The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08061996 - C35 c, 35 CLAIM B%;n Or Sjcr;�'!S,,Zc 0; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAL!r0;NIA August 6, 1996 Claim Arain,st the County, or District governed by) 804;D ACTION the So,ird of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), giver pursuant to Government Code Amount: $107,889.73 Section 913 and 915.4. Please nl� IM 1.LAIMANT: R. Michael Paravagna181�'Lrl CM J U L 19 1996 ATTORNEY: Date received COUNTY COUNSEL ADDRESS: 5311 Nesting Place BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON JulyMf§TIN1LiF. Rocklin, Ca 95677 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: July 16, 1996 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. pH gg DATED: July 19, 1996 BYIL DepuLyLOR, Clerk II. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (� This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: � ��0 BY:_ Deputy County Counsel I11. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARDD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( V) This Claim is rejected in full. ( Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. If Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By is . , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warnino see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. r Dated: 9 — I`►° p BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by eputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator 91 ` Cla':(m -to: " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS•OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3� INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 190th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue an or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later, than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. Co If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this orm. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp r►c� j RECEIVED e Against the C unty of Contra Costa ) or. ) JUL 1 81996 District) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Fill in name ) CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the ab6ve-named District in the sum of $ ///)Z gR 9 0.3 and in support of this claim represents as follows:Zlp 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) h�Gth r7 eU( d' GLals ©GI_ad1 UYL M ��i 96 T%�, asa [TYt CJS 2. inhere did the damage or in Jury occur? (Include city an Bounty) 3. How did the damage or injury occur? . (Give full details; use extra paper if required) 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? (over) { 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing• the damage or injury? 4r 6 'Ruh er Le,SW 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted?. (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) v. Names and addresses of Witnesses, doctors and hospitals. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES T0: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney Claimant's Signa Address "2 2A 7-'D Telephone No. Telephone No. 466 �te • aeaa �taf • a • aa • f � NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, With intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay'the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. GUS �� INTRODUCTION In August of 1994 , my exwife and I found ourselves in a custody dispute over who should have physical custody of our two sons , DOB 2-14-81 and 7-23-82 . As the parent with primary custody ,I was objecting to the children moving back into their mother ' s home because of a well-documented history of neglect , psychological abuse and inadequate supervision. The custody dispute resulted in a show cause motion being filed before Contra Costa County Superior Court , Department 41 . Pursuant to said action the court ordered a full evaluation to be conducted by Contra Costa County' s Family Court Services . The children expressed to me a desire to move to their mother ' s home. I believed: 1 ) That it was inappropriate because of the aforementioned parenting issues ; and, 2) Because I felt the children had been grossly and inappropriately manipulated by their mother , thus motivating them to request relocation. Given the opportunity for what I expected to be a professionally done , impartial , full evaluation of the custody needs of the children, I agreed that the recommendations of the professional evaluator would be used to determine where the children would reside . I made that agreement with my former spouse and my children. I want to emphasize that this agreement was made with trust in the competency, honesty and integrity of .Contra Costa County Government . Recommendations of the full evaluation were adopted on June 23 , 1995 by the court and both children were from that point on technically in the custody of their mother . After the proceedings closed she refused to accept custody. The children were not able to move to her residence until August 11 , 1995 . DISCOVERY OF INAPPROPRIATE ACTIVITY: My request to obtain a copy of the report leading to these recommendations was initially denied. On January 26, 1996 after becoming my own attorney of record, I visited the office of Family Court Services in Martinez, California. My request to receive a copy of the evaluation was denied, however , after a lengthy discussion I was allowed to read the evaluation for the first time . A review of the document revealed the following inappropriate acts of Edith Risher, LCSW: 1 ) Ignoring or disregarding evidence relative to mother ' s death threats against smallest child and her act of kicking him out of the house at age nine . I personally provided information to Ms . Risher concerning this issue . 2) Disregarding and ignoring evidence relative to mother stripping all furniture and personal effects out of youngest child' s room as punishment for a routine disciplinary problem. I personally provided information to Ms . Risher concerning this issue. 3 ) Disregarding evidence relative to the illegal use of prescription medication used to "control " the children. (See Attached medical record) . 4 ) Disregarding evidence relative to poor supervision and control of children. I personally. provided information to Ms . Risher concerning this issue . 5 ) Ignoring evidence relative to buying outdated food for children. I personally provided information to Ms . Risher concerning this issue . 6) The statement made by the former treating psychologist , Diane Kosters , Ph.D. was overtly and dramatically altered. 7 ) Using the professional opinion of Lynn. White , MFCC who is a personal friend of my exwife to support the conclusion of the report . 8) Disregarding or ignoring children' s poor academic performance when with mother , in contrast with their average to above average performance with their father . I personally provided information to Ms . Risher concerning this issue . 9) Making false statements about the unavailability of Cliff Lewis , Ph.D. to discuss father ' s fitness for custody. It should be noted that Dr . Lewis tried twice to reach Ms . Risher by telephone and no return call was made . Further , no attempt was made to reach Dr . Lewis by mail . Ms . Risher was provided the address , telephone number and a signed release . 10 ) Making false statements indicating that two public schools in Rocklin Unified School District could not be reached during the regular academic school year . 11 ) Ignoring medical evidence/emergency records documenting significant emotional trauma inflicted on youngest son while visiting his mother . (See medical record attached. ) Concerning the statements above , I have direct evidence documenting each or can give testimony, if called upon under penalty of perjury verify that each statement is true and correct . RESULTS On April 15 , 1996 it was necessary to obtain an emergency court ' order , and police assistance to take custody of my oldest son who found the living situation intolerable as the conditions that existed in the house before and subsequent to the evaluation still existed. At the time of his removal from the premise he was seen by his high school as a "habitual truant" who was failing most classes . Our youngest son remains in Walnut Creek while having been involved with numerous disciplinary issues over the past academic year and is still living in questionable conditions relative to nutrition , supervision and emotional support . Thus , due to the willful and reckless disregard for public trust and professional responsibilities County Government has brought about severe emotional suffering to this petitioner and his son' s . The extent of the damages go far beyond the cost of the evaluation, or the child support paid without benefit to children. Through the inappropriate action the County has exacerbated the tensions within a troubled family unit and placed children in a jeopardizing- environment . DISCUSSION The blatant and overt violation of professional standards and public trust are inexcusable . When the people appear before the court , the court rightfully demands that the people come in truth. In this instance , a servant of the court is allowed to utilize her trusted position to blatantly and overtly distort pertinent evidence causing severe and permanent damage to the individuals in question. In seeking motivation for these inappropriate acts I can only come to a statement made by Ms . Risher in the first 10 to 15 minutes of our initial interview. She said "Dad, you just need to understand that most often the best place for a child is with his mother . " Such a statement in that context in the early stages of an evaluation in conjunction with the results of the evaluation and the manner in which it was conducted speaks clear to violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act . My counsel at the time , Michael Easley, noted to me that Ms . Risher will almost always grant custody to the mother . From that statement , it would appear a pattern of practice that Civil Rights violations are occurring. Ted R. Jorgensen, Chief of Family Court Services knows or should know that his office is . blatantly and flagrantly violating Civil Rights Act by the active distortion and omission of pertinent evidence and while using their public trust to damage children and families at a very vulnerable time . Unfortunately, the Contra Costa Government has already succeeded in bringing about severe damage to my life and my children. I would call on the Board of Supervisors to take immediate action in order that .such destruction to children in this County cease . I understand that the charges I am making are serious and complex . I hereby request a meeting with the Board or its designee to answer questions relative to these charges and to provide additional evidence as needed. I hope the Board will take appropriate action defusing the need for litigation which would be costly to all parties in many respects . R.Michael Parav na, Yae x . 36 COSTS RELATED TO THE ACTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY' S INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS : 1 ) $227 . 00 Cost of the Evaluation 2) 212. 00 Superior Court Filing Fees to obtain custody modification to halt damages for son DOB 2- 14-81 . 3 ) 5 . 00 Fees paid to Contra Costa to file motion 4) 15 . 82 Medical Records for son DOB 7-23-82 5 ) 13 . 67 Medical Records for son DOB 2-14-81 6) 300 . 00 Father ' s cost of therapy for son DOB 2-14-81 7 ) 338 . 24 Eight Trips , Rocklin to Martinez and return Q$ . 24 per mile. 8 ) 82 . 50 Process server fee paid to Cookie Bambucci 9) 6, 778 .00 Child Support paid to date that did not benefit children 10) 100 , 000 . 00 Damages for wilful and reckless disregard for the well being of children and the Civil Rights of their parent . FAMILY COURT SERVICES 724 ESCOBAR STREET MARTINEZ CA 94553 CASE NAME: PARAVAGNA, LINDA AND`MICHAEL CASE NUMBER: D90-02198 REFERRED BY:HON. JOSANNA BERKOW HEARING DATE: APRIL 17, 1995 EVALUATOR: EDITH RISHER, LCSW FULL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION JOINT LEGAL:PRIMARY RESIDENCE WITH MOTHER TIME SHARING PLAN: Father will have care of boys: 1) Alternate weekends Friday 7:30 p.m. to Sunday 7:30 p.m. Mid-week phone call Wednesday 9-9:30 p.m. (for father during school year a d each parent during non-custodial times in summer) Children should have freedom to call non-custodial parent as they desire, within reason. 3) Alternate Thanksgiving and Easter vacation. Mother to have in odd years, father in even years. 4) One half Christmas vacation, divided at Christmas noon. Mother to have first half in even years, father in odd. 5) Each parent to have his/her birthday, Mother and Father's Day, even if it falls on the weekend of the opposite parent. 6) One half summer, three weeks at a time. 7) Each parent should seek counseling with the boys, as needed, to address problems in their respective households. THIS CHANGE SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE END OF THE CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Joyce M.Berger 1425 South Main Street Vice President and Area Manager Walnut Creek,California 94596-5300 Irwin R.Fisch, M.D. (510)295-4000 Physician-in-Chief Sharon S.Eastman,R.N. Medical Group Administrator KASER PERIVVaNENTE s March 5, 1996 Michael Paravagna 5311 Nesting Place Rockland, CA 95677 .Dear Mr. Paravagna: As discussed in our phone conversation today, my note in the medical record (dated 1/24/95) is as follows: "I spoke with Edith Risher from Family Court Services, who is doing an evaluation of custody. I said I couldn't speak to mom's parenting abilities at this time",. I had not had direct contact with the family since October, 1992. Sincerely, Diane K. Kosters, Ph.D. DKK/als m01 14WSER PFS=MANENTC® PLEASE IMPRINT OR PRINT 1(aiser Foundation Hcspilals —_� P � he Permanente Medical Group,Inc. rr- lJ Antioch ❑ Hayward ❑ .Oakland ❑ Roseville ❑ Santa Clara ❑ Vallejo ��•I•;.a-.-�l� e ❑ Davis ❑ Martinet U Petaluma ❑ Sacramento ❑ Santa Rosa ❑ Walnut CA — --- — ----- ,_ ................ ❑ Fairfield ❑ Milpitas ❑ Pleasanton ❑ San Francisco ❑ Santa Teresa ❑ Fremont ❑ Mt.View ❑ Rncho C rdva ❑ S F(French) ❑ So.Sacto. a ^'------•�— --_........ ..:..„ � ❑ Fresno ❑ Napa ❑ Rdwd Cly ❑ San Jose ❑ So.S.F. ❑ Gilroy ❑ Novato ❑ Richmond ❑ San Rafael ❑ Stockton , AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OR DISCLOSURE OF PATIENT TREATMENT INFORMATION MEDICAL, PSYCHIATRIC,DRUG/ALCOHOL,AND/OR BLOOD TEST- -_---._-------__:_- -____.-_-:-_---------------- - - __ _ --- .-- ----- ----- I hereby authorize - NAME OF SENDING,PERSON,AGENCY,OR INSTITUTION ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP to release to M t A Cry--e-1 R2n .\ n a Yl Q_ NAME OF RECEIVING PERSON,AGENCY,OR INSTITUT 31J Ne5rii7s Place ADDRESS ` CITY --- STATE ---- ZIP -�------------------ records and information pertaining to ` NAME OF PATIENT(LIST O ER NAMES USED) MEDICAL RECORD NUMBER DATE OF BIRTH ADDRESS T LEPHONENUMBER DURATION: This authorization shall become effective immediately and shall remain in effect until DATE or fo, year from the date of signature.This consent is also subject to revocation by the undersigned at any time between and the release of information by the sending person, agency, or institution. WAV RESTRICTIONS: I understand that the requester may not further use or disclose the medical information unless another authorizati obtained from me or unless such use or disclosure is specifically required or permitted by law. P TIENT COPY: Please take a copy of this form after signing. El Yes, I have taken my signed copy of this form. MEDICAL INFORMATION: This authorization is limited to the following rliedical records a d type of information ___.. -1.14 r L ` i p Det; 6� _ / S C �,(• �c-"r-ewp. �iJ��--- - The requester may use the medical records and type of information authorized only for the following purposes: ..._ y.Qate: `� `i� -�Signat ---- ----- If signed by other than patient, indicate relationship: . C_] PSYCHIATRIC INFORMATION: This authorization is limited to the following medical records and types of information: The requester may use the medical records and type of information authoriz on r the following purposes:_ Date: Signature: If signed by other than patient, indicate relationship: _—. _._ - __. McOtCAL- - 0 DRUG/ALCOHOL INFORMATION: DATh-YST This authorization is limited to the following medical records and typef infor ation: M AY I 199 _ The requester may use the medical records and type of information auth only for thfolJ0VirPpi_ffpC&s: --- Date: Signature: If signed by other than patient, indicate relationship: � — O F! RESULTS OF A BLOOD TEST TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF HIV: t�.}- � r` This authorization is limited to the release of HIV test results. The requester may use this irlformati f V611flor4e fdllowing pirposes: Date: Signature: _----- _ If signed by other than patient, indicate relationship: 90258(REV.10-93)REG.C DISTRIBUTION:WHITE=CHART-CANARY=PATIENT 1 I t / w a• A M.ft.A+ WMSER PATIENT PROGRESS RECORD PATIENT'S NAME{LAST,FIRST,MIDDLE) P A R A v J K A DAVID IS p z 0 A 07 82 ADDRESS(NO..STREET) 3 S14S66S CITY rs s s 3 030IQ7`. 15� BIRTH DATE PHONE CODE GROUP s 1992 , irc "I � — 90537(REV.9-91) , . ko vv r - v �+ THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL'GROUP;INC. - - � �1 "tiESTEo r pnFf�i C i KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS.. P A t�A Y j�f A L' tr EMERGENCY ROOM RECORD PA,IEN7 S NAME(�ST.FiRS7,M.1.) 7... $2 ROOM OR BED NO. NO DRUG TEMPERATURE O BLOODPR URE BIRTH DYE S (� ❑ SENSITIVITY M.DICAL RECORD NUMBER A.M. YES-DRUG: PULSE RESPIRATION TMAE - ,SEEN P.M.[] THE UNDERSIGNED CONSENTS TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE PATIENT AND TO THE PERFORMANCE BY MEDICAL GROUP PHYSICIANS,THEIR ASSISTANTS;AND HOSPITAL ASSISTANTS,AND HOSPITAL PERSONNEL,OF SUCH DIAGNOSTIC AND MEDICAL PROCEDURES AS ARE CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE CARE OF THE PATIENT,INCLUDING INJECTIONS, ADMINISTRATION OF ANESTHETICS,AND OVAL OF TISSUE.NO ASSURANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS TO ANY RESULT OR CURE. SIGNATURE( R ER VVfT ��.. D E RIC � IMTNE .14 ..;x COMPLAINT NT EE PROBABLE.E 1V DIAGNOSIS 0A �STURY(tr. l hEr�Init3reJ} IL , - --- ----------.----- -- - - -- 1e. _ r t ' ^ r IN IM ..___'__. ...._. .__.... ._._..__. qq ... _...___... _ _...__ .-.. ... ._ ' t �s t 1 G , � a XRpY Y- ft4 •� .. r' t� 27f ilf i �r aCtfnAl ;i _. _ � t. . m SUBTOTAL t ...... TOTALS SERIAL �g� TED ,. *TIME A.M. DISPOSITION REGULAR M.6V OUT ❑ADMITTED C3DECEASED CONSULTANT 1-t O 2i - 9-� ' P.M.❑ (H)NOT ADMITTED AMBULANCE CODES [] (INSTRUCTIONS TO PATIENT) qw APP.WITH(Dr. Clinic-Date) R FIRED TO(Clinic 8 Date) �"' +�"`F . TRANSFER D T —leg Sen e.F 1,T DERSIGNED AC NOWLE REC PT F A C P S IN C E TH ANY IONS NOTE PATIENT OR OTHER RESPONSIBLE PERSON 6A4EAG Y R . IYS IAN ........... t< LR1Dtp KAISER PER(VIANENfE ' PAT_IENT PROGRESS RECORD ., PATIENT'S NAME (LAST,FIRST,MIDDLE) .. ADDRESS(NO.,STREET) y"* CITY BIRTHDATE PHONE CODE GROUP Of Yr �l l(' r �l KAISER PE-RIVIANGVTE EMERGENCY DEPT. FLOW SHEET __ Y1�cOTRIAGEPRIORITY: 1 11 111 TRIAGE TIME: VITAL SIGNS RIAGE DISPOSITION P._ R — T__—____ VVT-- ❑ monitor gurney ❑ Pedi urgent care appt.time ALLERGIES ❑suture rm. ❑eye rm. ❑ pelvic rm. ❑ I& D rm. ❑Adult urgent care (� ' appt.time CC: _( X��l Ulrit'1 f yo 1AVV) OBJECTIVE DATA PAIN DURATION: ❑GENERAL APPEARANCE W.N.L.-NO OBVIOUS DISTRESS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 QUALITY: ❑SHARP ❑DULL ❑PRESSURE ❑SQUEEZING Pupil Gauge(mm) ❑CONSTANT ❑INTERMITTENT ❑ + C BREATHING/MOVEMENT SUBJECTIVE TRIAGE DATA GLASGOW COMA SCALE /�/ f ^! /� I �I (_ Z f(& C EYE OPENING VERBAL RESPONSE MOTOR RESPONSE 1 t 7V 1 O(/1 1/11��-� l l_()n ( JVy) ❑ SPONTANEOUS 4 ❑ ORIENTED 5 I 1 OBEYS COMMANDS V e ( 1 ❑ TO VOICE 3 ❑ CONFUSED 4 ❑ LOCALIZES PAIN ❑ TO PAIN 2 ❑ INAPPROPRIATE WORDS 3 ❑ WITHDRAWS TO PAIN liv 1[l 0 1(-eck 1/Y]((, [71 NONE 1 ❑ INCOMPREHENSIBLE WORDS 2 LI FLEXION TO PAIN I� NONE 1 L7 EXTENSION TO PAIN 1_1 NONE h{etj L) a),(), J � EXPLANATION: J 'Y — — — --- -- — LAy ` `' I t 5 , u) J BREATHING SKIN COLOR SKIN SKIN CAPILLARY PUPILS MOIST TEMP REFILL - 000( ( fidd•� - ❑ NORMAL ❑ NORMAL 0 DRY ❑ WARM ❑ NORMAL L7 PERL ❑ SHALLOW ❑ PALE CJ MOIST ❑ COLD <2 SECS Ci PINPOINT ❑ RETRACTING ❑ ASHEN ❑ COOL U DELAYED I_1 DILATED ❑ ABSENT ❑ FLUSHED ❑ HOT >2 SECS h REACTIVE 11 CYANOTIC TURGOR i ; ABSENT 11 NON REAC ❑ RAPID ❑ JAUNDICED 1.1 GOOD I_i R>L E] LABORED 1_11 POOR L; L>R ❑ OTHER SIZE.---- PERTINENT MEDICAL HISTORY ❑NONE s PROBLEM fat PROBLEM ASSESSMENT(Detail of#s) tJ _ 1 CARDIAC_._._.. __. __...._ 1.7 SEIZURE ❑ HTN _.__ ........... .. .__.-_____-- -�� NEURO � ' C_1 ASTHMA/EMPHYSEMA ❑ CVA ❑ PSYCH 2 (eyes,ears,nose) HEAD/FACE ❑ DIABETES ❑ SUBSTANCE ABUSE 11 OTHER ... NECK 1 4 — LMP _ --. .-- G.... - AB .- - P _...... - - -- - CHEST L I MEDICATIONS F I NONE 5 LUNGS I CURRENT MEDS:.-.-. ....._. -----.._ ___ ...-._----... .. . ..................._.._.. .- 6 ABDOMEN IJ 7 BACK-SPINE l I LAST TETANUS TOX:, 8 PELVIS I.) TRIAGE INTERVENTION 9 EXTREMITIES I 1 C_l C-SPINE/rIMECLEARED ..._.. ..._ __ ..._-.. I_I ELEV. L1 ICE PHONE CONTACT MADE ❑ SPLINT/SUNG 11 DRY STERILE DRESSING ❑ LABS To whom Time I , I 1 X-RAY ORDERED _ L_l UNCS LI URINE PREG Triage R.NI 04984-7(3.91) ABS ORDERED TIME INIT X-RAYS/MISC. TIME INITr Page of EXAM ROOM BC/diff CXR �f --- — - — TIME .. YTES/AMYLASE MISC.X-RAYS _ U !'GREAT. Visual Acuity OS_- OD— OU iLUCOSE — - 02_— I/min. D Cannula D Mask D Siderails/Call Light :PK EKG T/PTT ABG Cardiac Rhythm_ YPE/Rh INITIAL SIGNATURE INITIAL SIGNATURE IA/URINE PREG. OTHER :ULTURES ---- -----.� -- --- —-- -- - -- ------ -- —--- ----- — ----— --------- —-- i}� TIME BPP R T GCS TIME PRO ESS OTES �r w+ -.._ _ ... -_ 1'- ted-_fv in I r1 til 0(12i c� SeCLI� e , " x led U IX)AA PCS _ ' L - -- i 4 �LA_A�- Q Z3C Vtt'Lf� b eV, P� Q/�'r11L k l ih a' START PARENTERAL FLUIDS __ TIME # AMT TYPE GAUGE SITE AbsorhedlNITALS TIME MEDICATIONS ROUTE SITE SIGN. -- - - ------ --- --- ----- 'x?. _ � ---L - t TIME TYPE AMOUNT TIME TYPE AMOUNT i W f CL -- ------ TOTAL TOTAL DISCHARGE DISPOSITION I 1 Ambulatory D Wheelchair D Gurney D Carried ❑Admit Room# ❑OR Time i_J Ambulance D Home D Aftercare Instructions � Patient Belongings: D With Patient D With Family Transfer To Time D Other Coroner ❑ Mortuary Time •-r�•onr1nu q/14ITF-6AEI1fCAL RECORD • CANARY=CLINIC•PINK_ER J. PERMANEWE REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION & REPLY TO(DOCTOR) DEPT. OR CLINIC LOCATION 9 --- -- ---------PHONE- (HOME) ------- PHONE (WORK) ----- k r:. FROM (DOCTOR) DEPT. OR CLINIC LOCATION ADDRESS CITY STATE - s TIME REASON FOR CONSULTATION: Brief Abstract of Clinical ProblemDATE s) ❑ Indus ❑ TPL f "`' ❑ REFERRED FOR OPINION ❑ FOR TREATMENT ❑ REPLY REQUESTED BY TELEPHONE ❑ REQUESTED BY MAIL II SPACE FOR REPLY BY CONSULTANT: I h'/L��7c'T _� ,d�; LCJ�z�f-cs•a� �l�f-z�' �&-�fi� /o.' L-v�,�. .ra. . C-�c"_.ce.«.u� hS��Zt/�� /2-�i}��z�'' �z� ed c'c>>�c-f'• GU's- -� ��.� l0 .'ss G. ,�� . '. /'? �GI�D-✓'�.�,�" : �"�l�-r �.'L•�-- ��1iG�Zc�.:�.-f�tl �e:ui�o�i�� J o t� ,CY.�LI��.�1 /�-�'��- , Z,16 / yyzz cam/` 0.- /,� �Yl✓�1 u_ �G�t,;z-r.-�" .vY- `� �'1� TiTic-cam. �rrs"c� .IS�Gz-r�Z�+C Gv-�r-.� GL'zf�s�yi � I /��// //�/GL�YY L�i..7�fittivtYG�R-Lc"✓('.�—>L-s-L..�.:i/C' c,[�L�c2`�r1,:1Y4rG-,c��. Lt— Lc<<s cl=,o,.C. !i H , I ✓�GGG�i��'r.l L��7,�!' i/!Ki 12��` ✓L/LtiJ•//�4LGv ��iLc��GGL'O 9YX.GrU.0 �t., G'li�yCcy'"� .%C% ��,' PATIENT INSTRUCTED TO COMPLETE TREATMENT HERE ❑ PATIENT TO RETURN TO YOU FOR TREATMENT OTHER INSTRUCTIONS: � ,M.D. __.... /�-�r�-' ------ , 19 -`f.-�-^- v Referring doctor should complete in triplicate. hold one copy lot information, send original and one copy with carbon paper to consultant. Consultant should complete form.file original with patient's chart and return other copy to the referring doctor. 96409 (REV.6-88) \IQt PEre ANENTE 0 PATIENT PROGRESS RECORD r DRUG ALLERGY NEW RET r YES NO AGE QC,^„UAA7iQN r MICHAEL il,jTk&1VAGNA 02 8I S: Previous tx: LN, Salicvtic Acid, Ca4l=ne, ®4 1 `c_ vrl \ r a rp � '�✓' �\�� / mai�.... �n � � . '�/'� `�' r \f c , 1 !� LEFT RIGHT LE-7 RIGHT L N, M. Action: acetic acid wrap magnification pared Assessment: 1. Verruca(e1 vulgaris; plantar• periuncial; flat DORM T CREEK 2. Venereal warts (co IcMata) 3. Corn, callus/clavus 4. Molluscum contagiosum 5. SK, other Plan: 1. IN sec x 2. Salt •c acid 20%; 40% 3. Podophyllin 25% x hrs; canthrone x hrs• canthrone lus 4. Other: curretage, TCA 5. H/0: 'Kart; VW 05830-126/1 WR PEnMANIENTE ATIENT PROGRESS RECORD DRUG ALLERGr NEW = RET =YES = NO AGE OCCUPATION " r IMPRINT AREA IS: Previous tx: LN, Salicvtic Acid, Canthrone Q: l 7 c f LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT Action: acetic acid wrap magnification pared WD. Assessment: I. Verruca(e1 vulgaris; plantar; i a1• fla 2. Venereal warts (condylanata) ,ftM,growgy WiEEK 3. Corn, callus/clavus 4. Mollusc= contagiosum 5. SK, other Plan: 1. LN sec x 2. Salicytic acid 20%; 40% 3. Podophyllin 25% x hrs; canthrone x hrs• canthrone plus 4. Other: etage, TCA 5. H/o: wart; Vw 05830-126/1 � PLEASE IMPRINT OR PRINT JSER PEJ2MANEMC Foundation Hospitals - .. The Permanente Medical Group,Inc. - .'..Y ..r ❑ Antioch ❑ Hayward ❑ Oakland ❑ Roseville ❑ Santa Clara ❑ Vallejo - - - ❑ Davis ❑ Martinez ❑ Petaluma ❑ Sacramento ❑ Santa Rosa ❑ Walnut Crk ❑ Fairfield ❑ Milpilas f7 Pleasanton D San Francisco ❑ Santa Teresa ❑ Fremont ❑ Mt.View Cl Rncho Crdva U S F(French) ❑ So.Saclo. + ❑ Fresno ❑ Napa ❑ Rdwd Cty ❑ San Jose ❑ So.S.f. ❑ Gilroy ❑ Novato ❑ Richmond ❑ San Rafael D Stockton i AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OR DISCLOSURE OF PATIENT TREATMENT INFORMATION MEDICAL, PSYCHIATRIC,DRUG/ALCOHOL,AND/OR BLOOD TEST I hereby authorize NAME OF SENDING PERSON,AGENCY,OR INSTITUTION ADDRESS © CITY STATE ZIP to release to ��a-e_1 0..Y'�V GW n a. NAME OF RECEIVING PERSON,AGENCY,OR INSTITUTION ,5'3/! iy�sri�a ld/ace ADDRESS {� ( K Ro ck lkdo- '75-6-1:z 4 CITY STATE ZIP records and information pertaining to W 1,C)OO'd k4 '7 I -59— NAME OF PATIENT(LIsT16THE8 NAMES USED) MEDICAL RECORD NUMBER DATE OF BIRTH ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER DURATION: This authorization shall become effective immediately and shall remain in effect until DATE or for one rA year from the date of signature.This consent is also subject to revocation by the undersigned at any time between now and the release of information by the sending person, agency, or institution. RESTRICTIONS: I understand that the requester may not further use or disclose the medical information unless another authorization is obtained from me or unless such use or disclosure is specifically required or permitted by law. PATIENT COPY: Please take a copy of this form after signing. ❑Yes, I have taken my signed copy of this form. Li MEDICAL INFORMATION: This authorization is limited to the following medical records and type of information: �- �� The requester may use the medical records and type of information authorized only for the following purposes: )(Date: Signature: If sign b other than patient, indicate relationship: ❑ PSYCHIATRIC INFORMATION: A0Thisauthorization is limited to the following medical records and types of information: The requester may use the medical records and type of information authorized only for the following purposes: Date: Signature: If signed by other than patient, indicate relationship: ❑ DRUG/ALCOHOL INFORMATION: 1 This authorization is limited to the following medical records and type of information: .The requester may use the medical records and type of information authorized only for the following purposes: _ Date: Signature: (0If signed by other than patient, indicate relationship: ❑ RESULTS OF A BLOOD TEST TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF HIV: r This authorization is limited to the release of HIV test results. The requester may use this infor: tion gni!lfoii'the4o)la4ving-'purpose Date: - --- _... Signature: ._ . .._._ .. - ------------------f--Ij-� f--=%-- iz If signed by other than patient, indicate relationship:- _._ _ o.__ r •�t .� 90256(REV.10-93)REG.C DISTRIBUTION:WHITE=CHART CANARY=PATIENT CIO MICHAEL L PARAVAGNA 471-99-59 a WCR MOB CHART VOL 01 ujMICHAEL L PARAVAGNA 02/01/81 M ' � W uj OC ~ l l U �- C/o LLI Z W cm O W J � w m W J z W cr. .J o yWQa. cc o Q W j W zC/� J Q J W c Q C) � uj O W � Z � t1EC�f orf L LEGAL � T;t 7i� c i i i,a4C. ; EDI ttL Ll,GAL CRTA �SYSTEMIS I�,,�._ _ 1��f+_r � I EGAL rt ATA 4STEE'1,, 1 NC. j ENT PROGRESS RECORD --- ---------- ------- j � �u x 1Vl.D: yet �R F <-..yam { ��'��'• � . 7 .,. .,. .R t` � F Of . _ r L �nF i /jt K ` y .I a f I n 7500 (REV. 7-85) REVERSE " 4 M.R.# m� PO-Vrl-- PATIENT PROGRESS RECORD PATIENT'S NAME(LAST, FIRST,MIDDLE) t C H A E C L 0 0 2 0 A 02 81 ADDRESS(NO.,STREET) 4119959 CITY S3 3 0 0304155 ~t BIRTHDATE PHONE CODE GROUP. rM 9 37-663 '� -•�I,y-t-h rra'- NOV i99! z r ' r W.G. t. n. i r 4>f}, �T f y J ; .. '� 3;'[ 'C-�-•z �` -:..� -:.2rft � � Ty-lU'1 1.., ` r f .I { 1 4400'� Of { ` & i ol90537 (REV.--86) 1. .T R ES r E ,;+ Q .� .. • .1�,. t s . Y � ...... �}. �y y y '- a 3+T 1 k� x i 3 i t ` � f • t 1 f KAISER a' - PERMANCNTC PATIENT PROGRESS RECORD: PATIENT'S NAME CAST, FIRST MIOD 6" a ( ) M M1 A „ f ADDRESS(NO.,STREET) CITY ? a 59 Pill BIRTHDATE PHON2E CODE GROUP; cw ffi $'Q-'r 1*00000;0=17% ti14 W x _ G k/. AAJ t Sa• G 97500 (REV. 7-85) 7-- c 71 nr M n(fi—�7;r7 C31 ti..,it, 11. ti m LO —r-M 0. 7a m D z cc < <C=- M 0 00 M cr. Ca Z m on, x > r- > z Oz tv Cl 0 -n H tj 11 It it M 1>C-3 T. tz 0 U) 0,-J IM CO --4 z CO + C-A C I- :> C: 7— 0 >. m 0- z P-q a 4 j. e 17 - 1-4-4 --i--4—A—--I 4h > --r, m C7 rn r 1-1) X•C:� Z. > r 0 rr,M C< I-.j m -u I. < Cl 1_4 r< 0 r- za Z r-I n—, M M, -n 0 pl& U, C: m Zi o > m m I>M, zzi I-, 0 C) Cf) rn -in 00 it f? ii C 675" _CIn:l 21K 72 `IG IJ M "17 M'X7 Ct nn for... MX zwt Z> M Cs > T 7z z 0 < -n co—, EI u H m P rn 3> n n V) z tv f- 0-j CO co 0a-' >M Cn r- 1> n t=! III CUP 04 z VI M M rTs wvvt=, -..a 7" z x ;r �M:* A ::u M p ;333 r tu;-a r4 M 0.931 > vrl M T Crt Q0 rxj"'n 1>I- Z> WOX-M -4 r-{ 0 0-- q. i + M --I 0 0 Q7 i x,--n In T, 0 rn Via. 1 Z > K ril f-i :IJ 0 1> } > ED C. 0—Zy CD uu; Z M OM COM 1; T rn< ;::z M C'J M 71 71 0 M rc7m" M! z i ZE 2 U) 1 R. MICHAEL PARAVAGNA 5511 Nesting Place 2 Rocklin, CA 95677 3 4 IN PRO PER BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 5 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 6 7 LINDA M. PARA-VAGNA ) D90-02198 DECLARATION IN 8 ) SUPPORT OF V. ) 9 ) ) 10 R. MICHAEL PARAVAGNA ------------------ 11 12 13 I , R. Michael Paravagna, do hereby declare that: 14 1 . I am the father of Michael L. , Paravagna , aged 15 ; and 15 David M. Paravagna, 'aged 13 . 16 2. My aforementioned sons moved from my home to live with their 17 mother , Linda M. Paravagna, on Augst 11 , 1995 as a result of 18 the action of this Court as taken on June 23 , 1995 • 19 3 • The aforementioned action was influenced by the report of a 20 full evaluation conducted by Edith Risher , L. C . S.W. of 21 Contra Costa County, County Family Court . Services . Hereafte 22 known as FCS. 23 4. For approximately five months , son Michael has been con- 24 sistently expressing to me the wish to return to my home 25 and to live and go to school from said home . 26 5. During this period I have asked. his mother to agree to the 27 requested change on a number of occasi'ons . She was unwillin ' 28 to draft a new stipulation changing the custody at the end 1 of the Fall term and was unwilling to agree to a stipulation 2 to change custodyat the end of the school year providing 3 Michael still wants to move . 4 6. Mother stated that both boys need' to remain in the same home 5 to learn how to better relate to .one another. She and I 6 agree that Michael might benefit from three to four sessions 7 at Kaiser Mental Health in Walnut Creek to better understand 8 his desire to move . Th-ese sessions were. to be completed 9 before the end . of the Fall school term. 10 7 : Without my permission or prior knowledge ; mother placed 11 Michael in long-term - mental health treatment at a private 12 clinic . 13 8. Mother has begun long-term orthodontic treatment in Walnut 14 Creek. She did so after reporting to me that to delay .treat- 15 ment from February to June was ill advised per the dentist. 16 To the best of my understanding , said treatment did not begin 17 until March. 18 9 . On or about the dates of February 18,19.96 and March .3 , 1996, 19 , I asked mother what grades both boys were getting in school . 20 On both occasions, I was told that Michael was getting A ' s and 21 B ' s and that Davaid was, getting B ' s and C ' s . On March 5, 22 1996, I called both schools . Michael ' s school was not willing 23 to release information to me . Mr . Rainer at David ' s school. 24 reported to me that current grades posted included 2 B ' s , 25 1 C , 1 D, 2 F' s and an incomplete for which no work has been 26 turned in. Mr . Rainer reported a behavioral problem on 27 February 15 , 1996 and said that David is not working up to 28 his level of skill . 2 1 10. David ' s current grades are below the level he received 2 when living with -me . 3 11 . Michael and David have reported to me problems with care 4 and supervision since moving them to their mother ' s home . 5 12. David has told me that he wants to stay with his mother 6 because there are fewer rules and he can get away with more . 7 13 . David has engaged in self-multilating behaviors on at least 8 one occasion since living with his mother. He placed ice 9 on the back of his hand, put salt on it and held it there 10 until the skin dissolved. This left a wound that took 11 several weeks to heal . 12 14. I have asked Linda to arrange mental health treatment for 13 David. To the. best of my knowledge she has not done so. 14 15 . The aforementioned FCS report had a number of major errors 15 and omissions . 16 16. The FCS report says Michael and David lived with me for 2 17 years . David came on September 2 , 1992 and Michael on :18 October 18, 1992. This report was submitted to the court 19 of hearing on June 23 , 1995 • 20 17. The report stated that David moved after spending a week- 21 end with me and saying he wanted to stay and his mother 22 agreed to let him move into my home . 23 On the date that David moved, I received a phone call at 24 my place of employment at approximately 2 :30 p. m. from 25 the mother . She told me to get David out of her house 26 immediately or she would kill him. I. asked if she wanted 27 time to cool off and think about what she was saying.. She 28 told me to get David out of her house . At 6: 30 P.M. that 3 _ 1 evening we met in Vacaville . She placed David ' s clothing 2 in my car and I took him to my home . He did not return to 3 her home to live until August 11 ; 1995 . 4 18 . The report states that Linda had no problem with Michael . 5 Ing, making this and other statements within the report , 6 a long history of problems with both boys was not addressed. 7 Please see' Exhibit 2 , this is a chronicle of events I 8 recorded and submitted to counsel during the evaluation. 9 They in turn, I believe , were never submitted to FCS for 10 consideration. The major events contained therein , David ' s 11 move #10; use of drugs with the home #5 ; general child care 12 issues #8 ; Linda fighting with the children #9 , Michael.' s 13 move -#11 ; and the moves aftermath #12a, were discussed by 14 me . with FCS evaluator , Edith Risher . . 15 19. The report stated that I did not want Linda to call me for 16 assistance with the children. What I said was when Linda 17 and the boys call me because they are fighting with each 18 other and want me to resolve the issues from 90 miles away, 19 that there is not much I feel I can do . 20 20. The reports stated that I do not like David taking Ritalin . 21 This is true as he was fine without it, for nearly three 22 years while living with me . Omitted was my objection to 23 Linda giving this drug to Michael without a prescription or 24 medical supervision. 25 21 . The report stated I lacked attention to the boys desired . 26 I find no basis upon which this statement is made . 27 22. The report cites the opinion of Lynn White , M.F. C . C . This 28 woman was known to the evaluation to be a personal friend, 4- 1 fellow church member and former piano teacher to Linda. I 2 have never met Lynn White . 3 23 • The report states that Diane Kosters , Ph.D. , sawno problem 4 with the boys moving into Linda ' s home . Dr. Kosters' has 5. reported never having made such a statement. (Please see 6 Exhibit 1 ) 7 24. The report states that the school in Rocklin was .not reach- 8 able . Each time I have contacted the schools in Rocklin I 9 was able to reach whomever I needed. I know the schools 10 were open every business day during the evaluation as Michael 11 and David were attending them. 12 25 . Michael and Linda hav,de reported to me that before Michael ' s 13 15th birthday and before he got his driving permit from the 14 Dept . of Motor Vehicles , that. Linda allowed Michael to 15 operate her car on the public streets in Walnut .Creek:,: CA. 16 26. Michael and Linda have reported to me and I have seen the 17 driving permit Michael got on his 1;t birthday. I never 18 signed giving my permission for this permit . I support 19 Michael ' s development in this area . I do not support 20 actions that disregard the laws . Stating that one must have 21 a permit before driving and both parents have legal custody, 22 must sign approving it. 23 27. To the best of my knowledge and as required by Marital 24 Agreement Section 3 . 08 accounts and investments have been 25 made and not limited to the aforestated marital agreement 26 in the names of David and Michael ; to assist in -funding 27 educational needs , to better understand our status with. 28 educational funding; I have 'asked Linda for copies of the 5 - 1 boys banking, tax, invenstments and any other reports or 2 information useful in planning. Access to these documents 3 has been denied. 4 5 RELIEF REQUESTED: 6 1 . Michael be allowed to move into my home . 7 2 . David be' seen and treated for adjustment problems and evalua- 8 tion to determine best living situation. 9 3 . Linda cover any extra cost involved to the change in dental 10 work for Michael . 11 4. Both- parents receive a copy of all financial records. . related 12 to both children, and that the court order that the signature 13 of both parents is required to release funds for minor 14 children. Records to reflect at least the last 24 months of ' 15 account activity should be made available . 16 S . The court order again, that both parents are to plan non- 17 medical emergency medical care . , 18 6. Copy of all report cards be shared with parents within 30 19 days of receipt . 20 7. Child support be adjusted to reflect custody change . 21 8. Any further work done by FCS not be done by Ms . Risher . 22 9 , The court lift the current control on phone calls to the 23 children , by order that reasonable phone contact may be made . 24 It should also be ordered that early morning telephone calls 25 on school morning may not be placed, except in an emergency 26 situation. 27 28 - 6 - 1 2 3 I declare., under penalty of perjury and if called as 4 a witness would testify, that the foregoing is true 5 including Exhibit 2 , and correct and has been executed this S_ day of �'ZC iii i.n � �1 , CA . 7 $ ---- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 7 ' Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Joyce M.Berger C.3 1425 South Main Street Vice President and Area Manager ✓ � Walnut Creek,California 94596-5300 (510)295-4000 Irwin R.Fisch,M.D. Physician-in-Chief Sharon S.Eastman,R.N. Medical Group Administrator KNSER PCERMANENTE March 5, 1996 Michael Paravagna 5311 Nesting Place Rockland,CA 95677 Dear Mr. Paravagna: As discussed in our phone conversation today, my note in the medical record (dated 1/24/95) is as follows: "I spoke with Edith Risher from Family Court Services, who is doing an evaluation of custody. I said I couldn't speak to mom's parenting abilities at this time". I had not had direct contact with the family since October, 1992. Sincerely, Diane K. Kosters, Ph.D. DKK/al s October 2, 1993 These notes are being made on this date because of the threat I received regarding Linda trying to take Michael and David. I believe this has more to do with reasons of money rather than the good of the children. A list of events will follow,that relate to Linda' s parenting. 