1538 Randall Court, Los Angeles, CA, 90065
1538 Randall Court Parcel Plans (Case No. DIR-2008-2262-SPP, ENV-2008-2263-CE, Permit No. 08010-10000-01335):
1538 Randall Court LA County Assessors Map (APN 5464-030-027):
1538 Randall Court PS-456 Contour Map (1948 Easement Deed [Lot 28/] 40 is the easterly triangular lot portion of 1538 Randall Court, APN 5464-030-027):
Based upon:
April 1948 County Easement Deed
1538 Randall Court Government Data:
City of Los Angeles Randall Ct Topographic Map (Including 1538 Randall Ct Location)
1538 Randall Court Plot Photos:
1538 Randall Court Simplified Diagram:
Note: The only access is via Randall Court address, which is reflected on the deed, and in City & County records. Due to the southerly aerial easement, access via Killarney Avenue is prohibited.
LÀ DCP Permit No. 08010-10000-01335:
ZIMAS Parcel Profile:
LA DCP City Planning Legal Address (w.r.t LA City Planning & Parcel Deed):
LA DCP City Planning SPP Case Summary:
LA DCP City Planning 1538 Randall Court Planning ENV CE Case Summary:
LA DCP City Planning 1538 Randall Court Parcel Profile Report (CD-1 – Ed P. Reyes, CD-14 – Jose Huizar):
Jose Huizar (US Case CR 20-326-JFW) 2008 [T0] – 2018:
George Esparza (US Case 2:20-cr-00208-SV):
1538 Randall Ct 
With all of the overwhelming documented evidence, with LA City Councilmembers and their co-conspirators, guilty pleas in federal court for pay-to-play, bribery, RICO, intimidation of constituents & attorneys, etc. why have US Department of Justice cases like this Randall Court one not been remedied? Who is protecting the Los Angeles City Council & Mayor?
LikeLike
Instead of the City issuing the single family residence housing building permit that was applied for under DIR-2008-2262-SPP / ENV-2008-2263-CE, as the Lot Owner being of a “protected class” from discrimination the City decided to try to dig up dirt on the Lot Owner by hiring a private investigator / confidential informant: Thomas Bohnstedt of Bohnstedt Investigations (https://www.linkedin.com/pub/thomas-bohnstedt/20/673/121).
LikeLike
Kim Westhoff, former LA City Attorney, no longer practices law; she’s apparently disbarred. The Los Angeles City Councils’ pawns are purged at the expense of the Lot Owner as he still has not been able to live on his property as prescribed by law. Lose few city employees (Kim Westhoff, Sharon Lowe, George Esparza, Jose Huizar), and gain one act of racial segregation. There are tens of thousands of city employees to purge for each land entitlement case, thus without acknowledgement, oversight and correction & compensation for civil rights Los Angeles segregation prevails in perpetuity.
LikeLike
I made an offer to buy the rights to this story, and hope to get an agreement. The docuseries will be on how the ‘sixth’ family, five other families in New York, infiltrated and worked with the Los Angeles City Council, including local gangs and cartels.
LikeLike
District Court documents contain the Los Angeles City Attorney’s filing of a July 15, 2011 motion citing the Lot Owners need to access his property is “BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS.” (Westhoff: 3:16). There was no evidence submitted by anyone of Kim Westhoff’s fabricated claims and the statement was also reiterated in Anthony Cahill’s court submission of perjury, equally with no supporting evidence in relation to the Lot Owner or the activities related or unrelated to this property. Of course the District Courts accept the Westhoff and Cahill statements at face value since absence of any evidence does not matter, and the law of innocence before proven guilty is not applied to a “protected class”, such as the Lot Owner. Thus the District Court can unlawfully waive the 4th and 13th amendments and rule against the Lot Owners civil right to live on his land. Spoken diatribe & assertions override evidentiary procedure & constitutional law when it is related to a Protected Class in the California District Courts. Why Federal Government Law Enforcement & Appellant Courts have not responded as is prescribed by law is extremely concerning, as it appears this matter has been swept under the rug in order to perpetuate the decades of constitutional corruption of the Los Angeles City Council & District Courts.
LikeLike
I spoke to the 2007 lot owner Gary Roy. He’s still at the same ga*******<at>aol.com email address and cell phone number, but he has moved. At risk of the City of LA losing federal funding, wonder why he hasn’t been contacted concerning the latest developments on his LADBS permit approval and restitution?
LikeLike
The administrative apartheid action on 1538 Randall Court was orchestrated in the background by Steven Norman Richman of Epport, Richman & Robbins LLP in Los Angeles; that operates a shadow company to put their property theft in effect called West RADC Venture 2010-2 LLC, for the purpose of interfering & racially segregating properties in that California region.
LikeLike
The goal of this type of system specifically in Los Angeles County and in many parts of the nation is to strategically prevent protected classes from living in certain neighborhoods. The resolution is planned to be disclosed long after the property owner has a need for the property thus ensuring the restrictive covenant prevails.
Multiple Listing Service or MLS records start with the 2-digit year in which the property is listed or records change. The property was purchased in 2007 per MLS 07-193099. Access to the Randall Court street was resolved in the year 2012 per MLS 12093643; did the City, Fidelity National Title Company or the DOJ inform the property owner, the answer is No. The powers that be only plan to disclose that the 2008 plans are correct in the year 2030 per MLS 303596536, long after the property owner has a need for the lot thus preventing him from living at 1538 Randall Court. The wheels of justice turn against a protected class.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our tax dollars hard at work to create a 2012 – 2030 18+ year resolution? These are some of the entities involved in this debauchery of a situation:
Paul Smith paul.e.smith@hud.gov (415) 489 6552 ;
Emily Gordon Emily.gordon@fnf.com (877) 737-6521 ;
Anne’ Quesada Anne.Quesada@hud.gov (415) 489-6526 ;
David R. Ziaya David.R.Ziaya@hud.gov (202) 402-2583 Fax (202) 485-9596 ;
Susan M. Sheftel Susan.M.Sheftel@hud.gov (415) 489-6549 Fax (415) 489-6560 ;
Marcos A. Aguilar Marcos.aguilar@fnf.com (402) 498-7164 Fax (402) 498-7898 ;
Shawn Kuk shawn.kuk@lacity.org (213) 473-5962 Fax (213) 847-0680 ;
George E. Esparza george.esparza@lacity.org (213) 473-7014 ;
Ed Reyes, Jose Huizar ed.p.reyesla@gmail.com councilmember.huizar@lacity.org ;
Monica Walters Monica.Walters@lacity.org (213) 978-1492 Office Fax (213) 978-0780 .
LikeLike
19 June2022
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-18/former-jose-huizar-aide-describes-demands-for-cash-and-donations
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-15/the-first-trial-in-the-jose-huizar-corruption-case-has-begun
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-27/ex-jose-huizar-aide-george-esparza-guilty-plea-pay-to-play
LikeLike
According to the courts, the Unruh act for refusal to provide service based upon race doesn’t apply in this case because the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance (MWHA) is not a “business establishment”, nor has the power to disposition the permit application of the homeowner.
A business is defined as “A business involves a natural person or entity performing an activity or trade with the intent of making a profit. The activity or trade may be commercial, industrial, professional, or otherwise. A business commonly involves providing goods or services for the public while operating at a profit. Nonetheless, making a profit is not the only criterion to establish the existence of a business. Non-profit organizations may also undertake a business without the intention of making a profit. Instead, they may pursue a charitable or social purpose or any other type of organizational mission.”
The District Court’s determination is false as on the MWHA website http://www.mountwashingtonalliance.com “[Newsletter] The Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance (“MWHA”) is a nonprofit community organization… Since 2001, MWHA has served the community in numerous ways to preserve, protect and enhance the unique urban oasis qualities of Mount Washington and its diverse residents. We work with neighborhood councils and elected officials to balance the interests of real estate development with the land use priorities regulated in the Mount Washington/Glassell Park Specific Plan and the various hillside ordinances.” The MWHA also collects monies “PayPal – When paying with PayPal or Credit Card you will be directed to the PayPal site…” Among the MWHA services is “protecting.” which seems like a cosa nostra or KKK. Additionally, the MWHA has a board of directors including a President, Vice Presidents, Treasurer, Secretary, etc. The City of Los Angeles is clearly a business establishment incorporated in 1850.
