Saturday, May 24, 2008

Why Am I Surprised? (More on the Macy Case)

Apparently, according to Superior Court Judge Garrett Wong, lowering bail for accused criminals is perfectly in line with the law if their victims is alleged to be a vexatious litigant. Maybe that is a little too simplistic, but it seems to be what has happened in the case of People v. Kip Macy and Nicole Macy.

Who are Kip and Nicole Macy? They are the two landlords which have been charged with a host of crimes arising from their ownership of 744 - 746 Clementina St., San Francisco. The short list is this: removing support joists from their tenant's floor when he dared to exercise his rights to contest his eviction,
breaking into their apartments and stealing from them, calling 911 to have the police arrest a tenant whom they claimed was a "vagrant" squatting in the building, and trying to convince a city inspector to red tag their building to get rid of their tenants.

But apparently, at a second bail hearing for both Mr. and Mrs. Macy, Judge Wong lowered the bail. Attorneys for the couple, Lisa Dewberry and Michael Whelan, have apparently decided to make the victims in this case appear as the criminals. Dewberry started this a month ago as I noted here. The attorneys argued that the clients have strong ties to the community, no prior criminal history, and that one of the victims was a vexatious litigant who was turning the building into his own personal cash cow by filing suits against the owners.

Whelan, in court on Friday, apparently claimed that the tenant in question, Mr. Scott Morrow, had a
"documented litigious nature"who saw the building "essentially as a cash cow to support him" and had "made $140,000 in litigation connected to this case."

Let's see. Landlord wrongs tenant by unlawfully attempting to evict him. Forces him to fight in court in order to preserve the only home he has. After successfully defending his rights, it appears that Judge Wong believes that the tenant should just let by-gones be by-gones and not try to recover for the loss which they have suffered.

And then, when the new landlords took over and performed a bogus Ellis Act, apparently Mr. Morrow was also supposed to just let things go and not try to defend his home. Or to seek to punish, through the courts the people who were committing the wrongdoing.

What I want to know is why the prosecutors did not lay out exactly the history of the litigation instead of allowing Judge Wong to just lower the bail on the theory that one of the victims may be a vexatious litigant. According to the account I am reading, all he did was focus on the fact that there were only four cases filed, as opposed to the number of meritless cases filed against Mr. Morrow.

Of course, there is a hostility in the judiciary right now against tenants. Witness the Action Apartments case and the 1100 Park Lane decisions which have come down in the last 12 months. Apparently Judge Wong decided to read into Penal Code 1272.1 that the criteria for bail must also include how well a defense attorney can attack the character of one of the victims.




5 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's not unusual the credibility of witnesses to be considered in setting bail... based on http://www.fsmware.com/SF/Affidavit.html it seems that the "victim" is not particularly credible

AngryBell said...

There are two things to say to this. First, there are 4 tenants, and only one of them has their credibility questioned. Second, the lack of credibility seems to be based on the fact that Morrow is 1) poor 2) someone who has sued for a wrongful eviction before 3)someone who is disabled (though disputed by one person who states that he does not like Morrow) and 4) a tenant who has made complaints to DBI.

But of course, in this climate, it is easy to lay all the blame on the tenant and absolve the poor landlord.

So Mr. Anonymous (aka IP 24.80.10. from which appears to originate from Burnaby, Canada), how do you explain the other tenants who were the victims of Mr. and Mrs. Macy's actions? Will investigator's declarations be posted on the http://www.fsmware.com/ site?

nunya_bizniz said...

Mr. Bell, the "anony-pansy" post originates from one of the many bsd-unix sites that our own "dear" kip macy (big bsd-unix developer) owns. Herewith the whois information on the site:
Registrant:
Kip Macy
151 Melville Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
US

Registrar: DOMAINBANK
Domain Name: FSMWARE.COM
Created on: 15-APR-01
Expires on: 15-APR-09
Last Updated on: 29-MAY-08

Administrative, Technical Contact:
Doe, John john_doe11@yahoo.com
Middle America
Smallville, KS 80000
US
406-555-1212


Domain servers in listed order:
NS2C.JOHNCOMPANIES.COM
NS1C.JOHNCOMPANIES.COM
You might note, in violation of the law, kippity-do-da posts false information for the administrative contact. He is a piece of work, shopsoiled & defective.

Overwhelmingly any real defense of this pair of sociopathic money-grubbers originates from one of three sources: 1. Kip & his bsd cronies/Nicole & family. 2. Other property owners who get a vicarious thrill from reading the macy's exploits. 3. Lackeys from the defense firm's pool of "social resources".

With any slight justice, these two will be imprisoned, & rendered penniless.

Anonymous said...

nunya_bizniz I note that you and "wandering bell" are unwilling to post your identities. And yet you accuse him of criminal behaviour. I bet you are either 1) a lawyer who profits from depriving property owners of income or 2) a tenant who resents having to pay your rent each month and will never have enough to own property yourself

It is good that California has a place like San Francisco to house net negative contributors such as yourself.

Anonymous said...

nunya_bizniz I note that you and "wandering bell" are unwilling to post your identities. And yet you accuse him of criminal behaviour. I bet you are either 1) a lawyer who profits from depriving property owners of income or 2) a tenant who resents having to pay your rent each month and will never have enough to own property yourself.

It is good that California has a place like San Francisco to house net negative contributors such as yourself.

At least you have an outlet like this to channel the powerlessness you must feel.