1 . Michael ' s book: While in the first grade, Michael took an interest in the young author event at his school . In this situation, each child was to write a small book, drawing pictures to help tell their story.. Each book was then judged against other work done by students at the same grade level . Michael seemed like a natural for this project as he was very interested in it and loved writing. Linda placed a great deal of pressure on Michael to win the contest. Writing the book became an ordeal . Michael became ill (chicken pox.as I recall) the day before the book was due. Linda stayed home and I went to work. During that day she forced Michael to work 12 hours on the book. It is an ordeal that he still talks about when he gets a writing assignment at school . Last month he had to write about someone in history. He soon began to cry, saying, "I can't do it. I can't write. " We talked about the problem Michael was having with the assignment and he talked about his mother making him work for 12 hours when he was sick.. I have discussed this problem with Michael ' s English teacher, Mrs . Dawson, who will be working with him to try to make writing fun again. 2 . Date of event not known: Michael fell off of a skateboard, received a cut on his chin which needed to be closed by a doctor. He was not taken in for treatment. This was after I had moved to Sacramento. Days later, when I saw the cut, I asked Linda why Michael had not had medical treatment. She said she had asked him if he wanted to go to the hospital to get stitches and he said no. The result is a scar on Michael' s face which may be a problem for him when he starts. shaving. 3 . Dead cat: While Michael was staying with his mother, I received a late night phone call from Michael, who was crying. I could hear Linda crying loudly in the background, calling her cae. Michael told me that they had found the cat in theOWaick and had to take it to the vet. Michael at age 11 had to make the decision whether or not to put the cat to sleep. During the call, Linda was crying, petting the cat, calling its name and saying "your body is still warm" . Michael was alone with his mother. I asked him if he was scare. He said "yes" . 4 . A grave in the backyard: Shortly after I moved to Sacramento in the Fall of 19.89 , Linda put a grave in the backyard. It was complete with a cross . It was my understanding that Michael and .David were told from time to time to put flowers on the grave. Linda told me that the grave was put there so the children would have a place to go to mourn the death of the family and the loss of their father. She felt it was important for their mental health. 5 . Prescribed drugs : Linda reported that one of the boys was not able to study and was a problem around the house. She was able to convince a Kaiser doctor to give him Ritalin. She used it on both children, saying that it was easier for them to function if they were medicated. I was present at times, when she would tell them if they did not act better they would have to take a pill . Since moving in with me, no medication has been used, of this kind. Both boys are doing fine in school and I do not see behaviors that are outside the norm for children their age. 6 . Problem with the school : I received a phone call from the Vice Principal of the school the boys were going to in Walnut Creek. As she had tracked me down to the office' I was visiting in Riverside, I was fearful that one of the boys had been hurt or was having a major problem._ She called to ask if I could help her deal with Linda. There were problems between Michael' s fourth grade teacher and Linda. There had, been some outbursts by Linda in . the school office. Notes were being passed between Michael and his teacher from Linda. It seemed that Michael was being put in the middle. The school was able to deal with the teacher, but they were not able to deal with ' Linda. 7 . Lack of supervision: In addition to the child support, I paid $60 . per month for after-school childcare. Linda told me that the boys received this care at a cost of $120 . per month. I stopped paying this fee to Linda when I found out that after school child care was not happening. I asked Linda why she had stopped the care, she stated that the boys did not like to be watched after school . Often, even if Linda was at home, she would not know where the children were, who they were with or when they were coming back. If they got angry at her they would leave and not come back until they felt like it. j In the summer of 1992 , David was involved in a fire that was set in a field almost five miles from the house. The fire , burned about three acres next to a row of homes valued in the $300, 000 . range. David was home alone with no. supervision. The fire site was on Trail End Road, in Walnut Creek. When I stopped. at a roadside rest area just North of Bakersfield, I called in to check work messages . Michael had called in from Walnut Creek. He had burned his arm while ironing Linda' s clothes . When I called him back, he was home alone. He' wanted to know what the treatment was for burns . I also had the feeling he was, feeling the need for some emotional support. During the earthquake that hit the Bay Area in 1989 , David, age 7 at the time, was home alone. 8 . General child care issues : There are a number of issues that come out of the day to day operation of Linda' s home. The children have no set bed time. Michael will use this as a means to stay up very late, making school. a problem for him the next day. Meal planning and prep are poorly done. Linda often goes to bed before dinner, leaving the children to care for their own needs . The food in the house is often very limited and may be spoiled. Dinner has been cottage cheese or grilled cheese sandwiches that the children fix themselves . Linda has very often bought outdated food for the children so she could save money. Food is often left out of the refrigerator for long periods of time. Garbage can be found on the kitchen counters, in bags on the floor ,in the kitchen and in other rooms in the house . Food is also left in Linda' s car in case the children get hungry. The car smells from this . Linda seems not to give the children guidance with grooming. While in her home they rarely bathe, sleep in their day clothing and often come home in the same clothing they left in, three days before. When they come home, they are hungry, not having ihad dinner even if we meet as late as 8 : 00 p.m. on school nights . Linda buys almost' no clothing for the boys . When they were living with her, she reported to me that she bought their clothing at thrift stores . 9 . Linda fighting with the children: When the boys were living with Linda, I would get about one or two calls a month from Walnut Creek regarding fighting between Linda and the kids . Such as the time Michael called, crying,, he said "Mom just hit me and my lip is bleeding. . . . " Linda would call and report, " I can' t . deal . with the kids . . . . " Sometimes the boys would call to "tell" on mom. Other times she would call to "tell" on one of them. These calls were very difficult to deal with. Most of the time I was able to get the two sides talking or get them to give each other some space. Once all three of them were on the phone. They were so angry that the only way I could address the situation was to get them all three to agree to go to bed and talk about their problem the next, morning. One night not long after I had moved to • Sacramento, Linda called and .said "You had better get down here right .away. I can' t deal with the kids anymore. " When I go there she said she was fine and a-sked me what had taken me so long. Both boys were still up, and it was close to midnight. Linda had sounded so bad over the phone that I had stopped by the Walnut Creek Police Department. I was not sure if we were dealing with a 5150 or if I was going to need to take the children out of the house that night. . Even before the end of the marriage, Linda was having problems getting along with the children. In, about 1987 , I took an overnight, work related trip. I called home to find that Linda was very angry at David. It was- never clear to me what David; then about five years old, had done, but Linda' s reaction was to take everything out of his room, save the dresser. I was not able to get her to back down over the phone. When I returned home the next day, David' s room was still bare. Linda said that he did not deserve to have anything and that she wanted to get rid of him by finding someone to give him to. The items taken from his room were given to his brother. 10 . David' s move: On September 2, 1992 ,. Linda called me about 2 : 30 p.m. She told me that David was moving in with me that night. She said that .if he stayed with her another night, she would kill him. We met that night in Vacaville. The issue they were fighting about was the man Linda was having a sexual relationship with. David and this man were not getting along. Linda had made it very clear to both children that she would pick her friends and that having sex was part of this relationship. At age 10, David was not ready to deal with this issue. Linda had this man over .on a night, on one of the weekends that the boys were with her. She had them go to sleep at a friends house. When they returned the next morning, it was clear to them that this C3 man had slept with their Mother. On the way to Vacaville that night, David and Linda had a fight in -the car., David was holding his hands over his ears, kicking the back of Linda' s seat and singing and making all the noise he could. This made Linda angry. She stopped behind a parked CHP unit and asked the officer to help her with her son. He asked David why he was- acting up. David .told him that it was because he did not like the man his Mom was sleeping with. .(This is per Linda) . David and I went home together that night. His home has, been with me ever since. I asked David why he was acting the way he was in the car with his mother. He said that she told him that she was going to give him some bad news . David felt he had all the bad news he could handle. So he was trying to stop the bad news by not being able to hear it. 11 . Michael ' s move: At first, Linda was not willing to let Michael move with David. I felt clearly thatthe boys must stay together. With all they- had been through, the most consistent thing they had was being together. It became clear that a major issue for Linda was money. After a number, of meetings at Kaiser, Linda said that I could have Michael without a legal fight if I would give her $1, 800 . This would be paid in the amount of $300 . a month for six months . Linda also required that I sign , away any claim to child support for either child, and that I agree to pay child support if the children ever moved back into Linda' s home. 'As the cost of child care was so high, I was not able to afford to pay her the $1, 800 . Kaiser' s advice was to- do whatever I had to do to get Michael out of the situation with Linda. I agreed to the terms stated above, save the $1 , 800 . Linda let Michael move on October 17 , 1992 . When Michael moved in, he was very stressed. The time it took for the agreement to be reached was very, very hard on him. Now, a year later, it is clear that Michael has made a good adjustment. 12 . The move' s aftermath: A. David' s Kaiser ER situation - David, while on a visit to his mother' s home became very upset. The events leading up to this problem have never been made clear to me. It is my understanding that the boys had stayed at Linda' s church all day while she catered a dinner for a wedding party. The boys had become unhappy about the 'long period of time. Some how David ended up on a hill behind the church. He was not willing to come down. Linda called me at home in Citrus Heights . Being over 90 miles away made it difficult to deal with the situation. I asked that David be told that I was on the phone and ,wanted to ytalk with him. A long time passed and the phone call ended. Shortly after the call ended, David came off the hill to talk to me . I was still waiting by the phone for a call . No call was made . Some sort of confrontation took place. David became more upset. He reportedly was held down against his will . The end result was that Linda and .the Minister took David to Kaiser' s ER in Walnut Creek. David was placed in. restraints and left for a " prolonged period of time. As I have been told, when the shift changed in the ER, the incoming doctor wanted to know why a small boyhad been left in restraints . David was released. Kaiser staff did state that they had a problem, as some time after Linda brought David in, she left the hospital and they were not able to locate her,. During this whole time, I was never re- called. B. Call to David' s new teacher: David, in the fifth grade, started school in Citrus Heights after moving in with me in the Fall of 1992 . Like any child, David was a bit nervous as he moved into his new school . I picked David up after school one day and he was very quiet and had a sadness about him.. At first, he was not ready to .say much about his day. He did come to a point when he said that his Mom had called the school and talked to his new teacher. In turn, the teacher pulled David aside and said that she had a call from his Mother and that she understood he had problems in. school and that she was there to help David in whatever he needed. . The problem is that David was then and is now .very able to deal with school, without being treated as a person with a "problem David was upset about being regarded by his Mother in this negative light. He was also, upset about what 'his new teacher was thinking about him and he was fearful that some of the other children may have heard the teacher talking with him. C. Michael ' s grades : Michael is bright and his grades are good. Like many of us, there are times when he, might do better if he were better focused. What has always been a problem for Michael is" telling his Mother what is on his report card. I have asked Linda to be more positive about Michael ' s work. . His self-esteem is the major issue in this situation. My fear is that Michael is now at a point in which he is not able to feel good about things he does well . Without that positive feedback and good feeling, it is more difficult for him to focus on his work and do his best. I am still not sure that Linda has backed off on this subject. D. Dog hair: A few months ago Linda sent the boys home from a visit with her with a plastic. bag full of dog hair. David was the one who gave it to me. He told me what it was and said that his mother had. told him to bring it to me. I have no idea what that was about. E. Lynn White: Lynn White is a woman that Linda knows through her church. Linda first saw Lynn for piano lessons . Then Lynn became a masseuse. More recently, Linda has had Michael and David in to see her as an MFCC. The reason for this, work was never made clear. At one point, I was told by Linda that she was working with Michael and David so their relationship with her would be better. Another time I was told that Linda was not a part of the counseling, that it was just for the purpose of helping the boys learn to deal with each other. The boys told me that they felt when they went to see her that they were to say negative things about me and not deal with any problems they were having with their mother. This treatment was always very questionable. The boys and Linda have a dual relationship. with Ms . White: My interest in the treatment was met with resistance from Linda. If they were dealing with problems with the boys that related to me, why should I not be a part of the treatment on this subject? It was also very unlike Linda to pay for this treatment without asking for support from me. F. Lack of support: Linda' s salary from her State employment is $3, 350 . per month. Much of the time and over the past two years, she has had roommates who had reportedly paid $350 . per month to live in her home. Linda also works at her church as a janitor, does some dog/house sitting and catering. At one point, she had a 19 year old girl living with her that she claimed to be supporting. She told me that she had taken this girl in as a favor to this girls parents . With the exception of $89 .' for a Summer-Day program in 1993, Linda has never come forward to assist in supporting our sons . When I have asked her in writing, she said that she would help when she gets some money or that she will look at thrift stores for clothing to assist. The cash support has not come. As for the second-hand clothing, frankly, I think it gives children a very poor message about their value as persons to send them to school in clothing from a thrift store. They must understand at some level that given the income that Linda and I have, that they should have new clothes as do the kids they go to school with. Again, we must look at the self-esteem issue for both of these children. G. Linda' s break with Joe: David had gone through a great deal of problems with Joe (Linda' s boyfriend) and. his Mother during their relationship. Linda reported that she saw Joe as a man in need of treatment for his (as she put it) "emotional" problems . Reportedly unwilling to get the help that Linda was pushing for, Linda ended the relationship. She reported to me that David played a role in what my have been Joe' s last visit to her home. Somehow, David at age 11, was the one who asked Joe during the discussion he and Linda was having, if he had gotten into therapy. I must admit surprise at being told this story. I was never able to understand why David was given the information about this adult issue or why he was involved in this discussion. It seems to me that this is another instance , when one of the boys have been placed in the middle by Linda' s behaviors . 13 . Rocklin life style: After the boys came to live with me in the Fall of 1992 , some changes were necessary to offer Michael and David the type of childhood experience I want them to have. First, the home I bought in Citrus Heights was fine when the boys were just visiting on the weekends and school breaks, but is was too small for an on-going situation. The boys had to share a bedroom and study as well as play and, space was limited. Michael had voiced concern about the middle school he would have to attend in the Fall of 1993 . Drugs, sex and rough kids were his stated reasons for not wanting to go to the school in question. He had heard about this school from the children at his elementary school who had older siblings . Michael, David and I visited the school . In short, I felt that I had a responsibility to do better for my sons . I shopped for a larger home in a better funded school district. In March of 1993, we moved into our new home. The boys were able to finish their school year at the old school by virtue of my sister' s ability to drive them to and from school . Secondly, at the time the boys came to live with me, I had a job that required a great deal of out of town, over-night travel . My employer was very good about making the needed adjustments even right after the change occurred. In the long term, I have been assigned to a new position which requires very little travel . There are differences in how things are addressed in my home as in contrast with Lindals . Some examples may be useful as we try to address the differences in the two living situations . Linda said when she had the boys that it was not possible to get them to go to school on time. The school records in Walnut Creek show tardiness tobe a problem. We have just finished our second year together. Michael ' s attendance record is perfect for both years . David has missed some days because of illness, but he has never been late. Being there and their attendance ,record has become something that is important to them. Linda freely stated when the boys lived , with her that they would leave the house, not telling her where they were going or when they would return. There is no question that this behavior has not been tested in my home. But the bottom line is, it ,does not work. The ages the boys .are at are not easy times for them or their parents . . If a parent was not able to emotionally support and show some control over children when they are ages 10 and 11 , I fail to see how we can expect better results two years later as they go through the middle school years . I am sure Linda and the boys miss each other, very much. In response to their needs, I have supported the visitation schedule set. forth in our 1992 agreement. I must say I am feeling some conflict with our arrangement at this time, because in part it is being used to put the children in the middle of their parents . I have always had the hope that Michael and David could come through their childhood holding a positive relationship with both of their parents,. This end was the topic of much of. the work Linda and I did when seeing Diane Kosters, Ph.D,. at Kaiser in Walnut Creek. Dr. Kosters felt that the boys should not be asked to make as many decisions as Linda was pressing for, as it puts them in the middle. I feel this is an issue that is taking a great toll on Michael at this point as Linda is pushing him harder, asking that both boys make decisions regarding visitations, transportation, times, etc. In closing, I want to express the hope that we can come to a constructive agreement that will give the boys a stable place in which to complete the only childhood they will ever have. If .this is to occur, they must be removed from the middle and they must be given space and support s.o they can come to terms with the divorce of their parents . Both parents are responsible to see that this end is reached. Records useful to support the statements .made above: 1 . Walnut Acres Elementary School, Walnut Creek, CA 2 . Rocklin Elementary School, Rocklin, CA 3 . Springview Middle School, Rocklin, CA 4 . Kaiser Mental Health and Medical records, Walnut Creek, CA n � � s ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name and_Add essl ^-. ;` /i{LEPHONE NO.: r Y - b rq Ar? 15 P 4: 9 ATTORNEP FOR Warne!: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA SIREETADDRESS: 725 COURT STREET ` t MLNG ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 911 crty,STATE AND VP: MARTINEZ, CA 94553 PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF � RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT. III,( -J--i-tet- ✓6P{ VL 0 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION CASE NUMSER: Child Custody Q Visitation Q Injunctive Order Child Support Q Spousal Support Q Other (specify): Q Attorney Fees and Costs 1. TO (name): L. L-vo&, M-7-5>-reLv n a 2 YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN THIS COURT AS FOLLOWS TO GIVE ANY LEGAL REASON WHY THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE ATTACHED APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. if child custody or visitation is an issue in this proceeding, Family Code section 3170 Ir vires mediation before or concurrently with the hearing listed below. a. Date: Time: f ' a Dept.: Q Rm.: b. Address of court [✓same as noted above other (specify): 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a completed Application for Order and Supporting Declaration,a blank Responsive Declaration,and the following documents shall be served with this order: - (1)" 0 Completed Income and Expense Declaration.and:a blank.Income and Expense Declaration.:, (2) Q Completed Property Declaration and a blank Property Declaration - (3) Q Points and authorities (4) Q Other (specify): a. � Time for �service Q hearing is shortened:"Service shall be on or before )date).;"""y ('C' Any responsive declaration shall be served on or.before (datel: _l1 b. You are ordered to comply with the temporary orders attached. G Other (specify): Date: 14 Jam, — ' JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Notice:If you have children from this relationship,the court is require to order pa ment of child support based on the incomr of both parents. The amount of child support can be large. It normally ntinues ntil the child is 18. You should supply t e court with information about"your.finances. Otherwise the child support order will be based on the information supplied y the other parent. You do not have to pay any fee to file responsive declarations in response to this order to show cause(including a completed Income and Expense Declaration that will show your finances).The original of the responsive declarations must be filed with the court and a copy served on the other party at least five court days before the hearing date. y 35 "f MARRIAGE OF fast name, first name of parties):' CASE NuMeeR: (THIS IS NOT AN ORDER) Q Pitioner JRespondent Claimant requests the following orders be made: 1. CHILD CUSTODY To be ordered pending the hearing a. Child (name and a el b. Request custody to (name) c. Modify existing order . ff (1) filed on (date):- (.oilae( L. • /`AV-61c,VV at hq (2) ordering (specifyf: 2 rdHtLD VISITATION lobe oraer:,j pending the hearing a Reasonable d.'' Modify uTs ing order a K Q ?,O Other(specify)` . 11) filed on (date): C` — ` k c Q Neither party shall remove the minor child or children of the parties (2) ordering (specify): (1) Q from the State of California. (2) Q other fspecify): 3. Q CHILD SUPPORT(A Wage and Earnings Assignment Order will be issued.) a. Child (name and age) b. Monthly amount e. Q Modify existing:or r . (if not by guideline) (1) filon (date) G $ (2) ordering (specify): 4. Q SPOUSAL SUPPORT(A Wage and Earnings Assignment Order will be issued.) a. Q Amount requested (monthly): $ b. Q Modify existing order c. Q Terminate existing order" (1) filed on (date): (1) filed on (date): (2) ordering (specify): (2) ordering (specify): B. Q ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS a. Q Fees: $ b. Q Costs: $ 6. Q RESIDENCE EXCLUSION AND RELATED,ORDERS:u;; Q To be ordered pending the hearing Q' Petitioner :. I Respondent .. must move out immediately and must not return to the family dwelling at (address); Q taking only clothing and personal effects needed until the hearing. 7. Q STAY-AWAY ORDERS - Q To be ordered pending the hearing a. Q Petitioner Q Respondent must stay at least (specify): yards away from applicant and the following places: (1) Q applicant's residence (address optional) (2) Q applicant's place of work (address optional): (3) Q the children's school (address optional): (4) 0. other (specify): --- - -- b. Q Contacts relating to pickup and delivery of children pursuant to a court order or a stipulation of the parties arrived at during mediation shall be permitted. B. Q RESTRAINT ON PERSONAL CONDUCT Q To be ordered pending the hearing Q Petitioner Q Respondent a. shall not molest,attack,strike,threaten,sexually or otherwise assault,or otherwise disturb the peace of the other pai Q and any person under the care, custody, and control of the other party. b. Q shall not contact or telephone the other party. Q except that peaceful contacts relating to minor children of the parties shall be permitted. (Continued on reverse) rofrn Adopted by Rule 1285.20 - APPLICATION FOR ORDER Family Code. §4 2045,6224,6; _ 6320-6326.6380-c) r r 1 2s�u> 1;k1 , 1L27tzr2c ��._ 3 4 V �. vC< A c� 77 S / 9 ,J 10 oc�C y _ ; >.� c V Z l 16-64-4-' 12 K 13 occ..1660�el •fit 411r�L- l� C,15 , s—% i�-tet 16 17 18 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 tF_ k , 0 J? I ' j CIO 3ti, 2 .. 7 g 9 &�1 10 11 12 13 - -/ 14 y 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIAR,RIAGEOF flast name, first name o. ,jartiesJ: :NUMBER: ?C?VOL VaCF44a H L C's. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS (Attachment to Order to Show Cause) The person restrained in the first three orders is (name!: Race: Date of birth: Sex: 1. THE RESTRAINED PERSON a. shall NOT contact,molest,attack,strike,threaten,sexually or otherwise assault, batter,telephone,or otherwise disturb the peace of the other party. b shall move out immediately and shall not return to the family dwelling at (address): taking only clothing and personal effects needed until the hearing. c- (1) must stay at least (specify): yards away from the other party and the following places: $� (a) Residence of (name): (address optional): (b) 0 Place of work of (name): (address optional): (c) The children's school (address optional): (d) Other (specify): (2) may make contact relating to pickup and delivery of children pursuant to a court order for visitation or a stipula- tion of the parties arrived at during mediation. • Any person subject to any of these three restraining orders is prohibited by Penal Code section 12021 from purchasi.-ig or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm. Such conduct may be punishable by a $1,000 fine, imprisonment up to one year, or both. • Taking or concealing a child in violation of this order maybe a felony and punishable by confinement in state prison, a fine, or both. • Other violations of these orders may also be punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both. 2. This order is effective when made.The law enforcement agency shall enforce it immediately upon receipt. It is enforceable anywhere in California by any law enforcement agency that has received the order, is shown a copy of it, or has verified its existence on the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). If proof of service on the restrained per- son has not been received,the law enforcement agency shall advise the restrained person of the terms of the order and then shall enforce it. 3_ These orders expire on the date of the court hearing unless extended by the court. 4. NOTICE TO RESTRAINED PERSON: If you do not appear at the court hearing specified herein, the court may grant the req-_:est- ed orders for a period of up to three years without further notice to yoll. 5. = PROPERTY RESTRAINT a. Petitioner = Respondent is restrained from transferring,encumbering,hypothecating,concealing,or in any way disposing of any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community, or separate, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life. The other party is to be notified of any proposed extraordinary expenditures and an accounting of such is to be made to the court. (Continued on reverse) Form Adopted by Rule 1285.05 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS Family Code, S1 2045,6224,6226,6302, Judicial Council of California (Family Law) 6320-6326,6380-6383 ATTORNEY OR PARTY MATNOUT ATTORNEY WO-W 0"Add'W: TELEPHONE NO.: JFGR COWT USE ONLY P�.zW �P � �'� H632-8�/.� I, ;z . 3 l U� ATTORNEY FOR/N*~1. 70" 19ib: APR 12 p 3'4 SUP RIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF G0,,, STREET AOORESS: 7tz� S(i`'• y: t �G�`r� :l2:i2Y. /� t[::-Yzi:%a CiJS i y..r'r-i[.•.J;Y MAIUNG AOORESS: P. L9. //.0k, 9// 0 . / ctrl ANO 2a COOE 1,117ax-f7l9 e-4 NIAHCH NAME PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ,G/�u1� PGLfZZ� ftES�TMEFENOANr. RESPONSIVE DECLARATION TO OR/DER TO SHOW CAUSE CASENUMEErt OR NG—RICE OF i U—s tOti REARM TIME DEPARTMENT OR ROOM:, oz i 98 LEE CH(LD CUSTODY _ b. [ (do not consent to the order requested but I a. Q I consent to the order requested. consent to the following order. lie 2 [El CHILD VISITATION b, [jjl do not consent to the order requested but 1 a. Q I consent to the order requested. consent to the following order. -fo b e der 1-rr ir��c�" >h rn e4"4 3. CHILD SUPPORT tx C.:1 1 consant to guideline support. a. Q I consent to the order requested. 0 e. Q I do not consent to the order requested,but 1 consent to the following order. �-?�-urs (1) Q Guideline (2) [Z) Other fsperilyJ:. �.�-�,��.�. �/,��! ,�l,�ev- �'/2ooy _ z• ,may �y -Qx/vs6.q-.�►��3--�--�oG/�d � Q b. !DO �lr.s�cJrSP,syv '4. SPOUSAL SUPPORT !c s�to the fogowirlg order. a. Q 1 consent to the order requested. DQ/G e - a Q t do not consent to the ryder M 5.Q ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS b. 1 consent to the following ordery-� C-.4.7 /c-/,g a. Q i consent to the order requested. ed'/c/i*,!5i Gv,>ol, c Q I do not consent to the order requested. 6. Q RESIDENCE EXCLUSION h Q I consent to the following order. a. Q I consent to the order requested. c. Q t do not consent to the order requested. 7. Q STAY-AWAY ORDERS b. Q 1 consent to the following order: a. Q I consent to the order requested. I~ Q 1 do not consent to the order requested. (Continued on reverse) Fwm Adooted W Poe 12eS.40 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION'tO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Judicial Counca or Cafilo,nJ, OR NOTICE OF MOTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA In re the matter of: ) PETR/PLTF: L,!11cW11 <�,- ?. z kly� V<� and ) CASE NO. :I - �• SK RESP/DEFT:_' ��a T TO�"CK UC<S til6z ) DECLARATION RE: NOTICE UPON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS I� declare: 1. That I am (counsel for) (P tr/Pltf) R of ) (other: in the within action. 2. That pursuant to Local Rules of Court, I have given notice of the present ex-parte application (WHICH .INCLUDES HAVING DELIVERED COPIES . OF THE PROPOSED ORDER) to -in the following manner: (a) By telephone call at a.m./p.m. on . (Describe message left or conversation below. ) (b) By letter (mailed) (personally delivered) at _ _� am/pm on . (Copy of letter attach___ed) (c) Other. (describe): r 3. The opposing party has. responded to my ;iot:ice in the following manner: 4. I have not given notice of the present Ex Parte Application for Orders for the following reason(s) indicated: (a) Notice of this application would frustrate the o of the order(s) sought herein (EXPLAIN BELOW).Tk.� N (b) The applicant would suffer immediate and irreparable harm before the other party could be heard in opposition. (EXPLAIN BELOW). (c) No significant direct burden or indonvenience -to the other. party is likely to result from the orders sought (EXPLAIN BELOW). ! (d) I made the following reasonable and good faith efforts to notify the other party and further efforts to give notice would probably be futile . or unduly burdensome (EXPLAI! BELOW). (e) Other: r I declare under penalty of perjury that the- foregoing is true ancorrect wand that this declaration was executed on �5 at California. Sign: 6 .X -r_ �. I? °atY .` €- --t.-,•: .r? *a„fi'"�..£� 7F-*�.'�.-- - �"y' :'�"-„ .' ;,h. - ,.sr `,h�� "� ` r ""' �.k s c -t.1 i_ _ - - - - -- r r x ` ,_ : . 1,-, - , _.;.." �': ,�.', , '� ';�,�,� . � . � , I " " _�� ,, - �* , � . , -)�) U) L I'll ... a _ J � -r - -. �. --.. -�,.- - — -- - - s �` a 11 , . . f ;<�` 3. - .. r . .F�.. _. - :._ x • 7 M ... p -t I _ .I , .^ - I . -... ..,..x. - f „ 1 _, 1 LI . I : k \ . j • • �+I .. • / .y: .. • t -r. .� v - 1 ..s Lt I1... { ,Y: .r .. f•. Sao, ^'T �� cF"pr .F''!".r X". u�^�iv^^�'.t"RTMe aqa-� R 5� 3 +.,', t $ - dam' ^e"'9'$n `"r t .��1;6 . ' s. c e J - . % a" r_ - F _ .�., 1 - - - tr4 - - A7 ! 'Y `^ k .„ r. r r ,--p -_ _ d .. - - i } n k x t ix . 3 $ r•*. t .. * {t ,aye_+' uiA x+ r i a t' .... .-, ..:. ,. .. . , i .. ,� t o R tt �,-_ ,`� '+,.te t } !;i }f"F-�$�- . 2 r c+: s�'p'` `Ff 2 rt t - 77 5' p % 7 2 dy 5 iiA�.fa. Z. Ty ' .i v'f 4 k ,;.tea ! _, m , T � rs ' a F 4 r, `'” F _, L ku `rtt 7 `*` - 11.may.. 7r n _ ,�i'T"L-yr .,"t-} k k' x }S - '•'Ar.A.,.., "ta 3S` h ti "'S "'-•r __ __ Fa.z-�!yft s 5-i} Z r W z >< -+ 5 "s`�'.»-� L �`r ��i^it� i � A� -[ - x..*� •+t'€ �f ''w ,.,< 4-- ;`s .A} -z C-a`,? x -11 , r A .-rte"x Is £ f 5"�' z-.. s-�` "t. r,�..;r,ty.n74 t b ' � _ �, �.. .� � '�� -yty i� 1 is r� I. Ji �m r:2-a�...7. ,,.e.t. x „sit X32 qvs �5 rw tC,4' F "'�"`k "i 4..} srr d L - {/�7 x 'i g.�r'µ3 M `aryjf� r `4 \' :yq f7" t}r"' y I t a. }' a iw d '`" ,qz 11.1 F _ x'- g `' "t5 yt,x" `''E. ,�i '"h .4ha^'�f' - 1. _ Fy 5;""iaw't"N i fic a-�,. r.„ 'F Y Y" o-Z'r , - r d�t a.�„ M yk+*` v' ! -1 �,,'Q,'It—" , , --) E Y � ��11` PI �y'4'cu A fi� R x a y,! fi v Y�` nyt t 1 d >,1 �vv f{ ��.'; '� s .,.�r .f t .z S` "G.. n -' K j ch'.�:,fi-,.z` 7 [v- »Y,5 �. 1. 11 �77.a r—, i t x r v+Y i i p 4fi, s t SIV/.. } k x's ^-rr�.: + n T V.z�r + �, 1 3S. �Y,. '_`(, _. -I 1N c :r s.vo �,^t �, . e I �.'ti. 3t ,, y t' y ti.p K r ` 7 < + r +3 '�,,p `F �.�, "1`yta;FS *s•'�i at�• t��. ..j ,}d - f 'Ss �Ufl'^ t`ns ,,�i k Y; ti r irx l�$t I 1.,+R.�d*"w.a s+.`; ae L ,�.+ �x 'L..,F `F6,.4 s, tky.? .t. S Y......j`S ,-2'P ,i, -e t rt�i ry r' :4`:tir,},,.4 k,.P,k ss. T,.S" tW.F§ k'}=: ik, .fv '^a,.i$..{.F->,a-, , nr7J�+ �,;�• q` ,`&_1'Gi zy Y,. yty yy,�,A:_.' rt T c r` Z t�,y.� #. , _4 tF y t _._. _ At* k 1t - - a' i�'_k6``• S..V �, "��'i_ "t,nS-L s .^•� S Ay .f � v"' �f. ! e`# Sk ✓"f d f ,,.. R K a--• °ee- M�.... -d s}3'xf+,- '^>;.-.'-z- s. ^*s'r �' a'- r 11 t + a , F f;w A x a fi c u e . a,sr`� s ,zpzT w '.,F'+,. s"o S,'al `'�-� z "��':f t ' v't t * '.ivS$%�ii�r ..,e"'c,,a` r k �� t , s If - nh•S".t .� e 1 F_ a �w�drat,tr 6 +S"t. y k st `,� (II ?x` •t,I^rT da stiwr S '1.'r f,LSx�c j .r s o-'''=v .°"^ wE;, "'- W o t a rn4-" ' ss ,r � n n r,4 r. � �'n< �',dx s ri, 14 y d';,4',a,. ...� t` < +``.vr} .s�xx 7- t�:.k:f„ i'S> 2 __ ..5...�' " F 7 •f- r='"- l-+-r. 3- �.i 3,--"• �...-. _�..a vera_.L '+ _—_ tF,h > °r �, r �`r w32 uz e'�A a �ri+- aR '� r rt - , il 'Nf aEf-D kh r�i S fix..#r," � u-'"':"^�.' 4-rna � ., p�d �./ �,3 ,�,F'. 1.^.�a t��x .� s'.�5 5�'_ °*� I I I r T 1 3�3 , J r *n .t nsG � �13 Y S +"t }zt 1 �� r 1� x ->�"� r i- a.--� -"< . r ^x-r uf'w. 3t,. --3-`+'--`-`-'` -.."- , _. ,s.. ,a.--"z _-a..-.. , ',. Y wfr .":,, - x r..`" k }, at'x- i..r 4 a F 'x°s '�r iia i k aY' A`}r a x tr E , `"x " N r.-i•'Z +L a i d �, , }}�-f - .1k Z1 µan y' Y- d a .:.k �}"`"Aird_', Z, L n r m t r�x-r � � F "# � � t' i v a T O C , x+*.c-�, _f'�t< ` s kx. w� c�3, x -ac:p,.a. 4 Air ,:` 4-x`34-. r'.`�_ .h4-.^, O /� ar I -1 +:..e' k9 a f~ r }'+ 'x,A'; t xzn _ ,8 f"Y h ,rte •`y ..,r; X41- .,a' y F 4 Y -1. -3 ,F. r .y 4s;64."�'"s.'r r Fr Y'^x W��l C) (03 .-A < ,`v �.9 C �, 11 `r a r q. f z ,. ?+ � .,1}''xT x,.3 ,'#s '-� ,� s r� �si�°S„k ` - " -a,.� r, t P)_W2.-. A 1` F -p .'h �,o a re i' ,#'�-s*ro t:,t+a v F ,� v ra>.y r ,7�^"`„e .fir t^> r v., 's« t t.', ` p� Z• 0� >k., ;+ "-hr'' x;c. .� �r t''t S k L�,6.`" �3,.'' ,� a.'`z t°3 s ';'`s' '"sa, "��Srx S.Hn,.rw .,,�� d. « !+e,l>s f' -,` c x�,Qn�r4`w�'#= a.i' 'tH'.y 1, ,, i t yx 1 4 ;z :.-w, 5 4�`i„ ku.�S' .b r y' Lx*51.F` i� ,. H 1 �� d� N 'est r t } r.� .v°`` �-R„q�.. xn. 1 `+-s ", A3' w .� ..^'moi F a G l x .x 4_a� x wj�wv- oe - r�: '�.'_11 �'..�.,,« - fs r '� 94t "y"}"r, l� +cxl ,.,s z r a t "d y",x -" t "I.,rr,„q `-., '�, a 11'I a I.� x v �+ 8 §'ter• a [ > s s �A �- I t } t4 }e * w 1 A.:..- ;'..„ )- I ^t G a 3 c i 5-. r f ? -s v. h'">° F u ,.,F �?ar,.} °i t y>" rn y a4 ire.mss .,.: cd"Tw,xSA ay -az'gTy' .,a, }>~„f ,„1, f �,.f 'z^+`'`' C , 1J5� APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA August 6, 1996 BOARD ACTION Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4• Please note the wWARKING" below. Claimant: Laurie Reef Attorney: J U L 19 1999 Address: 1512 Northwood Dr. COUNTY cOuNap Suisun, CA 94585 MARTINEZ CAU Amount: $25,000.00 By delivery to Clerk on July 18, 1996 Date Received: July 18, 1996 By mail, postmarked on Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel - Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File Late Claim. DATED: — July 19, 1996 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By .AADeputy II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). s/) The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). DATED: `7 "ZS �� VICTOR WESTMAN, County Counsel, By L2tAZOL Deputy III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6). (A This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: u u a �e. PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, Bye , &,-) Deputy MARMW (Gov. Code 5911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your applioation for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, u should do so immediately, . IV. FROM: Clerk of the Boar T0: 1 County Counsel TO County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703• DATED: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, Deputy V. FROM: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel, By County Administrator, By APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM i 1 WILLIAM R. WHITE RECEIVE® Attorney at Law 2 State Bar #132804 e� 805 N. Lincoln Suite B A 18 W6 3 Dixon, CA 95620 (916) 678-3161 CLERK BOAR OF SUPERVISORS 4 CONTRA COSTA CO. 5 Attorney for Claimant LAURIE REEF 6 7 8 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) CLAIM NO. CLAIM OF LAURIE REEF ) 9 ) APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION AGAINST ) TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM 10 ) THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 11 12 13 TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: 14 15 Application is hereby made for the permission to present the 16 attached claim after expiration of the time limit provided in 17 Government Code Section 911 . 2 . 18 19 1 . As stated in the attached claim, claimant ' s cause of 20 action accrued on or about July 18, 1995 ; 21 22 2 . Claimant believes that he time for presentation of such 23 claim under Government Code Section 911 .2 may have expired on or 24 about January 18, 1996; 25 26 27 28 1 1 3 . The reason for the failure to present such claim within 2 the time provided in Government Code Section 911 . 