The City of Los Angeles uses the MWHA, a community based arm of the City Council (ie. Council Districts 1 [Ed Reyes / Gil Cedillo] and 14 [Jose Huizar / Kevin de León]), where MWHA members vote & overturn homeowners permit applications to the City of Los Angeles, after the City of Los Angeles illegally remands Specific Plan Conforming Single Family Residential applications of protected classes as a zoning variance to an Area Planning Commission for adjudication, which leads to the Single Family Residential building permit not being issued.
Thus, contrary to the District Courts both the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance and the City of Los Angeles are “business establishments” in this case and are subject to the provisions of the Unruh act.
LikeLike
Federal law prohibits actions that are a pattern of racism, and also prohibits interfering with someone property. The property at 1538 Randall Ct.
is not subject to a HOA. Therefore, the actions of the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance are NOT protected speech. There is no equal protection of the law for the 2007 lot owner? This is a textbook example of bad law.
LikeLike
@Calvin ~ Calling racist rants used to “…move new folks in…” and zone out protected classes from their home & land, in addition to City of LA falsified zoning determinations & CEQA exempt by statute environmental impacts; under federal law is not MWHA ‘protected speech’ per the district courts…it”s co-conspired ‘segregation’, ‘bad law’ and ‘perversion of the law’ applied as an institution to circumvent the federal 1964 and 1968 Fair Housing Acts.
LikeLike
There is definitely a significant pattern of corruption beginning in at least 2008, in the City of Los Angeles Council District:
Property Address: 1538 Randall Court, Los Angeles CA 90065, Council Districts 1 and 14
Administratively Zoned Out of the Council Districts Based Upon Race
Nury Martinez (Council President)
Removed From Office – Racial Redistricting, Hate Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity
Jose Huizar, George Esparza Council District 14
Removed from Office – RICO, Honest Services Fraud
Kevin De Leon Council District 14
In Processes of Removal From Office – Racial Redistricting
Gil Cedillo Council District 1 ( gilcedillocd1@gmail.com )
In Processes of Removal From Office – Racial Redistricting
LA City Council Members Racist Rant on Redistricting
https://knock-la.com/la-city-council-racist-leaked-audio-resign/
LikeLike
The Statute of Limitations to contest the use of Randall Court by abutting properties, especially abutting properties with Lot 28/40 plot division easement rights, ended 10 November 1974 (10 years), per the 10 November 1964 PS-456 survey.
After 1974, ingress / Egress via Randall Court is not further contestable eg. in an Area Planning Commission (APC), by statute.
APC hearings in 2009 and 2020, ie. ZA-2008-2262-ZAD-SPP, are not authorized by law, interfere with enjoyment of the property, and a violation of California Civil Code Section 337.15 and Title VI and VIII of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Should be entitlement DIR-2008-2262-SPP / ENV-2008-2263-CE, permit number 08010-10000-01335.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UPDATE 7/5/2023: Apparently the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have taken over the cases as Co-counsel, and the Title VI, Title VIII (DOJ 09-13-1032-6 / -8), Quiet Title (LASC BC422522) and Unruh (LASC BC413819) cases have been cured 7-months ago (January 2023) in favor of the Plaintiff. If it’s the usual evasion to justice & judgments in favor of protected classes the Victim will be notified if a manufactured case of incarceration to void his 13th amendment constitutional rights is achieved, he is to old to need the property, or death, whichever comes first.
LikeLike
APN 5464-030-027: The 10 November 1964 PS 456 survey, the legal document, shows the abutting adjacent roadway as “Randall Court”. The City of Los Angeles 12 October 1969 map M-660 Sheet 68 (by Lyall A Pardee City Engineer) shows the adjacent roadway as “Randall Ct” The ZIMAS Parcel Profile and referenced 2009 Thomas Guide MB 48-95 shows the adjacent roadway as “1538 N Randall Ct” “Randall Ct”. Per city code, a parcel must front at least 50 FEET on a roadway to be considered a buildable lot (ie. entrance door [not a fake door as DIR-2018-1190-SPP], garage, sideyards); this APN 5464-030-027 is not a buildable lot via Killarney Ave at less than 30 FEET, in addition to being inaccessible via Killarney due to the aerial easement south of the rear chain link fence. IF the 1500 block of Randall Ct. is considered a reciprocal easement, which it is no longer as of 1964, then NO house fronting the 1500 block of Randall Ct. can have a Randall Ct. address both even and odd numbers, eg. no existence of 1539 Randall Ct. In order to impose absolute segregation in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and keep the 2007 lot owner from living on the 1538 Randall Ct. property, and try to overturn the federal RICO charges against Huizar, Esparza, and Chan, the City of LA will go to extreme illegal lengths to attempt revert the roadway from its current legal use of Randall Ct. to a 1948 reciprocal easement. The LA City Hall is a criminal enterprise as convicted!
Who does not know the truth,
Is simply a fool.
Yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie,
Is a criminal.
Bertholt Brecht
Common sense,
Is not so common.
Voltaire
LikeLike
Here’s the issue: Based upon a 12 November 2014 letter from the Randall Street Collective issued by Phot Luisiri to disbarred Los Angeles city attorney Kim Westhoff to orchestrate the manufactured illegal sale of the 1538 Randall Court property, in a 6 July 2020 letter from the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance (MWHA) president, Nichole Thomas, to the East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission, an unlawful body for jurisdiction over single family residences, she writes “ …the Project’s street address, creates a cloud on the title of the private landowners whose can enforce the [restrictive] covenant once again…” California Civil Code 337.15 prohibits actions against using Randall Court for ingress/egress by abutting properties as of the statute of limitations date of 10 November 1974, per the R. L. Stephen 1964 survey, thus the MHHA and the City of Los Angeles are in violation of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, for interfering with enjoyment of the property. Although the Supreme Court ruled the covenants unenforceable in 1948 and the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed them, the hurtful, offensive language still exists an ugly reminder of the country’s racist past.
https://1538randallct.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/1538-randall-court-blog-images-7-4.pdf (pages 12 and 13)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Furthermore, Jose Huizar and George Esparza are in violation of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 the RICO ACT and the 1964 Civil Rights Act for soliciting bribes, political donations, and pay-to-play schemes to fix the Randall Court matter.
LikeLike
In 2011, the City of Los Angeles entered a court agreement to cure this matter, as it is their debacle, suppression of PS-456 survey evidence, and racketeering that caused the damages. To date, there have been no reparations or restitution to the 2007 1538 Randall Court lot owner. To cure this matter, the City of Los Angeles and/or intervention by the US Department of Justice must immediately and concurrently:
(1) Null the illegal 1538 Randall Court restrictive covenant that violates California Civil Code 337.15 and Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act; and
(2) Null the illegal transfer of the property by robosigned assignment of trust orchestrated by Phot Luisiri [MWHA] and Kim Westhoff [disbarred City Attorney] that violates California Civil Code sections 2924(a)(1)(C) and 2923.5; and
(3) In violation of Title VI and Title VIII of the Fair Housing & RICO Acts by Jose Huizar / George Esparza [Former City Council plead guilty in federal court to RICO] pay restitution and reparations to the 2007 1538 Randall Court Lot owner Gary Roy; and
(4) Issue DIR-2008-2262-SPP / ENV-2008-2263-CE, permit number 08010-10000-01335 for 1538 Randall Court as the Los Angeles Building and Safety never responded to the LA Director of Planning Jimmy Aguiano / Albert Landini Single Family Residential ENTITLEMENT application.
Maybe then the City of Los Angeles will abide by the laws of 2023 instead of 1963.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two questions that need to be addressed are: (1) Why are houses way more expensive in Los Angeles area that the rest of the nation? (2) Why is the homeless population significantly higher in Los Angeles that most of the rest of the nation?
