Monday, December 28, 2009


Most of the more than estimated 4 million elderly, homeless people in America are overlooked by the American public. The unkind result is the elderly homeless population is often held responsible for their own homelessness, that is, blaming the victims for their own affliction.

My homelessness began at age 68 when I was locked out of my HUD/Sec8 senior community apartment on February 27, 2009 for making complaints about criminal behavior and the lack of safety in the building of 100 apartments. The owners [Amerland Group; San Diego, California], Management [Logan Property Management, Martha Enrique] and Resident Manager, Karen Brooks, along with Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck [Kimball,Tirey & StJohn] had no care or concern that they were putting an elderly disabled woman onto the streets.

HUD ignored every complaint I sent to them.

My eviction was never even given a "due dilegance" investigation by Attorney Hollenbeck.
Attorney's Duty to Investigate Case: -- Butler v State Bar (1986) 42 Cal3rd 323 (329) -- Paul Oil Company v- Fed. Mutual Insurance (1998) 154 Fed 3rd 1049

The unethical and dirty tricks this company put me through to get me out before the actually eviction were beyond belief:
elder abuse, perjured documents, false police reports, and then when I approached the Appellant Court with a Writ to stay until the Appeal was heard, they went into court on an ex parte and charged me with “Work Place Violence” – with no credible proof.

They weren’t happy with one; they took out two identical TROs. However, one judge who was well versed in the law saw through their scheme and dismissed it immediately as “void” because they “did not make their case.” I am fighting the second one in court, going beyond the new year. It was heard by a judge who did not know, or ignored the law which means he has lost his immunity and may now be sued. When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original].

The Court sent a decision regarding my Writ to Ameriland, Logan Property Management, and Attorney Hollenbeck that it would be an extreme hardship [because of my medical problems and age] if I had to move out. I never received the letter as the management who is responsible for the mail drop, never gave me the letter. They posted it on my front door the day they locked me out. They knew my health problems from reading my Writ, and yet they put me into the street knowing it would cause me physical and mental suffering.

California Penal Code, Section 368 (1) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

I was ignored, shunned, yelled at, called names by managers Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth, not allowed to participate in community activities, and provably conspired against to evict me. (I have all of the documented complaints I made)

Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.53. Mental suffering: "Mental suffering" means fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms of serious emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating behavior, threats, harassment, or by deceptive acts performed or false or misleading statements made with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe depression or serious emotional distress of the elder or dependent adult.

My life was filled with duress, anxiety, depression and I had to seek medical help.

I didn't know it is a general " be free from acts constituting duress" (Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d. 195) and the propriety of a "cause of action for wrongful acts in the nature of duress...examples of such wrongful acts include a bad faith threat to breach a contract ..." (Rich Whillock v. Ashton Development, 157 Cal. App. 3d at p.1159) I was told by a psychiatrist it is Post Traumatic Stress

February 27, 2009 was a frigid night in Southern California, and I was now sleeping in my old car, in a parking lot in the City of Montclair.

This is elder abuse.

It is a struggle to remain humane in the face of inhuman conditions, and that is a story in its self.

Two weeks later San Antonio Hospital admitted me for uncontrollable diarrhea, breathing and heart problems – I had a heart attack in 2002 and triple by-pass surgery that same year. Later I will be diagnosed with Bradycardia – an abnormally slow heart rate. I have sleep apnea and suppose to sleep with a Bi-pap machine at night to help my breathing; there is no access to an electrical outlet in a parking lot.

For elderly people actually facing the streets, shelters do not exist for them. It is strange, there are at least some shelters for battered women and children, and I keep in mind that homeless children evoke more sympathy than homeless elderly. We are a youth oriented culture and the elderly are becoming more and more expendable. We are called “useless eaters” by some.

There are shelters for vagabond teens, alcoholics and drug-users, and even sex offenders; shelters for dogs, cats, exotic birds, tortoises, snakes and ferrets, but the elderly seem invisible and forgotten. Most of the elderly on the street are over the age of sixty and if they do find a shelter to take them in they are often victims of physical violence and other abuses, as well as predatory strong armed thievery. Health care is almost nonexistent. Many die invisible, in the heat of summer, but more in the cold of winter -- that takes its biggest toll.

My thoughts became focused at what had happened, and why: It was obvious that when I began to complain, particularly about fire safety I found myself retaliated on by AMERLAND GROUP owner, Martha Enriquez, who is also the President of LOGAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, and who is required by law to protect her residents; the California rule requires a landlord to exercise due care with regard to the premises it owns, i.e., A Duty of Care to protect residents, and also, "There is a legal duty, which every person owes to others- that is, a duty to refrain from conduct that imposes an unreasonable risk of injury on third parties" (Lamden v La Jolla Shores Club Codominium HOA (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249).

I had complained to owners, management and HUD about unsafe living conditions and criminal behavior on the property, and they ignored their Duty of Care to me. (1) A landlord has "a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party … where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated... The foreseeability of a criminal act determines not only the landlord's duty, but also its 'scope,' which "is determined in part by balancing the foreseeability of harm against the burden to be imposed." (Barber v. Chang (2007) , Cal.App.4th [No. G036448. Fourth Dist., Div. Three. Jun. 13, 2007) (2) The landlord has a duty of warranty of habitability, (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616 [111 Cal.Rptr. 704].)

It is elder abuse to ignore the above.

What I didn't know when I began to complain was that the property owners, Amerland was in a lawsuit in with one of their Los Angeles properties, The Alexandria Hotel, and had 36 criminal counts against them related to fire code violations, and 5 residents had died. (page 6, 2/9/2009© Los Angeles Downtown News;Contact: Anna Scott at No wonder they were so concerned and anxious to get rid of me when I complained about the same issues.

One attorney who participated to win the above lawsuit told me, "There are thousands – not hundreds – thousands of incidents with this company."

I was first "threatened" with eviction, but then when I exposed Stan Harris for violating the law, and calling himself "Doctor" -- I was evicted. This was a breach of my HUD/Sec8 lease, where eviction is only allowed for "good cause," such as criminal activity, but Stan Harris is a personal friend of Martha Enrique, and Karen Brooks.

I went to the Eviction Hearing on November 17, 2008. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck had paid five residents to perjure themselves --one a mentally challenged women was paid $350. but did not even know why she was going to court. The court did not hear these witnesses, nor mine, and ignored much of the law. I filed an Appeal, [Case # ACIAS 900001, San Bernardino California, Appeal Court]

On December 21, 2009 I was called into the Appeal Court to give oral testimony. All I had to testify to was that Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck had committed "fraud on the court" -- again! I might add -- and give them proof she was lying. The proof was substantial, and involved another judge who had told her the truth -- and still she lied, knowing the truth, to the Appeals Court, as she had done in the Superior Court. I am awaiting formal notice on my Appeal.

I am still sleeping in my car, almost a year later. I am still suffering ongoing medical problems and have had to be admitted into the hospital on several occasions, and not being able to sleep at night is taking its toll on me.