2 is as follows : 3 4 A. The claim was not filed due to claimant ' s mistake as to 5 the date of accrual of the claim in that claimant believed 6 that because she had filed a worker' s compensation claim, 7 and that claim was at issue on July 18, 1995 and is still at 8 issue, claimant had a justifiable and reasonable belief that 9 her tort claims should be pursued after completion of the 10 worker' s compensation claim. 11 12 B. Claimant believed and still believes that filing of her 13 civil claim would prejudice her worker' s compensation claim. 14 15 C. As a result of Contra Costa County' s actions in this 16 matter, claimant has been undergoing stress and depression, 17 which has resulted in disability contributing to claimant ' s 18 failure to file a timely claim. 19 20 D. Claimant was and is unsure whether her claim is an 21 injury to the person, or other type of occurrence within the 22 meaning of Government Code Section 911 . 2, and is therefore 23 unsure of the date of filing of said claim; 24 25 4 . Claimant believes that Contra Costa County has not 26 suffered any prejudice from the delay in that the percipient 27 witnesses to the facts of the claim, especially Captain Shinn, 28 2 c, �s 1 Warren Rupf, Tom Young, Karla Santiago, Roy L. Curry, Jean 2 Haskell„ Marijoy Ganzon, and Lt . Rodriguez are all available to 3 the County of Contra Costa at this time. 4 5 6 7 ILLIAM R. WHITE 8 Attorney for Claimant 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 CLAIM AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENTITY FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY FORM CONT. 100-A RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CLAIM N.0. TO PERSON OR PROPERTY ORIGINAL,FOR FOIE INSTRUCTIONS 1. Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be filed not later than six months after the occurence. (Gov.Code Sec.911.2) 2. Claims for damages relating to any other type of occurrence must be filed not later than one year after the occurrence.(Gov. Code Sec.911.2) _ 3. Read entire claim before filing. RECEIVED kV, 4. See Page 2 for dia a ; g gram upon which to locate place of accident. S. This claim form must be signed on Page 2 at bottom. 6. Attach separate sheets,if necessary,to give full details.SIGN EACH SHEET. 7. Claim must be filed with ,- CLERK BOA OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. T0: - COUNTY OF _CONTRA COSTA Name of Claimant LAURIE REEF Age of Claimant 40 Home address of Claimant City and State Home Telephone Number 151?.. Northwood Drive Suisun, CA 94585 (707) 864-8646 Business address of Claimant City and State Business Telephone Number 2470 Martin Avenue Fairfieicl CA 94533 (707) 428-0533 ,ve address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim: 1512 Northwood Drive , Suisun CA 94585 How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Please include as much detail as possible. County terminated claimant ' s employment after claimant had filed a worker' s compensation claim and suc_h. claim Was still oendinq and ' active. When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Please include the date and time of the damage or injury. Julv 18 , 1995 Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Please describe fully, and locate on the diagram on the reverse side of this sheet. Where appropriate,please give street names and addresses or measurements from specific landmarks: 651 Pine Street 6th Floor Martinez , CA 94553 What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Please give the names of City employees causing the injury or damage and identify any vehicles involved by license plate number,if known. Warren Rupf , County Sheriff , terminated claimant' s employment on July 18 , 1995 . Please list the names and address of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals: Warren E. Rupf, William Shin, Ray Rodriquez , Darla Santiago 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 'EE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE What DAMAGE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Please give full extent of injuries or damages claimed: Loss of wages , medical damages , emotional distress, and general damages What is the AMOUNT of your claim? Please itemize your damages: In excess of 4,25 ,000 . 00 + If you have received any insurance.payments,please give the names of the insurance companies: For all accidents claims, please place on the following diaam the names of the streets where the accident occurred and the nearest cross-stria s;indicate the place of the accidentgry an"X"and by showing the nearest address and distances to street corners.Please indicate where North is on the diagram. Note: If the diagram does not fit the situation,please attach your own diagram. SIDEWALK CUR CURS-4 PARK WAY SIDEWALK FF William R. While 7/13/96 k,,t.,, Claimant or person filing Typed Name: Date: on claimant's behalf giving relationship to claimant: (! ,35 CLAM Cr CCN7�4 COSTA CC'!NTY, CAL!r0;N1A August 6, 1996 Claim Against the Ccurty, or District governed by) 804-' ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Er�:rsererts, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Governr.ent Codes. ) the action taker, on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below). giver pursuant to Government Code Mount: $8,000,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note1'�fV ��53"f� CLAIMANT: Booker T. Carloss, II J U L 1 9 1996 ATTORNEY: COUNTY COUNSEL Date received July ul l AR INEZCALIF. ADDRESS: 2830 Magnolia St. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON Y Oakland, CA 94608-4414 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: July 18, 1996 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. DATED: July 19, 1996 ;L11 DeputylOR. Clerk ' II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (� This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: Z Ld-4g BY: Deputy County Counsel III. FRDM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Coursel (1) County Acrinistrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOAR ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: �'_/o- �9 9 L PHIL BATCHELOR. Clerk, B . Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warning see reverse Side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, Over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California. postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: a �O BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by I eputy Clerk CC: Cou^ty Counsel County Administrator Claim 'to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA 00= : .. INS7kirmONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 19879 must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 19889 must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 1069 County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than ane public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. i i i * * U 61 • * 0 0 a # * • 0 0 f f 0 • • f a i 0 • f f 9 0 f • f f i 0 0 * * * 0 RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp bcb 11pr T, 6405&t r-) ) Aga Inst the County of Contra Costa ) or ) District) Fill in name ) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ `° C G' , bd , and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 2. Where dithe damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) 6 KfYa, . i - ki (U 3. Bow did the damage ori in3jrY occur? (Give full tails; use extra paper if required) A%OaK-d P�bh' e�(,V-- Mibeketj §ArW +b ttre qr&ACJ � i q% SqWrl 4. What ' articular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? AaC,� , r, 4�s kQ 00 davUll, ((over) � �t5mi5sal r vv! , PdU '� IGk &' V mads ��v� � & ion C-5SP1 all Ufi n.(. 6� 4t r� �� 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing 101 the damage or injury? 2 3S S. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage.S� i ``e rzt, rnoYX+� j �r.c D1. ,�s-+ t c1bAc H v+,on r� , ackp,( c-a ra4 anal � _ T. YOW was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any ?/^�at 51 injury or`J�.{.damage.) /� 5 UVast}�1 fir, P e�0,, �" �`y P12 O��p //� ,/� ^""`++-+�at � /5./�4� �bs�1` a . e ltD.5 � /*O Vio Id 404. 9�� zi 157, � BeP12 i+ .aJ 15 r 000.01) 8. dames and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: Do ITEM AMOUNT ��l: Ilan�I�rs) Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or bv some Person on his behalf." ame and Address of Attorney �0 &6 /1 , claimants signature (Address) L/ CA- -wild Telephme No. Telephone No. fa00 # 6 • • . • . . • slti'T 0 NOTICE Section T2 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not mare than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. Dook,er T. Carloss, I I 5555 Giant Highway Richmond, CA 94806 July 3, 1996 Michael Kelly Assistant Public Defender Office of the Public Defender 331 1 Bissell Avenue Richmond, CA 94304 RE: Legal Malpractice / 'violation of Constitutional Rights Dear Mr, Kelly: On approximately May 14, 1996,96, you met me :and we discussed that you would write a 995 motion for the Readiness Hearing onadune 24, 1996, in the Superior Court. You agreed to write the motion to dismiss atter you and I recognised the discrepancies and false evidence in the police report # 96-07605, written by Richmond Police Officer R. Kirries, :serial '1874, April 10, 199& From May 14, 1996, until •.June 24, 1996, 1 called you over, ten times asking you was the 995 rriotion, motion to dismiss, ready. I spol,,:e to your supervisor- Ms. Chap* about the motion to dismiss, Her reply was to contact you. I left messages with the secretary :and your- answering service. You never once came to the phone or, replied. On Monday, June 24, 1996, in Martinez, in ::superior Court, you told me that you didn't write the 995 motion. You made ars oral motion, which we never, discussed, but was not a motion to dismiss, That is legal malpractice, Will you answer a few questions'? Please put you answers in writing, for the record and please respond by Wednesday Jule 11 , 1996. 1 )Did you state in May that you would write a motion to dismiss, to me, during our conference at 't}ACDF? ? )Did you write the motion to dismiss afterwards? 3 )Why didn't you present the 995 motion, if" it was ready? 4 )Since I did riot waive time do you realize that is essentially whet you have done? The trial date was July 1 , 1996, 5 )Did someone ask you to mal{:.e the other frivolous motion? 6 )Have you ever requested an evaluation in a credit card fraud charge before now? 7 )Have spoke with Sergeant Pori of' the Richmond Police Internal Affairs, about me or this case? , 8 )Who gave you permission, authorization, or the idea to ask for art evaluation in a case regarding a credit card fraud charge? 9 Mhat are the names , addresses, and phone numbers of the doctors? 10) After an evaluation w!I I the case be dismissed'7' I I Mhat percentage of cases are dismissed after, an evaluation? I 2)Did I ask to assist you in writing the motion to dismiss? I appreciate your immediate response. Respectfully, Book.er, T. Car-loss, I I cc.Ms, Chapot, Supervising Public Defender- California State Bar Associatiopri Contra Costa County Bar Jack. Funk, Contra Costa County Public Defender Contra Costa County Board of Super ViS01- THE COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ADMISSIONS 'may � ��`• . 1149 SOUTH HILL STREET LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90015 (2 13) ?65-1500 Committee of Bar Examiners TERI L.JACKSON Chair PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL - VIA CERTIFIED MAIL San Francisco -• - PATRICK R.DIXON Vice-Chair July 3, 1996 Los Angeles ADISA ABUDU-DAV IS Sacramento MUKESH ADVANI San Francisco Booker Taliaferro Carloss THE HONORABLE 2830 Magnolia Street V[VIEN BRONS�iAld Oakland, CA 94608 MARTWA C.BYRNES Pasadena Dear Mr. Carloss: MARGARET deBEERS BROWN San Francisco HAROLD COLEMAN.JR. The Office of Admissions of the State Bar of California has reviewed your Appli- San Diego cation for Determination of Moral Character, and I have been directed to advise YONKEL N.GOLDSTEIN you that your application has been deemed to be abandoned pursuant to Rule X, San lose Section 2(d) of the Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law in California GEORGE G.GOWGANI San Luis Obispo (Rules). JOHN C.HISSERICH Los Angeles Hereafter, if you wish to proceed with the moral character determination process, JAMES B HUSSEY San Pedra you will be required to file a new Application for Determination of Moral Char- PAUL D.JEFFERSON acter and pay the fee associated with that application. Modesto Burlingame me A copy of Rule X of the Rules is enclosed for your reference. SHERYL L.MESHACK lnsAngeles Sincerely, J.ALFRED RIDER,M.D. San Francisco 2), PATRICIA M.VILLALOBOS Los Angeles Office of Admissions Staff Clothilde V. Hewlett JEROME BRAUN Director for Moral Character Senior Executive,Admissions GAYLE E.MURPHY Determinations Director,Administration ADAM S.FERBER Director,Examinations CLOTHILDE V.HEWLETT Director Moral Character Determinations Enclosure JOHN R.RODRIGUEZ Director,Operations&Management ^y: i y �S ¢� e-d w/h \\ /• { 4 C, 35' CLAIM bOAR� OF S;1cEKti'Ic,,ac 0r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 6, 1996 Naim A:airst the .County, or District governed by) BOAtO ACTION 'bhe Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes, ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $500c;or $800 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note al}p�Y CLAIMANT: Mark William Abernathy 41dR'L(�JJ�� 1736 Domaine Way J U L PI $ 1996 ATTORNEY: Oakley, CA 94561-3027 Date received NSEL MARTINEZ AUR ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 8, 1996 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim, pH DATED: BYIL IATCHELOR, Clerk eputy I1. FROM: County Counsel T0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying Claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.6). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: I° SY: �LG�— � �d'- De;uty County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Gated: 9-1p—i99 _PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk. By g,i wo. (�p„� Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six. (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. if you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warnino see reverse Side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MIAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 16; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: � 9 -119.6 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR b� eputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator . C, 35, Clain to: BOAM) OF SJPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COMM INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, mus0- be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for_death or for injury to person • or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal. Code Sec. 72 at the end of this for—mm. RE: Claim By 1 ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp A��, RECEIVE® ) Against the County of Contra Costa ) _ 8 199 or ) ' C- ,C,C, �N E-R)F i-- 9-e 0 , District) CLERK BOARD OF S RVISM Fill in name ) CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ and in support of this claim represents as follows: &-,P- -r24,- 1. r24,-1. When did the damage or injury occur? -(Give exact date and hour) 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county)3. How d4 the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) r f 6�� l c)U T 0 � h(6QG 4. What particular actor omission on the part of county or district officers, se.^vants or employees caused the injury or damage? l � (Z C) r +60 � �'Q_ vo�w� . �. wnat are the names of counLv or district officers, servants or employees causing th-e dazage or injury? all _ o �`�6 2_44IS �r i��1 ) �,re� ��_ S�^3�3_Z52 5 5. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. 7• How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) TQC C LJJ 7 o v40 3. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. See 5 ti N) 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE iynE - AMOUNT Gov. Code Sec. 910:2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant yb`.� Lsfc:7 A'd "or ., t SEND NOTICES TO (Atto.*,ne ) > orb some person on his behalf*." Name and Address of. Attorney { , Claimants Signature (Addre--S. Telephone No. Telephone No. ,51 6� � l�f z_!] +t NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for Payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both im—,risonnenl. and fine 3090 ANTIOCH AUTO BODY INC. 1401 Verne Roberts Circle Antioch, CA 94509 (510) 757-3586 Fax: (510) 757-5246 EPA #CAR000004440 BAR #AJ180155 Visible Damage Quotation #3090 by DENNIS GOODMAN on 06-26-96 CHERYL ABERNATHY 1736 DOMAINE WAY Style Insurer . Lic. Plate: 2DTR207 Adjuster : OAKLEY, CA 94561 Paint Code: Appraiser: DENNIS GOODMAN Phone: 625-1427/779-7274 Prod. Date: Claimant : 87 US ONLY TOYOTA TOYOTA COROLLA FXProfile : STANDARD Insured . VIN: Deductible: 0.00 Policy # : Mileage: 0 Claim # . Options: Mitchell Service: 918749 Line Entry Labor Line Item Part Type/ Dollar Labor CSG Item Number Type Operation Description Part Number Amount Unit Unit 1 814760 BODY REPAIR L FRT DOOR SHELL EXISTING * 5.0* 3.5 2 AUTO REFIN REFINISH L FRT DOOR OUTSIDE C 2.1 2.1 3 814930 BODY REPLACE L FRT DOOR ADHESIVE MOULDING ORDER FROM DEALER 108.75 0.2 0.2T 4 900500 BODY * ALIGN L DOORL EXISTING 0.5* 5 900500 REFIN* REF/REP BLEND LT FENDER AND QTER 2.2* 6 900500 BODY * REPLACE MASK FOR OVERSPRAY AFTERMARKET NEW 5.00* 0.3* T 7 933002 REFIN* ADL OPER CLEAR COAT 0.8 8 933003 REFIN ADL OPER TINT COLOR 0.5* 9 AUTO ADL COST PAINT MATERIALS 123.20 T 10 AUTO ADL COST HAZARDOUS WASTE 2.80 * Judgement Item Add'1 Labor Sublet I. Labor Subtotals Units Rate Amount Amount Totals II. Part Replacement Summary _Amount BODY 6.0 50.00 300.00 Taxable Parts 113.75 REFINISH 5.6 50.00 280.00 Sales Tax @ 8.250% 9.38 Nontaxable Labor 580.00 Total Replacement Parts Amount: 123.13 Labor Summary Totals; 11.6 580.00 i ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 06-26-96 15:44:52 i EstiMate Plus is a trademark of Mitchell International Copyright 1991-1996 All Rights Reserved f Date: 07/01/96 03:39 F.U. Estimate ID: 6016 Preliminary Profile ID: DRIVE IN GLENN'S AUTO BODY 1610 Nest 10th Street Antioch CA 94509 (.510) 778-1330 Damage Assessed By: HENT OSBORN Insured: CHERYL ABERNATHY Mitchell Service: 910750 Description: 1987 TOYOTA COROL FH16 2D H/B VIN: lNHAE87GKHZ418556 Line Entry Labor Line Item Part Type/ Dollar Labor Itea Piumi ;r Type C eration Description Part Number Amount Unit 1 022270 BO DYX 1911-,4ZR,.._t, . r#L FRT DOOR SHELL 4—P2 . AUTO RERIN REFINISH 1 L"RRT DOOR OUTSIDE 2.1 3 022700 BODY REMOVE/REPLACE L FRT DOOR ADHESIVE MOULDING 75732-12700 44.77 0.2 4 BLACK AND SILVER 5 933003'REFIN ADD'L LABOR, OPR TINT COLOR 0.51 6 933018 REFIN ADD'L LABOR OPR MASH FOR OVERSPRAY 0.21 7 AUTO ADD'L COST PAINT MATERIALS 62.401 # Judgement Item Add'I Labor Sublet I. Labor Subtotals Units Rate Amount Amount Totals II. Part Replacement Summary Amount udy 4.7 50.00 235.00 Taxable Parts 417,77 Refinish 2.8 50.00 140.00 Sales Tax 9 8.25% 3.69 Labor Subtotal 375.00 Total Replacement-Parts. Amount: 48.46 Labor Summary Totals 7.5 375.00 III. Additional Costs Amount IV, Adjustments Amount Taxable Costs 62.40 Customer Responsibility: 0.00 Sales Tax 8.25% 5.15 Total Additional Costs: 67.55 1. Total Labor: 375.00 1I. Total Replacement Parts: 48.46 III. Total Additional Costs: 67.55 Gross Total: 191.01 IV. Total Adjustments: 0.00 Net Total: 491.01 This is a preliminary estimate . Additional changes to the estimate may be required for the actual repair.' ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 00/00[00 00:00:00 6016 Mitchell Data Version: JUN_96_B Copyright (C) 1990-1996, Ilitchell International Page l of I All Rights Reserved AL �I w C. 35 #3090 1i US ONLY TOYOTA TOYOTA COROLLA FX ABERNATHY Page 2 III. Additional Coots Amount IV. Adjustments Taxable Costs 123.20 Sales Tax @ 8.250% 10.16 Nontaxable Costs 2.80 Customer Responsibility: 0.00 Total Additional Costs: 136.16 I. Total Labor: 580.00 II. Total Replacement Parts: 123.13 III. Total Additional Costs: 136.16 Gross Total: 839.29 IV. Total Adjustments: 0.00 Net Total: 839.29 PART PRICES SUBJECT TO INVOICE **++r:trxxxw ,rrrrrx,r» ,tts.w x,t r.z♦*;.max,. ,t,t ,r*+ *�*x AUTHORIZED AND ACCEPTED: You are hereby authorized to make the above specified repairs. I understand that payment in full will be due upon release of vehicle, including additional supplemental damage charges, and hereby grant you and/or your employees, permission to operate the car, truck or vehicle herein described on street, highways or elsewhere for the purpose of testing and/or inspection. An express mechanic's lien is hereby acknowledged on above car, truck or vehicle to secure the amount of repairs thereto. You will not be held responsible for loss or damage to vehicle or articles left in vehicle in case of fire, theft, accident or any other cause beyond your control. OLD PARTS REMOVED FROM CARS WILL BE JUNKED UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED. Work authorized by: Date 0 ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 06-26-96 15:44:52 EstiMate Plus is a trademark of Mitchell International Copyright 1991-1996 All Rights Reserved C , 35' CLAll M BOA; OF Or CON7R4 COSTA COUNTY, CAL?FORNIA August 6, 1996 Clam Acairst the County, or District governed by) BOA-D ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NGT?CE TG CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $2027.18 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note allr '140 CLAIMANT: Trish Dillon 824 Villa Terrace ATTORNEY: Brentwood, CA 94513 �� 19 1936 Date received OOUNTYW(jNga ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 18, 1I*dQ�LlF: BY MAIL POSTMARKED: July 17, 1996 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim, pH DATED: July 19, 1996 B1'IL BATCHELOR . Clerk ' .� II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. (( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: Z-2 BY: De;uty County Counsel I11. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOAKD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (v//) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: Y- � —/994iPHIL BATCHELOR. Clerk, By, Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six- (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.. You may seek the advice of ran attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you Should do So immediately. *For additional warnino See reverse side of th1S notlCe. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: - ~ / 9 C14a BY: PHIL BATCHELOR byNJ y Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator C, 3'00, Cla:r to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person • or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal. Code Sec. 72 at the end of this for= RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp Trish Dillon EIVED, Against the County of Contra Costa ) or ) ! $ 1996 District) Fill in name ) CLERK 504RD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 2,027. 18 and in support of this claim represents as follows: I. When did the damage or injury occur? -(Give exact date and hour) July 3,1996 at approx 7:35. am. 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Marsh Creek Road(east of the city of clayton) in Contra Costa County. 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) I was traveling on marsh. creek road on 7-3-96 @ approx 7:35am, As i approched any area of the road, I noticed rock's in the roadway,as I slowed down to get by,more rocks's started to fall from the hillside. One very large rock fell and hit the side of my car. Many of the hillside area's have a gully -SEE ATTACHED 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Failure to proberly maintain roads,and cleaning of road gully. NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF WEAK BUMPERS ALL CLAIMS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THIS BILL DATE r. �� a�tt� TIME TOW PAY FROM n �; 1pORDERED co BY r��a .., �; �; _ THIS INVOICE NAME ADDRESS CITY/ZIP PHONE r47 SJl7 �`2 _ •�_�.� MAKE .t't7' ) !e1 r YEAR t9 �7 LIC.NO. V.I.N. START TIME ENDTIME DRIVER TRUCK NO.n y FROM p � �/y ' y��',�•! rf P ODOMETER TO: ODOMETER TOW DOLLY ❑ FRONT ❑ REAR ❑ ROAD SERVICE LABOR 4 9 I HAZARDOUS WASTE I DISPOSAL 1 I OVER.MILEAGE: MILES AT PER MILE= 1 DROP o �y DRIVE �r. b f� BRIDGE TOLL r 1 I • I STORAGE: DAYS AT PER DAY R.O. P.O. 1 NO. NO. I CASH ❑ PAY FROM THIS OMVOCtE TOTAL � r I CHARGE ❑ ACCOUNTS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS O INVOICE. PAST DUE ACCOUNTS WILL BE CHARGED STORAGE ❑ SERVICE CHARGE. RELEASED TO: DATE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURI FRANKS TOW F.W.THOMPSON, INC. CheVW 5101 Clayton Road Concord,Ca 94521 PHONE 689-8540 Trish Dillon C t 3J 824 Villa Terrace Brentwood CA 94513 (510) 516-9356 Cont: that allows for the falling rock's and dirt to go into other then landing in the road way, thus area of the roadway gully was full. So in turn the rocks had no other place to go than in the road. I honestly feel that this- could have been avoided, if the hillside gully was cleaned out,and that the hillside's are checked for such large loose rock's. Or some type of permanent saftey gard should.be installed, As Im just thankful that I was going slow enough to keep the car under- control, and avoiding other cars. Thank You for your assistance in handling this matter, as i hope that we can come to some type of an agreement in the above stated claim. y . qri Di lon PARKER ROBB BODY SHOP e, 3,5 Page 1 1707 NORTH MAIN STREET DILLON, TRISH Printed 07/17/96 11 :45am WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 Quotation 33470 Created 07/17/96 11 : 44am (510)934-4481 BAR AG103714 FAX: (510)943-1765 QUOTATION Customer, insured �ehicie• Insurance!Company; - DILLON, TRISH FORD RANGER 6 FT BED SUPERCAB 824 VILLA TERRACE YEAR: 1994 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 Color: GOLD H(510)516-9356 License: 4W60753 CA W(510)943-1135 Mileage In: 45129 VIN: 1FTCR14U6RPB37762 Britten by SERG10 nitZ—-- Iirett Price BCady/F'r McCh< Oth�e> Pant Sukti �ir ;PT $ 1 TE 102 STRIPE ASSEMBLY 229.33 0 .: RT 1 Ok. / 3 L 104 FENDER FRONT RT 2.3 _. d R1 `,.111 PNL`.:INR`DR:TRiM RT 0 9 ........ .._ ..... . . . ...U . ... . _.....,.. . 5 E 118 NAMEPLATE,FENDER RT 12.72 0.2 0 . . 6 E °:188:PANEL,ROCKER R:T $9 5:: 6 3 0:. ...—..... ........... . .. 1. _..._. .... ....... ._...... 7 L 188 PANEL,ROCKER RT 1.4 8. L 210 PNL,FRT.DOOR OTR .:: RT: ...... 2 0 ..... 9 ET 224 CYL,FRT DR LOCK RT 0.2 10 RI i 2$ HANDLE,:F.RT DR OTR:: RT 0.. 9 _.. .... ......... . .. .. _ . .... ... ....._ _ ..... _ ......... 11 RI 230 MIRROR,OUTER STD RT 0.3 0 _. .. Rl..:286W/STRIP.BELT OTR . R:I; 0 2 . O. _... _ ... 13 ET 504 STRIPE,FNDR UPR RT 0.4 14: ET ,C1.V 15 ET 557 STRIPE,FRT DOOR UPR RT 0.4 16 E 92O WHEEL,REAR:: RT 2$b 67 0 3 0. * 17 L M01 CLEAR COAT 2.0* l .. :M15 COL:(JR TINT: 0 5* *............ ...... ..._. ..,...... ........ _......,,,,, __.... .......,...,... ......... .. ..... .:._::_ .... .... ... ..... ...— 19 L M16 COLOR BLEND 1.5.* L M1 COVER CAR:,EXTER.[OR 4.00:: 0 4* _. ...........::::. * 21 EC RT RR TIRE P225/70R14 100.00 0.3* E * Z2 EC .:CHiP GUARD 10 00 0 2* ::E * 23 EC RT FNDR W/OPNG MLDG 20.00 0.2* E (*) Indicates Estimator's Judgement. (Continued) COPYRIGHT 19$9 YADA SY:STEMS, :INC AlL RIGH75 RESERVED, IICENSEOBY PARkER 8088 BODY SHOP " . C� 35� Page 2 Quotation 33470 _!! Quota t x on i Summary OEM Parts : 618 . 07 Parts Total : 752.07 Other parts : 134 . 00 Labor Total : 1204 .00 Units Rate Amount Paint/Material : 192 .50 Body 13 . 8 $ 56 . 00 $ 772 . 80 Tax: 77 .93 Paint : 7 . 7 $ 56 . 00 $ 431 . 20 PM 7 . 7 $ 25 . 00 $ 192 . 50 IFotal : 2226 . 50 TRISH DILLON PAYABLE REPAIR TOTAL 2226 . 50 CALIF.CODE OF REGULATIONS,TITLE10, CHAP.5, SUBCHAPTER5, SECTION 2695,8,D,2,C: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ANY REPAIR FACILITY OF YOUR CHOICE TO DO THE REPAIRS TO YOUR VEHICLE, HOWEVER, YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY CAN REASONABLY ADJUST ANY WRITTEN ESTIMATE PERPARED BY THE REPAIR SHOP OF YOUR CHOICE. IF YOU CHOOSE A DIRECT REPAIR FACILITY SUGGESTED BY YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY, THEY WILL GUARANTEE THE DAMAGED VEHICLE TO BE RESTORED TO ITS PRE-LOSS CONDITION AT NO COST TO YOUOTHER THAN AS STATED IN THE POLICY ( I.E. POLICY LIMITS OR DEDUCTIBLE ) OR ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION. WE DO NOT USE AFTERMARKET PARTS, OR USED PARTS IN THE COURSE OF REPAIRS TO YOUR VEHICLE, UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY AND APPROVED BY THE CUSTOMER AND THE INSURNACE COMPANY. WE DO NOT GUARANTEE REPAIRS, OR FIT THAT USE AFTERMARKET PARTS OR THE PARTS THEMSELVES. AUTHORIZED AND ACCEPTED: You are hereby authorized to make the above specified repairs. I understand that payment in full will be due upon release of vehicle, including additional supplemental damage charges, and hereby grant you and/or your employees, permission to operate the car, truck or vehicle herein described on street, highways or elsewhere for the purpose of testing and/or inspection. An express mechanic's lien is hereby acknowledged on above car, truck or vehicle to secure the amount of repairs thereto. You will not be held responsible for loss or damage to vehicle or articles left in vehicle in case of fire, theft, accident or any other cause beyond your control. Old parts removed from cars will be junked unless otherwise instructed. Repair Order authorized by Date EPA# CAD055391452 IRS# 94-1278730 Thank you for choosing our shop. We appreciate your business . IRS # 94 - 1278730 E=NEW PART EC=ECONOMY PART EU=SALVAGE PART EP=SEE PX REPORT P=CHECK [=REPAIR/ALIGN/SUBLET L=REFINISH N=ADDITIONAL LABOR OPERATION TE=PART/PARTIAL REPLACE ET=LABOR/PARTIAL REPLACE IT=LABOR/PARTIAL REPAIR AA=APPEARANCE ALLOWANCE RP=RELATED PRIOR DAMAGE UP=UNRELATED PRIOR DAMAGE Copyright (c) Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1992 (*) Indicates Estimator's Judgement. PT Price Types: 0 OEM; E Economy; S - Salvage; R - Remanufactured; Space - No Type L Labor; M Material; H - Hazardous; A - Storage; T Towing BT Billing Types: No Code - Insurance Charge; CC - Customer Charge; BT Betterment; AP Appearance Allowance; PD - Prior Damage; NC No Charge GQPYRIGttT 1989;,YApA SXSTEMS,,; INC„ ALL R1GH75 RESERVED, LICENSED BY PARK R ROBE BODY SHOP Tt4.� 6-96 TU,E__9$ :25 SPRINGS-BERTINO 5109351833 P. 02 I 1=r Irk T F�1 O & 1.413 CARLPACK AVE. WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 . (415) 93E-8576 .T U L I£=.. 884 VILLA TERRACE I994 FORD CUSTOMER PAY REPAIR BRENTWOOD RANGER GOLD INSURANCE UNKNOWN CA. 94513 LICENSES NAAAA { ) 5169356 VIN No. s t ) 943-6800 EXT: PR.DATE: / POLICY No. t } - EXT: RT.GODE: CLAIM No. REFERRED BY: WC FORD TM.CODES INSIDE ADJ. ESTIMATOR : ORLANDO SALAZAR BD STYL: OUTSIDE ADJ. . INDEPENDENT : MILEAGE: DEDUCTIBLE : 0.00 INS. CONTACT s P.0. No: DATE OF LOSS: ADJUSTER a UNIT No: PHONE No. -- CLAIM No. EXT. PHONE. EXT: YHpNK YOU F='OR L_IETT I NCS UE3 SE11 VC YOU T-7- 1#01 OAI41SE REPORT 1 PARTS I MISC. I N&ET i BODY I REFIN I MECH k I 11 REPAIR RIGHT FRORT FENDER I I I 1 1.0 1 2.5 k 1 1 21 TEXTURE GUARD LWR FENDER I I I 1 1 0.4 1 1 1 31 REt4M HUD St1ARD I BRIT 1 10.67 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 REKJa RT-ROCKER 1 61.08 1 1 1 4.0 1 1.4 1 1 1 51 R I 1 RT-DOGR I I 4 1 0.9 1 1 1 1 61 &LEN6 RT- 1 I I I 1 1.0 1 ! 1 71 REPLACE REAR WHEEL(ALUMINUM) 1 286.67 1 1 1 0.3 1 1 i. 1 81 REP04 *AR TIRE 1 97.00 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 91 11111 I BkNCE 6 WE IMTS I 1 1 19.001 1 I 1 1 101 COLOR TINTING I I I 1 1 0.5 1 1 1111 CAR BAG PROTECT FROM OVERSPRAY I 1 5.00 1 1 I 0.3 1 1 1 124 CORROSION PROTECTION AND SEAL I 1 10.001 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 131 PAINT MATERIALS 1 1 129.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 141 ADDITI064gL TIME ALLOTTED FOR 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.7 1 1 I I STAGE PAINT I I I I I I I I I 1 455.42 1 144.00 1 19.00 1 6.7 1 7.8 1 0.0 1 ESTIMATE PARTS 455.42 MISC. 144.00 SUBW 19,00 BODY LABOR 375.20 0156.00 FRAME LABOR : .00 011%.00 REFINISH LABi 436.80 8156.00 MECHAN LAB. : .00 8169.00 TOWING .00 SIORA6E : 100 DETAIL. .00 DISC(11J>dT SALES TAX a 49.45 TOTAL 1474.87 o r � r; � W w O H M H s .14 �t1 INN ON -S 0 ,A G7 U-) ' M tJ LrV,, N O H c0 -d rV-j-1 D . N 00 pa C.3S CLAIM BOAR. of OC CON-RA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 6, 1996 Claim Acainst the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy Of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paravaah Iv below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $100,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note CLAIMANT: Debra Elkins J U L 19 1999 ATTORNE i: Elliott Friedman, Esq. COUNTY COUNSEL 6431 Fairmount Ave. , Ste. 9 Date received Mqq�� EZ CAl.IRa ADDRESS: El Cerrito, CA 94530 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 18, 199 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: July 16, 1996 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk GATED: July 19, 1996 Bl': Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (',X) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.6). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: I� 19 BY: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: 9_6_l 9?6 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By - n.a , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additi-onal warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 38; and that today I deposited in the united States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: 0- `�-199�p BY: PHIL BATCHELOR bys Deputy Clerk tA CC: County Counsel County Administrator �. 3S LAW OFFICES OF ELUoTT FRIEDMAN 6431 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE,SUITE 9 EL CERRITO,CALIFORNIA 94530 TELEPHONE(510)528-1616 RECEIVED FAX(510)528-0655 JUL 1 8 1996 CLERK BOAR[)OF SUPERVISORS; CONTRA CQSTA CC._____� July 16, 1996x CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Our Client: Debra Elkins Accident of: June 15, 1996 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed for filing, please find a claim form for the above-referenced matter. Please return the copy acknowledging your receipt in the envelope provided. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN :rah Enclosure c� 3s JUL-10-1996 16:55 FROM CCC RISK MANAGEMENT TO 95280655 P.01i02 `r.air_ Lo: MAN) OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IKSTMCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Clam relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and uhieh accrue on or before December 31, 1987, mus, be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for inJury to person • or to per=al property or gr wing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the aaei'al of the cause Of actio. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of. action. (Govt. Code 011.2.) B. Mai tas must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Builango 551 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a disrrict govertled by the F4ard of Supervisors, rather than the County, the naive of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal, Code Seo. 72 at the end of this M. Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp��__ DEBRA ELKINS ) RECOVE® Against the County of Contra Costa ) JUL 8 81996 or ) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS District) CONTRA COSTA CO. Fill in mne ) Mie undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 100,000.00 and in support of t is claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? -(Give exact date and hour) JUNE 15 1996,• APPROXIMATELY 7:00 P.M. 2. Where did the damage or injury oceur2 (Include city and county) 92 CANAL DRIVE, BAY POINT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) Claimant was walking on sidewalk in front of said property when she tripped and fell on a section of sidewalk which is defectively raised approximately 3-4 inches. Claimant fell to the ground sustaining bodily injury. r..�.■ r•r i . -�.� --�w.�w�--�..-rte.-�� What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Failure to maintain the sidewalk in a safe and hazard free condition. • C. 35 JUL-10-1996 16:56 FROM CCC RISK MANAGEMENT TO 95280655 P.02i02 7. wnaL are the na—ws of country or district officers, servants or employees causing Lhe ca:waC or in jur-3,? 5. 'hat damage or inJuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. Claimant broke her right wrist in fall, suffered abrasions to her face and injury to her left knee 7. Bow uas the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated aumunt of any prospective injury or damage.) Estimated special damages and general damages. B. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Merrithew Memorial Hospital, 3755 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, CA 9. List the expenditures you made on aocaunt of this accident or injury,. DATE ITEM AM= Unknown at this time - hospital and medical expenses, wage loss. � � a► � � � +E � � .* * * � � it � � � -# *.it * � � 1t # � � � � # it � � � � � it It 1E If � Gov. Code Sec. 910:2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claima)t. SM NOTICES TQ: (Attorney) or by some vemm on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN, ESQ. 6431 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE, SUITE 9 Claim tqs Signature EL CERRITO, CA 94530 3641 Leafwood Circle CAddress) Antioch, CA 94509 Telephone No. (510) 528=1616 Telephone No. (510) &&*_(&� e � W W if e N O T I C E Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allolrnce or for Mme.�t to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one. thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars 010,000, or by bort, � • 350 JUL-10-1996 16:55 FROM CCC RISK fIANAGEVIENT TO 95260655 P.01/02 .air_ to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA C=A COUNTY INsTRUCTIONs TO CLAI APM A. Claims rebating to causes of action for death or for injury to Person or to per- zonal prop&ty or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must 'be,prLsented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for-death or for injurY to person • or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, wast be presented not later than SIX months after the aCCrul of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not Pater than oto year after the accrual of the cwA3e of. action. (Govt- code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be filed xith the Clerk of the Board of Snpervisers at its office in Roam 106, C*unty Administration Duilding, 651 pSne Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Bczawd of Supervisors, rattier tha. the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims trwst be filed against each public enility. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal. Code Seo. 72 at.the end of this R£: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp ) DEBRA ELKINS ) Against the County of Contra Costa ) or District) Fill in n? ) Mie undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 100,000.00 and in support of t'lis claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? '(Give exact date and hour) JUNE 15 1996,• APPROXIMATELY 7:00 P.M. 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) 92 CANAL DRIVE, BAY POINT, CONTRACOSTA COUNTY 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) Claimant was walking on sidewalk in front of said property when she tripped and fell on a section of sidewalk which is defectively raised approximately 3-4 inches. Claimant fell to the ground sustaining bodily injury. _!4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or di$trict officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Failure to maintain the sidewalk in a safe and hazard free condition. JUL-10-1996 16:56 FROM CCC RISK MANAGEMENT TO 95280655 P.02i02 wnat are ne renes of country or district officers, servants or employees' cau3ir4g Lhe da::rge or injury? 5. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of inJur.-ies or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto dauage. Claimant broke her right wrist in fall, suffered abrasions to her -face and injury to her left knee 7. How was the amount claimed above computed: (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) Estimated special damages and general damages. $. `lames and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Merrithew Memorial Hospital, 3755 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, CA 9. List the expenditures you made on aoamt of this accident or injury; DATE ITEM AMOUNT Unknown at this time - hospital and medical expenses, wage loss. 1F IF #� # iE It IF IF .