The difference between a Developer and a Citizen: a “Developer” donning a license & bond does not have a constitutional right to live on the property (s)he is developing, and will not live on the property. However, a land owner “Citizen”, who hires a contractor with a license & bond, has the constitutional right to live on his property, as established by federal statute. First, the City of Los Angeles creates an extremely complex single family residential specification & application process, that only a rocket scientist can understand; thus, extremely difficult for even a Developer to navigate from [entitlement] application to certificate of occupancy. A Developer, who does not have a constitutional right to live on the property must then pay a bribe & political donations of 30 – 50% of the gross property value to get the clearances required to complete the house.
In conclusion, the Los Angeles house value is inflated by 30 – 50%+ in bribes & political donations (of recent LA City councils Huizar, Esparza, Ridley-Thomas, Englander et. al. all convicted of bribery). And, only a Citizen that is as smart as a ‘rocket scientist’, will be successful to circumnavigate the city of LA residential entitlement process, which attenuates the state (unruh) federal (title VI and VIII) civil right to build a home, by under qualifying ‘most’ Citizens. It’s in the city of LA council and those entities supported by bribe funding interests to mis-categorize every applicant as a developer in order to quash civil [entitlement] rights and maximize the LA city council’s intake of bribes & political donations. Few homes get built in LA at or below national market value, and the homeless population continues to increase.
LikeLike
The 2007 1538 Randall Court lot owner is NOT a Developer, but it’s in the interest of the City of LA, and those branches that protect it, to manufacture that libelous status in order to try to eliminate his civil right to build his single family residence on the land.
LikeLike
The crux of the problem is:
One party operates under 21st century rule of law, and wants to Make America Great Again (MAGA) for all; and
The other party operates as 1931 Germany, and wants to Make America Communist Absolutely (MACA) where “build back better” really means ‘build back communist‘, and certain Protected Classes & Non-Supporters are removed not by gas chambers but under the same Vladimir Lenin destroy & rebuild ideology, removed administratively.
LikeLike
A previous owner R.L. Stephen changed the address of APN 5464-030-027 to PS-456/Randal Ct. and received City of Los Angeles Board of Public Works approval on 26 February 1965. The 10-year statute of limitations to contest this 1538 Randall Ct. surveyed street assignment approval has expired since the 1970s.
LikeLike
In the USA, the laws to which one is subject are enacted by a democratically elected legislature.
The Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance (MWHA) is not democratically elected, yet the business establishment interferes with the rights of citizens to enjoy their property by perverting the law and applying illegal CEQA, zoning and restrictive covenants to property owned by protected classes, in a APC voting process implemented to circumvent statutes.
For redistricting and displacement of a population for political and racial segregation purposes, the MWHA is backed by and has a mirror organization to the City of Los Angeles, which includes for example a council district CD1 representative, a vice president of land use, a treasurer, etc.
If they are not democratically elected they are a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization, which also violates the California Unruh Act, title VI and VIII of the federal Fair Housing Act; and both the MHWA and City of Los Angeles should be charged to the full extent of the law and pay restitution of the victims.
LikeLike
@Calvin: Even if they person is democratically elected such as Jose Huizar, and George Esparza, RICO still applies to their corrupt origination focused on real estate pay-to-play, bribery, influence peddling, and harassment & intimidation.
LikeLike
The court stated that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success of his claim of racial discrimination under the Unruh Act. That is BS. The test for racial discrimination under the Unruh Act is three cases where process was deviated & discriminated for a particular race; for this example we will call them ‘Race A’. In court documents, the plaintiff showed the legal ENTITLEMENT process was followed for ‘Race B’ in DIR Case No. 2004-5241-SPP, DIR Case No. 2005-5058-SPP; and DIR Case No. 2005-3706-SPP. In contrast, the subjective VOTING process was followed for ‘Race A’ in cases DIR Case No. 2006-0404-SPP, DIR Case No. 2005-4901-SPP, ZA Case No. 2004-5175-ZAD-ZAA-SPP and DIR(ZA) Case no. 2008-2262-SPP. This satisfies racial discrimination under the Unruh Act.
(Going back in time and not to factor innocence or guilt, in the OJ Simpson trial Johnny Cochran was more than capable to handle the trial however he is of ‘Race A’ by which California courts do not accept evidence. So their legal team needed Robert Shapiro of ‘Race B’ to submit the evidence to the court in order for it to be entered, thus they prevailed.)
In this Randall Court case, sufficient evidence was submitted by the plaintiff, however another perversion of evidentiary law struck down the evidence under the SLAPP statute, which does not apply since the East LA Area Planning Commission (APC)/Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance (MWHA) VOTING proceedings were not authorized by law, i.e. the ‘Race A’ discriminated applicants did not appeal their application to the City of LA, to the APC. Thus is a violation of the Unruh Act, Title VI and VIII of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act.
LASC case BC413819 in favor of the plaintiff is a justified violation of the Unruh Act, Title VI and VIII of the FHA, and the RICO Act.
LikeLike
@Martin – and, in the Randall Court case the contract Zoning Administrator falsified the building size and roadway specifications, there was no Zoning Variance, CEQA was exempt for 1 house & they hid (suppressed) the 1964 survey which is the legal document for access to the property…a disgusting display of racial discrimination.
LikeLike
@Emily: To add insult to injury, the defendants falsely stated that the plaintiff was a ‘developer’, when he hired a licensed architect/contractor to design & build his home.
Apparently all persons of ‘Race A’ are falsely accused of being developers without licenses in order to strip their 13 Amendment right to live on the land. ‘Race B’ comprises all other races, which are not subject to pre-1963 segregation laws as ‘Race A’ is in California courts…that is why Federal intervention in the California judicial system was necessary… intervention for property & voting rights.
The California, and other state, courts disproportionately fill the prisons with ‘Race A’ by making their evidence inadmissible if it is against ‘Race B’ and only admissible if it’s against the same ‘Race A’.
LikeLike
LEGAL ACTION (DIR-2008-2262-SPP / ENV-2008-2263-CE): Prior to purchasing the property, the Owner obtained written confirmation that the 1538 Randall Court street address was buildable for a Single Family Residence. Even though it wasn’t required for an entitlement application for a conforming Single Family Residence, a public hearing was held between the Owner and some of the neighbors at LA City Hall on 26 January 2009; this is first amendment protected speech. The City of LA approved the Owner’s plans as they conformed to the Mount Washington Specific Plan.
ILLEGAL ACTION (ZA-2008-2262-ZAD-SPP / ENV-2008-2263-MND(EIR)): Then, the City Attorney, contract Zoning Administrator (ZA) and MWHA hid the 1964 survey which gave the Owner legal roadway access to his property, and falsified the building (larger) and roadway (smaller) specification, in an attempt to justify a zoning variance then only corrected the specification after the 27 May 2009 Area Planning Commission (APC) vote hearing; as no such hearing would be justified absent of the ZA’s falsified specifications. The Owner’s entitlement application was then transferred out of City of LA jurisdiction without an Owner application for a zoning variance nor Owner’s appeal to the APC, and a SECOND hearing was called to VOTE on the doctored entitlement application file on 27 May 2009 to overturn the City of LA Single Family Residential owner occupied permit approval by the APC/MWHA remanding the case to court action, knowing the judge was connected to the APC by marital status, which is a conflict of interest for which the judge should have recused himself. The APC/MWHA also attempted to illegally ADOPT the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), when a single house has a statutory exemption. First amendment protected speech is not protected for racially motivated illegal speech, and a 7 case pattern of racial discrimination by the City of LA & MWHA was submitted by the Owner (Plaintiff) to the courts, related to the Unruh Act. The City of LA and City Council ie. Jose Huizar, George Esparza, then went on an 11-year campaign of harassment against the Owner.
LikeLike
@Austin: The Director of Planning (DIR) City of LA Dept. of Building and Safety approval for the Owner-occupied 1538 Randall Court Single Family Residence was issued in writing on 27 February 2009 and permit number 08010-10000-01335 was then withheld for the City of LA and MWHA to pursue a Zoning Administrator’s Determination (ZAD), absent of an application for a zoning variance from the Owner, for the purpose of overturning the City of LA entitlement application approval.
