SECTION 1 OF 2: DIXON VS GLENN
Yesterday in court, two of the three people from the city who were ordered to appear… didn’t.
They claimed that the form SC109 (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/sc109.pdf) allowed for the city to act as their representative. However, the form explicitly states “You cannot appear for a defendant or plaintiff if your only job is to represent him or her in small claims court”– which is precisely what the city was attempting to do: Offload the responsibility to the City Clerk. Astute readers will note that there is a checkbox for “Government Agency”, but that is only used if someone were to name the city and the city clerk changed positions, or if someone didn’t name the city clerk themselves and simply attempted to sue a government agency by name. The very top of the form states that it is NOT made to allow someone to have legal representation in the court– one of the main reasons I did this in small claims to begin with is so that Dixon would need to defend her own words, in person. I believe a default judgement may be coming due to this action– an action which serves as an insult to the judge and the entire justice system. After all, how can you have a trial without the people who were involved with the incident even showing up to court?
Regardless, the judge wanted to make an informed decision on this oddity, so he withheld his judgement on whether or not the people ordered to appear were actually required to appear, and heard the case. During the case, the city answered zero questions adequately, and refused to answer a direct question by the judge about the extent of legislative immunity.
I explained that the voicemail Dixon left showed clear and planned intent, using taxpayer dollars to research activists, showed the video in which Dixon proclaimed that I owed bills that the city staff would later state I didn’t owe. I outlined how all I ever wanted was an apology and a retraction, and was refused that on at least a dozen occasions. I stated how I was originally going to simply sue for a dollar, but I realized that Dixon wouldn’t even show up to court for that– but even after suing for a higher amount, she still didn’t bother honoring our legal system.
I explained that Dixon’s lash-out during council had nothing to do with any details of an overpriced bus, and was akin to highly partisan arguments that people get into about Democrats and Republicans, where one will say “your party did this wrong”, and the other person says “yeah well your party did THAT wrong!”– an illogical and completely non-productive method of bickering which never addresses anything of merit. Even if I had owed the money (I don’t), this was the improper venue and the improper item to be commenting about it.
I explained that there is no legal way for me to owe the money that Dixon claims, as I never removed any documents from the premises– let alone ever requested them to be printed to begin with. And even if I had– many items were duplicates and other items which were available in electronic form– literally against the law to charge for. But even if they were able to charge, and even if I had requested them to print these, and even if I did go and pick them up without paying (none of which are true)– did it really take them 17 times before they found a problem– only to be announced in a public forum, rather than sending someone an invoice? Finally, I pointed out that the math on the sheets didn’t even add up properly.
What I failed to mention was Kent Moore’s case in which Judge Linda S. Marks stated that the city’s PRAR policies were problematic– back in 2016. The city failed to resolve those. I also failed to mention that the city changed their own policies BECAUSE of my case— indicating that they know the old policies were problematic.
The judge said his response should be delivered later today. Until then, we must await his ruling.
SECTION 2 OF 2: NEWPORT TOWER FIRE
Yesterday at about 10:30am, a fire broke out on the 4th floor of the Newport Towers by Fernando Street on Balboa Peninsula. The unit was not occupied and there were no people harmed, but the loss was catastrophic for one of the units. Many neighbors have assumed that they left the heater on after visiting for the boat parade, and the old electric system simply couldn’t handle the constant strain. The stairwell facing the Bayside boardwalk had water gushing out of it in the early afternoon,
but residents I was able to contact on other floors said that they experienced no flooding (I have been unable to contact anyone on the 4th floor, where the water was being concentrated to extinguish the fire). Early Wednesday morning, the unit was boarded up.
Special thanks to the huge response by both Newport and Costa Mesa fire departments who were quick to extinguish this fire– the first fire ever in that building.
And special thanks to resident Maris Cayton for the photos!