* * A A A A iF iF •* 1F.i iF IF * A tE A IFA A A A 7> A IE Gov. Code Sec. 910:2 provides: claim SM NOTICES 70; (Attorney) or b some inert bneon his IP nclaimas}t. Name and Address of Attorney ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN, ESQ. 6431 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE, SUITE 9 Claiut�s Signature EL CERRITO, CA 94530 3641 Leafwood Circle Add_^ess. Antioch, CA 94509 Telephone No. (510) 528-1616 Telephone No. (510) &&* (&@@ �FsII �t +FIF iFitatiF � N I W +FiF N O T I C E Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for paY-we."?t to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one. thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the st,jt.c prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by bath . � \ � \ . \ » ! E \ Q M o \ & ,� 0 \ �. . . � � � � � $ 0 � o % 0 O t » W � % \ A A. \ *� LUX * \\ e�A » g � f @ » \ \ . \ 0 I \ \ \ - � � \ \ \ \ 0 • C . 35 CLAIM BO,cC. Oc S, cEK`IcC,ac OC CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFO;NIA August 6, 1996 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Parag-aph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $75,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all °Warninos". CLAIMANT: Adrian H. Gray ATTORNEY: Date received ADDRESS: 2107 :CypEes� Ave. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 19, 1996 San Pablo, CA 94806 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. �bIl ATCHELOR, Clerk �� D f DATED: July 19, 1996 : �eputy --s`s = 1p JI. FROM: County Counsel 10: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.6). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: _ BY: Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM,: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (a') This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: HIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail -to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. 4 Dated: - 9 -/9 (o BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator Claim 'to: BOARD OF SUPOWISORS OF CCRITRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 19870 must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of actions. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district &-o ernes; lby the Board e.f Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp f RECEIVE® Against the County of Contra Costa ) 9 19% or ) �� District) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Fill in name ) CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ rjZ opo, b c and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) C 60 2. inhere did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) �•�o� � �lS �r.��., ��,� Po._.b10 CB,��--cam C.�S-fie`- � �.�.,-� 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? _ over) 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing thq damage or injury? 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for au damage. jr� 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. ,rY\ ,-moo S "3 O 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney Claimant's Signature ,3LA Os S -c-'�. Address Telephone No. Telephone No. ys o) NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. RE: PERSONAL INJURY ACCE014T IUMUCLE INVOLVED: 1988 BMW 735,BLACK,MELVIN WHIM.,OWNER PERSONS INVOLVED: MELVIN M UJXR,ADRIAN GRAY, MELVIN Nom,II AMRESS: 2307 CYPRESS AVENUE SAN PABLO,CA 94806 PHONE NO: (510)741-7258 To Whom It May Concern: On Sunday,January 21, 1996,between 7:00 p.m.-7:15 pm.,my son,Melvin C.Miller II(4 years old)and myself left our house in my fiances BMW. I made a right turn off Delmonte Avenue onto San Pablo Avenue,a main thoa++ou�dfar+e,and proceeded down the mad Approximately baftay between Delmonte Avem a and Tara Hills Drive,I hit a pothole in the mad(on San Pablo Avenue). I was wearing a seatbelt and so was my son who was sitting in the passenger seat. I was traveling approximately 20 miles and hour. When I hit the pothole,there was no reason for me to think I could not continue to drive. When I hit the pothole,I felt somellting slam me in the cwt. After a few minutes I realized it was the airbag. When it hit me it knocked the wind out of me. My chat was full of pain and burning. Turing this time the car filled up with a grayish smoke. My Brat thought was I bad n4tured the gas line and the car was on fire. All I wanted to do was get me and my am out of the cat before it aVloded. I could barely get out of the czar because of the excruciating pain in my chest and the pain in my back and neck. I was finally able to get out of do car and pulled my son am=the seat to get him out of the car. By this time the car was completely filled with smoke. I stood on the shoulder of the mad with my son trying to catch my breath and trying to statin straight so I could at least try to make some sense of what was happening. I was bent over because of the pain. We were following my fiance who was in another car ahead of us. I was not sure how long it would take before he would realize we were no longer following him. A passerby stopped and asked if we needed any help. I was so disofientod that i did not realize I had left the car in the driving lane. The man was trying to calm me so that I eould drive the car over the shoulder. I was in a lot of pain. My fiance turned around when he noticed we were no longer following him. I told my fiance,Melvin Miller,my chest was hurtm so bad and that i was having a problem b:r . I failed to get the man's name and telephone number. I was traumatized and so was my son. Ike was crying and a$sid that something had happened to me. My son has asthma and I was afraid the smoke he inhaled was going to trigger and asthma attack. We returned home and I immediately went to the bathroom to check myself out and found that I had a cut above my left breast, The top put access my chest was tied and burning and it was still PAGE 2 difficult to breath. There was also pain in my left breast and I was afraid that my breast may be damarA I phoned the Highway Patrol and could not get a clear undemtandiag as to who I should make my report to. They ware unclear as to whether the area where the pothole was on a county road or a chy food I sought medical attention for myself and my son. I have a bruised stema n and am being treated for back and neck pain. My son complains about his back hurting. There is a scar on my left breast that has kft me disfigured. My son was Sim=additional asthma medication.. In the middle of that night I woke with a sewers headache and extremely stiff neck. I continue to suffer occasional pain and stiffness now,some six umths after the accident and my son has breathing pooblems mare f vquently. Also the trauma of hitting the huge pothole and w narrowly Mi ssing a fatal accident has mace me fearful of dnvmg and causes me daily anxiety when I bane to drive anywhere. My soar is very traumahed and talld me conshw*when were driving, "Mommy, watch out for the pothole,I don't want you hurt again." I did not realms until the next morning how large the pothole was. The severity of the shock,the injuries and the oamfimung pain and discomfort we suffer was caused by the hugs pothole on San Pablo Avenue. C• 35� CLAIM BOAn� Or SLrEY'�Icn;,S Or CONT;z COSTA COUNTY, CAL1P02NIA August 6, 1996 Claim Aceinst the County, or District governed by) BGA.=O ACTION the Board of Supervisors, R:uting Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Superviscrs (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $100,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. D7ease note CLAIMANT: Adrian H. Gray for minor � � child Melvin C. Miller, II J u L �g�s ATTORNEY: Date received COUNTY COUNSEL ADDRESS: 2107 Cypress Ave. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July-1 9 1YMIINEZ CALIF, San Pablo, CA 94806 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. ��IL BATCHELOR, Clerk DATED: July 19, 1996 : Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel 10: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: 61 t:t� _ BY: De;uty County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOAR�u OR,OER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other.: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: $ -(� — 9 G, PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By C _. Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately, *For additional warning see reverse side Of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the Claimant as shown above. 1 Dated: —9- ig ce BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by eputy Clerk CC: Courty Counsel County Administrator Clam 'to: BOARD OF SOPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA CO= /J INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT l. .3 A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be filed With the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp 1 'RECEIVED Against the County of Contra Costa ) 191996 or ) � District) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Fill in name ) CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 1ba , o00 . o C5 and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) rte,-. S v, Pmt o 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) r (.�-fz A-. m,0 4. What particular act or emission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or �dammaage? 0-s- v (over) 5.. �What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? C.3S �e 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. B 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DAM ITEM AMOUNT a Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney 55- ,ate C-T, Claiman 's Signature Address eel O Telephone No. Telephone No.(,��()� NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. RE: PERSONAL BUMY ACCWMT VERKSLE INVOLVEa3: 1988 BMW 735,BLACK,MELVIN MBMW.9 OWNER PERSONS INVOLVED: MELVIN MRIER,ADRIAN GRAY, ME.VIN luIILUR.11 ADDRESS: 2107 CYPRESS AVENUE PABLO,CA 94806 PHONENO: (5 0)7417258 TO Whom It May Coaoan: On Sunday,Jaaowy 21, 1996,b Mw=7:00 p m.•7:15 pin,my sorry Iuletvin C.MiNa ll(4 yews cdd)and mysolf klt oKtr house�mqt Samce:'s BMVf� I made ad&l=offDclmumftAv==ooft San Pablo A amain 0 uuStS a,and ppoeeeded dmm the road. Apptu,1ciaaty halfway behwwDelmoae Awa and Tan Iffis Ddve,I bit a potboly in dw road(an San Pablo Avmw). I was waning a seatbelt sad so ares my sea who was sitft bk tree paearwggear seat. ately 20 mites sad honr. Mai I bit the pothole,thore was so room fix me to thick I coWd not eon*w to drive. WhisI hit do po&ok I feht sometleng shim me in the chat. Atm a few udmw I reaNzW it was the abbsg. Wbea it bit me it mooched itis wird out ofine. )* was full ofpak sand burning. Dwi g We flans the car Mad op with a grayish she. My finer dxm&was I bad stud the gas line soddo aur wu an Sae, All I w=ad to do was gat no said my we out oftlra car behm it a &Wlo . I cmUbonly gat out ofdw aur bees=oftbe czmaisfing pa3a in may that mddo paint in my back and nok I was finny able to gra out of*c aur and p Acd my suet sar+oaas the seat to get bim out of the carr By thk dum the alar was complatall►Shed with sm&L I stood an the dwaWor efffie roadwit my an v3dog>b cutch say bxo&sand hying to stand ai&so I coWd at loo try Lo wnh a soma sane of what was he"aft I was bet ow because efthe pain. We won follov tg say fiaooe who was in auo&w car aboad of os. I was not same bow louS it would Calm bc&n ha wod3d radim we w=nD loutish fogowing bimu. A paascft stoppod and asked if we needed aay h dp. IwusodbodcmftddWldidnotrudi=l had kdt the ew in dic driving lease. The man was trying to calm me so do I could dmro the cur ovar the dwoldw. I wm in a lot of para. My Saone tmnod a mmd wbou he nodood we wore no loatgw faftwing lum. Hold my Sauce,Melvin bMa,my ched was budW so bad and do I was bmft a p m blam bier I h.W to get tbo a"s ame and teopbaase mm bw. I was wed and so ase my am He was crying and afisid do sig had happeaaad to mc. My son lam u*=and I was afiaid*a smote he in alod was going totrigger and asthma erect. We ntam d how sad I fistoly woe to the batbmom to cbo*myself out and find.than I bid a cut above my leftbrpast. The topper acwn my chut was red aux!barn*sad it was stiff PAGE 2 diffiaalt to bnadL There was also pain in my left beast and I was afraid the my breast may be I pltoaod the highway Parol and could not get a dear undwsbading as to Me I should make my report to. They wm+e unclear as to whether the ane►wham the po6ols was an a cowAy wed or a city ted. I soot nmedical mina fi r mynif and mmy son. I halve a bruind dame mdambeisguvated for back a nd nock pain. Aly son complsim about his back hmtigg, Thmoe e a sm on my left bmast dart has eft me difgumt My son was Simaddidmd aatmmmadaiom. In do miNkof do mgbt I woke wick a scvae headscho and m aremely stiff=xL I cadiam to suffer occasiomal pain and odffnm now,some sia moat alta do aoddeut m dmy son has broagmg probkm mm fsaqumdy. Also do Uxmm,of d dw bW po&&and so maowly now*a fatal aecadout has made me fmM of and emm me daily amariety when I have to ddw aaywbom My son is very traumatized=.dteld mcomer when we'1m ddviog, m "Um y, watch out for the potho*I doadt wnt ym hurt spia" I tlid i"make mdd Av=0 macaimg how large daa padrola was. The sevarity of&a ahoc$do and the coufmftpam and&ocomftt we suffOr was causodby the pothoe on&mPMo Averm & � 1� � o,& C. 35 CLA:M BOAR: OF S,irE;yl5C.rc Or COS7R4 COSTA COUNTY, CA.irORNIA August 6, 1996 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), giver pursuant to Government Code Mount: $15,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all ^Warnings°. CLAIMANT: Melvin C. Miller W ATTORNEY: Ju 1 9 ion Date received ADDRESS: 2107 Cypress Ave. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 1946UF &UN3FL Ga is San Pablo, CA 94806 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: July 19, 1996 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim, gg DATED: July 19, 1996 gall DepuLyLOR, Clerk v 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. (``) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sed tions 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying Claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 9'41:,-_ ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return,,cl4aim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: BY: Deputy County Counsel I11. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD"ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ✓) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is.a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. G � r Dated: 0 —1 27k PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By . Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: o q— 99�o BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator Claim 'to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 19879 must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after -the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building,, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this Tom—. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp RECOVED Against the County of Contra Costa 0 9 or Im District) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Fill in name ) CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or .the above-named District in the sum of $ bo o , p and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) r Ct 11 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Taco- tom=l l S Co Co y 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Five full details; use extra paper if required) .� -'1 w c9--d- 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? V over ( ) ' I\ 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the ,damagt� or injury? S. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two es imates for auto damage. ` 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) 14 9 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. A9--g-1 A--,) -' ��ccs V n u o 1 v o� --- 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT Gov. Code See. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by, sqbe Person on his lf." Name and Address of Attorney Claimant t s Signature dress Telephone No. Telephone No ��e � es * aea eea * e # * a * NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county Jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. RE: PBMXAL BUURY AG!C ' VEHICLE INVOLVE . 1988 HMW 735,BLACK,UMVIN WRIER,OWNER PERSONS INVOLVED: MELVIN MUM,ADRMN GRAY, M ELVIN 1V OMMO U ADDRESS: 2107 CYPRESS AVENUE SAN PABIA,CA 94W6 FROMNO'. (510)741-7258 To Whom It may Cuaoe:a: On Sahy,Jkmmy 2!, 1996,betw e=7:00 p m.-7:IS p.nL,xoy som6 min C.Milia II(4 years �and na�►solf laB our hoose�my Snmcsi's HMW. _ I made zxi&tumoffDcbnomftAvmm onto San Pahlo Avamr,,a main thvmugbfara,and pm000dod downtha mad. Appro�dtnataly hadfwray betwocaDalmome Av�oue and Tara l� Drive,I bit a po&dc in do road(on San Pablo Avmo). I was wowing a sea*alt and so was my son who was sitting inde passaw seat I w a apply 20 mitre and hour. Wham bit do pothoia,Om was no room for me to think I could not oon* m to drives Whm I hit the poftk I felt somehmg dm m in*e chat Aftw a Law muaoes 1 realized it was the airbag. Wben it Lit mm it kw dmd the wind out ofma. W ched was fog ofpain and bwnivg Durieg d&tmce the car Wed up with a grayish smalm My frost dxm&was I had r q*wW thio peIine auddo car was on fm All I wanted to do was get me and my no out ofdw car baba it agodod. I ago dd barely pot out of the car bw nsa of$res cu mmiating pain in my cbost and the pain in my bads:and nods I was finA3''ebb to gnat out ofdw car and pullad my aur comm the seat to pet him sant of the car. By this time the car was complv6ely filled with amoeohL I stood an de abodit of the road wilh my sen trying to catch ay brpmoh and hying to stand xmW&so I amnld art Lost try to mate some sense ofwhat was happuft I was bat am becamse efdo pain. We were lolloowhe my 6 who was in another cm ahead of us. I was not sure Low burg it w=Utdm bofem he would rarer we wom no loops foUawing hbn. A passerby stopped and adad if vm aeeded any bale I was so dimoduftd Rmt I did not man=I had hft to coat in the ddviag Ian. The mm was trying to calm nae so Rot I could drive the car over dna shoulder I was in a to ofpaim My fnadce tm cd wound when he noticed we wen no lanps�t Wk wring him. I told my#iamC,MelvinMar,my dwd was Lint so bad stir!that I was having a p dbdm kudhiog. Ifn W to 8m the man's rare and tekpbone sumb r. I was hsmosdizedand so was my son. 1b was aryimg and aid do som ed img had bapp mdto me. My son bas ndma and I was dmiddw smolm he inkarlod was ping totrigger and nbam arc. We retnnaredhome and I immedimaly went t4 the badumma to cbecic myself out add faamddw I had a amt abum my Taft breast The top pelt ac mu my chest was need and burning and it was still PAGE 2 difficult to nth. Thee was Also pain in nny left breast and I was afraid 69 my breast may be I phoned than Runway Patml and could not got a clear I somiding as m who I shoutd malm my tepott to. Thay were unclear as to vvbAw the arra whom the podwb v=on a antmy toad or a �►to�sd. I sought medical at an for noulfand my son. I bwt a bruised dwm mo and wnbehguessed for back and Crock p da Aly son compbhw about his back hmtifq . Thee is a scar on my loft bmast dot has let me diftmed. My ran was OmaddilioW asdo&medicagm. bdw=iddicefdatnWlwoimwftawvcmh=dmchcmdaKbemdyodffneeL I confue to xdW occasional pain and odfAwn now,soma six mondw after the accidant and my son has big problems name fivgat dly, Also rho trmm ofhitt"ilei hop pofole and so nan wly miming a fital accidw has made me fachl ofdnvmg and cwaroa me daily amnaty when I have m drive anywhom My an is vaay buffed and WU me any whoa wdh driviog, %Go mny, watch out far the pothole,I don't waaot you lwrt agt W I did not nW me vn g the mads mases how lagpe do pothole was. Mw scvwity of a shock,the iqlaries and the wndmft pain and discowfWt we suffer was caused by rho bogie pothole on Sea Pablo Avemwa. � l� � op ,�1/�3!86 TUfr4,:#0 FAX $108415886 WEATUFORD BMW Q001 ►:� �EATHERFO -BMW- {pLlr Y= :•S i FACSIMILE COVER SftET DATE; TO: at uw-`C�-� FROM; Weatherford BMW - Berkeley, CA FAX O'O?S10-it8�434-5996 BXWNA Dealer #04514 FAGB 1 of COMMEDITS: ,5't Thank you Weatherford BMW . 735 ASRBYAV NUE BE UMW,CUMORMA 94710-2803 SL4/654-8280 X11/23-/86 TUE 17:40 FAX 5108415886 WEATSERFORD BMW 0002 .L1rC ORU 735 ASHBY AVENUE $� BMtXVM.CAUFORNIA•%710-28M -3 y� 5IW654 280 C i FAX 5101842-M ESTIMATE OF REPAIR COSTS NAME DATE ADDRESS PHONE BUS.PHONE YRJMODEL LICENSE NO. COLOR SERIAL NO. MILEJIGE 2— d —325 PARTS P'SCILRSARY ANO TSSTIMATE OP LABOR R60UiREq LABOR COST PARTS COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE = .. . 1 1 o �� c-o�t c• G-t• �� t 3q nrt' c s s 00 WWL "Ods S caa o LF SeW(- I't r�u Biu , Z5 0q, t WS SUBLET ,f TOTAL �"" 444 y' TAX c15-72, W��y 2- c� GRANO TOTAL i PARTS AND LABOR ESTIMATE GRAND TOTAL THE ABOVE IS AIjY ESTIMATE BASED ON OUR INSPECTION AND DOBE NOT COVER ANY ADDITIONAL PARTS OR LABOR WHICH MAY!! @E REQUIRED AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN OPENED LIP. OCCASIONALLY AFTER TME WORK HAS STARTEO WORM PARTS ARE OiSCOVIER60 WHICH ARE NOT EVIDENT ON THE FIROT INSPECTION. BECAUSE OF THIS THE 1►®OVT4 PRICPrS ARE NOT-GUARANTEED. 01/23/96 TUE 17 40 FAX 5108$15896 WEATHERFORD BXW 003 _.The 10110w1ng components MUST be checked and replaced only,0 them is CIO any visible damage: • Knee Bolstar, Glovebooc • SRSlalrba&,wiring harnesses (do NOT attempt to repair ANY harness damage) • SRS Indicator lamp • Steering Wheal f • Steering Column 4 " Dashboard E31 Integrated Seats (seats must be checked according to Repair ; Manual,Group 52) i The following components MUST be chocked and replaced only if deployed or visibly damaged. j • Mechanical safety belt tonsioners (do NOT attempt to reset deployed r unit) a NOTE: Always include replacement of the safety belts, safety belt tensloners, seat components, alrbag(s), and other related components (see above) when estimating the cost of body repair damages. P, V truly yours. Very truly yours, G. Due Ray Schrpth President Manager ersale s and Engineering' Quality and Service Engineering A 01/23/88 TUE. 17�40 FAX 5108415980 wEATEWORD BMW Q004 S 1ceerr - o Group 72 Bulletin Number Woodcliff Lake, NJ Equipment and 72 02 93(3704) May 1904 Accessories Page 1 of 2 Product Engineering This Service Information bulletin replaces S.I. 72 01 88 (1645) dated May 1988. which should be removed from your 5.1. binder and discarded SUBJECT: Colliston Repair Guidelines:'Restraint SyMems } MODELS: All Situatlan: in the event of a collision involving SRS deployment,specific components of the system MUST be replaced. In addition. other checks and/or I replacements may be necessary for any collision. Correatl6n: The following components MUST be replaced after a collision involving more than 'parking*damage: i • Safety Belts(if worn during Impact) The following components MUST be replaced if the SRS has been deployed: a� • Air bag(s)/Gas generator(s) (both front-passenger and driver if so I equipped) Contact ring • Front impact sensors • Controlf0agnoWe Nodule • ZAE Control Module after third Impact or,fault code 1100' [Refer to TRI 72 0193 (2137)] • Pyrotechnic safety belt tensioner Cd so equipped, i.e. 10/91 and later E30 convertible) Rtaase;relW and route to tha fbt Mft W Wamw&m bofam ffikV Sema M X W . X SaN*Teehx4dajW-Initis!askm 8erviee AdVtoO� D1— aftzm Service X Shop foreman Pol Dept, * SATISFIED CUSTOMERS-THE MEASURE OF OUR SUCCESS c . 35 CLAIM BOAR: O� SU�E�l1S:-,S Or CO!�TPA COSTA c0'�NTr, CA.:iFORNIA August 6, 1996 Claim Agairst the County, or District governed by) BOA=C ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAI"ANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $450.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all ^Warnings°, CLAIMANT: Antoine J. Minor ATTORNEY: D.L. Clark Staff Attorney Date received ADDRESS: 610 Court Street BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 16, 1996 Martinez, CA 94553 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a Copy of the above-noted claim. �aIL gATCHELOR, Clerk . DATED: July 16, 1996 : Deputy II. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( 'IV ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying Claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: of w ( g 9L BY: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Cleric of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Admi i trator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (� This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: 13-(o- 199t,, PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately, *For additional warnino see reverse side Of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: 9— I`)q� BY: PHIL BATCHELOR byAIA OAJ04i, 4. Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator Claim to: BOARD OF SOPERTISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY nzsrRocrioNs.To Cnrrr C, 3500, A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- conal property or growing crops and Which accrue on or before December 31, 1967, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this fo i e e e 111 f e • # • 0 e s 0 • • r 9 • 0 f B f • • i f s 6 s * e • a * a s • a • • s RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp ANTOINE JAMES MINOR —�--� fr a RECEIVE® nst the county of CORR costa ) 1 1996 or ) � -- District) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (Fill in name ) CONTRA RA COSTAco. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of 450 .00 and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) On or about April 23 , 199 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Martinez , California w 3. How did the damage oc injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) See attached. ww---wi�- 4. khat particular act or emission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Premature release of funds held in Sheriff ' s evidence to the General Fund. (over) 5. . What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? Unknown. 6. what damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. Loss of $450.00 7. How was the amount claimed above ooeputed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) Money seized during Mr. Minor ' s arrest on May 27 , 1994. B. dames and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. N/A 9• List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AM`T NiA • f a a f a a a a a a a a a a f a a f a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a f a a a a a Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by so son on hi behalf." Name and Address of Attorney `\n 131 t auree (Addrtss Telephone No. Telephone No." • aaaaaa aaaaaaaa > aaa NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. �� Public Defender Contra DaOirdY SCUP ERVVIISeORa ARTINEZ 610 Court Street Costa Susan A.HMISDEMEANOR SUPERVISOR-CONCORD Martinez, California 94553-1297 County Suzanne J.Chapot (510)646-2481 FELONY SUPERVISOR-RICHMOND Charles H.James Public Defender Odsr"�CO -� July 16, 1996 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Rm. 106 Martinez, CA 94553 RE: ANTOINE J. MINOR To Whom It May Concern: As the attorney of record for Antoine Minor, I am submitting this chronology in support of his claim for $450 .00 from the Contra Costa County general fund. Antoine Minor was arrested on a drug charge on May 27, 1994, by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department (case #94-14511) and at the time of his arrest $450. 00 in cash was seized and entered into evidence. He was charged in a complaint_ filed in the Delta Municipal Court on August 17, 1994 (docket #91276-6) and the case proceeded to Superior Court in an information filed on November 9, 1994 (Superior Court Docket #942028-2 ) . On January 9, 1995, Mr. Minor was diverted pursuant to Penal Code section 1000 et. seq. The practical effect of diversion is to suspend criminal proceedings for a period of 18 months to allow the defendant the opportunity to complete a course of drug education and demonstrate an ability to lead a law abiding existence. If the defendant is successful, then the charges are dismissed. At the time of his diversion Mr. Minor was given and 18 month review date of July 3, 1996 . Mr. Minor successfully completed his diversion, but when he attempted to reclaim his money he was told by the Sheriff 's Department that the funds had reverted to the general fund. I spoke with both Detective Wayne Roden and Evidence Supervisor "Pam" of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department who told me that due to the passage of time the money was released to the general fund on April 23, 1996 . I believe this transfer was erroneous because proceedings were merely "suspended" and thus could have been reinstated against Mr. Minor at any time prior to July 3, 1996, for any failure to comply with the terms of his diversion. In addition, because criminal proceedings were merely suspended, Mr. Minor was incapable of claiming the evidence funds until he successfully completed diversion and the charges were then dismissed. That event occurred on July 3, 1996 . I hope this explanation provides sufficient information to allow Mr. Minor to reclaim his funds. Should you have further questions please feel free to contact me at 646-2481. Very truly yours, D.L. Clark Staff Attorney DLC:sg c, s5 CLAIM 6vAR�. Or S, cE ti'lcrgc Oc CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 6, 1996 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION • the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: Unknown Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all IVVEMMOD CLAIMANT: Scott Alan Norgren 1685 Tice Valley Blvd. JUL 15 1996 ATTORNEY: Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Date received MARTIYNEZCA�F` ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 12, 1996 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. ppHHll BATCHELOR. Clerk / DATED: July 15, 1996 B1: eputy 11. FROM: County Counsel 10: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. (✓) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: BY: - � Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). 1V. BOARDORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (VS This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. �. Dated: �-� � "�� (a PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk. By , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult ,In attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warnino See reverse Side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1 declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by S _ Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator C. 3S NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY AND OR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Scott Alan Nogren 1685 Tice Valley Blvd Walnut Creek, CA 94945 RE: CLAIM OF: Scott Alan Nogren Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: [ ] I. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. [ ] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. [xx] 3. The claim fails to state the date, place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction. which gave rise to the claim asserted. [ ] 4. The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. [ ] 5. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation, the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars($10,000), the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court. [ ] 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on is behalf. [xx] 7. Other: This claim does not identify the bases upon which liability against the County or its employees is alleged to be liable to the plaintiff. The claim must set forth facts upon which the legal responsibility of the County or one of its employees is based. VICTOR J. WESTMAN, County Counsel By: Gre o C. Hary 13,g gut County Coun el Page 1 0.35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P. §§ 1012, 1013a,2015.5;Evidence Code§§641,664) I declare that my business address is the County Counsel's Office of Contra Costa County,651 Pine Street,Martinez,California 94553;I am a citizen of the United States,over 18 years of age,employed in Contra Costa County,and not a party to this action. I served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope addressed as shown above,scaled and postage fully prepaid thereon,and thereafter was,deposited this day in the U.S.Mail at Martinez,California. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 15, 1996 at Martinez,California. J cc: Clerk.of the Board of Supervisors(original) Risk Management (NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM:GOv'r.CODE§§910,910.2,920.4,910.8) Page 2 --- -. =RECEIVED z a 12 M6 s' CLAIM AGAINST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLEFkK BOAR CONTRA OCOSTA Cp TO. 1. Name and address of claimant; Person to whom notices to be sent: Scott Alan Norgren 1685 Tice Valley Blvd. Walnut Creek, CA 94595 2 . Date, place and other circumstances giving rise to the claim: Claimant attaches and incorporates by reference Traffic Collision Report 96-698. On January 22, 1996 at approximately 6: 30 a.m. in the City of Antioch, Claimant was driving his motor vehicle in an easterly direction on Lone Tree Way to the east of its intersection with Sand Creek Rd. At this time and place, another driver (identified in the referenced Traffic Collision Report as Horace Billeci) was driving his motor vehicle in a westerly direction on Lone Tree Way, to the east of Claimant's vehicle. There was considerable road construction activity in this area which apparently caused (in whole or in part) Billeci to cross over the center line of Lone Tree Way, causing the Billeci vehicle to collide violently with Claimant's vehicle which was entirely within the eastbound lane at the time of impact. 3 . Description of injuries: Pain and discomfort in my head, foot, back and knee. 4 . Name of public employee causing the injuries: Unknown at this time. 5. Amount of claim: General and special damages such that jurisdiction of this matter would lie in Superior Court. Dated: COTT ALAN NORGREN yA-it OF CAuPORN1A F RAFFIC COLLISION REPORT PAGE OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS NUMBER HIT[RUN CITYJUDICIALDISTRICT LOCAL REPORTNWORM INJURED ._ JURED FELONY ._ .. .. I- ..., ..- . .. .. 1 —1626 NUMBER HIT[RUN COUNTY REPORTING DISTRICT SEAT KILLED IMSO. T COLLISION OCCURRED ON MO. DAY YEAR TIME(]{00) MCIC71Z:7;/LG. J�vT/el—og= w.4 y C/ 'Z Z ;96 OG 2 7 Zv MILEPOST INFORMATION - DAY OF WEEK TOW AWAY PHOTOGRAPHS BY: ' U FEETI MILES OF M W T F S ❑� VFL AGU�f� - _. DRINTTcRSECTION WITYI -.... .. , ...: STATE HWV REL: I Sg FEET/flows/_ OF S.Q.viJ G.rIG ,� OVn C26 NONE PARTY DRIVVEER/S`-LICENNSSE NUMBER/ S STATE CLASS SAFETY VEK M YEAR MAKE/ OOSE/COLO LICENSE NUMBER STATE EQUIP G S tJi�/l �iJ2 �� DRIVER NAME(FIRST,MIDDLE,LAST) - PEDES- STREET ADORES{ OWNERS NAME E AS DRIVER 'RIAN y/ PARKED CITY/STATE!L/ .__ . ._-.... .._____......_...._...._..... .. OWNER'S ADDRESS SAME AS ORIV[R VEHICLE /GD 3 /34 c,l'o ❑ /�F,ciTwcx�/J - GIG/Y:- � 91CY- SEX MMR [YES HEIOIIT WEIGHT BIRTMOATE RACE DWPOSITIONOFVSHICL[ONOROERBOP. 'OFFICER -C]DRIVER- ❑OTHER YO. - 1 DAY YEAR CLIST i7S 07'E 22 "75; TUt.IJ - �. J S Tom 75'7-3/OO OTHER HOME PHONE .-., (,J �j BUSINESS PHONE ... - PRIOR MECHANICAL DEFECTS: NONE APPAR REFER TO NARRATIVE C] ❑ (SID / �3 `I S / 2/ . .-_.. CMP USE ONLY DESCAISF VEMCLS DAMAGE SHADE IN DAMAGED AREA- .. INSURANCE CAPRI ER - VEHICLE TIPS -_._ ... .._... POLICY NUMBER ... . � []NONE MINOR _ .. ....-...... � ❑MOD. ❑YAJO OTAL DIP-OF ION STREET OR HIGHWAY SFEED PCF CVG ICC❑ TRAVEL -.. LIMIT Gu GU-�r" i�2�f' Gc�4Y 3� Z i 6SO �mP°o _ PARTY DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER STATE CLA68 SAFETY VEK YEAR /MODEL/COLO j LICENSE NUMBER STATE 2 . EQUIP.. ..- C 376 y/o 9 C.q G DRIVER NAME(FIRST.MIDDLE,LAST) PEDES STREET ADDRESS - OWNERS NAME [:]SAME AS DRIVER p 1d�� " vgGc.�'i /,i�t��T PARKED CITY/STATE/ZIP OWNERS ADDRESS ❑SAYE AS DRIVER VEHICLE ❑ j9/�vvT C/�� /� G9. S—rJ6'U 44q2SN / BICY• SEX I HMR EYES MEIGHT WEIGHT YO BIRO vATE� YEAR RACE DISPOSITION OF VEHICLE ON ORDERS OF: �Ef FICER ❑DRIVER ❑OTHER CLIST /�,_J� ❑ /� ,�� /�/!,� S=// /�O d 8 ; Z8 ,6' 7 Gu OTHER HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE PRIOR MECHANICAL DEFECTS: NONE APPJUli��' REFER TO NARRATIVE❑ p ( ) 7 g 2 -7 7 (Za 9)yd y CNP USE ONLY DESCRIBE VEHICLE DAMAGE SHADE N DAMAGED AREA VEHICLE TYPE INSURANCE CARRIER POLICY NUMBER ❑LINK, ❑NOHE ❑MINOR 11 MOD. ❑YAJO-iEle—AL DIP.OF ON STREET OR HIG AY ._. .. . SPEED PCF SCC❑ TRAVEL LIMIT PARTY DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER STATE CLASS SAFETW VEK YEAR MAKE I YODEL/COLOR UCE14SE NUMBER STATE DRIVER NAME(FIRST,MIDDLE.LAST)- j I ❑ r 9^T � `� •, ".'� e .. ....- .r.-:�� PEOES• STREETADDRESS OWNERS HAMS s SAME AS ORRIVERJ j, (I TRIAN PARKED CITY/STATE/ZIPOW NEWS ADDREIs�I_141 1 4 ASDRIVER VEHICLE ❑ i BICY. SEXMMR EYES HEIGHT W BIRTHOATE RACE DISPOSITIONOFVEMK:LE OROERS OF.FI ER-..-❑DWVER-- OTHER CLIST M0. DAY YEAR ❑ l C OTHER HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE PRIOR MECHAHICAL-DEFECTS: y NONE APPARENT❑ RE TO NARRATIVE❑ El ( ) ( ) CHP USE ONLY SHADE IN DAMAGED AREA VENCLE,TVPE-•— DESCRt[VEMCLfDAYAOE INSURANCE CARRIER POLICY NUMBER DUNK ] ,❑MINOR w f❑MOD. ,4.❑MAJOR.'�TO 6 010.OF ON STREET OR HIGHWAY SPEED PCF ICC❑ , TR L ..IT FUC CMP PREPARER'S NAME.-�^' ^ DISPATCH NOTIFIED REVIEWER'S NAME ATE REVIEWWEEO BYES ❑ NO 0 N/A CHP SSS PAGE T (Rtv T-88) OPI Ott 88 48667 STATEOFCAUFORMA ic • 3� ? I RAFFIC COLLISION CODINGif PACE MO.DATE OF C�/SI DAY Z Z YEAR / (� TIME O�Z 7 NCIC NUM{E117c / OFPICEII 1.0 O WNEWS NAME/ADDRESS G'C/Jy Y NOTIFIED PROPERTY wEs []No DAMAGE DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE SEATING POSITION SAFETY EQUIPMENT EJECTED FROM VEHICLE L-AIR BAG DEPLOYED UI -BIC Y- F_ MET OCCUPANTS 0-NOT EJECTED A-NONE IN VEHICLE M-AIR BAG HOT DEPLOYED DRIVER t NOT EJECTED' B-UNKNOWN N-OTHER V-NO 2-PARTIALLY EJECTED C-LAP BELT USED P-NOT REQUIRED W-YES 3-UNKNOWN 1-DRIVER D-LAP BELT NOT USED 1 2 3 2706-PASSENGERS E-SHOULDER HARNESS USED _...._ R. . R PASSENGER Q rj.6 7-STATION WAGON REAR F-SHOULDER HARNESS NOT USED QLD RESTRAINT X-NO 8-REAR OCC.TRK OR VAN G-LAP/SHOULDER HARNESS USED Q-IN VEHICLE USED Y-YES _ ? S N HARNESS HOU H-LAP/SHOULDER NESOT USED R-IN VEHICLE NOT USED _ 0-POSITION UNKNOWN ` 7 0-OTHER J-PASSIVE RESTRAINT USED S-IN VEHICLE USE UNKNOWN K-PASSIVE RESTRAINT NOT USED T-IN VEHICLE IMPROPER USE U.NONE IN VEHICLE ITEMS MARKED BELOW FOLLOWED BY AN ASTERISK(•)SHOULD BE EXPLAINED IN THE NARRATIVE PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 1 2 3 TYPE OF VEHICLE 2 3 MOVEMENT PRECEDING UST NUMBER (m) OF PARTY AT FAULT COLLISION X A VC SECTION VIOLATED: G80y. ACONTROLS FUNCTIONING APASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON ASTOPPED 2-1 p SO uu B CONTROLS NOT FUNCTIONING• B PASSENGER CAR W/TRAILER B PROCEEDING STRAIGHT 11 B OTHE C CONTROLS OBSCURED C MOTORCYCLE/SCOOTER C RAN OFF ROAD D NO CONTROLS PRESENT/FACTOR• D PICKUP OR PANEL TRUCK ID MAKING RIGHT TURN C OTHER THAN DRIVERTYPE OF COLLISION I I IE PICKUP/PANEL TRUCK W/TRAILER I E MAKING LEFT TURN D UNKNOWN- HEAD-ON I IF TRUCK OR TRUCK TRACTOR I F MAKING U TURN rt E F LLSLE - 13 SIDESWIPE I IGTRUCK/TRUCK TRACTOR W/TRLR G13ACKING REAR END H SCHOOL BUS H SLOWING/STOPPING WEATHER( MARK 1 TO 21TEMS) D BROADSIDE i OTHER BUS I PASSING OTHER VEHICLE ACLEAR E HIT OBJECT J EMERGENCY VEHICLE J CHANGING LANES " B CLOUDY F OVERTURNED KHIGHWAY CONST.EQUIPMENT IKPARKING MANEUVER C RAINING G VEHICLE/PEDESTRIAN L BICYCLE IL ENTERING TRAFFIC D SNOWING IH OTHER-: MOTHER VEHICLE IM OTHER UNSAFE TURNING E FOG/VISIBILITY FT. MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH IN PEDESTRIAN N XING INTO OPPOSING LANE F OTHER•: ANON-COLLISION MOPED OPARKED G WIND B PEDESTRIAN P MERGING LIGHTING C OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE Q TRAVELING WRONG WAY - - DAYUGHT D MOTOR VEHICLE ON OTHER ROADWAY OTHER ASSOCIATED FACTOR(S) OTHER•: B DUSK DAWN E PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 2 3 (MARK 1 TO2ITEMS) C DARK-S ET LIGHTS F TRAIN AvcsEcnONVIOLATION: CITED D DARK-NO STREET LIGHTS G BICYCLE OYES EDARK-STREET LIGHTS NOT ONO HAHIMAL: BvcsErnoNvaunoN: CITED FUNCTIONING• OYES ROADWAY SURFACEONO SOBRIETY-DRUG FIXED OBJECT C CITED: VC SECTION VIOLATION: Ya+�t"BVPHYSICAL ' A DRY I .2 3 .y (MIARK 1 70 2)TEMS) ^ B WET '�OTHER OBJECT: ) I .1 ONO HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING I C SNOWY-ICY D p - gt®B HBD'%UNDER INFLUENCE D SLIPPERY(MUDDY,OILY,ETC.) E VISION OBSCUREMENT: "'a .:. F INATTENTK)N•: HBD.'NOT UNDER INFLUENCE•1 ROADWAY CONDITION(S) HBO-IMPAIRMENTUN KNOWN PEDESTRIAN'S INVOLVED G STOP 6 GO TRAFFIC+.. 