This is a Federal offense and under Title VI & VIII of the FHA as their illegal actions interfere with enjoyment of the property.
LikeLike
According to case law, the minimum the Property Owner needed was to demonstrate that his parcel abutted the road to use it for ingress & egress; that was done at submission of the survey in 2008, which was the same parcel area as the 1964 survey, which could no longer be contested after 1974 which is the statute of limitations.
Tracing the official records back to 1948 legally confirmed the access to private PS-456 and then public Randall Court, but was an unnecessary burden of extra work & hoops to jump through…Fabian Tactics by the City of Los Angeles and the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance to interfere, segregate, discourage & wear down the Property Owner and make his home as expensive and lengthy to build as possible, if built at all; including requesting bribes & political donations for permit issuance.
Former LA City councilman Jose Huizar, the blocker of the permit approval is going to prison on this related matter, to be sentenced on 26 January 2024, and the Property Owner still doesn’t have restitution and the 1538 Randall Court permit 08010-10000-01335.
LikeLike
DISGRACED COUNCILMAN JOSÉ HUIZAR SET TO BE SENTENCED
Former LA City Councilman José Huizar could face 13 years in prison [26 January 2024] after he pled guilty in his federal RICO case [2008 – 2018]:
Why have the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and the City of Los Angeles not cured this case with the 2007 Property Owner DIR-2008-2262-SPP, start & justification of the RICO investigation, per the LASC case no. BC422522 settlement agreement…and US DOJ report 275834-QMD, cases 09-13-1032-6 / -8, CR 2:20-cr-00208-SVW, CR 20-326(A)-JFW-1?
LikeLike
The City of Los Angeles will try to circumvent this 2008 1538 Randall Court Permit as that may overturn Jose Huizar’s RICO conviction, and steer away from his sentencing on 26 January 2024. Thus, the City of Los Angeles will try by any [illegal] means necessary to push the property away from its Legal Access via Randall Court, to through the restricted aerial easement via Killarney Avenue. I suspect when Huizar is in prison he will be searching through the statutes for a clause or contact that can quash his Title VI, VIII, Unruh and RICO conviction and attempt to overturn this LASC BC413819 case, as it is the beginning of the 10-year RICO investigation which is required for the federal indictment by law. So many convicted felons can never admit their guilt until their judgment day under overwhelming evidence against them.
To add insult to injury and support redlining, the City of Los Angeles plans to quash this 1538 Randall Court case with a fictitious & illegal Plan Check approval as CRMLS #AR24007404 on 15 January 2024, giving the middle finger to the MLK Jr. birthday holiday, and all that this honorable man worked for towards equality.
The City of Los Angeles should pay financial restitution for the damages they cause by their policies of segregation & restrictive covenants.
LikeLike
CRMLS #AR24007404 states “Plan is finally approved!” The LA Department of Building and Safety Parcel Profile Report states “JOB ADDRESS(ES) 1538 N RANDALL CT, LOS ANGELES, CA 90065” “PC Info Complete on 11/8/2023…Permit Issued – No”.
The above is not approval of the building plans nor a building permit thus the description under CRMLS #AR24007404 1/15/2024 is fraudulent. The only building plans that can be issued a legal permit are via the legal road access abutting [1538] Randall Court per the 1964 and 2007 surveys – the former in City records and the latter submitted to the City in 2008 (California Civil Code 337.15 (a)), which is permit number 08010-10000-01335. No legal plans can be issued a building permit through the aerial easement abutting Killarney Avenue, as stated in CRMLS #AR24007404.
Resistance is futile. The City of LA should stop issuing smoke and mirrors around the legal 08010-10000-01335 permit, in order to aid and abet convicted felon former city councilman Jose Huizar by their violation(s) of federal civil rights laws.
LikeLike
The honorable Martin Luther King Jr. would turn in his grave if he became aware of how the City of Los Angeles has perverted his dream on his 15 January birthday under fraudulent CRMLS #AR24007404 which is designed to circumvent 1964 and 1968 civil rights & fair housing laws, which includes this case DIR-2008-2262-SPP.
LikeLike
Before the 26 January 2024 sentencing of Jose Huizar, the CITY OF LOS ANGELES should immediately:
1) Support rescinding their illegal 2015 transfer of 1538 Randall Court (18 U.S.C.A. §662 Conversion / Theft and 26 U.S. Code § 7201 Fraud, California Civil Code sections 2924(a)(1)(C) and 2923.5);
2) Approve the permit number 08010-10000-01335 (California Civil Code Section 337.15(a), Title VI and VIII of the Federal Fair Housing Act, RICO Act 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96).
3) For the damages cause by their corrupt & illegal process, pay restitution including interest & 4X penalties to the 2007 property owner (LASC BC422522 / BC413819).
This should be done else the just & proper 26 January 2024 sentencing for Jose Huizar is 26 YEARS in prison, up from 13 years in prison (US v Huizar, CR 20-326(A)-JFW-1, US v Esparza, CR 2:20-cr-00208-SVW).
LikeLike
Where is the justice for all of José Huizar’s victims, such as for the owner of this 1538 Randall Court Los Angeles CA property case?
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-los-angeles-politician-jose-huizar-sentenced-13-years-federal-prison
Former Los Angeles Politician José Huizar SENTENCED to 13 Years in Federal Prison for Racketeering Conspiracy and Tax Evasion
Friday, January 26, 2024
For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California
LikeLike
@Amy this is where justice is…
BC413819-2012-2,010,889.67->2023INT-5,737,302.91->2023 4X-22,949,211.65
LikeLike
caveat emptor ~ CRMLS #AR24006272 is a FRAUDULENT listing for fictitious address 1537 killarney. The listing states to states “Ask for the approved plan…”, however the only action is a “READY TO USSUE” 8 November 2023 stamped drawing for a site grading plan. There is no approved building plan or related building permit as there is an aerial easement Map Book 15689 Page 49 at the south end of the lot which prohibits access via Killarney Ave.
Photo 1 of a building states “PROPOSED SITE PLAN” “THE PROJECT NEED NEW ADDRESS AT KILLARNEY AVE”. Photo 2 is a manufactured tract illustration, when the legal survey exists as the 1964 PS-456 access via Randall Court (Cal. Civ. Code § 337.15(a)). Photo 3 is taken in front of 1544 Randall Court, as any photo from Killarney Ave. would show the rear chain link fence at the APN 5464-030-027 southerly property line 10-feet from the roadway. The chain of deed ended in 2007 as 20071867990 OR Book 48 Page 95. All of this smoke & mirrors is required to be disclosed per Cal. Civ. Code § 1102.13 et. seq.
LikeLike
caveat emptor ~ CRMLS #AR24006272 is a FRAUDULENT listing for fictitious address 1537 killarney. The listing states to states “Ask for the approved plan…”, however the only action is a “READY TO ISSUE” 8 November 2023 stamped drawing for a site grading plan. There is no approved building plan or related building permit as there is an aerial easement Map Book 15689 Page 49 at the south end of the lot which prohibits access via Killarney Ave.
Photo 1 of a building states “PROPOSED SITE PLAN” “THE PROJECT NEED NEW ADDRESS AT KILLARNEY AVE”. Photo 2 is a manufactured tract illustration, when the legal survey exists as the 1964 PS-456 access via Randall Court (Cal. Civ. Code § 337.15(a)). Photo 3 is taken in front of 1544 Randall Court, as any photo from Killarney Ave. would show the rear chain link fence at the APN 5464-030-027 southerly property line 10-feet from the roadway. The chain of deed ended in 2007 as 20071867990 OR Book 48 Page 95. All of this smoke & mirrors is required to be disclosed per Cal. Civ. Code § 1102.13 et. seq.
