I ASKED FOR PROSECUTION, PROTECTION, AND A SAFE WAY OUT.
I did not disappear from the process. I followed every referral, attended every meeting, and kept the City informed until the dates stopped making sense and there was no one left inside the system I trusted.
How to read this pageEach link opens the record for that event. This page includes the December email to RSD, the County Environmental Health correspondence, the March prosecutor follow-ups, the June 11 message, the June 27 incident record, the June 30 camera video, and the court docket. When a detail comes from my own account rather than a public document, I say so.
I FILED A HARASSMENT COMPLAINT. I TOLD THE CITY I WAS AFRAID.
I gave Rent Stabilization the harassment record, the gate evidence, the safety history, and my original lease. On December 9, I wrote that I did not feel safe being alone with him and that I would communicate only through RSD. I also said that any access to my home had to be coordinated through the City. RSD confirmed that the email and attachments were placed in my file and made available to the City Prosecutor.
I was too sick and physically limited to leave on my own. My dad did not come to help me financially. He came from Texas, physically lifted me, and got me out of my home. I had to leave most of my belongings behind because I still had no safe way to return for them.
I ALSO OPENED A COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMPLAINT AND SENT THE HAZARD RECORD.
Los Angeles County Environmental Health confirmed receiving complaint CO0488292 on December 3 and asked for clarification. On January 26, while I was still the tenant, I sent a detailed written response identifying animal waste, wood rot, moisture, venting, electrical hazards, unsafe access, debris, and cumulative exposure.
On January 27, I submitted certified mold testing and again asked for a thorough inspection. This was another official process I was actively pursuing; I had not walked away from the property or its conditions.
THE OWNER RE REGISTERED THE UNIT ALMOST SIX YEARS AFTER MOVE IN AS FURNISHED.
By then, the City already had the original lease I had submitted with the complaint. The late registration did not match that record. The City later corrected the entry to not furnished.
I TOLD THE CITY I COULD BARELY WALK AND THAT MY FATHER COULD STAY ONLY TEMPORARILY.
I said I had been hospitalized multiple times, was struggling medically, and needed an inspection because the home was not habitable. The City created Request Detail #17846581.
ERIC BARELA INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. THE PROSECUTOR CALLED THAT AFTERNOON.
During the inspection, I pointed to the taped electrical condition. Barela photographed it. I know because the City Prosecutor later showed the image during our meeting and said it came from the inspector. Later that day, the prosecutor called me. We spoke for about 30 minutes, and a February 20 meeting was confirmed.
The taped electrical condition was still there. The prosecutor meeting was still scheduled. I did not understand the closure to mean the City had abandoned the case because every signal from the prosecutor's office said the review was active.
I SPENT NEARLY TWO HOURS ASKING THE CITY HOW TO GET MY BELONGINGS SAFELY.
The City Prosecutor and the Rent Stabilization Supervisor reviewed the case with me. The prosecutor displayed Barela's inspection photograph, said he would speak with Peter, and said he would get back to me in about two weeks. I believed him. Safety mattered more than my things.
The meeting confirmation is linked. The duration and discussion are my first person account.
The City process and the eviction case were moving at the same time. I was told only about one of them.
I DID NOT ABANDON MY BELONGINGS. I KEPT ASKING THE CITY FOR A SAFE WAY TO RETRIEVE THEM.
Rent Stabilization had already placed my submissions in the City Prosecutor's file and told me to contact him about the status of the case. During the February 20 Zoom meeting, he said he would get back to me in approximately two weeks. When that period passed, I replied in the same investigation thread.
"I have been unable to retrieve important personal belongings and documents."
That March 20 email was a written recap of the unresolved safety issues. I sent additional evidence directly to the prosecutor on March 23. On March 25, I summarized the meeting and those follow-ups for his legal assistant, who confirmed in writing that my message had been forwarded to the attorney handling the case.
The prosecutor's statement that he would respond in approximately two weeks is my first-person account of the February 20 meeting. The routing, March follow-up, belongings statement, and forwarding confirmation are preserved in the linked email excerpts.
I MOVED THE QUESTION TO THE CITY'S TOP BUILDING OFFICIAL.
By then, Barela's handling had destroyed my confidence in Code Enforcement. I still believed I was dealing with a legitimate system. I thought the Building and Safety Division Manager would independently review the permits, inspections, and repairs.
BEN GALAN CONFIRMED THE GAPS AND SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT CREATED THEM.
Galan said the roofing permit had never been finalized, the damaged ceiling required a separate permit, the reroof inspection did not cover the interior, and he could not find a water heater plumbing permit. He said Code Enforcement would follow up with the owner.
That was not an independent determination. It left the original closure standing and returned the unresolved hazards to the same office I had challenged.
He asked to go into the guesthouse to adjust the HVAC. He said that if I did not answer, he would post a 24-hour notice and enter anyway. I did not answer him directly. In December, I had already told RSD that I was afraid and that all communication and access had to go through the City.
By then, the court case had already moved forward without my knowledge. I still did not know it existed, and he was still asking me for permission to enter.
Sixteen days later, I saw him approach the camera. Then the electricity went off and the camera feed disappeared. I called law enforcement. I had already told RSD that I was afraid of direct contact and would communicate only through the City.
I did not feel safe going back alone, so I arranged for another person to be there before I returned.
The June 27 date and power interruption are my first-person account. The linked record was prepared that night for law enforcement and preserves what I reported at the time.
That was the first time I learned there was an eviction case. The docket showed that Peter had filed the complaint on February 19—the day before my meeting with the City Prosecutor and RSD. Later entries showed notices mailed on February 23 and an application to post in March. I had been in regular contact with the City and knew none of this was happening.
The timeline made no sense to me. On February 20, I had been told the prosecutor would speak with Peter. On June 11, Peter was still asking for my permission to enter. When I called the City after finding the papers, I realized I could no longer trust the process to protect me.
I MADE ONE NARROW PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST. GIVE ME BARELA'S PHOTOGRAPH.
The City said responsive records existed and released none, citing an ongoing investigation.
The photograph was not decorative. It was the simplest test of the closure. If Barela photographed taped electrical wiring on February 17, what did “maintenance completed” mean on February 18?
THE CITY CLOSED THE HARASSMENT REVIEW. THE RECORDS DID NOT OPEN.
Christopher Homandberg sent a letter closing the Rent Stabilization Division's review. When I asked for the February 17 photographs that had been withheld because an investigation was supposedly ongoing, he directed me to the City Clerk's Office—the same office that had already located the records, withheld them, and closed the CPRA request.
The City answered the investigation question. It still did not answer the records request.
I ATTACHED THE DENIAL AND COPIED THE TWO ADDRESSES THE CITY NAMED.
I replied to Homandberg, copied [email protected] and [email protected], and attached the City's 17-page denial. I asked the City either to identify a different investigation that remained open and the present basis for withholding, or to produce the original electronic image files now.
“I want the photographs, not another referral back to the office that issued the denial.”
Status at publication: no production date, different investigation, or photographs had been provided.
ONE BAD CLOSURE FOLLOWED ME THROUGH THE ENTIRE CITY.
Over nine months, I kept believing the next level of authority would correct the last one. Code Enforcement failed. The Building Official confirmed permit and inspection gaps and left the closure standing. The prosecutor process overlapped with an eviction case I did not know existed. The City then closed its harassment review, redirected the photograph request to the office that had denied it, and still did not produce the images.
THE INVESTIGATION CLOSED. THE RECORDS DID NOT OPEN.
OPEN THE ACTUAL DECEMBER 9 GMAIL THREAD →