1'i 4 r��,� (MARK 1 TO 21TEMS) N' H ENTERING/LEAVING RAMP E UNDER DRUG INFLUENCE• j ANO PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED F IMPAIRMENT-PHYSICAL• I A HOLES,DEEP RUT• CROSSING IN CROSSWALK I PREVIOUS COLLISION' �---- IMPAIRMENT NOT KNOWN Ij UNFAMILIAR WITH ROAD- ��- B LOOSE MATERIAL ON ROADWAY• B AT INTERSECTION K DEFECTIVE VEK EQUIP.: cTED NOT APPLICABLE OBSTRUCTION ON ROADWAY• __�__ _ CROSSING IN CROSSWALK•NOT ___...OYES., ._ I SLEEPY/FATIGUED D CONSTRUCTION-REPAIR ZONE AT INTERSECTION ❑mo SPECIAL INFORMATION I E REDUCED ROADWAY WIDTH D CROSSING-NOT IN CROSSWALK IL UNINVOLVED VEHICLE- - — _ AHAZARDOUS MATERIAL FLOODED E IN ROAD-INCLUDES SHOULDER IM OTHER-: G OTHER-: F NOT INROAD 4A IN NONE APPARENT x..,$ ,<. ,; _ 1,) r." f'�. .x H NO UNUSUAL CONDITIONS G APPROACHING/LEAVING SCHOOL BUS I I JORUNAWAY-VEHICLE SKETCH PQZ Jls MISCELLANEOUS INoIeAT><NORrr �'�c�riC &—JAS V/4/A134,z ti 0 Q LUNE Trl��' W q y ✓loos j/iroa� � CHP$55 PAGE 2( Rev 1.88)OP1042 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` INJURED / WITNESSES / PASS&;ERS PAGE OATS OF COLLISION2 ` I TIME(t .2 NCIC NQUMBER, / OFFICER ` NUMBER -� 6 UEXTENT OF INJURY (( "X" ONE) INJURED WAS ( "X" ONE )TYRNESS PASSENGER � PARTY SEAT SAFETY ONLY ONLY AGE SEX NUMBER POS. EQUIP. EJECTED FATAL SEVERE OTHER VISIBLE COMPLAIN INJURY INJURY INJURY OF PAIN DRIVER PASS. PEO. BICYCLIST OTHER ❑ ❑ S6 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ / / �L�_ TELEPHONE ,5_ (INJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO: . 171.'CG/GCS/°T.�iP SUN.�J U/A? DESCRIBE INJURIES /2/G GAG .��c A G.mac �o�v C'G.ucus-C 0,,L VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIRED ❑# ❑ F ❑ ❑ 12� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1012 NAME/D.O.S./ADDRESS TELEPHONE Scar- /9. A167 2� v -28-67 Gti ��y i3�L/4. wAt civ:-G2�E�l (INJURED ONL TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO: G 3 7 u� -77 K'/Yi4J, �44 L 7 DESCRIBE INJURIES ClVICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED NAME/D.O.B./ADDRESS TELEPHONE pNJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO: DESCRIBE INJURIES VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED NAME/O.O.B./ADDRESS TELEPHONE pNJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO: DESCRIBE INJURIES - VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED NAME i O.O.S./ADDRESS '• TELEPHONE' I t (INJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO: DESCRIBE INJURIES ❑ VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ '❑ 10 1111- ❑ 1 ❑ I 77 NAME/D.O.L/ADDRESS - •• - TELEPHONE pNJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO: DESCRIBE INJURIES VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED PRfPARER'S NAME I.O.NUMBER MO. DAV YEAR REVIEWER'S NAME MO. DAY YEA CHP 555-Page 3(Rev. 7-87)OPI 042 87 43637 ` isTA�re OF,CALIF...IA C. 3� :`FACTUAL DIAGRAM FAOB J ,DATC OF COLLISION - IME (tt00) NCIC NUMBER OFFICCR I.D. NUMBER . .� Mo. — DAY � vw. ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND NOT TO SCALE UNLESS STATED (SCALE . .- INOI ATE. T. CONTROI I ED ID I .t ....Tc fly. ONFI DEiNT OAA ORAWN BV �I,D.NUMBEp MO. DAv vq, REVIEWERS NAME I MO. Av vp. CHP 555—Page 4 (Rev 11.85) OPI 042. STATE OF(CALIFORNIA 3� NARRATI V E/SUPPLEMENTAL CHP 556(Rev 7-90)OPI 042 Page DATE OF INCIDENT/OCCURRENCE TIME(2400) NCIC NUMBER OFFICER I.D.NUMBER NUMBER of- zz- 49r o6z� o �a / � 2� ��-69a� 'X'ONE 'X'ONE TYPE SUPPLEMENTAL('X-APPOCABLE) rrafsve Ilision report ❑BA update ❑Fatal ❑Hit and run update ❑Supplemental ❑Other: Hazardous materials ❑School bus ❑Other: CITY/COUNTY/JUDICIAL DISTRICT REPORTING DISTRICTIBEAT CITATION NUMBER LOCATION/SUBJECT STATE HIGHWAY RELATED &J-4 �S Q '�ai� S I�� G2�'r=/� ❑Yes No j 2. T/U,tl 3. /iCJ(/ 'S l�.A"'ls' 4. C97.242 .-44oo.2X e9 <./.D 5. !9"/V,!5-4 20 /s"!/1U i 6.7. /�� v✓l r��S /�}2 �i°r'2C,X/M-4 - . /'��A-S v✓1�.<� i 8. I I 9. 10. Z-Cx,g�dw. j 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. /� 19. �U✓J. GG.�T 7�cJcJ/�cJG �� G .•�' i ��e.� `7'. i 20. 22. //��/ S�Z t/ ' . �Z T i xJLL ��3�CJGv4 23. F'G/iV .�T,��P %Gl'NS' Az-Cl�—<--G 24. iU�J 25. 775,4540- 26. ; ,/,J- 27. f27. 28. 29. y. 30. Sc vz=`moi • 1//s�'�J��r- r�C.vs r�.0 O �Q/Yjd.S� L1�1•{/si�2r:Ci= 31. / i(/ it/i� l/lii(JS /9/�E' l.�u"D PREPARER'S NAME AND I.D.NUMBER DATEREVIEWER'S NAME ' DATE 01-2.7-S Use previous editions until depleted. -" r�.. r n+;r , Y ,� STATE OF CALIFORNIA -NARRATIVE/SUPPLEMENTAL CHP 556(Rev 7-90)OPI 042 Page �. DATE OF INCIDENT/OCCURRENCE TIME(2400) NCIC NUMBER OFFICER I.D.NUMBER NUMBS p/-Zz-qG C�GZ 7 O moo/ 2-0 'X'ONE 'X'ONE TYPE SUPPLEMENTAL('X-APPL!CABLE) Narrative Collision report ❑BA update ❑Fatal ❑Hit and run update ❑Supplemental ❑Other: ❑Hazardous materials School bus ❑Other: CITY/COUNTY/JUDICIAL DISTRICT REPORTING DISTRICT/BEAT CITATION NUMBER iCJ i7lJ Gf� CG�v7x� COSI 7� �• 'G779 /yl!/�V J r.�— LOCATION/SUBJECT -. STATE HIGHWAY RELATED L �(/�z �ri'� Gc%¢- /.�� OiC -�i�C/� ��.t� / /J ❑Yes 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. /� 7. 10. 12. / � . ��C/� //(/�?J2/�.�a lye) Sle/Q X9242/CS' Gv PSS 13. 14. 15. Opti T /�/'.9GT7D �ouJi- aG .%GS'S'T 16. 17. 18. 19. /-d/'tj 7— d� //YI/�.�G' ' 20. 21. / Q L�(/�' U? �ti� i 5'4' .6<,1,4 Y 739,-6, 22. OG 14rsT- dF l/-/ .S�yJ Ll-.2 s /374PU.'' 23. 24. /it/- CJ/? �it/� .!, y 25. 26. 27. � ...- +...s'1+ .a "r v..�:%.f�`I I�a�I'•�SL 4 {i l...+ �, ENT . J 28. ff 29. 30. - 31.. PREPARER'S NAME;ANO I.D.NUMBER,. DATE= REVIEWERS NAME: DATE_ Use previous editions until depleted:------- n" STATE OF CALIFORNIA TIUE/SUPPLEMENTAL CNP 556(Rev 7-90)OPI 042 Page DATE OF INCIDENT/OCCURRENCE TIME(2400) NCIC NUMBER OFFICER I.D.NUMBER NUMBER D/ -ZZ -9K11, I 04' z7 070/ 2,03, 'X'ONE 'X'ONE TYPE SUPPLEMENTAL('X-APPLrABLE) • Narrative ollision report ❑BA update ❑Fatal ❑Hit and run update ❑Supplemental ❑Other: ❑Hazardous materials ❑School bus ❑Other: CITY/COUNTY/JUDICIAL DISTRICT REPORTING DI`STRIT/BEAT ORATION NUMBER LOCATIONSU13JECT p � r� STATE HIGHWAY RELATED G(J,rJ� %>2,5477 `1 �SO S.��(/� �/� �o cvJ ❑Yes o 1. 2. �'� 3. 004-1 4. �.� %�-�( /�V Gam' X12 GG.I�l.�J �.✓it/ /�/ /lJ rGC�r�vtJG 5. ��iG CGT off= G+C_,clJ �� Gvc t/ioG 2/65 d 7. /.�v✓�/� uac� G�.vrS ,��v 024 Gcw.�s. /9ti 8. ��z'itJ /,�0G<lL w / 0 �G2 S��A- LSLfi 10. I/- �/ f-�9�/1z' /9 2 SCJ%L 11. 12. T G o ti 1 �sr v 13. �L S �/ •Q �— TO / 1Lt//��eJ 14. /✓'7 ,� Tiy/S G�LG/.S'/�J�C� i �,�� 4,d✓!S,4—:r 15. /�-E' Y�iJTl�2 16. /�E /.S � �9LtfJw�_O 7O T iL Td �tiYG/N/� 18. f j -�G/�N� / �9�t/ /S -7- 19. 19. 72-457BGG/oJ.cfstl�_ 20. I 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. _- 26. ? -N 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. PREPARER'S NAME AND I.D.NUMBER DATE REVIEWER'S NAME 1 r ;`i- DATE se previous editions until depleted. 90 57541 TATE OF CALIFORNIA n I ARRATII�E/SUPPLEMENTAL CHP 556(Rev 7-90)OPI 042 Page DAT&OF INCIDENT/OCCURRENCE TIME(2400) NCIC NUMBER OFFICER I.D.NUMBER NUMBER _ 'X'ONE 'X'ONE TYPE SUPPLEMENTAL('X-APPLICABLE) ❑Narrative ❑Collision report ❑ BA update ❑Fatal ❑Hit and run update ❑Supplemental ❑Other: ❑Hazardous materials ❑School bus ❑Other: CITY/COUNTY/JUDICIAL DISTRICT REPORTING DISTRICT/BEAT CITATION NUMBER . LOCATION/SUBJECT STATE HIGHWAY RELATED ❑Yes ❑No 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. PREPARER'S NAME AND I.D.NUMBER DATE REVIEWER'S NAME pgTE Use previous editions until'depleted. 90 57541 1 Declaration of Personal Service 2 I, the undersigned, declare: 3 That I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 4 eighteen years, and not a party to the foregoing action; that my 5 business address is 279 Front Street, Danville, California. 6 That on July 12, 1996 I personally served copies of the , within CLAIM on: 7 Clerk Board of Supervisors 8 Room 106 County Administration Building 9 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 10 11 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 12 13 Executed July 12, 1996 at Danville, CA 14 15 ric OcYI isMoon 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e— ,35 CLAIM BOA pF sI�EK�IS -s OC CON7;4 CESTA COUNTY, Ck!F);NIA August 6, 1996 ¢Claim Acairst the County, or District governed by) BOA,O ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Gover"nent Codes ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), giver pursuant to Gov�ernmen�� Amount: 1,500,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note al 1 ,5"�11: 3) CLAIMANT: Wanda Parker ,U L Q 8 1996 ATTORNEY: Oliver A. Jones, Esq. COUNTY COUNSEL. A Law Corp. Date received MARTINEZ CALIF. ADDRESS: 6334 Telegraph Avenue BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 3, 1996 Oakland, CA 94609 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. l+ pHIL DeputyLOR, Clerk DATED:. I ` IL, � ,A Jow 61 I1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (k) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.6). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: 7/qf N BY: UU .�( Deputy County Counsel I11. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (✓ This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Gated: -I 9 g _PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, 8y—�JAIA'�116 • Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warnino see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: -- 9�•�`iI BY: PHIL BATCHELOR bdd,,�Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator C•35 Clair to: BOAPM Of MPERVISORS OF ODNTRA COSTA COMM INSTRUCrioms To CLAIMANT A. Clam relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal praperty or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1937, roust be prated not later than the 100th day alter the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for.death or for injury to person . or to personal, property or growing crops and utieh accrue on or after January 1, 1988, trust be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause Of action. Claiws relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than aye year after the accrual of the cause of.action. (Govt. Code §411.2.) 8. CJai>as must be filed frith the CleNc of the Board of &WrwLsors at its office in goon 106, 0ounty Administration Building, 651 Pine street, Martinez, CA 94553- C. If claim is-against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the time of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public ientity, separate claims must be. filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent clei=, Penal.Code Sec. 72 at the end of this So * * * * *0 * * * * * * ee * eerrla * * * * * aalte * lte * * aaaeaae * 4 RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp Wanda Parker,_mot Pr c)f RECEIVED dPrPgsdminor TQjay T 11man ) d4,.,. Against the Countv of Contra Costa ) JUL _ 3 1996 Richmond He' arc-h Center and ? Merr-ithew Memorial Hospital District) CLERK BOARD OF SUP RVISORS (FIR in name ) CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the Cotinty of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of 1 .5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 rand in support of this claim represents as follows: I. When did the damage or injury occur? '(Give exact date and hour) Tony Tillman underwent a tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy on 1/4/96 at : 0 a.m: and died1 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Merrithew Memorial Hos ital , Martinez Con unt�California 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were performed on minor on 1/4/96 ; he was released from the hospital that' d died of hej,Qa,5pirat;o on 1/5/96 . 4. What particular act or ouiszion on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Negligent diagnosis and treatment; failure to procure informed consent. ,,.,:,.� R j. wnat are :.ne nates of county or- district officers, servants or employees cauairig A:-soC Qr.ir,'Ury') i LorrgTj�gi rsoi1___M.D. Paul jam , ,D�� An Har� iTL' _xj Z4..Qtllgrs unknown 5. What damage cr injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. :QcaLb ,of mi nnr_T, T'i.l]m�TTff 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) .Cn=_.gYate, }l1 P.'ll'ry VP. di Ci+'.-.�+�. �r r 3. !lames and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Unknown. 9. List the expenditures you made on acecunt of this accident or injury: DAT ITEM AMWNT 1/96 Funeral and burial expenses Approx. $2, 000 . 00 Gov. Code Sec. 910:2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SM NOTICES T0: (Attorne ) or by mrson on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney r Oliver A. Jones , Esq. Claimnt's i tune l0 OLIVER A. JONES, A LAW CORP. 6334 Telegraph Avenue 6 4 Oakland, CA 94609 Ad ss. (510) 655-7786 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone No. I Telephone No. (510) 655-7786 N0TICE Seoticn 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, With intent to defraud, presents for allcwwce or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the, same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punlshable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the s:.ate prison., 5v a fine cf not -txr+@cdinp ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both 'ano "Ine. TOTaL ?.02 CLAIM r BOAKC OF O� CON7;4 COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 6, 1996 Claim Agairst the County, or District governed by) BOA;: ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action, All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Cedes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $1,500,00.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all CLAIMANT: Wanda Parker ATTORNEY: Oliver A. Jones., Esq. JUL n 8 1996 A Law Corp. Date received COUNTY O NsEL ADDRESS: 6334 Telegraph Avenue BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 3, 19 Oakland, CA 94609 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted claim. pp gg 4 � DATED: B�II DeputyLOR, Clerk II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: �� /�� BY: w De;uty County Counsel I11. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Coursel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned- as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (Vf This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: 1 certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: $—(o PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By of �. Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six• (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warnino see reverse side Of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1 declare under penalty of perjury that 1 am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: X►-`)— q (� BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by puty Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator :la:c moo: BOAPM OF SJPERVJ_-M OF aOb M COSTA OWNTY 3J INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAUJANI A. Clam relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which aocrue on or before December 31, 1937, roust be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of actions. Aaino relating to causes of action for death or for iWusy to person • or to personal prvPerty or growing amps and Sieh soczte on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six mantras after the accrual of the rause of actions. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than nae year after the accrual of the cause of. action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Haim, must be filed with the Clez* of the Board of 3perV13Or9 at its office in Room 106, Cmu ity Admiaiatration Building, 651 Flne Street, Eiartiaez, CA 94553- C. .If claim is,against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the nwm of the District should be tilled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed apinst each public entity. E. F-.W. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal. Code Sec. 72 at the end of this eeeeeeeeaw �t aee � * ee �t +s �► eeeeaar * ers► ee * eaf �r +s +c +� ea RE: Asim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing Stamm _Wajada.Parkpr, mot-her of ) RECEIVE® deceased minor Tonj Tillman ) Against the County of Contra Costa JLL _ 319% and Contra Costa County } Coroner' s Office District) CLERK BOARD :Sup FtVISORs F3 1 in name ) CONTRA CO,S CO. A The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or, the above-named District in the sues of $ 1 , 5 0 0 . Q 0 0 . 0 0 _ a-'�d in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. whea did the damage or injury occur? '(Give exact date and hour) 1/5/96 2/20/96 2. Whew did the damage ar Wury oeeur? (Include city and 0mmty) � COLItr Coll Gmint _Mart;neZ G lyounty 3. How did the dzmage or injury occur? (Give Hill details; use extra paper if required) Autopsy was performed on minor after ha .nemoaspirated following 'tonsillecomy and adenoidectomy at Merrithew Memorial Hospital. 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or e=ployees caused the injury or damage? Negligent performance of autopsy of minor. �,,,,.. 5_ anaL are to na-no-s of county or- district officers, servants or employees cau3ing Brjan T. PP rsM jZ, ; others unknown. 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. ,Emotional distress 7. How Baas the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) Comparable jury verdicts . S. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Unknown. 9. List the expenditures you made on acc=t of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT Gov. Code Sec. 914:2 provSdes: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SM NOTICES T0: (Attorne ) or erson on his behalf.T' Name and Address of Attorney Oliver A. Jones , Esq. Clairnnt'si tore ►. OLIVER A. JONES , A LAW CORP. 6334 Telegraph Avenue 6334 Telegraph A ue Oakland, CA 94609 Address. Oak ander ,CA 94669 Telephe e No. 510 655-7786 Telephone No. (510 655-7Z86 N 0 T I C E Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, With intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for Payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imapriso=-..nt in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonr:�ent and fine, or by imprisonment in the s;.ate prison, by a fins cf not ?xrecding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both TOTAL P.O2 C • 3.5 CLAIM Or Or CONTRA COST O'COUNTY, CALIrORNIA August 6, 1996 r Claim Acairst the County, or District governed by) BOA;: ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT land Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $24,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all CLAIMANT: Warren L. Smith JUL Q 8 1996 ATTORNEY: Robert Berg COUNTY COUNSEL Burak & Berg Date received MARTINEZ CALIF. ADDRESS: 500 Ygnacio Valley Road BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 8, 1996 Suite 490 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. IL gATCHELOR, Clerk DATED: July 8, 1996 ��: Deputy ,Q 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors t) This Claim Complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( } Other: Dated: ��GJ �hG 8Y: ® Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( } Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: 0 HIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, B R Deputy Clerk CZ WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six. (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may Seek the advice of an attorney of your Choice in Connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately, *For additional warnino see reverse Side Of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez. California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: BY: PHIL BATCHELOR b A Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator BURAK & BERG Attorneys at Law Robert Berg Respond to: i Blackie Burak Walnut Creek July 81 1996 ( ) San Francisco Clerk, Board of Supervisors _ County Administration Bldg. , Room 106 14M0 RECEIVED 651 Pine Street 1 { Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Claim of Warren L. Smith ' 1100 Bailey Road CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Pittsburg, CA 94565 CONTRA COSTA CO. Dear Clerk: I' am the attorney for Warren L. Smith, and I hereby make a claim for him against the County of Contra Costa in the sum of $24 ,000 in connection with the following circumstances : 1 . The damage or injury occurred on March 15, 1996 at about 9 : 30 am; 2 . The location of the damage or injury was on or about 1100 Bailey Road, West Pittsburg/Bay Point, CA; 3,4 ,5 . The damage or injury occurred when a Contra Costa County Animal Control Officer, believed to be named P. Arevalo, Employee No. 50342, unlawfully entered upon the property at 1100 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA by driving in there in a Conta Costa County Animal Control vehicle, and unlawfully prevented Warren L. Smith from leaving said property despite Smith' s repeated requests to leave. 6, 7 . The damages that resulted were "general" damages . The amount of claimed damages is estimated. 8 . The witnesses are Warren L. Smith and P. Arevalo; and Deputy Reno, believed to be a member of the Contra Costa County Sheriff ' s Dept. Details of this incident appear in the Sheriff ' s Dept. Report No. 96-6963 and Animal Services Case Nos . M-96-3-14 and 3-15 . 9 . No expenditures were made on account of this injury. 10 . SEND NOTICES to me at .my Walnut Creek address . Si ere1 , ert Berg Attorney for Claimant 500 Ygnacio Valley Road 100 Pine Street Suite 490 21st Floor Walnut Creek,CA 94596 San Francisco,CA 94111 (510)933-4500 (415)981-6660 Fax(510)933-4515 Fax(415)421-0320 AMENDED C 35' CLAIM Cc CON7�4 COSTA CawTY, CA.L !70;NIA August 6, 1996 Claim A_airst the Ccurty, or District governed by) BOAS: ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NC;TiCE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The cosy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervis:rs (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $1,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings-,, CLAIMANT: Eugene L. Whitt ATTORNEY: J U L 2 4 1996 Date received C0UNSEL ADDRESS: 324 Rheem Blvd. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 2+',WNEZCALIF. Moraga, CA 94556 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. 4 ;�11 gATCHELOR, Clerk DATED: July 24, 1996 : Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel T0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (/\<f This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: BY: De.uty Courty Counsel Ill. FRDM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Coursel (1) County Acr.,inistrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (V) This Claim is rejected in full, ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: 2-60 —1772 HIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, BY-%&I x , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately, *For additional warnino see reverse Side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today 1 deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: 9 — °( (p BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by y Deputy Clerk CC: Cow,,ty Counsel County Administrator NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY AND/OR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Eugene L. Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd Moraga, CA 94556 RE: CLAIM OF: Eugene L. Whitt Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: [ ] I. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. [ ] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. [xx] 3. The claim fails to state the date, place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. [ ] 4. The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. [ ] 5.. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10;000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars($10,000), the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation, the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court. [ ] 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on is behalf. [xx] 7. Other: Because there is no information regarding what these employees allegedly did to the claimant or on what date, it is impossible presently to determine if the claim is timely. This issued is reserved. VICTJ. STMAN, County Counsel By: OR L. k," eputy my Counsel Page 1 �. 35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P. §§ 1012, 1013a,2015.5;Evidence Code§§641,664) I declare that my business address is the County Counsel's Office of Contra Costa County,651 Pine Street,Martinez,California 94553;I am a citizen of the United States,over 18 years of age,employed in Contra Costa County,and not a party to this action. I served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope addressed as shown above,sealed and postage fully prepaid thereon,and thereafter was,deposited this day in the U.S.Mail at Martinez,California. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 19, 1996 at Martinez,California. cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors(original) Risk Management (NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM:GOVT.CODE§§910,910.2,920.4,910.8) Page 2 C. 3S' CLAIM BO�c Oc SUcE �'Ic "-S Or CONTRA C^STA LCIiNT.Y, CA' I7ORNIA August 6, 1996 Claim Aceirst the County, or District governed by) BOA."' ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $1000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings% CLAIMANT: Eugene L. Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd. ATTO;NE•i: Moraga, CA 94556 Date received ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON July 18, 1996 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Jul 18 1996 PpHHIL BATCHELOR. Clerk ' DATED: Y B1 : Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. (✓f This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). W) Other: 1 h,s Q cZ.eer�aS1 I Cao Dated: 1g 14 9 l BY:— �Wu_ty County Counsel / — 0 C)r 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). JV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR. Clerk, $y Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only Six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator Claim BOARD OF SUPE"MRS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � S� :rn 06TRUCTIONS M CLAIWM3 A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and Which accrue on or before December 31, 19879 must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and Which accrue on or after January 19 19889 must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not me than e year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 6911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this Tom—. i * * * * * * * * * * * a * * * * * f * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a * * * RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp RECEDE® AgaInst the County of Contra Costa ) ) 'JULJI 1996 or District) CLERK BOARD OF SiIPERViSORS (Firl in name ) CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ lobo and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. did� the a or injury occur? (Givexa9t date and hour) G � " ;7 P�'P�l� aeld 2. where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) 3• How did the damage or injury occur? (Give !Lill details; use extra per if requi ) � ^ dye _A4 y A. what particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? / r ,Qe/i�a'� d�i� ✓ /� /v,�'��r�� ' G'a. 7/ (over) l�7 (over) 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing C•3 50 the damage or injury? law b. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or dama,L� wr/lyv dD�t tach two esti�at to ep��c�Gr� Qid'v�i 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective ury or damage.) WO 4V 7or i cod 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: TE ITEM AMDWT 4/" Gov. Code Seca 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf." blame and Address of Attorney �� z Vlll�Zw Claimants Signature Ad ss Telephone No. Telephone No. fs • seae fe0eafffT1 a V s'9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 sse NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and tine. C�. 35 5-22-96 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I have not yet heard from any of you regarding my situation in dealing with the Health Services Department . Thanks to my conversation with Dr. Walker regarding his policy to actively pursue anonymous phone calls as a desirable source of enforcement targets I have been able to find additional information that may be of interest. I 'm sure that he was not bothered by the fact that the suicide of Admiral Boorda was the result of an anonymous letter. Has he responded to your charge that he should provide the Board with a policy statement regarding such matters? He had not by April 30 . Without Dr. Walker ' s advice I would never have found that it is just possible that some of the County' s health program based on the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code and Uniform Building Code are under a legal cloud. As suggested, I found that a recent Court of Appeal decision in College Area Renters and Landlord Association vs . City of San Diego, 49Cal .Rptr.2d 809 does indeed indicate that any laws, codes, or enforcement activities that apply to users of some rental housing while not to others violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Classes of citizens cannot be treated differently under the law and that is what is occurring in Contra Costa County. The United States Supreme Court struck a national blow against discrimination. The court voted 6-3 to block the Colorado ballot initiative saying it violated the constitutional rights of citizens to equal protection under the law. The decision reaffirmed civil rights for all citizens . It put an end to the notion that a state can deal with any of its constituency groups as a separate entity. The legal opinion classified the court ' s vote as a defense for all population segments from state discrimination. I would like, also, to bring to your attention the Health Services Department fee schedule as it applies to public swimming pools . I would challenge the Board to find any other area in the entire County where such obscene increases have occurred. I have researched other fee schedules and can find no similar instance. Yet, I was informed that my 19 pool inspections over the past eight years justified a licensing fees totaling $2 , 225 . It just doesn ' t smell right. What is more, if these fees were collected in the guise of protection for only one class of citizen would not the county be -liable for refunds? What about the Equal Protection Clause that provides for equality under the law? Could Contra Costa County be put in a position of having to repay all fees collected that were in violation of the Equal protection Clause? Hoping to hear from you on this matter. I have yet to hear about how you stand on Mr. Craig Smith ' s decision to override existing state law, and order, not request as he cleverly stated in his inspection report, that I should change the structure of my swimming pool . What he required was illegal, he knows it now and should have known it then. I hope that you will not evade the point of this letter by referring me to the building permit department this time. Gene Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 x. 35 6-26-96 Contra Costa County District Attorney Sir: In the second week of June I addressed a letter to a Mr. Guerra of the Environmental Health Services division of the Health Services Department with copies to the Board of Supervisors . I have not yet received a response so I am turning to you and your agency. I believe that there has been a violation of the State Codes related to the way Mr Gurerra, Mr. Smith and Dr. Walker have required me to restructure my apartment house swimming pool . I complained to them that they were wrong at the time but they persisted that unless I complied they would shut me down. The option I was given was to destroy the pool or to comply with their demands to build decks and fencing that were exempted by the State Code due to 'grandfathering' . Mr. Smith went on to say that he was allowed by the code to decide what provisions to enforce and to what extent he could insist on compliance. I questioned this power at the time but Dr. Walker and Mr. Gurerrea spoke in full support of Mr. Smith. Something does not seem right in this situation. Their failure to respond to my letter leads me to believe that they have reason to be concerned. When a County agency performs in a manner contrary to the State Codes I do believe it is the obligation of the District Attorney to pursue the problem. I hereby do request that the District Attorney investigate the incident in question to see if the State Codes were enforced as written or whether illegal liberties under the color of authority were taken by the individuals and agency involved. Eugene L. Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 The letter: (Unknown handwritten date) )June 1996 Mr. Guerra et al, cc : Board of Supervisor Members William B. Walker It is apparent that you and your minions chose to ignore that it is you who have broken the law and violated my rights under the color of authority. The existing law gave me rights that you chose to ignore and deliberately violate. You and yours deliberately misinterpreted the laws application to my situation. Under this false enforcement and the color of authority you did require me to do things I was not and could not be required to do. What I did was not by 'request ' as suggested in the inspection report but by direct order both by Mr. Smith and Mr. Guerra. The Grandfather Clause and more Section 24102 of the California Health and Safety Code states " . . .no rule or regulation as to the design or construction of pools shall apply to any pool which has been constructed before the adoption of such rule or regulation. ' ' Further and of some interest you will find that my pool was built and has been operated by me as a private pool . Code section 65501 " (b) Only private pools maintained by an individual for the use of family and friends are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. - My hapter. "My pool permit fee was paid for a private pool not a public pool . If this is in error, it is the county ' s error not mine. Anonymous Complaints Again I say to you and yours that the complaint was not directed against anything except the gate to my courtyard. It was that gate and it not being closed that prompted the concern. A proper investigation of the complaint would have found this to be so. It is sad that so many of the areas of government and our society are so morally deficient as to confuse legality with what is right and just. If this was your decision I feel sorry- for you and your policy. I suggest you look to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a better way to handle anonymous complaints . In your remarks regarding the juniper hedge, I am disappointed that you failed to inform the Board and your superiors that I had driven a number of 4-5 inch steel posts into the hedge to block off the hedge holes until it had an opportunity to grow back. Was this an oversight or a deliberate omission? Years ago I heard Dr. Martin Luther King in a speech to teachers say, "The greatest heresy is to be right for the wrong reason. ' ' Appeals Again I refer you to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District procedures for appeals . They seem to function on a somewhat higher moral level and sense of correctness than does the Health Services Department. I know of other such references but this is the best. Cost Effectiveness I again challenge you or anyone else to show where any fees have been so increased as have pool inspection fees . You and yours are using the housing industry as a 'cash cow' C� 35 to fund other services . This is neither moral, fair, just, nor right. If it takes 16% of your budget to self-support your pool inspection program the public is being cheated, and the Board misled. You apparently chose not to respond to my charge that the entire process is denying equal protection to an entire segment of the State ' s population. No doubt, you had good reason again to ignore the obvious . Renters comprise a significant segment of the population. Why would the law wish only to protect them and ignore th vast majority of the population who are equally deservin of protection? This dog will no� lie down, Ge e Whitt �� UV FIRE SAFETY Have you been ragged and tagged lately? Probably, without even knowing it. Paying full price for it anyway. A bit of history. The manufacturers of fire equipment have a long, and not so noble, history of governmental manipulation. The Oakland fire was a good example of how the manufacturers ignored the best interests of the public in their sales programs . Once the local governments were covered the manufacturers went to Sacramento for new fields to conquer. As a lobbying organization they proposed that, in return for unspecified sums of support money, they should get certain legislation. The idea was to make people safer. It was of no consequence that the continued existence of fires determines their business success . These manufacturers were interested in business and not in fire prevention. Business in general, but the housing industry in particular, was singled out as target for the most intensive legislative control . As an industry, housing, was diverse, relatively loosely unorganized, having a negative societal image, an easy target and large enough to make the regulatory effort worth the legislative investment. The money was 'invested ' the laws were written, passed and signed. Fire prevention became a handmaiden of fire departments . Rental housing units were required to provide smoke alarms .. Then the law was amended to require fire extinguishers, and amended again to require specific kinds and size. Then inspections were required to force compliance of provision and subsequent renewal . The force consisted of a $90 fee for every subsequent inspection following specified notice. The inspectors often consist of near retirees who can gain extra retirement benefits from the additional pay due an inspector. Only one year of higher pay is required. Hence, most firemen have a shot at the position. Fire departments, for this reason will be the last to advocate a change in the system. While rental property owners are the victims, firemen are held captive. Another larger group of fire industry businesses support the 'required' legislation related to fire extinguishers . These are the small business doing the required annual recharging of rental housing extinguishers . At rates from $6 to $36 they are licensed to provide a specific service required to 'renew' an extinguisher, whether it needs it or not, to conform with laws written and supported by their industry. The recharging requires that the baking soda of an ABC type extinguisher be removed, the valve cleaned and checked a new dated and a color coded sticker tag be placed on the stem. The baking soda is replaced and the tank re-pressurized. Another color coded tag is punched for year and month and attached to the outside of the tank. There is good reason to suspect that two out of three tanks are not re-charged in compliance with the law. The rental property owner is, more often than not, paying for something that he is not getting. The unethical renewer will rag and tag the extinguisher. This means that the tank will be wiped clean and a new exterior tag attached. That ' s it. You 've been ragged and tagged. The only way to determine that such is not the case is to unscrew the top which will de-pressurize the tank and check the interior tag. Do this and you are faced with the cost of doing the renewal all over again whether you have been victimized or not. The fact is, a fire extinguisher does not need annual or even biennial recharging. Until it is used the tanks can go several years easily. The annual renewal requirement is a legislative 'favor ' returned to the industry by the state legislators as payment in kind. A rental property owners what can we do. My wife says there is nothing we can do. A fire inspector said there was nothing he could do but obey the law. A legitimate renewal service deplored his difficulty in remaining in business with the rag and tags taking the cream off the top. The legislators don ' t care for anything except re-election. An individual can make a difference. I have and will by this article. The space required, the compressor, materials, and certification could be easily financed and obtained by the association. Half a garage would suffice for thousands of units . We could have our own employee and service for our members . It could very easily operated much as milk bottle delivery