LikeLike
Look at the proposed site plan of CRMLS #AR24006272. It is smaller on the ground floor than the upper floors, like a pyramid built upside down. No wonder so many buildings collapse in Asia and tens of thousands of people die with the slightest tremor. The only US compliant construction at that site is 2008 Gary Roy’s 1538 Randall Court.
LikeLike
As history repeats itself, the court records are being rewritten. The plaintiff did not file a lawsuit two weeks prior to the [MWHA] hearing. A hearing notice for the properties within 200-feet of 1538 Randall Ct. was held at LA City Hall, and the plaintiff prevailed. Then, the contract Zoning Administrator hid the 1964 PS-456 survey, which is the legal document for roadway & parcel the meets & bounds, falsified the building size to larger, and falsified the roadway with to narrower…and transferred the 1538 Randall Ct. Entitlement Application out of LA City jurisdiction to the Area Planning Commission controlled by the MWHA, which is an illegal unelected body, to overturn City permit approval. The lawsuit was filed after the Area Planning Commission hearing, which said hearing was not authorized by law. The SLAPP statue and motion to strike the case cannot apply as it subjugates the due process clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
LikeLike
As history repeats itself, the court records are being rewritten. The applicant (/plaintiff) did not file a lawsuit two weeks prior to the [MWHA] hearing. A hearing notice for the properties within 200-feet of 1538 Randall Ct. was held at LA City Hall, and the plaintiff prevailed. Then, the contract Zoning Administrator hid the 1964 PS-456 survey, which is the legal document for roadway & parcel the metes & bounds, falsified the building size to larger, and falsified the roadway with to narrower, thus manufacturing a zoning variance…and transferred the 1538 Randall Ct. Entitlement Application out of LA City jurisdiction to the Area Planning Commission controlled by the MWHA, which is an unelected body to overturn City permit approval, by MWHA vote. The MHWA is the gatekeeper to the vicinity, with a Vice President of Land Use on its board. The lawsuit was filed after the Area Planning Commission hearing, which said hearing was not authorized by law. The anti-SLAPP statue and special motion to strike the case cannot apply as it subjugates the due process clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
LikeLike
As history repeats itself, the court records are being rewritten. The applicant (/plaintiff) did not file a lawsuit two weeks prior to the [MWHA] hearing. A hearing notice for the properties within 200-feet of 1538 Randall Ct. was held at LA City Hall, and the plaintiff prevailed. Then, the contract Zoning Administrator hid the 1964 PS-456 survey, which is the legal document for roadway & parcel the metes & bounds, falsified the building size to larger, and falsified the roadway with to narrower, thus manufacturing a zoning variance…and transferred the 1538 Randall Ct. Entitlement Application out of LA City jurisdiction to the Area Planning Commission controlled by the MWHA, which is an unelected body to overturn City permit approval, by MWHA vote. The MHWA is the gatekeeper to the vicinity, with a Vice President of Land Use on its board and Council District 1 representative as a member. The lawsuit 5/13/2009 was filed after the legal City Hall 1/26/2009 hearing and no appeal was heard at City Hall, which the Area Planning Commission hearing was not authorized by law as there was no zoning variance and falsified records, it was ie. a conforming R-1 house in a R-1 zone not eg. Walmart in a R-1 zone. Free speech is not legal in the case of racial discrimination, ie. Unruh Act (and title VI and VIII of the Fair Housing Act), and instances of at least 3 cases were submitted by the plaintiff which is the legal threshold. The anti-SLAPP statue and special motion to strike the case cannot apply as it subjugates the due process clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
LikeLike
The LASC case BC413819 defendants on the northside of the current 1500 block of Randall Ct., via the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance (MWHA), claimed rights to the 1964 PS-456 street, when they had no rights to it as it was created by RL Stephen for southside lots of the current 1500 block of Randall Ct. which he owned as numbers 25, 26, 27, 28 and 40 by the public use clause of the 1948 easement deed; therefore the northside defendants statements were PERJURY. Randall Ct. is public road therefore interfering with its use for a residence abutting the roadway is a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. As an example, a neighbor cannot interfere with the use of another’s vehicle by reporting false statements to the DMV. If so and the registration is revoked, it constitutes a TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE. SLAPP is a California statute that does not apply to residences, as it is trumped by the US Constitutions due process clause specifically states cannot create conflicting statutes. The California court opinion is perversion of the law to institutionally subjugate protected classes, and is overruled by federal statutes.
LikeLike
In light of the forest fires ravaging LA, at the 2009 illegal Area Planning Commission hearing related to this property, Commissioner Sharon M. Y. Lowe stated that no tree can be removed unless monitored by an Arborist for 30 days, and if no bird laid a nest in the tree only then it can be removed. It was called “bird nest mitigation”; multiply that incompetence across the county and we end up with excess dry brush fuel adjacent to houses and massive wildfires. Marxist progressive policies mean nothing gets built and everything supporting human life gets destroyed. The audio recording from that hearing still exists.
LikeLike
The August 2007 Owner did not attempt to change APN 5464-030-027 from Killarney Ave. to Randall Ct. The address ‘1538 Randall Ct.’ was on the Deed at August 2007 purchase/transfer, as confirmed in City of LA records in July 2007, PRIOR to purchase. And then cited in City Planning case DIR-2008-2262-SPP for a conforming single family residence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phot Luisiri is a liar and he submitted perjury to the City of Los Angeles. There was no change of address in the 2007 purchase of the 1538 Randall Court parcel by Gary Roy, and additionally no change of address, or attempt to change, related to his 2008 entitlement application to the City of Los Angeles or County.
LikeLike
The LASC case BC413819 special motion to strike by the defendants under section 425.16 is a violation of the due process clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment in that no State, ie. California, shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or PROPERTY (ie. 1538 Randall Court), without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus, based upon evidence & due process the Plaintiff prevailed in a judgment in his favor.
LikeLike
Yes it is a dereliction of duty…the 2007 1538 Randall Court Property Owner’s life is in imminent danger by the Los Angeles City Hall RICO mafia, and the State & Federal gov’t agencies just sit idly by, without the necessary intervention.
LikeLike
After being indicted in 2020, on 26 Jan. 2024 Jose Huizar was sentenced to 13 years in jail, after three sentencing delays. Now, Huizar’s report to prison scheduled for 30 Apr. 2024 is now delayed by 4 months due to illness. Per the video after his sentencing hearing, Huizar does not appear physically ill. Actually, Huizar has been given 10 days, to 4 months, to cure & restore the LADBS property permits halted by his corruption, or face additional prison time. And, use the time to further harass applicant(s) in order to attempt to overturn the RICO conviction…this corruption just the tip of the iceberg and is ubiquitous.
LikeLike
…the 10-day Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) permit number 08010-10000-01335 pending Huizar, Esparza, Chan financial & administrative cure to 1538 Randall Court
LikeLike
The intent of the anti-SLAPP statute (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) §425.16 striking of cases is to prevent developers from suing opposition to development of Public Infrastructure, such as gas stations, shopping malls, factories, freeways. It was not intended to be applied to private residences, and contradicts the due process clause of 14th amendment, for citizens. If the City does not approve a Public Infrastructure Development, the developer can appeal to the Area Planning Commission for approval. If the City of LA followed process, the conforming single family residence Entitlement Application for 1538 Randall Court would not have been transferred out of their jurisdiction to an Area Planning Commission/MWHA, in order to overturn City approval. Contrary to the appellant court record, in July 2007, the property owner received a LA DBS Determination Letter confirming buildability of a single family residence at the legal address 1538 Randall Court [not a preliminary opinion], 1 single family residence is Categorically Exempt (-CE) from CEQA [not a Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report (-MND/EIR)], and the MWHA is a business establishment under the law with an EIN, collects monies & provides services; subject to the provisions of the Unruh Act. But, counsel for the defendants lied to the appellant court judges citing the property owner as a developer [when that didn’t sick the City combed through the deposition then tried to pursue manufacturing & labeling the plaintiff as a foreign spy & unregistered foreign agent under FISA], and the City falsified the record of the conforming single family residence as a zoning variance (by race), thus requiring bribes & political donations to pay-to-play fix…this is why Raymond Chan the head of LA DBS, and Jose Huizar & George Esparza Council District 14 have been convicted of the RICO Act & Honest Services fraud. Thus, many major cities around the world have been in rags-to-riches infrastructure & economic expansion surpassing Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is in banana republic self-destructive decline. For example, take a look at Oceanwide Plaza in DTLA.
