evidence to the court.

(The Judge says she does not have the exhibit with the email Feb 1, 2022 and she asks me to fax it to her, which I do that night).

Mr. Khammar, did you get an email from Mr. Johnson, dated Feb 1, 2022, at 11:38 pm?

KHAMMAR: I would have to go thru my emails.

COURT: —-Sir, he sent you a copy of his evidence, I want you to look at the exhibits he sent you and under exhibit 6, he states that is pages 14-18, on one of those pages is the email from Feb. 1, 2022. I did not receive that in the exhibits, Mr. Johnson, but I have your evidence right in front of me as I am reviewing it.

KHAMMAR: My company is named in the email. I do believe we received it.

COURT: Read it to me. KHAMMAR: It’s a long one.

COURT: Did you get that email in the exhibits?

KHAMMAR: My office might have —

COURT: —Mr. Khammar, as you are looking at the documents in front of you, do you have Mr. Johnson’s exhibits 1-8?

KHAMMAR: Yes.

COURT: Mr. Johnson, you need to send me only that exhibit. I want Mr. Johnson to send it to me. (By fax.) The court will not be entering a decision until after I get that email, so don’t expect a decision for at least 2 to 3 weeks.

THE JUDGE also asks the Khammar to send in the authorization to appear, that was not filed with the court. (Hearing was 51 minutes and 24 seconds).

(The court seems to have let Khammar talk well over five minutes.)

Khammar admits that his nationality had an intercom; so that appears to be saying that as a Black American, I am not entitled to an intercom, no matter how much money I pay. Khammar implies that a Black such as myself is not entitled to seek redress of grievances in the courts. Khammar has no respect for the law.

The Judge was Commissioner Emma Castro.

(One could wonder why is the Judge spending so much time on certain facts outside the 3-4 year statute of limitations.)

Geary Juan Johnson

Phone ( REDACTED)

1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035

P.S. Dates of written communications to Hi Point 1522 since August 2021 check, check, email, are rent checks Aug 2021 – May 2022 (where the memo line indicates payment for tandem parking and intercom repairs), emails Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec., Jan 2022, Feb 2022, March 2022, April 2022.

P.S. The three criminal lies of Khammar: intercom, parking, number of pending lawsuits P.S. the court does not keep a transcript of small claims hearings

ref: picture of my roommate car parked in stall 8 (circa 2014). Does it look like 2 cars can fit in that stall?

REF. TANDEM PARKING. Simply put, tandem parking means you share two parking spaces with another person. These spaces are located one in front of the other, which means that the person in the back has to move their car if the person in the front space wants to pull out.

ref. this email may be published to the internet by the office of the city clerk. CPRA REQUEST 22- 4914. https://recordsrequest.lacity.org/requests/22-4914

(PICTURES TO THE EMAIL: CFO showing parking stalls single and tandem, Tenant #9 parked in stall #8, vacant stalls near stall #13.)

Los Angeles Racism at 1522 Hi Point Apts