years ago. Pick-up and delivery exchange installations could be done easily. It would give a good economic basis for association membership. A change in the annual renewal requirement would not be far behind. I wonder it could be transferred to the .legislators? What is the best fire prevention move that can be made by any rental owner? Easy. Not many years ago an estimated 90% of all fires were the result of smoking. The percent is less today, but still exceeds by far all other causes . My exterior maintenance is so easy that the arrival of a smoker shows immediately by smell and residue. My interior paint and drapes have four-five year half life. I have rented this way for nearly thirty years . Life can be better. After thought: The use of State laws to provide more protection to one selected class of citizen while exempting another is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Code sections are discriminatory in application and enforcement. Making Successful Anonymous Phone Calls Have you ever thought of closing your apartment swimming pool? Yesterday, March 28, 1996, I gave it even more serious consideration. I found out that the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department will take enforcement action based on one anonymous phone call. Anybody, using the words safety, hazard, or liability to the Countyin an anonymous phone call voicing concern in conjunction with any commercial pool will trigger a visit from a county inspector. Other agencies at various levels of government have developed more ethical solutions to the problem. Most often it takes several different source anonymous complaints to produce enforcement action. My pool took only one. You could be next unless we change the ethics responsible for the policy. I did not expect to find the ethical level of the health department so substandard. That is, until I met Dr. Walker, head of the Health Services Department. He openly admitted and justified such enforcement responses to anonymous phone calls as a legitimate process to relieve the county of legal liability. If the county fails to follow up on a complaint, it becomes liable. Dr. Walker, said to me, '-You should send out thank-you notices . ' ' I see a severe ethical deficiency here, both with the caller and the head official responsible for policy. I honestly believe that the Board of Supervisors have been kept unaware of this 'policy' by County Staff . Does this ethical level used into personnel policy? This is more than just a minor departure from civil liberties . I was in a war fifty years ago to prevent this sort of thing. What ever happened to that obscure right to face your accuser? It is un-American as I know it. Why Inspections The problem found with my pool? Landscaping, pool fencing and decking dividers deemed acceptable in 1988 are not acceptable to the present inspector making his visit only because of the phone call. These pool conditions have been in place for over 35 years . The county had taken pictures in 1988 and even had them on file. Certainly, prima facie evidence of a safe condition allowed to exist. It will take a couple thousand to make things acceptable to the county. (Some where along the way, as I wandered the halls of county government, I was told that I could just pass it along to my tenants . ) My experience in thirty years of teaching elementary school told me that preventing children from running around the pool was a significant safety measure. Now, the county requires that I build them a runway. By fixing what the county requires, I will not be relieved of liability. This pool requirement, emanating from the halls of the state legislature, is a poor safety trade-off . For over a third of a century' s inspections had used the test of reasonableness as the criteria for safety. No more. 1 Risk Analysis It does not take the advanced measurement techniques of risk analysis to determine the probabilities of pool accidents . Drownings are high media events like airplane accidents . Politicians seize the events to drive allocation of limited resources . As the 1958 Congressional Delaney Clause would misapply cancer research so would vested interests finance legislation without regard to common sense, probability, and risk management. The public perception of risk management and accidents are made of sound bites and vidieo clips, not reality. The Cheyenne crash is a classic example. Publicity and laws are motivated by money applied to risks of little probability but great public impact. We are more accepting of certain common risks than of those whose rarity attract the media. The risk of falling while running is normal . Drowning is not. The laws relating to pool safety are 'bought ' by lobbiests through legislation are committing statistical murder by ignoring the laws of probability. Increasing the likelihood of running and shallow end diving accidents does not seem to be a desirable outcome. It didn't need to be this way I have now been forced to decimate 14 feet of juniper hedge that prevented both access to my pool and children from running around it. I have replaced the hedge with a four-foot runway around the end of the pool and a five-foot high continuation of an existing fence. If the Health Services Department had a more ethical procedure for dealing with anonymous phone calls they might have determined a bit more about both the motivation for the call and what the concern was . My apartment courtyard has a double fence. One fence encloses the courtyard with a four foot wrought iron gate that is self latching but often blocked open for ease of access . Another fence that is 5- feet high has a self latching gate that is always closed and separates the pool from the courtyard. It was the courtyard gate that brought about the phone call . The complaining party never bothered to walk over and look through the gate to confirm that the pool was totally secure. The courtyard gate being open was frightening enough. The authorities gave a knee-jerk reaction that uses only the fear of liability to undo what thirty five years of common sense created. How about an Appeal? During the inspection I became more and more concerned with what I saw as a perceived requirement that the inspector find something wrong. I inquired about making an appeal . The response was that yes, I could have a hearing for $90 . 2 I asked who would constitute the hearing members . Three of the inspector ' s superiors would make up the hearing board. He assured me that he had always been backed by the board in the past and that any such hearing would be useless . He was right. I went to the county offices and found he was right. Other similar agencies have established appeal boards that consist of independent individuals . I would much have had a hearing before a medical practicioner, a safety engineer, a industry representative, and a common citizen. Such a hearing board would have have fewer entrenched interests as would the hearing offered me. If it can be done by other agencies of the Bay Area why not in Contra Costa County. Cost Effectiveness? My tenant ' s time-in-pool does not justify the expense, aggravation, time, chemical costs, tests, or inspection hassles . For hours of use, the cost per tenant is obscene. Without a commercial cleaning service my tenants still pay over $100 per month for the four months of swimming season. I have gone so far as to find that I can close my pool by punching a drain hole in the bottom and filling it with dirt. What would I get for this . I would acquire a spacious landscaped courtyard: I could take two days off in the middle of the week without making the mandatory daily pool pH tests . I would reduce my liability insurance costs by over $500 . My utility bills would drop 40-50 dollars a month in summer and 20-30 in winter. Best of all I would get out from under the ever more oppressive and expensive regulatory system. No apartment owner in his right mind would ever again buy or build an apartment with a pool . At the present time slightly less than one-thousand four hundred rental housing pools and spas provide nearly 16% of the approximate 4 million dollar environmental health budget for the entire county. Apartments and a limited number of for-profit pools are required to pay the $339 for the first pool in 1996 . That ' s up from $120 in 1987 . At the same rate of increase it will be over a thousand dollars to get your pool operating permit ten years from now. In nine of these past ten years, the pool operating license has been the largest expense area for my pool operations . By closing our pools or doing private contracted inspections we could reduce the number of county employees . This would be a tax saving of over a half-million dollars with the remainder coming in savings of transportation and office factors . There is no justifiable reason that the rental housing industry should be saddled with the present exorbitant fees . As an industry, we may have some legal recourse to recover past over-charges . Otherwise, there is always Prop 13 II . 3 The enforcement of pool laws legislated by the state is left to local agencies who are free to charge whatever they wish. There is no upward limit to the fee to be charged for a minimum of five visits by a ( $10 per hour) college student who is given a county car, a test kit, and a list of addresses . The student inspector in my area is netting the health department over $1000 per hour under the present fee structure. Layers of administration are expensive. As of 1996 there are 1434 pools subject to inspection by the county. 69 are fee free. The 1996 projected staffing is eight county staff and five students . First inspection of the summer is by staff over 20 days at 8 per day. Students will conduct about 6000 more inspections over the remaining 80 days of summer. 75 pools per day need to be inspected. Comes out to fifteen pools per day per student inspector. 4 hours of inspection and 4 hours of travel . Even with travel time added the obscenity of the excessive county permit fee schedule exists . I got copy of my pool record file from the county. There are only 19 of 40 possible inspections on file including only the years 1988 through 1995 . During this period I have had total pool expenses. of $4407 . I have paid $2, 255 in county pool operation license fees . Over 50% of my pool operating expenses are directly due to the county. Using a generous 15 minutes per inspection ( 19 ) this comes to a total inspection time of four hours forty-five minutes over eight years . Nearly $475 per hour. Raising the inspections to 40 still fixes the costs at over $250 per hour. At an projected average of $500 fee for the next ten years you can expect to pay about $5, 000 for the same service. The license to operate a pool just isn ' t worth it and here ' s how we can prove it. If every rental property owner would video these inspections I 'm sure that that the rental housing industry could gather sufficient evidence to bring a strong court case against the fees charged by this system. Consider carrying a tape recorder during the inspections to record what happens and what is said. Just by running time checks on the inspection process would help the housing industry to develop a cost benefit data base. You may fear that such actions will bring a county retaliation of more inspections . Like business, government without profit will wither away. The present system is not equitable, ethical, or cost effective to the apartment owner. Let the Industry Do It. The state could provide enabling legislation making it possible for the rental housing industry to provide or hire its own pool inspections . It was done so with the anti- siphon device. As a private industry we could provide the same services to all apartments as does the county at a 4 fraction of the cost. At the present time there are either four or five county management layers above the person who visits your pool five times a year. A good private business operation would have only one. The enforcement powers and laws could remain intact but the cost and payment would be based on services rendered. A Vicious Cycle Hardly a year goes by that rental housing pool regulations are not given an stretch in one way or another by the state legislature or the local authorities . These regulations begin at non-public county/industry meetings . What ' s more you may not be allowed to find out who is present or even where they are. I tried. However, I know for a fact that there are closed meetings between county staff and various private business representatives making presentations that will affect our industry. Meetings with county staff for training or educational purposes are of mutual benefit. Nothing is really crooked, just a matter of. good business . Who represents our industry at these meetings? I believe these meetings should be open to citizen oversight. Some government moves on the rental housing industry are not confined to the halls of the state legislature. In the Beginning The first state rules required signs for pools . They were relatively benign, based on good hygiene and common sense. Then the sign lobby went to work of the state legislature. Now the signs are to be of specific sizes, wording, covering every imaginable restriction and eventuality. Rental housing pools were required to have first-aid kits, resuscitation devices and instructions for use of each. The filtration of pools were regulated by ever increasing flow requirements and hours of operation. Only certain types of systems and chemicals are allowed in commercial operations for 'safety' reasons . The same 'safety' regulations never touch the single residence pool . The records of the insurance industry show that for every commercial pool drowning there are hundreds of claims related to chasing and rough-housing around the pool . The relative safety of the pool is directly related to how running is controlled. Safety is NOT the real reason; money is . The pool rules are bought and paid for in the halls of the California State legislature. Over a period of time some of the rules have continued to exist in the laws but not in enforcement. Enforcement seems to follow the administrative push given the vacationing college student inspectors according to the 'cause ' of the year. Vacuum breakers one year, pool covers the next, chlorinators next, then fences, etc. Anti-Siphon Device 5 When the anti-siphon or backflow breaker first came into use there was a jurisdictional conflict between. the local Health departments and the local water districts . Money spent in Sacramento resulted in the rise of the backflow inspection industry as we know it. This process was actively supported by the water districts since for a minimal effort they would get thirty or more dollars per commercial anti-siphon device every year and many of their employees could run a side business doing the inspections . The filling of pools is regulated by ever increasing design and plumbing requirements . Most public and private pools are filled by a building faucet with a vacuum breaker and outlet pipe a few inches above the water level of the pool . This design created an entire industry. Anyone, who takes a very abbreviated program at a University of California facility, can be certified by the State of California to inspect a commercial pool vacuum breaker for correct operation. Until about ten years ago no such inspections were held for rental housing units . At first $20 a pop and now $40 to $60 the legislated backflow is costing a commercial pool owner upwards to a hundred dollars a year. The low and divided dollar amount profile concealed the overall massiveness of the program. Let' s see how this program became so vital to public safety but was confined to commercial operations. The public water system is serviced by under-street water mains that then feed to individual houses and buildings . It is possible #1 that a swimming pool at a rental housing complex could be so full of water that the fill pipe is below water level . It is also possible #2 that the water valve to that pool would be turned on as for filling the pool . The next possible #3 is that the backflow valve is defective. It is also possible #4 that at this very same time a break should occur in the under-street water main. With these four possibles (#1+#2+#3+#4 ) occurring at the same time, water could be sucked out of the pool, into the broken under-street water main and into the drinking water system. Pools of individual homes could meet with the same sequence of possibles (#1+#2+#3+#4) but are exempt from any such inspections . By sheer numbers the probabilities are far more likely to occur at homes . Additionally, any hose left to run into a puddle could result in the same hazard, anywhere. Home pools are not inspected except at initial construction. Home owners do not pay an additional $30 per year for having a backflow device. What logic or fairness exists for having upwards of 20, 000 home pools in the county be left immune from inspections and fees? At the same time 1400 commercial pools pay extra for operating permits, water service, and inspections . 6 The 'out ' exists by simply cutting and plugging the existing fill line. Attach a riser that makes it possible to fill the pool from a height two feet above the full pool level . Have you ever wondered why the inspectors don ' t seem to know that this very legal possibility exists . You are being had by a conspiracy of silence designed to protect an industry. On Thursday, April 11, 1996, I received a letter in the mail from EBMUD. It contained three sheets . The first said that I had not complied with State Health Code Tile 17 . I had not had my backflow device tested as required. In 15 days my apartment water could be turned off . The second sheet listed my water meter number, location, and my address . The third sheet listed fifty-four Certified Backflow Testers . Friday morning, I made a call to EBMUD and obtained the name of the person in charge of the four EBMUD inspectors . I went to talk to Mr. Williamson and found that he was not all that knowledgable about backflow or just how the commercial and private swimming pool backflow might differ. At no point did I reveal my name or address . When I arrived home I called Mike ' s Backflow Testing and left a message requesting a backflow inspection. Shortly afterwards I recieved a phone call from Mike. We set up an inspection for 7 : 00 a.m. Saturday morning. At 1 : 30 p.m. a EBMUD panel truck pulled into my apartment parking lot. Two EBMUD employees got out as I walked over to them carrying a camera. We walked into the pool area where they saw that I had a pool fill pipe well over two feet above the pool water level . I was told that no back- flow inspection was required. I was not a part of their inspection system. ( I hadn' t been for years) Additionally, I would not need to pay the $30 annually for being on their books . How many apartment owners are aware of this $30 annual charge for having a backflow on their commerical pool? How many apartment owners are aware that this charge is a bookkeeping charge for keeping track of backflow inspections for private companies? Interestingly, on leaving Mr. Williamson ' s office he had given me a piece of paper with an inspector ' s name, thereon. I was requested not to call him until next week since they were very busy. By sheer coincidence the name on the paper was identical to the name of the driver of the truck that came to my apartment and to the name of the owner of Mike ' s Backflow Testing. The driver confirmed that he was both the owner of the backflow firm and an employee of EBMUD. This is not the only 'puzzlement ' here. How did they find me? Comparing the relative costs. of having the EBMUD and a group of private licensed inspectors perform services for the 7 x. 35 commercial pool to the costs of a very similiar operation by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department gives a clear choice. The EBMUD blend with private inspection companies is a clear winner. Five pool inspections by the Environmental Health Division costs in 1996 $339 The same inspections by EBMUD/private companies would cost half as much at worst. Fences, Covers, and Decks The fencing of pools were regulated over the years by ever increasing locking, height requirements . When the fencing industry' s turn came to suck at the trough, the inspections of fences and gates intensified. The covering of pools were regulated by wording that often contradicted reality. You can ' t open the pool for use until the cover is removed. The pool gate must be locked until the pool cover is removed. Apparently climbing over the fence, removing the pool cover, and then unlocking the gate was an approved procedure. However, in that year ' s county/state instruction booklet we do include a picture of a $6, 000 electric powered safety pool cover that can be removed with the gate still locked. The automatic pool cover is recommended to insure full compliance with the law bought in the halls of the state legislature. Any cover must support certain weight and when removed must be put away in a specific way as well as a specific distance from the pool . I 'm afraid that the deck you have been using for the past thirty years, no longer meets the new code that the pool cement industry has bought this year in the halls of the state legislature. Supporting Your Local Fire Department The fire equipment manufacturing industry has worked a very subtle finesse on the rental housing industry. They have spun off several mistletoe like industries . One is the give your retiring fireman a substantial retirement benefit. It works like this . A fireman ' s retirement is based on his last year of highest salary. The fire equipment industry was able to combine, into state legislation, the commercial requirement for a specific type of extinguisher along with a required inspection by a fireman. We have an unbeatable combination. All the firemen are looking forward to that inspectors pay for their last year. The district can cover the cost of the retiring fireman very nicely by charging upwards of $70 for the inspection that confirms that the extinguisher has been properly tagged each year. The law was worded so that every year a commercial fire extinguisher must be recharged with baking soda, even the same baking soda. For a fee, of course. Reputable fire industry sources know the annual cycle of inspection and recharging is totally unnecessary. 8 May 2 , 1996 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors While I am waiting to hear how Dr. Walker rational 1z d the use of anonymous phone calls to select pools to in ec el I will try to up-date you on a more recent event. On Tuesday, April 30, 1996, a few minutes before 8 a nn,,II I received a phone call from a Mr. Craig Smith, one of �W your health department investigators . I did not/aswer any of his questions because I am afraid that anythiI say will be used against me in future prosecution hick I have been led to believe will be forthcoming. Smith ' s reaction, among others was to state t he would have to ` take the offensive. The implied t eat was activated theV�` 1� next day. On Wednesda , May 1, 1996, 1 few minutes after 10 a.m. a gray Nissa pickup pul into my apartment parking 1 L lot. Who ever e truck sat there for about ten minutes . My wife warned me that it was probably the�o �U county investigator. Since it was not a county truck I did not believe her and continued to clean the swimming pool. n/ Finally a man, later identified as Craig Smith, walked into my apartment courtyard. I flatly told him that thisqC, � was not a good time for any investigation since I was still in the process of preparing the pool . He did not persist but succeeded in frightening my wife to the point where n ` she begged me to let him investigate. I reluctantly agreed W/C and she went out to his truck and said that he could pursues his investigation. Tuesday, I had driven to Martinez and obtained an informational booklet about the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of public swimming pools . I further went into the Law Library and did some review V of the California Statutes on Health and Safety Code as they apply to swimming pools . I learned some unpleasant facts that may not be common knowledge. , 1 All laws relating to maintenance and operation apply Aj only to pools not considered private. Only 1500 of 20, 000 come under the law. Further, no rule or regulation as to design or construction of pools shall apply to any pool which has been constructed before the adoption of such rule or regulation. The permit for my pool was issued in 1959 . n, ( Section 24102 Health and Safety Code) My pool predates �J Title 24 and is and has been exempt. I think a mistake has been made by the County. I� V- 1 Every Health Officer shall enforce the rules and regulations in his jurisdiction. Section 24103 . There is no equivocation in this statement. The presumption is that it applies equally to all pools and that the singling out of one pool of the over a thousand non-private in the county for malicious investigation is contrary to the meaning and sense of Section 24103 . A check of the pool inspection records of March of 1996 will prove my point. The requirement that all rules for maintenance and operation safety has only been selectively applied over the years and most have been ignored by CCC Health Officers . Section 65521 is very specific in stating that no pools shall be used or available for use unless all of the subsections and b ( 1 ) , (2 ) , and ( 3 are complied with. The Health Officers have been taking a free ride thanks to poor supervision and administration. You would be hard put to find a single instance in CCC where 65521 is being administered. If enough pool owners find how they are being 'serviced' by the Health Department, things may change. (After thought) The State Health and Safety Code as applied to properties listed in Section 65503 (rentals and shared facilities) is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by exempting one class of citizens . The Code sections are discriminatory in application and enforcement. Selective enforcement is not the way the laws are supposed to work. As Officer Smith indicated when he said he didn 't want to nit-pick, but then went on to point out a 1/16 inch crack in the pool deck, a 1/4 " difference in deck level due to earth movement, a 2 " piece of grout missing, a series of small cracks in coping seal, and a few cracked water level tile. When I complained that we paid $339 for an annual pool operating permit while normal inspections and investigations only occurred during a four month summer period. He replied that I apparently wanted to be -serviced' more often and that he could arrange that. I do believe that the kind of 'service ' he was alluding to was that common to animal husbandry with me the recipient . We shall see. Many of the Health and Safety Code Sections leave enforcement up to the Health Officer ' s opinion. The opinion of the enforcing agent is sufficient to close a swimming pool . For every day that the pool is, in violation the owner can be put in jail for six months . ( Section 65545 ) I was apparently in violation for the month of April . For some reason Mr. Smith chose not to enforce Section 65535 but 2 50' that that might have been using his power of opinion. Next time? According to Mr. Smith there are some other sources of what will be enforced beyond the state code. Oddly enough, the opinion 35 years of previous Health Officers had accepted as safe my pool construction and appurtenances . What we have here is a system where the very existence of legislation raises the cost of government. Passing enforcement to lower levels becomes a mechanism for fund raising. The Pool permit system is just a modification of the parking meter. The avowed purpose has no relationship to the true motivation. Selective regulations which target specific commercial areas such as food, fire, rental, fuel, and utilities are selected because the costs of enforcement can be passed through the business to the consumer. If the renters were only aware of how they are being ' serviced' by local agencies of government, things might change. That is why I am an advocate of full enforcement of the Health and Safety Code by the Health Department on all citizens equally. In a few weeks, the person who got EBMUD to send me a letter regarding my pool backflow device not having been inspected will likely get a return call . What happened there has not hit the fan, yet. Gene Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 3 0, 35' 5-5-96 Class Action Suit on beha� of Renters The State Health and Safety Code as applied to properties listed in Section 65503 (rentals and shared facilities ) is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by exempting one class of citizens . The Code sections are discriminatory in application and enforcement. The Code only applies to residents and users of non-owned properties and not to owner-occupants in the same neighborhood who have exactly the same facilities and health/safety exposure. Since the safety and health problems include both owners and non-owners, the Codes should apply to both equally. The sections of the code that only regulates the health and safety of of one group and not another is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Code and its application is fatally defective because it treats the non-owners (renters ) and homeowners differently. The annual cost of these State Codes are over $500, 000, 000 to the non-owner residents of California. Owners pay nothing. The Code applications related to the following is equally discriminatory for the same reasons . Swimming pools Backflow devices Smoke Alarms Fire Extinguishers Reference: 1996 California Court of Appeal decision in College Area Renters and Landlord Association vs . City of San Diego, 49 Cal .Rptr. 2d 809 C, 3� May, 9 , 1996 Open Letter to EBMUD Board of Directors Historical Sequence On Thursday, April 11, 1996, I received a letter in the mail from EBMUD. It contained three sheets . The first said that I had not complied with State Health Code Tile 17 . I had not had my backflow device tested as required. In 15 days my apartment water could be turned off . The second sheet listed my water meter number, location, and my address . The third sheet listed fifty-four Certified Backflow Testers . Friday morning, I made a call to EBMUD and obtained the name of the person in charge of the four EBMUD inspectors . I went to talk to Mr. Williamson and found that he was not all that knowledgeable about backflow or just how the commercial and private swimming pool backflow might differ. At no point did I reveal my name or address . When I arrived home I called Mike ' s Backflow Testing and left a message requesting a backflow inspection. Shortly afterwards I received a phone call from Mike. We set up an inspection for 7 : 00 a.m. Saturday morning. At 1 : 30 p.m. Friday, an EBMUD panel truck pulled into my apartment parking lot. Two EBMUD employees got out as I walked over to them carrying a camera. We walked into the pool area where they saw that I had a pool fill pipe well over two feet above the pool water level . I was told that no back-flow inspection was required. I was not a part of their inspection system. ( I hadn ' t been for years ) Additionally, I would not need to pay the $30 annually for being on their books . How many apartment owners are aware of this $30 annual charge for having a backflow on their commercial pool? How many apartment owners are aware that this charge is a bookkeeping charge for keeping track of backflow inspections for private companies? Interestingly, on leaving Mr. Williamson ' s office he had given me a piece of paper with an inspector ' s name, thereon. I was requested not to call him until next week since they were very busy. By sheer coincidence the name on the paper was identical to the name of the driver of the truck that came to my apartment and to the name of the owner of Mike ' s Backflow Testing. The driver confirmed that he was both the owner of the backflow firm and an employee of EBMUD. This is not the only -puzzlement ' here. How did they find me? Anti-Siphon Device When the anti-siphon or backflow breaker first came into use there was a jurisdictional conflict between the local Health departments and the local water districts . Money spent in Sacramento resulted in the rise of the backflow inspection industry as we have it now. This process was actively 1 supported by the water districts since for a minimal effort they would get thirty or more dollars per commercial ' anti- siphon device every year and many of their employees could run a side business doing the inspections . Not illegal, but of questionable ethics and implied conflict. The filling of pools is regulated by ever increasing design and plumbing requirements . Most public and private pools are filled by a building faucet with a vacuum breaker and outlet pipe a few inches above the water level of the pool . This design created an entire industry. Anyone, who takes a very abbreviated program at a University of California facility, can be certified by the State of California to inspect a commercial pool vacuum breaker for correct operation. Until about ten years ago no such inspections were held for rental housing units . At first $20 a pop and now $40 to $60 the legislated backflow is costing a public pool owner upwards to a hundred dollars a year. The low and divided dollar amount profile concealed the overall massiveness of the program. How does $30, 000, 000 a year sound just in California? Let ' s see how this program became so vital to public safety but was confined to commercial operations . The public water system is serviced by under-street water mains that then feed to individual houses and buildings . It is possible #1 that a swimming pool at a rental housing complex could be so full of water that the fill pipe is below water level . It is also possible #2 that the water valve to that pool would be turned on as for filling the pool . The next possible #3 is that the backflow valve is defective. It is also possible #4 that at this very same time a break should occur in the under-street water main. With these four possibles (#1+#2+#3+#4 ) occurring at the same time, water could be sucked out of the pool, into the broken under-street water main and into the drinking water system. Pools of individual homes could meet with the same sequence of possibles (#1+#2+#3+#4) but are exempt from any such inspections . By sheer numbers the probabilities are far more likely to occur at homes . Additionally, any hose left to run into a, puddle could result in the same hazard, anywhere. Home pools are not inspected except at initial construction. Home owners do not pay an additional $30 per year for having a backflow device. What logic or fairness exists for having upwards of 40, 000 home pools in the EBMUD service area be left immune from inspections and fees? At the same time 1400 commercial pools pay extra for water service, and inspections . The 'out ' exists by simply cutting and plugging the existing fill line. Attach a riser that makes it possible to fill 2 C. 4 the pool from a height over six-inches above the full pool level . . Have you ever wondered why the backflow businesses don ' t seem to know that this very legal possibility exists . Your water customers are being had by a conspiracy of silence designed to protect an industry. A more neighborly move by EBMUD would be to direct its employees to show its customers how to escape the backflow problem entirely. An EBMUD employee who has access to the EBMUD data base and even has the capability to use it for private benefit seems to have an ethics problem. There are 54 different private backflow testing firms on the EBMUD list. All of them should have equal access to the EBMUD data base or none of them. A more troubling situation would exist if this data is being bootlegged to other businesses . It would appear that a law, code, or ordinance that is directed toward one class of citizen to provide protection in terms of health and safety to the exclusion of another class is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. If it protects them against us and not us against them it flies in the face of this clause. If it protects us and not them and them and not us it does likewise. The California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, and Uniform Building Code by distinguishing between classes of backflow devices does provide protection for one class of citizen while denying it to another. The .problems of health and safety are the same for the backflow regardless of the housing or business involved. However, the California codes provide different safety standards of protection according to the class of citizen based on property ownership. Home backflows out-number apartment backflows by 20 to 1 . Is the health and safety of such a numerically overwhelming class of citizens to be given a different and Tower standard of health and safety protection by the state? The question arises, is the application of the Health and Safety Code of California being applied in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Does EBMUD really want to be involved? Eugene L. Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 Reference: 1996 California Court of Appeal decision in College Area Renters and Landlord Association vs . City of San Diego, 49 Cal .Rptr.2d 809 3 To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Making Successful Anonymous Phone Calls March 28, 1996, I found that the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division will take enforcement action based on one anonymous phone call regarding a commercial pool . If the Health Services Department had a more ethical procedure for dealing with anonymous phone calls a less reactive and more reasoned determination might have been made about both the motivation for the call and the concern. My apartment courtyard has a double fence. One fence encloses the courtyard with a four foot gate that is self latching but often blocked open for ease of access . Another fence that is 5-feet high has a self latching five foot gate that is always closed and separates the pool from the courtyard. It was the courtyard gate that brought about the phone call . The complaining party never took a look through the gate to confirm that the pool was totally secure. The courtyard gate being open was frightening enough. I was victimized by a knee-jerk reaction that uses only the fear of liability to undo what thirty five years of common sense created. I did not expect to find the ethical level of the health department so substandard. That is, until I met Dr. Walker, head of the Health Services Department. He openly admitted and justified such enforcement responses to anonymous phone calls as a legitimate process to relieve the county of legal liability. If the county fails to follow up on a complaint, it becomes liable. Dr. Walker, said to me, "You should send out thank-you notices . '' A severe ethical deficiency exists here, with the caller and the officials responsible for policy. This is more than just a minor departure from civil liberties . What ever happened to that obscure right to face your accuser? This 'policy ' needs ethical adjustment by direction of the Board. I would like to suggest how the ethics responsible for the policy could be changed. There are specialists to advise agencies and individuals who are using ethicallly weak procedures . Other agencies of government have found more ethical solutions to the problem. Most often it takes several different source anonymous complaints to produce enforcement action. My pool took only one, after being compared to a crack-house enforcement action. Why Inspections . The problem found with my pool? Landscaping, pool fencing and decking dividers deemed acceptable in 1988 are not acceptable to the present inspector making his visit only because of the phone call . These pool conditions have been in place for over 35 years . The county had taken pictures in 1988 and had them on file. My experience in thirty years of teaching elementary school told me that preventing children from running around the pool was a significant . safety measure. Now, the county requires that I build them a runway. This pool requirement, emanating from the halls of the state legislature, is a poor safety trade-off . For a third of a century inspections had used reasonableness as the criteria for safety. It didn' t need to be this way I have now been forced to decimate 14 feet of juniper hedge that prevented both access to my pool and children from running around it. I have replaced the hedge with a four- foot runway around the end of the pool and a five-foot high continuation of an existing fence. Common sense would say that a greater hazard exists now than before. I fear the courts would agree. How about an Appeal? During the inspection I inquired about making an appeal . The response was, "Yes, I could have a hearing for $90 ' ' . I asked who would constitute the hearing members . Three of the inspector ' s superiors would make up the hearing board. He assured me that he had always been backed by the board in the past and that any such hearing would be useless . I went to the county offices and found he was right. I was playing against a stacked deck. Other similar agencies have established appeal boards that consist of uninvolved individuals . I would much rather have a hearing before a medical practicioner, a safety engineer, a industry representative, a common citizen and a county staff member. Such a hearing board would have have fewer entrenched interests as would the board offered me. If it can be done by other agencies of the Bay Area why not in Contra Costa County. I would gladly pay for such a hearing. For fairness, I wish a change in venue. Cost Effectiveness? By doing private contracted inspections we could reduce the number of county employees . This would be a tax saving of over a half-million dollars with the remainder coming in savings of transportation and office factors . There is no justifiable reason that the rental housing industry should be saddled with the present exorbitant fees . The enforcement of pool laws legislated by the state is left to local agencies who are free to charge whatever they believe can be justified. With overhead, there is no upward limit to the fee to be charged for a minimum of four visits by a ( $10 per hour) college student who is given a county car, a test kit, and a list of addresses . The student inspector in my area is netting the health department over $1000 per hour under the present fee structure. As of 1996 there are 1434 pools subject to inspection by the county. 