LikeLike
@austin
Law: The US Constitution, and State law as applied to most citizens.
Bad Law (LASC Cases BC422522/BC413819/B219407): Considered to include unsound interpretation of legal principles, or a proposition of law that is erroneous, or an attempted statement of the law that is inaccurate, or non-law. In California, applied to protected classes for purposes of oppression and justifies the need for DOJ and Federal Court intervention.
It is not for the plaintiff to pursue a RICO case, unless he want to be in the river dead with cement shoes, and the 14th Amendment also calls for equal protection of the law by government agencies.
Thus, Federal Law (HUD/DOJ Cases 09-13-1032-6 / -8): Where’s the beef [FBI//HUD/DOJ]? Have they protected & provided justice for the plaintiff, or are they only interested in prosecution(s) that promote their careers?
LikeLike
@amy: The City of Los Angeles is also a defendant in the BC413819 Unruh Act case, and is a business establishment subject to the Act [and Title VI & VIII of the Federal FHA & RICO Act] however in case B219407 the appellant court simply ignored that fact, to issue an opinion first and manipulate the evidence to fit the opinion…ie. “Bad Law” in need of federal intervention per HUD/DOJ Cases 09-13-1032-6 / -8. The plaintiff compensation is delayed since being BC422522 “cured” in 2012 under CRMLS #12093643, to try to find manufactured ways to prosecute the plaintiff 12 years ongoing; the City and [Fidelity National] Title Co. were to notify the plaintiff within 10 days per the BC422522 agreement, but instead chose to pursue a manufactured & without evidence ad infinitum fishing expedition section 702 FISA on a citizen; either eventually using the 13th Amendment conviction & indentured servitude clause or FISA to strip him of his civil rights, none of which legally apply.
LikeLike
At 5/22/24: The photo 1/4 for the MLS# CV24102613 (1537 killarney) listing is taken at 1538 RANDALL CT., on the ingress/egress Randall Court roadway. So after 15 years of debate [the City of LA could not manufacture evidence to put the 2007 lot owner in the ground to remove his civil rights] so must revert to the Official Records, ie. 1538 Randall Ct. – 1964 survey, 2007 deed, city and county records. Omg, the damages the City will have to pay!
Ref:https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1537-Killarney-Ave_Los-Angeles_CA_90065_M94233-30641 (photo 1 of 4)
LikeLike
The MLS CV24102613 photo 1 access point is 1538 Randall Ct. for ingress/egress yet the LADBS case DIR-2018-1190-SPP photo 3 and photo 4 “ready-to-issue” “proposed site plan” “note…need a new address…” plans are for non existent 1537 Killarney due to breaching the southerly aerial easement in addition to major right-heavy & top-heavy structural issues unfit for habitation (with that basement can only be a cave or coffin); the Killarney drawings & plans are worthless and $151,000 ($250k – $99k) of fraud.
Only the LADBS case DIR-2008-2262-SPP conforming SFR R-1 building plan via 1538 Randall Ct. is viable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DIR-2018-1190-SPP… MLS# CV24102613 …with a basement inside a hillside is a cave, coffin or sarcophagus structurally unsound & meant for death not living!
Only a structural engineer with a degree from a crackerjack box or receiving pay-for-play bribes would endorse such a plan. 😦
LikeLike
In addition to building plan DIR-2018-1190-SPP being a structurally and seismically unstable top-heavy death trap (eg. basement coffin) and illegal, NO WATER service can be supplied to an address of 1537 Killarney Ave. The only compliant address is ingress/egress building plan DIR-2008-2262-SPP at 1538 Randall Ct. Jose Huizar, George Esparza, Raymond Chan, and their gang of incompetent fascist criminals need to go to jail immediately and the City of LA to pay the tort / civil rights compensation under CFMS 11-0149 (LASC BC422522 / BC413819).
LikeLike
The real reason for the April 2024 4-month delay in Jose Huizar reporting to his 13-year sentence is to further passively harass & intimidate the 2007 lot owner into non-existence, as the RICO case is based upon a 10-year pattern of corruption from 2008 (DIR-2008-2262-SPP, 1538 Randall Ct.) to the raid on Huizar’s house in 2018. Thus, attempting to eliminate the 2007 lot owners’ case overturns the RICO case and Huizar, Chan & Esparza would need to be set free. They still haven’t notified the 2007 lot owner of the LASC BC422522 cure of the case & resulting compensation. Due to policies of segregation that circumvent the 1964 & 1968 Civil Rights acts in California, they [ie. City of LA, HUD, DOJ] usually notify the plaintiffs of these types of cases after they are deceased or prisoned on unrelated manufactured charges; the 10-day “cure” justice too long delayed is justice denied. This is the effect of two corrupt & bought judges on the case(s) – 2012 (LASC) and 2024 (Federal).
LikeLike
The City of LA is clearly attempting to save ‘RICO’ face by again falsifying documents to propose a coffin at 1537 Killarney Ave., when they know the only compliant & legal residential building plans are via 1538 Randall Ct. The LA City Hall misguided priorities are (#1) Party funding (#2) The Country (#3) The People; when they should be (#1) The Country (#2) The People (#3) the Party.
LikeLike
Apparently, the court records show that this 1539 Randall Ct. property was resolved & restored by overturning the City of Los Angeles’ corruption, in 2012. The case has been prolonged by the DOJ and FBI in order for the City of Los Angeles to persecute the property owner, in order to get the 2018 case against Jose Huizar..& the City Council dismissed. Justice too long delayed is justice denied. End the ubiquitous City corruption that created the blight in LA, and provide JUSTICE to the correct 2007 property owner!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lots 25, 26, 27, 28 and 40 are configured to be a Cemetery, accessed via Randall Court. There are similar tract & road layouts in the mid-west such as Kansas. Prior to the 1960s, there were Private Cemeteries in the greater Los Angeles area. Then, Public Cemeteries such as Forest Lawn were opened, and Private Cemeteries were prohibited from use; namely, your neighbor could no longer bury relatives on their property unless the Private Cemetery is of historical significance.
Cemetery allocations are designed so that although there are two roads on either side of the Lot(s), there is only one path of entry; similarly, although there are two roads Randall Court & Killarney on either side of Lots 25 through 28 / 40, there is only one access path, via Randall Court, due to a southerly aerial easement between these Lot(s) and Killarney Ave. Thus, the Lots only abut one road, in this case for Lots 25 through 28 / 40 the northerly Randall Court road.
As in the mid-west, this one road access was designed-in to protect Cemetery Lot access & use only via the inboard Randall Court; Cemetery Lots 25 through 28 / 40 can only be accessed FIRST via Randal Court THEN to Killarney Ave.
After 15 years, from 1948 to 1963, and per the 8 February 1948 Easement Deed, the private road becomes a Public Road thoroughfare for relatives & persons outside of Tract 3867 (Lots 421 to 427) to visit the burial plots on Tracts 4417 (Lots 25 to 28) and Tract 7367 (Lot 40). Between 1952 – 1964, whomever was buried in Tracts 4417 and 7367 was exhumed & transferred to Public Cemeteries such as Forest Lawn Cemeteries, and per the 10 November 1964 Countor Map the ingress & egress easement still remains to date for all the Abutting Lots: 25 to 28, 40, & 421 to 427, to access the Randall Court roadway. R1 zoned Residential Lots 25 to 28, 40, & 421 to 427 can only access a roadway, not an easement.
Surely, the City of Los Angeles has these pre-1964 land use records for Municipal Code conformance but are suppressing this evidence to restrict the Current 2007 Owner from building his R1 zoned R1 house at 1538 Randall Court, Lot 28 / 40, which is the correct and only road access.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is correct, William.