69 are fee free. The 1996 projected staffing is eight county staff and five students . First inspection of the summer is by staff over 20 days at 8 per day. Students will conduct about 6000 more inspections over the remaining 80 days of summer. 75 pools per day need to be inspected. Comes out to fifteen pools per day per student inspector. 4 hours of inspection and 4 hours of travel . Even with travel time added the obscenity of the excessive county permit fee schedule exists . At the present time slightly less than one-thousand four hundred rental housing pools and spas provide nearly 16% of the approximate 4 million dollar environmental health budget for the entire county. Apartments and a limited number of for-profit pools are required to pay the $339 for the first pool in 1996. That ' s up from $120 in 1987 . In nine of these past ten years, the pool operating license has been the .largest single expense area for my pool operations . My pool record file from the County shows 19 inspections over the years 1988 through 1995 . During this period I have had total pool expenses of $4407 while I have paid $2 , 255 in County pool operating permit fees . Over 50% of my pool operating expenses are directly due to the county' s pool operating permit. Using a generous 15 minutes per pool inspection ( 19 ) this comes to a total inspection time of four hours forty-five minutes over eight years . Nearly $475 per hour. At an projected increase at the same rate for the next ten years I can expect to pay about $5, 000 for the same service. The $1000 county permit to operate a pool in the year 2005 just isn ' t worth the services required or rendered. Let the Industry Do It. The state could provide enabling legislation making it possible for the rental housing industry to provide or hire its own pool inspections . It was done so with the anti- siphon device for pools . As a private industry we could provide the same services to all pools as does the county at a fraction of the cost. The county would be relieved of liability. The enforcement powers and laws could remain intact but the cost would be based on services rendered. Eugene L. Whitt 510 376-5875 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, 9455 . c..5 Excerpts from State of California Department of Health Services dated 1986: 65521 Pool Supervision Responsibility (a) Every pool shall be under the supervision of a person who is fully capapble of, and shall assume responsibility for, compliance with all requirements relating to pool operation, maintenance and safety of bathers . (b) No pools shall be used or available for use unless all of the requirements of subsection (a) and the following are complied with. ( 1 ) Routine operating procedures shall be permanently posted in a location accessable to and frequented by the operator. (2 ) Manufacurers ' instructions for operation and maintenance of mechanical and electrical equipment shall be kept available for the operator. .65523 Operation Records (a) The operator of each pool open for use shall keep a daily record of information regarding operation, including readings of disinfectant residual, pH and maintenance procedures such as cleaning of filters and quantity of chemicals used. (b) Not applicable. No cyanuric acid ever added (c) Data collected pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) whall be maintained at least one year for inspection by the enforcing agent, or shall be sumitted to the enforcing agent upon his request. 65525 Recirculation and Purification System Operation. . .The variation in flow during a filtration cycle shall be such as to not reduce the flow below 64% of the rate requiress in Section 2-9045 of Title 24, California Administrative Code. 65529 disinfection, pH Control and Cyanuric Acid (a) Pools, when open or in use, shall be disinfected continyuously by a chemical which imparts a residual effect and shall be maintained in an alkaline condition at a pH between 7 .2 and 8 . 0 . . . .A test kit for measuring the concentration of the disinfectant accurate to within 0 . 1 ppm shall be available at each pool . (b) When tesk kits for chlorine utilize comparative color standards, the standards shall be accurate to within plus or minus 0 . 1 ppm. There shall be at least four color standards as follows 0 . 6, 1 . 0, 1 . 5, and 2 . 0 . The test kit shall be capable of testing for free chlorine residual . (c) The enforcing agent may accept other disinfecting may accept other disinfecting materials or methods after they have been demonstrated to provide a readily measurable residual . such materials or methods must be as effective as the required chlorine concentration and must not be dangerous to public healthor create objectional physiological effects on bathers . 65533 Cleanliness of Pool. (a) Floating scum, sputum or debris shall not be allowed to accumulate in the pool . Skimmers, where provided, and water levels shall be maintained and operated to remove such material continuously. the bottom and sides of the pool shall be cleaned as often as necessary to be kept in a clean condition. The sides and bottom of the pools, decks and other surfaces shall be kept. free of slime and algae. (b) Animals shall not be permitted in the pool or pool area. 65535 Cleaning and Maintenance. (a) All parts of the pool and related pool facilities and equipment shall be maintained in good repair. Floors shall be kept free from cracks and other defects in compliance with Section 2-9009, Title 24, California Administrative Code. (b) Hoses shall be provided. . . (c) Toilets . . .not applicable 65539 Lifesaving, First Aid and Control of Bathers (a) and (b) Lifeguard services . . .not applicable (c) Where no lifeguard service is provides, a warning sign shall be placed in plane view and shall state "Warning--No Lifeguard on Duty with clearly legibile letters at least 10 . 2 centimeters (4 inches) high. In addition, the sign shall also state "Childrfen Under the Age of 14 Should Not Use Pool Without An Adult in Attendance ' ' . (d) the enforcing agent may require posting of notices directing the bathers to make use of the toilets and showers before entering the pool . At all pools diagrammatic illustrations of artifical respiration procedures shall be posted where clearly visible from the nearby deck. such illustrations shall be procted against the elements . Also, the telephone number of the nearest amulance, fire and police or sheriff ' s department shall be kept similarly posted along with instructions that, if needed, manual or mouth-to-mouth artifical respiration should be started immediately and continuted until a physician arrives or mechanical resuscitators are applied. (e) ' Every swimming pool shall be equipped for safety and rescue purposes with one or more rescue poles not less than 3 . 6 meters ( 12 feet) in length with body hooks, and one or more life rings haveing a minimum exterior diameter of 43 centimeters ( 17 inches) readily accessible for use. Such life rings shall have attached to them an o. 476 centimeter (3/16-inch) line long enough to span the maximum width of the pool . The line shall be stored when not in use in such a way as to prevent kinking or fouling. When rescue can be effected from the perimeter of . . .applies to spas . (f) . . .boats not applicable (g) A first aid kit shall be provided at all swimming pools when required by the enforcing agent. 65545 . Pool Closure. (a) If, in the opinion of the enforcing agent, a pool is maintained or operated in a manner which creates an unhelthful, unsafe, or unsanitary condition, the pool may be closed by the enforcing agent. Such a pool shall not be reopened until correction is made, and upon specific written approval of the enforcing agent. (b) Unhealthful, unsafe or unsanitary conditions include, but are not limited to, the failure to meet clarity, disinfection, pH, safety or bacteriological standards . When a pool is built and given a permit the permit classifies the pool as either private or public . Since the fee is different for private and public pools, is the fee charged the determining factor? Are the words written in the space titles, "type of occurpancy' ' a determining factor? What is required to change a private pool to a public pool? What is requried to change a public pool to a private pool? If once classified and built, even incorrectly or under specific conditions, what is required to change that classification? If the only access to the pool is via private property what then? I refer you to Chapter 20, Section 65503 Scope (b) Only private pools maintained by an individual for the use of family and friends are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. I further refer you to a copy of the Application for building permit. For a private (difficult to read but the word is there) pool . The pool fee paid is for a private pool . The date is 4-4-60 . Since that date the swimming pool has been operated and maintained by me as a private pool for the use of family and friends . The people living in my apartment are and always have been friends who happen to be tenants . Ask them. It was a prostitution of the legal processes when the State Legislature in the recent past gave enabling legislation to Counties and their agencies to use selective applications of the laws as revenue enhancers . It first began in the 1950s with parking meters in cities . I was there then and fought it until the system created a whole new crime known as an .•infraction. The use of the legal codes as a means of collecting money has done more to create the present atmosphere of governmental disrespect for law and lawyers than any other single factor. Shortly after Prop. 13 the State Legislature wrote enabling some legislation allowed the counties to evade Prop. 13 strictures . The enabling legislation by the state allowed the County Board of Supervisors to set a fee structure for its agencies charged with enforcement of the State Codes written as Titles 1 through 25 . The wording of the codes were such as to give Counties the option of selectively 'protecting' certain classes of citizens while collecting fees . Renters of multiple housing were selected by many counties for this protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution says that such selective protection is unconstitutional. What we have here is a hydra-headed monster which can fend off legal action by claiming non-responsibility. The State does not say the Counties must collect fees for enforcement. Counties can if they want to. The County Agencies only enforce codes that bring in revenue. Candidly put, there are no agricultural inspection of eggs because there is no money in it. In addition to selective enforcement there is selective classification as to whom the codes apply. Fees are arbitrarily set by the County Boards of Supervisors at the request of a department head. There is no accounting or. accountability. The most flagrant example, of course, is the permit fee charged for apartment pool inspections . Over 16% of the entire cost of the Environmental Health Services Department is paid by the renters of only 1400 apartment units in Contra Costa County. Another example of a State, County, Agency prostitution is where the bloated cost of a Fire Departments retirement program is being paid for by apartment renters . It is common for a retiring fireman to get between $4000 and $5000 in monthly retirement because of the last-year pay increases given to those chosen as Fire Marshalls . These promotions and salary increases are made possible by the inspection fees charged for fire extinguishers in apartments . In time every fireman will become a Fire Marshal or inspector. Renters of homes are not so well 'protected' nor charged. My home is next door to my apartment building. I recieved notice from the fire department that the wooded hill behind C. 3� my apartment building would be inspected' to see that tree foliage was 6 ' above the ground, that ground cover was less than 12 inches high, that all dead wood was removed, and that there was a 30 ' clear area from the building. No such notice or requirement exists for my home which has the same wooded hill . Who is being 'protected' and why? The State' Codes require water districts to certify the inspection of back flow devices on pools used by renters of multiple apartments . There are at least a 20 to 1 ratio of home pools to apartments with exactly the same back flow device and hazard potential . Renters of apartments are being selectively 'protected' and charged for being protected. Over 50 back flow inspection companies are available in the East Bay Municipal Utility District to see that the back flow devices of apartment renters are 'protected' . No other class of citizen is so 'protected ' . My ten unit building is a typical unit owned by a small businessman. My annual -protection ' fees over an above taxes total $500 . This is but $4 . 00 per tenant per month. Multiply it by the number of tenants in California and it becomes a great deal of money. Consider that no other class of citizen in the State pay for these kinds of protection. Begins to smell doesn ' t it. If the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution exists for renters as it seems to for other classes of American citizens, then, just perhaps, some inequitites have been allowed to exist. Is a refund due? Some of my tenants could use the money. The Supreme Court struck a national blow to discrimination. The courst voted 6-3 to block the Colorada ballot initiative saying it violated the constitutional rights of citizens to equal protection under the law. The decision reaffirmed civil rights for all citizens . It put an end to the notion that a state can deal with any of its constituency groups as a separate entity. The legal opinion classified the court ' s vote as a defense for all segments of the population from state discrimination. No one talks very much about the connection between policy making and money. The givers and recievers are leaving a trail of legislation that makes the return of silcon vallley venture capitalist per dollar invested seem like a waste of talent. These are not one-time returns . Rather they continue year after year with annual increases exceeding 10% . . There has been no question but that the instigator of the series of events that led to the suicide of Admiral Boorda was an anonymous phone call . That even the most insigificant agency of government in the United States should find itself relying on anonymous phone calls to initiate its enforcement procedures is obscene. Even more obscene is that Dr. William Walker, the administrative head of the Contra Costa County Health Department would rise in support of such procedures . However, in my conversation with Dr. Walker he did plant the seed that has made me aware of the basic injustice and unconstitutionallity of a select few of the laws and codes he readily supports . Interestingly, in recent months there have been some state and federal court decisions the support my argument regarding this injustice and unconstituionallity of Dr. Walkers administration. The recent U. S . Supreme Court decision related to Colorado ' s anti-gay law is a case in point. The essence of this decision was that no one class of citizen can be set aside to be treated any differently than any other. The 1996 California Copurt of Appeal decision in College Area Renters and Landlord Association vs . City of San Diego, 49 Cal .Rptr. 2d 809 decision that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constituion states in effect that laws that treat renters differently than homeowners is fatally flawed. The Unruh Civil Rights Act might not apply to the situation at hand but I wonder how the Adiminstrative, Health and Safety, and other codes of California will apply if the California Civil Rights Initiative "ambiguous ' ' clause(a) reads : "the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operatin of public employment, public education or public contracting. ' ' Where is under law, and governmental c0 In March of 1996 I was subject to a Contra Costa Pounty Health Services Department swimming pool inspection. Since that time, by admission of one official, they have spent more time over my pool than any other, ever. The end is not in sight. All 'Grandfather ' rights have been violated by requiring construction to present codes . Since the same may happen to you, I am sending you this letter. Mr. Guerra et al, cc : Board of Supervisor Members William B. Walker It is apparent that you and your minions chose to ignore that it is you who have broken the law and violated my rights under the color of authority. The existing law gave me rights that you chose to ignore and deliberately violate. You and yours deliberately misinterpreted the laws application to my situation. Under this false enforcement and the color of authority you did require me to do things I was not and could not be required to do. What I did was not by 'request ' as suggested in the inspection report but by direct order both by Mr. Smith and Mr. Guerra. The Grandfather Clause and more Section 24102 of the California Health and Safety Code states " . . .no rule or regulation as to the design or construction of pools shall apply to any pool which has been constructed before the adoption of such rule or regulation. ' ' Further and of some interest you will find that my pool was built and has been operated by me as a private pool . Code section 65501 " (b) Only private pools maintained by an individual for the use of family and friends are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. " My pool permit fee was paid for a private pool not a public pool . If this is in error, it is the county' s error not mine. Anonymous Complaints Again I say to you and yours that the complaint was not directed against anything except the gate to my courtyard. It was that gate and it not being closed that prompted the concern. A proper investigation of the complaint would have found this to be so. It is sad that so many of the areas of government and our society are so morally deficient as to confuse legality with what is right and just. If this was your decision I feel sorry for you and your policy. I suggest you look to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a better way to handle anonymous complaints . In your remarks regarding the juniper hedge, I am disappointed that you failed to inform the Board and your superiors that I had driven a number of 4-5 inch steel posts into the hedge to block off the hedge holes until it had an opportunity to grow back. Was this an oversight or a deliberate omission? Years ago I heard Dr. Martin Luther King in a speech to teachers say, -'The greatest heresy is to be right for the wrong reason. ' ' Appeals Again I refer you to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District procedures for appeals . They seem to function on a somewhat higher moral level and sense of correctness than does the Health Services Department. I know of other such references but this is the best. Cost Effectiveness I again challenge you or anyone else to show where any fees have been so increased as have pool inspection fees . You and yours are using the housing industry as a 'cash cow' to fund other services . This is neither moral, fair, just, nor right. If it takes 16% of your budget to self-support your pool inspection program the public is being cheated, and the Board misled. You apparently chose not to respond to my charge that the entire process is denying equal protection to an entire segment of the State ' s population. No doubt, you had good reason again to ignore the obvious . Renters comprise a significant segment of the population. Why would the law wish only to protect them and ignore the vast majority of the population who are equally deserving of protection? This dog will not lie down, Gene Whitt collections, and enforcement? Peter Overby KQED 2601 Mariposa St. S.F. CA 94110-1400 C'• 35 Dr. Walker, mentioned above, waited until I ran out of tape before blasting me for being in favor of drowning two-year olds . Sneaky-smart this guy. He is looking for someone from our industry to argue the two sides of drowning two-year olds before the county board. Talk about picking your ground on which to fight. While the tape was running he was clever enough to say very little but considerable nodding and shaking of the head. Well the saying goes, "Those who can do; those who can ' t teach and those who can ' t do either administrate. ' ' My tenant ' s time-in-pool does not justify the expense, aggravation, time, chemical costs, tests, or inspection hassles . For hours of use, the cost per tenant is obscene. I have gone so far as to find that I can close my pool by punching a drain hole in the bottom and filling it with dirt. What would I get for this . I would acquire a spacious landscaped courtyard. I could take two days off in the middle of the week without making the mandatory daily pool pH tests . I would reduce my insurance costs and liability. My utility bills would drop 40-50 dollars a month in summer. Best of all I would get out from under the ever more oppressive and expensive regulatory system. No apartment owner in his right mind would ever again buy or build an apartment with a pool . and here ' s how we can prove it. If every rental property owner would video these inspections I 'm sure that that the rental housing industry could gather sufficient evidence to bring a strong court case against the fees charged by this system. Consider carrying a tape recorder during the inspections to record what happens and what is said. Just by running time checks on the inspection process would help the housing industry to develop a cost benefit data base. You may fear that such actions will bring a county retaliation of more inspections . Like business, government without profit will wither away. The present system is not equitable, ethical, or cost effective to the apartment owner. Owner, I have been a small apartment owner in the country for over 35 years . I have obtained over 1000 addresses of fellow pool owners . I am trying to send a message of what has happened to me and what is happening to all of us . This is not just about money or one individual . The unfairness happening to all commercial pool owners should be stopped. I am including a short list of addresses for the pools in your vicinity. Unless I hear from you, I must assume that you do not share my concern and are unable to take my message to your neighboring pool owners . If you can help get in touch. Making Successful Anonymous Phone Calls Have you ever thought of closing your apartment swimming pool? Yesterday, March 28, 1996, I gave it even more serious consideration. I found out that the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department will take enforcement action based on one anonymous phone call . Anybody, using the words safety, hazard, or liability in an anonymous phone call voicing concern in conjunction with any commercial pool will trigger a visit from a county inspector. Other agencies at various levels of government have developed more ethical solutions to the problem. Most often it takes several different source anonymous complaints to produce enforcement action. My pool took only one. You could be next unless we change the ethics responsible for the policy. I did not expect to find the ethical level of the health department so substandard. That is, until I met Dr. Walker, head of the Health Services Department. He openly admitted and justified such enforcement responses to anonymous phone calls as a legitimate process to relieve the county of legal liability. If the county fails to follow up on a complaint, it becomes liable. Dr. Walker, said to me, --You should send out thank-you notices . ' ' I see a severe ethical deficiency here, both with the caller and the head official responsible for policy. I honestly believe that the Board of Supervisors have been kept unaware of this -policy' by County Staff. Does this ethical level used into personnel policy? This is more than just a minor departure from civil liberties . I was in a war fifty years ago to prevent this sort of thing. What ever happened to that obscure right to face your accuser? It is un-American as I know it. Why Inspections The problem found with my pool? Landscaping, pool fencing and decking dividers deemed acceptable in 1988 are not acceptable to the present inspector making his visit only because of the phone call . These pool conditions have been in place for over 35 years . The county had taken pictures in 1988 and even had them on file. Certainly, prima facie evidence of a safe condition allowed to exist. It will take 1 a couple thousand to make things acceptable to the county. My experience in thirty years of teaching elementary school told me that preventing children from running around the pool was a significant safety measure. Now, the county requires that I build them a runway. By fixing what the county requires, I will not be relieved of liability. This pool requirement, emanating from the halls of the state legislature, is a poor safety trade-off . For over a third of a century ' s inspections had used reasonableness as the criteria for safety. No more in this new world. It didn' t need to be this way I have now been forced to decimate 14 feet of juniper hedge that prevented both access to my pool and children from running around it. I have replaced the hedge with a four-foot runway around the end of the pool and a five-foot high continuation of an existing fence. My pool is not as safe as it used to be. If the Health Services Department had a more ethical procedure for dealing with anonymous phone calls they might have determined a bit more about both the motivation for the call and what the concern was . My apartment courtyard has a double fence. One fence encloses the courtyard with a gate . that is self latching but often blocked open for ease of access . Another fence that is 5-feet high has a self latching gate that is always closed and separates the pool from the courtyard. It was the courtyard gate that brought about the phone call . The complaining party never bothered to walk over and look through the gate to confirm that the pool was totally secure. The courtyard gate being open was frightening enough. The authorities gave a knee-jerk reaction that uses only the fear of liability to undo what thirty five years of common sense created. Cost Effectiveness? My tenant ' s time-in-pool does not justify the expense, time, aggravation, costs, or inspection hassles . For hours of use, the cost per tenant is obscene. I have gone so far as to find that I can close my pool by punching a drain hole in the bottom and filling it with dirt. What would I get for this . I would acquire a spacious landscaped courtyard. I could take two days off in the middle of the week without making the mandatory daily pool pH tests . I would reduce my insurance costs and liability. My utility bills would drop 40 dollars a month. Best of all I would get out from. under the ever more oppressive and expensive regulatory system. No apartment owner in his right mind would ever again buy or build an apartment with a pool . At the present time slightly less than one-thousand four hundred rental housing pools and spas provide nearly 16% of the approximate 4 million dollar environmental health budget 2 for the entire county. Apartments and a limited number of for-profit pools are required to pay the $339 for the first pool in 1996 . That ' s up from $120 in 1987 . At the same rate of increase it will be over a thousand dollars to get your pool operating permit ten years from now. In nine of these past -ten years, the pool operating license has been the largest expense area for my pool operations . By closing our pools or doing private contracted inspections we could reduce the number of county employees . This would be a tax saving of over a half-million dollars with the remainder coming in savings of transportation and office factors . There is no justifiable reason that the rental housing industry should be saddled with the present exorbitant fees . As an industry, we have legal recourse to recover past over-charges . Otherwise, there is always Prop 13 II . The System as It Exists The enforcement of pool laws legislated by the state is left to local agencies who are free to charge whatever they wish. There is no upward limit to the fee to be charged for a minimum of five visits by a ( $10 per hour) college student who is given a county car, a test kit, and a list of addresses . The student inspector in my area is netting the health department over $1000 per hour under the present fee structure. Layers of administration are expensive. As of 1996 there are 1434 pools subject to inspection by the county. The 1996 projected staffing is four county staff and five students . These 14 employees will conduct about 7170 inspections over the 100 days of summer. 72 pools per day need to be inspected. Comes out to five pools per day per inspector. Even with travel time added the obscenity of the excessive county fee schedule exists . I got copy of my pool record file from the county. There are only 19 of 40 possible inspections on file including only the years 1988 through 1995 . During this period I have had total pool expenses of $4407 . I have paid $2, 255 in county pool operation license fees . Over 50% of my pool operating expenses are directly due to the county. Using a generous 15 minutes per inspection ( 19 ) this comes to a total inspection time of four hours forty-five minutes over eight years . Nearly $475 per hour. Raising the inspections to. 40 still fixes the costs at over $250 per hour. At an projected average of $500 fee for the next ten years you can expect to pay about $5, 000 for the same service. The license to operate a pool just isn ' t worth it and here ' s how we can prove it. If every rental property owner would video these inspections I 'm sure that that the rental housing industry could gather sufficient evidence to bring a strong court case against the 3 x. 35 fees charged by this system. Consider carrying a tape recorder during the inspections to record what happens and what is said. Just by running time checks on the inspection process would help the housing industry to develop a cost benefit data base. You may fear that such actions will bring a county retaliation of more inspections . Like business, government without profit will wither away. The present system is not equitable, ethical, or cost effective to the apartment owner. Let the Industry Do It. The state could provide enabling legislation making it possible for the rental housing industry to provide or hire its own pool inspections . It was done so with the anti- siphon device. As a private industry we could provide the same services to all apartments as does the county at a fraction of the cost. At the present time there are either four or five county management layers above the person who visits your pool five times a year. A good private business operation would have only one. The enforcement powers and laws could remain intact but the cost and payment would be based on services rendered. If County liability is such a concern why make them responsible or involved at all? A Vicious Cycle Hardly a year goes by that rental housing pool regulations are not given an stretch in one way or another by the state legislature or the local authorities . These regulations begin at non-public county/industry meetings . What' s more you may not be allowed to find out who is present or even where they are. I tried. However, I know for a fact that there are closed meetings between county staff and various private business representatives making presentations that will affect our industry. Meetings with county staff for training or educational purposes are of mutual benefit. Nothing is really crooked, just a matter of good business . Who represents our industry at these meetings? I believe these meetings should be open to citizen oversight. Some government moves on the rental housing industry are not confined to the halls of the state legislature. Gene Whitt (510) 376-5875 ( * to cut off message) 324 Rheem Blvd. Email : gwhitt@ix.netcom. com Moraga, CA 94556 4 This is a Test Can one man still make a difference? Making Successful Anonymous Phone Calls March 28, 1996 I found that the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division will take enforcement action based on one anonymous phone call regarding a commercial pool . Other agencies at various levels of government have found more ethical solutions to the problem. Most often it takes several different source anonymous complaints to produce enforcement action. My pool took only one. If the Health Services Department had a more ethical procedure for dealing with anonymous phone calls they might have determined a bit more about both the motivation for the call and what the concern was . My apartment courtyard has a double fence. One fence encloses the . courtyard with a four foot gate that is self latching but often blocked open for ease of access . Another fence that is 5-feet high has a self latching five foot gate that is always closed and separates the pool from the courtyard. It was the courtyard gate that brought about the phone call . The complaining party never bothered to walk over and look through the gate to, confirm that the pool was totally secure. The courtyard gate being open was frightening enough. I was victimized by a knee-jerk reaction that uses only the fear of liability to undo what thirty five years of common sense created. I did not expect to find the ethical level of the health department so substandard. That is, until I met Dr. Walker, head of the Health Services Department. He openly admitted and justified such enforcement responses to anonymous phone calls as a legitimate process to relieve the county of legal liability. If the county fails to follow up on a complaint, it becomes liable. Dr. Walker, said to me, "You should send out thank-you notices. ' ' I would like to suggest how the ethics responsible for the policy could be changed. A severe ethical deficiency exists here, both with the caller and the officials responsible for policy. This is more than just a minor departure from civil liberties . I was in a war fifty years ago to prevent this sort of thing. What ever happened to that obscure right to face your accuser? It is un-American as I know it. This -policy ' needs ethical adjustment by direction of the Board. Why Inspections The problem found with my pool? Landscaping, pool fencing and decking dividers deemed acceptable in 1988 are not acceptable to the present inspector making his visit only because of the phone call. These pool conditions have been in place for over 35 years . The county had taken pictures in 1988 and even had them on file. It will take a couple C• 35' thousand to make things acceptable to the county. My experience in thirty years of teaching elementary school told me that preventing children from running around the pool was a significant safety measure. Now, the county requires that I build them a runway. This pool requirement, emanating from the halls of the state legislature, is a poor safety trade-off . For a third of a century inspections had used the test of reasonableness as the criteria for safety. It didn' t need to be this way I have now been forced to decimate 14 feet of juniper hedge that prevented both access to my pool and children from running around it. I have replaced the hedge with a four- foot runway around the end of the pool and a five-foot high continuation of an existing fence. Common sense would say that a greater hazard exists now than before. How about an Appeal? During the inspection I inquired about making an appeal . The response was, -'Yes, I could have a hearing for $90 ' ' . I asked who would constitute the hearing members . Three of the inspector' s superiors would make up the hearing board. He assured me that he had always been backed by the board in the past and that any such hearing would be useless . I went to the county offices and found he was right. I was playing against a stacked deck. Other similar agencies have established appeal boards that consist of uninvolved individuals . I would much rather have a hearing before a medical practicioner, a safety engineer, a industry representative, a common citizen and a county staff member. Such a hearing board would have have fewer entrenched interests as would the board offered me. If it can be done by other agencies of the Bay Area why not in Contra Costa County. I would gladly pay for such a hearing. For fairness, I wish a change in venue. Cost Effectiveness? By closing our pools or doing private contracted inspections we could reduce the number of county employees . This would be a tax saving of over a half-million dollars with the remainder coming in savings of transportation and office factors . There is no justifiable reason that the rental housing industry should be saddled with the present exorbitant fees . As an industry, we may have some legal recourse to recover past over-charges . Otherwise, there is always Prop 13 II . The enforcement of pool laws legislated by the state is left to local agencies who are free to charge whatever they believe can be justified. With overhead, there is no upward limit to the fee to be charged for a minimum of five visits by a ( $10 per hour) college student who is given a county car, a test kit, and a list of addresses . The student inspector in my area is netting the health department over $1000 per hour under the present fee structure. As of 1996 there are 1434 pools subject to inspection by the county. The 1996 projected staffing is eight county staff and five students . First inspection of the summer is by staff over 20 days at 8 per day. They will conduct about 6000 more inspections over the 80 days of summer. 