As the easement became public use 15 years after the Easement Deed, per the City of Los Angeles Board of Public Works letter, Randall Court has been an approved road since 26 February 1965, for R1-1 use of 1538 Randall Court, Lot 28 / 40, which matches the APN 5464-030-027 property deed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one in the past 16 years “changed” the address of 1538 Randall Court from Killarney Avenue to Randall Court. A legal plot division of Lot 40 which is a part of the 1948 easement [now Randall Court] deed was created circa 10 November 1964 and stamped approved by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering on the Tract 3867, 4417, and 7367 Countour Map, submitted by R. L. Stephen owner of the lot(s); ie. Randall Court abutting lot 28/40; and in addition, the legal address for APN 5464-030-027 is reflected in the City Zoning Information and Map Access System (ZIMAS) prior to 2007 to present, and by the Los Angeles County Assessor as 1538 Randall Court. The neighbors are not engineers, rather the neighbors are lay opinion. The neighbors’ deeds reflect the 1964 dedication of Randall Court by R. L. Stephen. The legal address of 1538 Randall Court appears on the deed as sold by the grantor Brian Sipe to the owner grantee, in August 2007. The statute of limitations has past to challenge ingress & egress to Randall Court, which was established 49 years ago (+ 10 Year Statute of Limitation). Any statements by the current & past neighbors that in the last 10 years the 1538 Randall Court lot address was changed by the owner is manufactured, prejudicial, libel & slander.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning used manufactured ZAD Zoning Determinations by Albert Landini in order to block conforming SPP Single Family Residence approvals & permits, such as the one for this property issued by Jimmy Anguiano. Now, the outgoing mayor Eric Garcetti is being considered for a position of Ambassador to India, thus he can operate in the same type of Caste system in New Delhi, that he created in Los Angeles.
LikeLike
Let’s put this House & Lot in perspective. They seem to be discussing ad nauseam that Randall Court is a private street. All private streets are cul-de-sac dead end and not a through street such as Randall Court. There was a time when the 1948 easement turned into ‘PS 456 / Randall Court’ but that was per the Contour Map submitted & approved the City of Los Angeles in 1964; the Statute of Limitations has long passed to contest the street as per the Contour Map of adjoining lots 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 40 inclusive. The City of Los Angeles has had the Contour Map posted in this blog since 1964, that PS456 / Randall Court is a through street.
Whether for ingress & egress this Lot abuts a road as a Private Street, Public Street, Gated Community Roadway is in comparison irrelevant, as these types of roads are acceptable to build a House for access.
Thus, in order to build a R1 House in these R1 zoned properties all the Lot Owner needs is:
1) Contour Map of the Tract (1964 PS456 / Randall Court on file at the City of Los Angeles) for ingress & egress of Lot 28 (/40);
2) Survey and Geology of the Lot (2007 J Byers Group and TDR Engineering); and
3) Conforming Single Family Residential building plans & structural (2008 DCI plans submitted to the City of Los Angeles under DIR-2008-2262-SPP; ENV-2008-2263-CE).
THAT ALL!!! There is no requirement for [except to exclude races]:
a) Zoning Determination; nor
b) Area Planning Commission Hearing.
LikeLike
And, of notable legal mention 4) This Lot’s Grant Deed is “Title Order No. 19528984 Also Known as: 1538 Randall Court / Vacant Land 5464-030-027, Los Angeles, CA 90065 A.P. # 5464-030-027”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, I found out that on 31 December 2008, City of Los Angeles Contractors Albert Landini and Tom Henry issued an Environmental Impact Report for the Entitlement Application of this Single Family Residence. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the following are Categorically Exempt (CE), “15303. New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures… One single family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.” The City of Los Angeles “CF# : 02-1507…ARTICLE II: EXEMPTIONS…Any activity specifically exempted from the requirements of CEQA by State Law.”
1448 Randall Court was issued Categorical Exemption as ENV-2007-0458-CE; so 1538 Randall Court should be similarly issued ENV-2008-2263-CE Categorical Exemption, NOT suffix -MND or -EIR which are Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Report respectively. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is a published article in the local newspaper with the parameters of the project. On 31 December 2008, City Planning Associate Tom Henry issued a 21-page CEQA Environmental Impact Report on this property, in defiance of the CEQA statute. In a letter on 29 April 2009 again in defiance of the CEQA statute City Contractor Albert Landini proposed to Dan Marlos of the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration MND on this property, by which neither Landini nor Marlos have ownership or jurisdiction.
By the City of Los Angeles illegally applying CEQA to 1538 Randall Court, would require the House Owner to follow Air Resource Board mandates and routinely monitor emissions and record readings from the house for periodic Government Agency inspection. For example, if the House Owner used gas heating or had a barbeque he would need to monitor & record the emissions. This is required of eg. commercial manufacturing facilities, not Single Family Residences.
Additionally, there is NO requirement for [except to exclude races]:
c) an Environmental Impact Report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The neighbors should not have been involved in the entitlement application; the conforming plan is between the lot owner & the City. After a public hearing was held at City Hall and the 2008 residential plan was approved for 1538 Randall Court; the City transferred the application out of City Hall jurisdiction to an Area Planning Commission, for an illegal hearing & comments from the neighborhood peanut gallery, to inject their perjury. It’s no wonder Jose Huizar & George Esparza pleaded guilty in federal court of running a RICO-based corrupt organization!
LikeLike
Kim Westhoff, the disbarred LA City Attorney, suppressed (hid) the 1964 contour map for tracts 3867, 4417, and 7367 from 2009 to 2011, from the 1538 Randall Court property owner & the District Court despite receiving a subpoena disclose the map, which created the endless debate over Randall Court ingress/egress by abutting properties. The 10-year statute of limitations ended the debate by 1974, but by Kim Westhoff suppressing (hiding) the 1964 contour map the debate continued to 2023.
Only an engineer or technically competent person can figure it out, not a peanut gallery.
LikeLike
The Los Angeles City Council devised illegal ways to restrict what they ignorantly perceive as certain 13 Amendment suspicious persons from living in certain neighborhoods, all violations of the 1964 Fair Housing Act. The City of Los Angeles cannot prevent a property owner from submitting conforming plans…so the City of Los Angeles has their Area Planning Commission to manipulate Zoning & access rules, such as calling the access road a “wildlife corridor” and injecting arithmetic errors into the building plans; eg. in old times if certain property owners had to remove a tree to build their house, they merely had to replant two new trees. So, to restrict certain property owners, the Area Planning Commission requires have to hire an Arborist / Biologist to observe the tree for 30 days, and if a bird lands on the tree they could not remove the tree. This is called “bird nesting mitigation”. Area Planning Commissions to not have jurisdiction over residences, by which this overreach gives the Area Planning Commission veto powers over all homeowners, whether in an HOA or not, by voting him/her out of the neighborhood, in an ethnic cleansing exercise. In this case, attorneys such as Anya Stanley and Kim Westhoff hid & suppressed the PS456 / Randall Court tract map, that is in City records and now shown on this website, in order to illegally block the Lot 28, as indicated on the map, property owner’s roadway access to the lot. Then, their planted Judge Michael Flemming / Luis Lavin accepts only the Area Planning Commission’s evidence, as Officers of an apartheid Court, of a non-existent flaw in the records & the City of Los Angeles and its termites persecute the property owner through illegal taxes [the LA region City Officials share[d] an El Segundo office building with the IRS], bribes & harassment. Conforming Single Family Residential plans are blocked by subversion & suppression of records, by the City of Los Angeles. The LA Area Planning Commission activities are akin to George Wallace Standing in a Doorway blocking access at the University of Alabama in January of 1963. The illegal activities of the Area Planning Commission make building a conforming Single Family Residence, for certain demographic groups, on a residential lot as expensive, prohibitive & time consuming as building a Shopping Center and Gas Station on a residential lot. Where is The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in this matter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
These are maliciously crafted tactics by the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles requires that if a lot is within 200 feet of a home, the lot owner must perform weed abatement, which is a legal term for mowing the lawn in order to remove brush which can be a fire hazard. After weed abatement, the lot owner must file an affidavit of compliance to the City of Los Angeles. But, as the city confirmed the 1538 Randall Court access prior to lot purchase, the City of Los Angeles then blocked the lot owner from using the road as access after lot purchase to remove the brush & weeds, 1) the lot owner will be charged with ‘felony perjury’ if weed abatement is performed and, 2) the lot owner will be charged with ‘felony trespass’; or the lot owner loses the lot an retains his/her civil rights. Therefore, the City of Los Angeles can strip the lot owner of his/her civil rights under the 13th amendment…no voting rights, no property rights. Thus, by the City of Los Angeles blocking roadway access to the lot, the lot owner either gets a felony charge and loses 4th, 13th, 15th etc. amendment civil rights by being convicted of a [felony] crime, or must abandon the lot to retain civil rights. This is a disgusting display of administrative apartheid.
LikeLike
In this situation, the City of Los Angeles and District Courts seriously violated the 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th amendments of the US Constitution related to searches, due process, indenture servitude, and fair procedures in land use.
LikeLike
Well said. Also for this case as prescribed by the United Nations Secretary General of the ICC, the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles City Council and the District Courts are also in violation of The Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, Part 2. Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law, Article 7: Crimes against humanity, defines such acts as the aggregate of: (d) forcible transfer of population; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural as defined; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or to mental or physical health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The property is clearly “1538 Randall Court / Vacant Land 5464-030-027 Los Angeles, California 90065”, which is on the deed, in City records since the 1960’s, and in County assessor map records. This issue is an example of typical liberal overreach as it is not the jurisdiction of the LA City Director of Planning to make this address determination, as his/her overreach is ill conceived.
This is the City’s illegal tactic: for example let’s say the owner of a “Honda Civic” (15 feet long) went to the DMV to register it, and at the DMV the Clerk falsified the application stating that the Honda Civic is 27 feet thus it is a Cessna airplane. The DMV then calls for a public hearing in order to use a Cessna airplane on city roads. The public hearing which is out of State jurisdiction rejects the DMV application. After the public hearing the DMV calls their change to from 15 feet to 27 feet an arithmetic error, but it is too late as the application for a “Honda Civic” has been rejected.
In the case of 1538 Randall Court, jurisprudence states that a property can access any abutting road for ingress/egress. This lot 5464-030-027 abuts Randall Court but the City suppressed the tract map during the building application process. Also, a Zoning Administrator which has no jurisdiction over single family residences falsified the building area from conforming 2,975 square foot plans and a surveyed 20 foot roadway, as submitted to the City…to a non-conforming 3,370 square feet building and a 15 foot roadway. The Zoning Administrator then transferred the application out of City jurisdiction to a public hearing as a zoning variance; the owner’s building plans are for a conforming R1 residence in a R1 zone which is not a zoning variance. The plan to build the home on the property was rejected by APC vote, which also do not have jurisdiction over residential permits. AFTER the plans were rejected by APC vote the Zoning Administrator cites his numerical changes a “arithmetic error”, and returned the numbers to conforming 2,975 – – – > 3,370 and 15 – – – > 20. At this point, it is too late as the Conforming Plans have been rejected without a venue for the property owner to appeal.
Too many overhead positions in the City of Los Angeles Planning, Zoning and APC with nothing to do but segregate, lie, cheat, and steal.
The 2008 single family residential application per this website needs to be approved as City officials pleaded guilty under the RICO statute to bribery, harassment, intimidation & honest services fraud…and those who committed perjury prosecuted under the laws of the nation SWIFTLY (not over an artificially protracted 13-year period) to the full extent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a textbook case of institutional racism.
The lot owner purchases a parcel to build his home. Prior to purchase, he confirms buildability of a Single Family Residence at the Randall Court street address with the City of Los Angeles Building & Safety. In writing, the City confirms the specifications, and the legal address per the deed.
But at that point the City obviously thinks that the Lot Owner is some lackey, thus confirms that a single family residence can be built on the lot, as it is within the constitutional right of a Lot Owner to live on his lot with his family.
When the City found out that the lot owner is of a Protected Class; this term of itself bodes a caste system, the process changed from an entitlement application to a zoning determination, as City contractor Albert Landini the Zoning Administrator falsified the house specifications and City employee Kim Westhoff hid the tract map on the behest of the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance and Anya Stanley. Albert Landini only corrected his falsification after the illegal Area Planning Commission proceeding citing his “arithmetic error”, but the damage had already been done as the Lot Owner then lost access to the property. The Lot Owner’s single family residence was approved by City employee Jimmy Anguiano under the correct entitlement process, but the illegal zoning determination overshadowed the legal permit application.
Out of City jurisdiction, Sharon Lowe & Daniel Wright then hold a vote against the Lot Owner knowing that the tract map was hidden from proceedings, and vote against the Lot Owner’s constitutional right to live on the property, without any means for appeal. The tract map was recorded in 1964 yet the MWHA along with Anya Stanley, petition a Judge to get a forensic analysis of the Lot Owner’s computer. A computer in 2011 cannot have any relationship to a plot map recorded in 1964, and the Lot Owner was not even born when Randall Court was established in the 1960s. The other district Judge was married to the Area Planning Commissioner in this specific plan area.
As a protected class, none of the Lot Owner’s evidence was accepted in district courts, akin to a caste system, over the diatribes of the Mount Washing Homeowners Alliance. The computer forensic analysis was to find any dirt that can be used against the Lot Owner to null this constitutional right to live on the lot, under the convicted of a crime clause of the 13th amendment, of which he was not.
In 2012 when the tract map resurfaced, instead of the City admitting their suppression of evidence, the City issues fake tax liens via Henry Waxman’s district office against the Lot Owner and intimidate the Lot Owner’s Attorney into a conflict of interest. In 2015, when the Lot Owner approached City council, George Esparza and Jose Huizar of the Council District requested $30,000 in bribes to fix the matter. The Lot Owner had no access to the property as it is bound by Randall Court to the north which his access was revoked after he purchased the lot, and an aerial City easement to the south. Thus it would be illegal to access the property which is the same as a restrictive covenant, which has been illegal since the 1960s. Then, the City & MWHA have a title company issue a fake robosigned transfer of the property, away from ownership of the 2007 Lot Owner.
Thus, the City after hiding their intrinsic corruption in this property and the Federal Government waiting to bring down Jose Huizar, the Lot Owner remains out of his constitutional right to live on the property. These cases usually get resolved after all parties have deceased, thus the civil rights of the victim no long have just cause. They will wait until the City can manufacture a case against the Lot Owner to null his Constitutional rights, or wait until all parties are deceased to correct the intentional error in justice. At that point in the distant future, justice has no effect.
This is the system that has been in place since 1964 Civil Rights Act granted Protected Classes property rights over Restrictive Covenants that prevented them from living in certain “redlined” areas; thus nullifying the 1964 & 1968 Civil Rights Acts in the City of Los Angeles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most people can’t fathom how crooked this process is. The property Owner is sandbagged by State falsification of records, in order to perpetuate bribery, and segregation & crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute. The City of Los Angeles residential permit process prevents certain people of a demographic from attaining their entitlement rights.
In comparison, envision that a car Owner applies to the State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to get a car permit for a Honda Accord which is 196 inches in length. The State DMV then falsifies the car’s length to 62 feet and calls it a Cessna airplane, which is a zoning variance as airplanes are not allowed on City streets. Then, the DMV transfers the permit application out of its jurisdiction to the neighbors for a vote on whether to allow an airplane, which is actually a car, into the neighborhood. The neighbors, which is the Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council a.k.a. Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance vote against the Owners permit, then the DMV restores the length to 196 inches after the permit transfer is voted down by the unauthorized by law neighborhood Council.
The conforming car, in this case the conforming house permit is withheld from the Owner for 13 years, unless he pays the bribes and votes for the ruling political party.
This is a racket implement by the City of Los Angeles of colossal corrupt proportions!
LikeLike
supreme! Famous Architect Designs Sustainable Mega-City 2025 brilliant
LikeLike