72 pools per day need to be inspected. Comes out to five pools per day per inspector. Even with travel time added the obscenity of the excessive county fee schedule exists . At the present time slightly less than one-thousand four hundred rental housing pools and spas provide nearly 16% of the approximate 4 million dollar environmental health budget for the entire county. Apartments and a limited number of for-profit pools are required to pay the $339 for the first pool in 1996 . That' s up from $120 in 1987 . At the same rate of increase it will be over a thousand dollars to get your pool operating permit ten years from now. In nine of these past ten years, the pool operating license has been the largest expense area for my pool operations . I got copy of my pool record file from the county. There are only 19 inspections on file including only the years 1988 through 1995 . During this period I have had total pool expenses of $4407 . I have paid $2 , 255 in county pool operation license fees . Over 50% of my pool operating expenses are directly due to the county' s pool operating permit. Using a generous 15 minutes per pool inspection ( 19 ) this comes to a total inspection time of four hours forty-five minutes over eight years . Nearly $475 per hour. At an projected average of $500 fee for the next ten years you can expect to pay about $5, 000 for the same service. The county license to operate a pool just isn ' t worth the services required or rendered. Let the Industry Do It. The state could provide enabling legislation making it possible for the rental housing industry to provide or hire its own pool inspections . It was done so with the anti- siphon device for pools . As a private industry we could provide the same services to all apartments and pools as does the county at. a fraction of the cost. The county would be relieved of liability. A good private business operation would have only one. The enforcement powers and laws could remain intact but the cost and payment would be based on services rendered. Eugene L. Whitt 510 376-5875 324 Rheem Blvd. �'. 160, Moraga, 9455 . Sirs : Last week Dr. Walker and I had a conversation. At one point, Dr. Walker said that he was looking for someone to 'debate ' with him before the Board regarding the drowning two-year olds . Winning generals select their field of battle carefully. The impression I got was that to disagree with Dr. Walker about nearly anything was to be in favor of drowning two-year olds . My purpose in talking with Dr. Walker in the first place was about the ethics of the Health Services Department using anonymous phone calls to activate the enforcement process . I do believe that I could find a suitable opponent for him were he willing to argue the pros and cons before the board. Bernie Ward would do. Eugene L. Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 (510 ) 376-5875 November 95 of Smithsonian examples of risk analysis. . highly sensitive measurement techniques have broung new precision to the task of assigning numbers to probabilities. How society (government) allocates limited resources. . . Each of us makes hundreds of risk assessments every day. . . findings extrapolated to . . . all life is a risk. . .risk management in our personal lives. attempting to aplly the Delaney Clause passed by Comgress in 1958 for zero risk. . . Discrepancies in perception of risk and reality. Media driven. . . sper_tatular deaths attract attention and political responses. Publicity and laws applied to risks of small likelihood but huge media impact. overestimatioon of probability of splashy and dreadful deaths and underestimate the comm but far more deadly risks. risk of disease far greater than accident. Natural risks are perceiieved as less dangerous man-made risks are blown out of proportion. Fact is man-made chemicals less threat than natural occurring The laws relating to safety as applied by knee-jerk and `bought' legislation are committing statistical murder because they devote limited resources to mitigating negligible risks. (superfund cleanup) Reducing risks in one area increase them in another. Smoking One cigarette takes seven minutes off your life expectancy. Just about the length of time it takes to smoke a cigarette. 1/3 of cancer deaths caused by smoking. 1/3 from diet, and 1/3 from life style choices. How does the fire inspector know that the extinguisher has been properly charged? He doesn ' t and can ' t except by actually emptying the extinguisher. There is a needle and dial on the head of the extinguisher that has a green area. With the needle in the green, the assumption is that the extinguisher is properly charged both with baking soda and air. That the charging was done within the year is supposed to be verified by a colored tag with year and month punched appropriately. Each year gets a different colored tag. Simple! Not quite. By industry estimate two out of three of commercial extinguishers are being 'ragged and tagged' . What this means is that the extinguishers are merely being wiped clean and having a proper colored tag attached. This is being done without a renewal of baking soda or air. Two out of three extinguishers in the state at $40 a pop. There is a way to tell if you have been 'ragged and tagged' but, it will cost you an additional $40 . If an extinguisher has been properly serviced a small piece of colored tape, matching the color of the exterior punched tag, will be affixed to the tube inside the extinguisher tank. So, if you have doubts, discharge the tank or just unscrew the top and check the interior tape. Now it needs to be re-charged. $40 please. What do I do. I take it to a service center and actually watch the servicing being done. The smoke alarm is another industry developed to meet a 'safety and liability' problem. My experience has been that tenants remove the batteries the first time they go off. Like car alarms the annoyance factor wins . If the legislature were REALLY interested in the safety and liability' of the rental housing industry, they would legislate against any smoking on rental property. Can they? Why not, we seem to be a target for everything else. What needs doing, you ask. We, of the rental housing industry, must stop being absentee activists . The vast majority of us are small business men and women. We can ' t rely on lobbyists, financed by the moguls of our industry, to be concerned with the issues and problems I have just discussed. We are capable of stopping the rip-off that occurs in the halls of the legislature. We can get the laws changed to fit the needs of the industry. Gene Whitt 510 376-5875 gwhitt@ix.netcom.com 9 C, 35 65521 Pool Supervision Responsibility (a) Every pool shall be under the supervision of a person who is fully capapble of, and shall assume responsibility for, compliance with all requirements relating to pool operation, maintenance and safety of bathers . (b) No pools shall be used or available for use unless all of the requirements of subsection (a) and the following are complied with. ( 1 ) Routine operating proceudres shall be permanently posted in a location accessable to a frequented by the operator. (2 ) Manufacurers ' instructions for operation and maintenance of mechanical and electrical equipment shall be kept available for the operator. 65523 Operation Records (a) The operator of each pool open for use shall keep a daily record of information regarding operation, including readings of disinfectant residual, pH and maintenance procedures such as cleaning of filters and quantity of chemicals used. (b) Not applicable. No cyanuric acid ever added (c) Data collected pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) whall be maintained at least one year for inspection by the enforcing agent, or shall be sumitted to the enforcing agent upon his request. 65525 Recirculation and Purification System Operation. . . .The variation in flow during a filtration cycle shall be such as to not reduce the flow below 640 of the rate requiress in Section 2-9045 of Title 24, California Administrative Code. 65529 disinfection, pH Control and Cyanuric Acid (a) Pools, when open or in use, shall be disinfected continyuously by a chemical which imparts a residual effect and shall be maintained in an alkaline condition at a pH between 7 . 2 and 8 . 0 . . . .A test kit for measuring the concentration of the disinfectant accurate to within 0 . 1 ppm shall be available at each pool . (b) When tesk kits for chlorine utilize comparative color standards, the standards shall be accurate to within plus or minus 0 . 1 ppm. There shall beat least four color standards as follows 0 . 6, 1 . 0, 1 . 5, and 2 . 0 . The test kit shall be capable of testing for free chlorine residual . (c) The enforcing agent may accept other disinfecting may accept other disinfecting materials or methods after they have been demonstrated to provide a readily measurable residual . such materials or methods must be as effective a's the required chlorine concentration and must not be 36� dangerous to public healthor create objectional physiological effects on bathers . 65533 Cleanliness of Pool. (a) Floating scum, sputum or debris shall not be allowed to accumulate in the pool . Skimmers, where provided, and water levels shall be maintained and operated to remove such material continuously. the bottom and sides of the pool shall be cleaned as often as necessary to be kept in a clean condition. The sides and bottom of the pools, decks and other surfaces shall be kept free of slime and algae. (b) Animals shall not be permitted in the pool or pool area. 65535 Cleaning and Maintenance. (a) All parts of the pool and related pool facilities and equipment shall be maintained in good repair. Floors shall be kept free from cracks and other defects in compliance with Section 2-9009, Title 24, California Administrative Code. (b) Hoses shall be provided. . . (c) Toilets . . .not applicable 65539 Lifesaving, First Aid and Control of Bathers (a) and (b) Lifeguard services . . . not applicable (c) Where no lifeguard service is provides, a warning sign shall be placed in plane view and shall state "Warning--No Lifeguard on Duty with clearly legibile letters at least 10 .2 centimeters (4 inches ) high. In addition, the sign shall also state "Childrfen Under the Age of 14 Should Not Use Pool Without An Adult in Attendance ' ' . (d) the enforcing agent may require posting of notices directing the bathers to make use of the toilets and showers before entering the pool . At all pools diagrammatic illustrations of artifical respiration procedures shall be posted where clearly visible from the nearby deck. such illustrations shall be procted against the elements . Also, the telephone number of the nearest amulance, fire and police or sheriff ' s department shall be kept similarly posted along with instructions that, if needed, manual or mouth-to-mouth artifical respiration should be started immediately and continuted until a physician arrives or mechanical resuscitators are applied. (e) Every swimming pool shall be equipped for safety and rescue purposes with one or more rescue poles not less than 3 . 6 meters ( 12 feet) in length with body hooks, and one or more life rings haveing a minimum exterior diameter of 43 centimeters ( 17 inches ) readily accessible for use. Such life rings shall have attached to them an o. 476 centimeter ( 3/16-inch) line long enough to span the maximum width of the pool . The line shall be stored when not in use in such a way as to prevent kinking or fouling. When rescue can be effected from the perimeter of . . .applies to spas . (f) . . .boats not applicable (g) A first aid kit shall be provided at all swimming pools when required by the enforcing agent. 65545 . Pool Closure. (a) If, in the opinion of the enforcing agent, a pool is maintained or operated in a manner which creates an unhelthful, unsafe, or unsanitary condition, the pool may be closed by the enforcing agent. Such a pool shall not be reopened until correction is made, and upon specific written approval of the enforcing agent. (b) Unhealthful, unsafe or unsanitary conditions include, but are not limited to, the failure to meet clarity, disinfection, pH, safety or bacteriological standards . The Fire District ' s willingness to prostitute itself to provide a retirement program for selected firemen is having an unforseen set of consequences . The fact that governmental unevenness exists throughout the country is common knowledge. That it exists locally in Contra Costa County in such basic services of sanitation, fire protection, water service, swimming pool codes, backflow devices, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers and even garbage fees is not common knowledge. Apartment Owners : Have you been ragged and tagged lately? Probably, without even knowing it. Paying full price for it anyway. A bit of history. The manufacturers of fire equipment have a long, and not so noble, history of governmental manipulation. The Oakland fire was a good example of how the manufacturers ignored the best interests of the public in their sales programs . Once the local governments were covered the manufacturers went to Sacramento for new fields to conquer. As a lobbying organization they proposed that, in return for unspecified sums of support money, they should get certain legislation. The idea was to make people safer. It was of no consequence that the continued existence of fires determines their business success . These manufacturers were interested in business and not in fire prevention. As in politics, fear, not hope, is the motivator. Business in general, but the housing industry in particular, was singled out as target for the most intensive legislative control . As an industry, housing, was diverse, relatively loosely organized, having a negative societal image, an easy target and large enough to make the regulatory effort worth the legislative investment. The money was 'invested' the laws were written, passed and signed. Fire prevention became a handmaiden of fire departments . Rental housing units were required to provide smoke alarms . Then the law was amended to require fire extinguishers, and amended again to require specific kinds and size. Then inspections were required to force compliance of provision and subsequent renewal . The force consisted of a $90 fee for every subsequent inspection following specified notice. Another larger group of fire industry businesses support the 'required' legislation related to fire extinguishers . These are the small business doing the required annual recharging of rental housing extinguishers . At rates from $6 to $36+ they are licensed to provide a specific service required to 'renew' an extinguisher, whether it needs it or not, to conform with laws written and supported by their industry. CIO The recharging requires that the baking soda of an ABC type extinguisher be removed, the valve cleaned and checked a new dated and a color coded sticker tag be placed on the stem. The baking soda is replaced and the tank re-pressurized. Another color coded tag is punched for year and month and attached to the outside of the tank. There is good reason to suspect that two out of three tanks are not re-charged in compliance with the law. The rental property owner is, more often than not, paying for something that he is not getting. The unethical renewer will rag and tag the extinguisher. This means that the tank will be wiped clean and a new exterior tag attached. That ' s it. You 've been ragged and tagged. The only way to determine that such is not the case is to unscrew the top which will de-pressurize the tank and check the interior tag. Do this and you are faced with the cost of doing the renewal all over again whether you have been victimized or not. The fact is, a fire extinguisher does not need annual or even biennial recharging. Until it is used the tanks can go several years easily. The annual renewal requirement is a legislative 'favor ' returned to the industry by the state legislators as payment in kind. As rental property owners what can we do. My wife says there is nothing we can do. A fire inspector said there was nothing he could do but obey the law. A legitimate renewal service deplored his difficulty in remaining in business with the rag and tags taking the cream off the top. The legislator's don 't care for anything except re-election. The space required, the compressor, materials, and certification could be easily financed and obtained by the association. Half a garage would suffice for thousands of units . We could have our own employee and service for our members . It could very easily operated much as milk bottle delivery years ago. Pick-up and delivery exchange installations could be done easily. It would give a good economic basis for association membership. A change in the annual renewal requirement would not be far behind. I wonder it could be transferred to the legislators? The inspectors often consist of those who can gain extra retirement benefits from the additional pay due an inspector in their last year as a fireman. Only one year of higher pay is required for substantially higher benefits . Hence, most firemen have a shot at the position. Fire departments, for this reason will be the last to advocate a change in the system. While rental property owners are the victims, firemen are held captive by the retirement system. What is the best fire prevention move that can be made by any rental owner? Easy. Do not allow smoking on your property. Not many years ago an estimated 90% of all fires were the result of smoking. The percent is less today., but still exceeds by far all other causes . Having property on which smoking is not allowed will allow higher rents from increased desirability. The potential savings of fire insurance and keeping property clear of cigarette residue amount to billions in the housing industry. May 14, 1996 Moraga Fire Protection District, Board of Directors, There are sections of the California State Codes that by statute and enforcement set into motion procedures where the road to justice, protection, and equality forks . The injustice of our local, state, and federal laws has grown into a cancer that is destroying our nation. The Fire Protection District has been led down a fork in this road. We find that either by intent, happenstance or indirection, the Health Services Department has been enforcing State Codes that have created a subclasses of citizens who are treated by law differently. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution citizens are guaranteed equal treatment and protection. The unevenness of the California Code becomes obvious since my home and rental properties are adjacent to each other and share very much the same hazards . As a homeowner, I am apparently not subject to the requirements of codes that protect renters . I receive no notices . I pay no fee. Likewise, all my homeowner neighbors and even renters of homes . It is not so much a matter of protection as the difference in the protection provided and the fees and penalties involved. I am uncertain as to who is being protected and who is being left unprotected but what happens is different and unequal . If the law does not provide for the same treatment where exactly the same conditions exist then there must be a constitutional error. The California Appellate Court has decided a precedent for my opinion on this . I refer you to the 1996 California Court of Appeal decision in College Area Renters and Landlord Association vs. City of San Diego, 49 Ca1.Rptr.2d 809. In this case an ordinance that treated renters differently than homeowners was fatally flawed. What about the home up the street that is a rental? Are there different subclasses of renters as well? The fact that governmental unevenness exists throughout the country is common knowledge. That it exists locally in Contra Costa County in such basic services of sanitation, fire protection, water service, swimming pool codes, backflow devices, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers and even garbage fees is not common knowledge. The Health Services Department in combination with inequities of other agencies amounts to more than 500 million dollars being collected from multiple housing renters in the State of California every year. No equivalent services or fees are levied against homeowners or home renters . The apartment renter subclass is being singled out both directly and indirectly by and through their landlords . The courts have found this to be unconstitutional . An additional issue that needs to be faced is the sums that have been collected by the Health Services Deopartment up to this point under this program. What is happening will find its way into the courts . Can the County afford to lose such a legal battle? Things will change. If not now, when? If not? Why not? I await your response. Gene Whitt 324 Rheem Blvd. , Moraga. 6-19-96 Ms . Herman I have been an apartment owner and homeowner in Moraga for the past 35 years . I have been carrying on a running controversy with my local county agencies since March. My personal problems have led me to do some research into the State Codes that may be of interest to you and your readers . I am enclosing my latest letter for your perusal . Feel free to contact me if you think the situation warrants . Gene Whitt June 17 , 1996 Board of Fire Commissioners Moraga Fire Protection District, and Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, and Board of Directors East Bay Municipal Utility District Greetings, Asequence of events in the legislative process has resulted in the selection of certain rental citizens of California as a class for regulation. Renters as a group are the least organized, least cohesive, most mobile, and most unlikely to ever learn that they have been unjustly treated. This last aspect is because there is no public breakdown of the costs of rental operations . Governmental costs as taxes, fees, and permits are concealed in the mass of total rents charged and paid. Renter-citizens have no way of knowing that they are required to pay, by law, for protection as are no other class of citizen. The renters of multi-family dwellings are unconstitutionally being legislated against by over $500, 000, 000 every year in California. Figure up to $4 . 00 per apartment unit per month in fee and permit charges over the entire state. The discrimination predates Proposition 13 but was relatively benign by consisting of only inspections until the money potential was realized by agencies financially strapped by Prop. 13 . I have before me an analysis of the College Area Renters Vs City of San Diego (49 Cal .Rptr 2nd 809 ) where the city ordinance only applied to renter-occupied, single-family, detached homes in designated areas . The court ruled the ordinance discriminatory. Because the ordinance did not regulate all homes (renter-occupied and owner-occupied) it was deemed in conflict with constitutional law. The Court also found fault with the ordinance in that it suggested owner-occupied, detached dwellings were not . prone to producing the same negative elements that ordinance was seeking to eliminate. The fact that the Health District, Fire District, and Water District applicable State Statues allow the local agencies to inspect, collect fees, and 'protect ' only certain renter- occupied housing is equally in conflict with constitutional law. Just because the law emulates from the State does not exempt it from constitutional restraints . The fire district requirements for the hillside behind my apartment should 'constitutionally' apply to the same hill- side behind my adjacent home. They don ' t. The Health and Safety requirements for my apartment pool should be applied to the pools of rented-homes and owner-owned homes . They don ' t. The back flow requirements of the State codes should apply to every exterior faucet where the hazard of public water supply contamination exists . Only renters of multi- housing units with swimming pools are subject to the State regulation of back flow and the local inspection fees concealed in their rents . The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution should not be waived in the presumption that there is a greater risk to lives and property associated with multi-residential structures . The Oakland Hills Fire proves my point about fire hazard. For every apartment swimming pool with a sanitation and backflow problem, there are at least twenty pools with exactly the same potential for hazard but left 'unprotected' because they are renter-homes or owner-homes . No matter whether you look at the codes as protecting property or people they are unevenly applied and enforced. Both the San Diego and the State Codes are in violation of the same constitutional precepts . Are not the enforcers equally culpable as the writers? Is a refund due? Is there liability residing in individuals who knowingly act contrary to the Constitution? An illegal law J' need not and should not be obeyed. Some of the State Codes appear to be only 'enabling' . It is as though the 'writers recognized that a constitutional problem existed and chose to pass both the liability and responsibility down the line. This dog will not lie down, 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 Gene Whitt Again, I must give credit to Dr. William Walker of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department for providing the inspiration I needed to prepare this letter. Unwinding the Hidden Rent Tax It begins with the BIG LIE, a lobbyist for a group of businesses approach the executive assistant of a State Legislator. An audience is arranged and in the name of safety and health some legislation is proposed that will require specific procedures, devices, and inspections designed to make the world better. Since there is a great difference between the possible and perfection, only a selected citizen group can be covered by this proposal . The more disorganized, transient, and ill informed the better. In this instance renters have been selected, a specific class of renters as distinct from all other citizens . Go for the weakest, least likely to be informed, The legislation is written, goes through required hearings and is passed as either law or code application of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, and the Uniform Building Code. The legislation is a masterpiece of subterfuge. The rules and enforcement requirements are written at the highest level . The actual enforcement is passed down to the lowest local level . The costs are determined and written into ordinances so that the enforcement can pay costs and usually more. In the case of landlords they are just sent notices, bills and references to the appropriate codes being enforced. The renters never know anything. Unknowingly they pay for the entire process . They are getting 'protection ' that is not being provided to other citizens . The government agencies get to enlarge their inspection staff, provide retirement benefits for personnel promoted to 'inspector ' status, and support employee side-businesses, provide funds for unrelated agencies and administration, and industry-agency side benefits such as paid conventions, etc . Several layers of private industry get to feed off the legislation. The manufacturers will bring out new procedures, materials, and devices . The legislation is modified to require these very often in such a way as to exclude other competing products . Fees are periodically raised by some agencies even though they have no real relationship to the actual services rendered or expenses incurred. To the rental housing industry these events are happening right now in areas of fire protection, backflow prevention, and swimming pool operations . For one apartment in Contra Costa county the aggregate costs of these regulations can amount to as much as $50 per tenant per year. I have very conservatively estimated that the total cost to renters in California amounts to over $500, 000, 000 . The process is big business and big money taken from the hides of citizens least able to afford it. The worst aspect of this is that much of this legislation flies in the face of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. One sub-class of citizen the renter of a multiple housing unit has been selected to receive services and protection that is not provided to the rest of society. 1 C 35 June 17 , 1996 Board of Fire Commissioners Moraga Fire Protection District, and Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, and Board of Directors East Bay Municipal Utility District Greetings, A sequence of events in the legislative process has resulted in the selection of certain rental citizens of California as a class for regulation. Renters as a group are the least organized, least cohesive, most mobile, and most unlikely to ever learn that they have been unjustly treated. This last aspect is because there is no public breakdown of the costs of rental operations . Governmental costs as taxes, fees, and permits are concealed in the mass of total rents charged and paid. Renter-citizens have no way of knowing that they are required to pay, by law, for protection as are no other class of citizen. The renters of multi-family dwellings are unconstitutionally being legislated against by over $500, 000, 000 every year in California. Figure up to $4 . 00 per apartment unit per month in fee and permit charges over the entire state. The discrimination predates Proposition 13 but was relatively benign by consisting of only inspections until the money potential was realized by agencies financially strapped by Prop. 13 . I have before me an analysis of the College Area Renters Vs City of San Diego (49 Cal .Rptr 2nd 809 ) where the city ordinance only applied to renter-occupied, single-family, detached homes in designated areas . The court ruled the ordinance discriminatory. Because the ordinance did not regulate all homes (renter-occupied and owner-occupied) it was deemed in conflict with constitutional law. The Court also found fault with the ordinance in that it suggested owner-occupied, detached dwellings were not prone to producing the same negative elements that ordinance was seeking to eliminate. The fact that the Health District, Fire District, and Water District applicable State Statues allow the local agencies to inspect, collect fees, and 'protect ' only certain renter- occupied housing is equally in conflict with constitutional law. Just because the law emulates from the State does not exempt it from constitutional restraints . The fire district requirements for the hillside behind my apartment should 'constitutionally' apply to the same hill- side behind my adjacent home. They don ' t. The Health and Safety requirements for my apartment pool should be applied to the pools of rented-homes and owner-owned homes . They don 't. The back flow requirements of the State codes should apply to every exterior faucet where the hazard of public water supply contamination exists . Only renters of multi- housing units with swimming pools are subject to the State regulation of back flow and the local inspection fees concealed in their rents . The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution should not be waived in the presumption that there is a greater risk to lives and property associated with multi-residential structures . The Oakland Hills Fire proves my point about fire hazard. For every apartment swimming pool with a sanitation and backflow problem, there are at least twenty pools with exactly the same potential for hazard but left 'unprotected' because they are renter-homes or owner-homes . No matter whether you look at the codes as protecting property or people they are unevenly applied and enforced. Both the San Diego and the State Codes are in violation of the same constitutional precepts . Are not the enforcers equally culpable as the writers? Is a refund due? Is there liability residing in individuals who knowingly act contrary to the Constitution? An illegal law need not and should not be obeyed. Some of the State Codes appear to be only 'enabling' . It is as though the writers recognized that a constitutional problem existed and chose to pass both the liability and responsibility down the line. This dog will not lie down, 324 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 Gene Whitt Again, I must give credit to Dr. William Walker of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department for providing the inspiration I needed to prepare this letter. i Motherhood, apple pie, and safety Let ' s make the world safer! The free enterprise system at work carries its message and money to Sacramento along with prepared legislation. Find a legislative hands outstretched and grease them with 'contributions ' coated with motherhood, apple pie, and safety. " I 'm not in it for the money, my product is a necessity and the legislature will be condoning murder or worse if every business does not have a do-ma- kinky. " Forthcoming is a state law which requires every business to have a do-ma-hinky. The law must be carefully worded so that only a small segment of the voting population is affected. This segment must be able to 'pass along' the cost of the law, the product, and its associated substrata industries to the general public in such a way as to justify motherhood, apple . pie, and safety. No need to tell our constituency that a better way is available at no cost. The existence of this law will create a whole new industry. Cost? Not a problem! Just pass it along. Now this do-ma-hinky has some unique properties that go beyond mere purchase. It must be renewed and inspected on an arbitrary time basis . So beyond the initial manufacture industry, we must have a sub-strata industry devoted to renewing the initial purchase so that continual motherhood, apple pie, and safety is assured. Even better if some agency of government or utility can be called on to supervise. Now we have increased our ability to grease the legislative hands with more selective 'contributions ' . The law is amended so the do-ma-hinky must be sized according to need. The renewal times -must ' be more often than really required for motherhood, apple pie, and safety. The do-ma- hinky needs a mounting, a sign, and an instructional program for proper use. Is there ever an end? Not if it can be helped. We now have a law, a product, an on going renewal requirement supported by an -in our ' legislature. Now we must create an inspection mechanism. Government can always be called upon to do the inspection. Make the law read so that the local entity is by 'law' required to do the inspection. The inspection must be periodic, often is better and enforceable with teeth. The local government agency has a few -problem' employees . They are unable to perform properly or are of an age to need a quick boost in pay to insure an adequate retirement income. If we give these 'valued servants ' a new title and inspection authority we can raise their pay and insure their future happiness . Additional cost? Not a problem. We will charge for their services required to assure motherhood, apple pie, and safety. In fact, we can C. 3S even charge a little extra to cover other essential services like the office air conditioning. The cost? Just pass it along. Voila tout, a new bureaucracy has been created. Now, just a minute, as a governmental leader I need to gain more stature. My status is proportional to how many people serve under me. Additionally, all the government employees should be kept happy. We need a bond issue or a tax election to increase my status and insure motherhood, apple pie, safety, and happiness . What does it take to insure passage of a bond issue or tax increase? Money. We inspect do-ma-hinky products . Without us they wouldn ' t be in business . They' ll contribute-especially if we send over the inspectors . How about a mailing to all the renewal firms . They owe us, too. In return we can vow the support for motherhood, apple pie, and safety as will logically required for the next amendment to OUR law. Teeth, we need teeth! What if some do not obey the law requiring purchase of do-ma-hinky? What if they don ' t renew? What if they don ' t pay the cost of inspection? Not a problem! We get to inspect as often as we wish. In a month or so with an inspection every fifteen minutes we win. Businesses either comply or die. The right to levy taxes or fees is the right to destroy. Uncounted businesses have been killed before and during inception by the damage caused by regulatory fees . An over-reaching and over- bearing legislature is a cancer in the side of the housing industry. Ever wonder how business licenses, workman ' s comp, handicap access, fire extinguishers, pool regulations, building regulations, rent control, lawyers, and a crooked legislature came to be? t . C. 350, 6-26-96 C r) a C r)E'� County A,`.'.-1-c:j-'ney Sir In thze second week of June I addressed a letter to a Mr . Guer:ra of the Environmental Health Services division of t.mz, Health S�-.trvices Department with copies to the Board of I have not yet received a response so I am -Lo ,,-,?,)u and your agency. that there has been a violation of the SLIE.1--,'.- Codes --:-elated to the way Mr Gurerra, Mr. Smith and 1)r . U�.,Aker have required me to restructure my apartment pool . I complained to them that they were ,aro.Eq aL -i,-.ime but they persisted that unless I complied t h 7 -,A.)(--,u1d phut me down. The option I was given was to de,st3--oy t1-ie pool or to comply with their demands to build decks and -.f.'encing that were exempted by the State Code due to ' (4-andfat-hering' . Mr. Smith went on to say that he was aLIO�-'V':d by -che code to decide what provisions to enforce ,9-*n,' +-.o � hat -xtent he could insist on compliance. I quE,::.;--,-.i---3ned i--his power at the time but Dr. Walker and Mr. in full support of Mr. Smith. does not seem right in this situation. Their .0 e-sp ond .to my letter leads me to believe that -U - l-'a',je n-,�=,,r;on to be concerned. When a County agency pe:rfc)ry,ils, in manner contrary to the State Codes I do e] it is the obligation of the District Attorney to p u r -a,:, the T.:.)-roblem. do request that the District Attorney i-he incident in question to see if the ,,fire enforced as written or whether illegal "'I(.Ier the color of authority were taken by the ..=end agency involved. Eugene -L. Whitt 32,1 ("A '9 4-'-,5 6 111 c. 4- j-e'.. ter : (Unknown handwritten date) )June 1996 P.-Ir G", -Y'r a al , C I-,,'upervisor Members that you and your minions chose to i-Ila-c it is you who have broken the law and R-I', under the color of authority. law gave me rights that you chose to .� -.,d " "-iberately violate. You and yours i 1 • et ct ?. .''.''ir.<:zt.F'i y' misinterpreted the laws application to Under this false enforcement and t zY (:o 1 c)T: c u authority you did require me to do A %V,:",:; not, and could not be required to do. wi-tc, f d Ld \,v-as, not by -request ' as suggested in t°hE __:,-;pec;t ion report but by direct order both by Mc , Mr. Guerra. G andfett,,er Clause and more ')4.'.k'2 of the California Health and Safety Code no rule or regulation as to the design or of pools shall apply to any pool wh.cl—, constructed before the adoption of such rule Further and of some interest you will r ;x ,. ,,r, r)oo1 was built and has been operated by me pool . Code section 65501 (b) Only private , ;= _; r,._.;:;Lned by an individual for the use of family and ;: i. t: a �: :_ .:.xempt from the provisions of this chapter. ' ' oc, e:crl:.i.c, fee was paid for a private pool not a C) .- , If this is in error, it is the county ' s L3.i.C'tJ il.()t. u.;i1,Ae . Anen ��uc�t t:c>n plaints I say 'co you and yours that the complaint was not d.'i,-sc;tc>cz against anything except the gate to my courtyard. I tha-: crate and it not being closed that prompted the a7-oper investigation of the complaint would have x,_1:_4 s D be .so.. It is sad that so many of the areas of Lf(" .r: = ttrrt_:_ r: and our society are so morally deficient as il-�gality with what is right and just. If this d c _sion I feel sorry for you and your policy. I YO'_: _cook to the Bay Area Air Quality Management i1.1 :i.ct, f better way to handle anonymous complaints . -ks regarding the juniper hedge, I am 'Chat you failed to inform the Board and your .:7.at I had driven a number of 4-5 inch steel posts to block off the hedge holes until it had an n grow back. Was this an oversight or a :.:.e .,;r:;_ssion? Years ago I heard Dr. Martin Luther K :cn to teachers say, "The greatest heresy is t. i or the wrong reason. you to the Bay Area Air Quality Management p.1-:,:):_�•.duces for appeals . They seem to function on C9 I;VD1ll `,+I}?.at ll'.gher moral level and sense of correctness than Services Department. I know of other such this is the best. ,en.ess q 1.-, e-hallenge you or anyone else to show where any so increased as have pool inspection fees . ' ;, are using the housing industry as a -cash cow' yet , C , 3 services . This is neither moral, fair, just, it takes 16% of your budget to self-support -i, L)ection program the public is being cheated, misled. chose not to respond to my charge that the r—L-c)":;;';s , is denying equal protection to an entire State ' s population. No doubt, you had good aga.i_;:, to ignore the obvious . Renters comprise a C-19 :-egment of the population. Why would the law w . --_.(-J protect them and ignore the vast majority of who are equally deserving of protection? This dog will not lie down, Gene Whitt