News

Police report details how scheme to evict tenants backfired, horribly

Mountain View landlord allegedly texted: 'We need to grab their cell phones first. They'll call the cops.'

“You’re allowed to touch their stuff.”

“You’re allowed to take their cell phones (and) grab their computer”


Reenu Saini
“Take anything you want out of there. It’s your place.”

In text messages, police say Mountain View landlord Reenu Saini told her accomplices to do whatever it took to kick out tenants who she said were behind on rent. As detailed in the Mountain View police report, she wanted at the very least to “scare” them into thinking they had just 30 minutes to pack up and leave the Rock Street apartment that she managed on Monday night.

Lori Ann Waltson, who worked for Saini as a house cleaner, later told to police that it seemed fair game to kick out tenants who couldn’t pay rent.

“We didn’t come to be violent, we came to be convincing,” she told police officers, according to the report.

The intimidation plan backfired. Saini and four others whom she recruited to act as hired muscle were arrested while still outside the apartment Monday, Aug. 26, on charges of conspiracy, attempted robbery and burglary among other charges. Mountain View police described it as an unprecedented level of criminal disregard toward the tenants.

The incident was terrorizing for the victims, a married couple and two children, according to the report. The family’s father, whom the Voice is not identifying, told police they had been living in the unit for only two weeks after moving out from North Carolina. But they were struggling to make ends meet and couldn’t pay rent. They had been trying to resolve their dispute with Saini through a city-appointed mediator, but there were signs she was running out of patience.

Just a few days earlier, the family had caught a man snooping through their backyard taking pictures. When confronted, the man reportedly claimed to work for Saini, and ran off before police arrived at the scene.

The police report says that on Aug. 26, Saini texted Waltson, asking her to round up anyone she could find to make a show of force, “just like last time.”

“I want to go in with 10 people. Who can you bring and when?” she texted. “The police have already said they will not interfere with that. I’m the legal lease holder.”

Still, Saini told Waltson that they needed to grab the tenants’ cell phones first, otherwise “they’ll call the cops.” The best plan, she suggested, was to turn off the power breaker, forcing the family to come outside.

Via text, Saini expressed disappointment when Waltson told her that she could only find three others to come along. But Waltson assured her they could do the job because they needed the money. Saini reportedly promised they could stay at the apartment for free after ousting the family.

The family living at the apartment told police they first knew something was awry when the television and all the lights went out. Then the father said he glanced out the front-door peephole and he saw a burly man striding toward the door “with intention.”

The man, identified as Steven Carling of San Jose, began demanding they open the door to let him in. Carling, who has a lengthy criminal record, was later described to police as someone who was known for getting so angry that he would black out. At the doorstep, Carling started to shout that he would “kick the f---ing door down!” according to police reports.

Carling started attacking the door, splintering the wood. Then he began thrusting a knife through the cracks, nearly stabbing the father, who was trying to brace the door from the other side. He later told police that the blade came within inches of his head.

After being detained by police, Carling told them that he was using a butter knife to try and undo the hinges of the door.

By this time, the rest of the family fled out the backdoor, and multiple 911 calls came into police dispatch of a burglary in progress. Their children later told police they were extremely scared; one said she felt like she was having a panic attack.

The first police officers to arrive on scene described seeing two women on the sidewalk, Waltson and Debra McNeil, Carling’s girlfriend. Carling was in the doorway of the apartment, and a fourth man, Brian Ross, was standing on the walkway leading up to the home. When Carling saw the police, he immediately tossed the knife to the ground and threw his hands up, according to the report.

Saini, who was also at the scene, told the police officers that the people inside the apartment had no right to the residence. She said she had already leased the apartment to Carling a few days earlier, but she recanted after being asked for proof, according to the police report. Then Saini said she had previously complained to police about the same family. She quickly invoked her right to an attorney, the police report noted.

When questioned, Waltson did not hesitate to show police the string of text messages from Saini laying out the forced-eviction plan.

Saini and the four accomplices were all arrested. Extra charges were given to Saini for illegally turning off the apartment power, and to Carling for attempted assault.

Three days later, Saini, wearing a striped jail uniform, was sitting in a courtroom jury box for her arraignment hearing at the Palo Alto courthouse. She nodded in response to a judge’s questions, hiding her face from a group of media cameras. Carling sat glumly next to her. No charges as of yet have been filed against the other three suspects.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Charles Wilson set Saini’s bail at $75,500. Her attorney protested that this would mean Saini would have to cancel her plans to travel abroad. For Carling, bail was set at $110,000, in part due to his criminal history. Both defendants were prohibited from having any contact with the victims.

The police report noted that before arriving at the apartment on Monday night, Raini sent one last text before she evicted her tenants: “I grabbed the numbers for some homeless shelters for them,” she wrote. “See, I’m so nice.”

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

15 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 30, 2019 at 12:48 pm

The article title of "scheme" makes this sound like a standard Silicon Valley business practice. The alleged crimes are essentially armed robbery and terrorism of the victim family. I hope they all receive sentences in state prison.


20 people like this
Posted by Schmedly
a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2019 at 2:55 pm

What this landlord did was completely wrong. Full stop. There are procedures to evict delinquent tenants and you use the police for that.

That said, the regs are so skewed against landlords I wonder who would actually want to be one. I know of cases where tenants hadn't paid rent for 6-8 months before they could be evicted.

How many of you would like to not be paid for 6-8 months all while the person not paying gets the benefits of what you are providing? In addition, most of that lost rent is generally not recoverable.

I am not a landlord and honestly wouldn't want to be one in this area. I do wonder how much potential rental inventory is just not on the market due to the extremely landlord unfriendly laws we have.


8 people like this
Posted by LD
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2019 at 3:39 pm

a truly sad story .. and the landlord seems to have a lovely group of friends.

it saddens me that the housing situation has created this kind of mess.


10 people like this
Posted by Rent Arbitrage Toodles
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 30, 2019 at 4:05 pm

> The article title of "scheme" makes this sound like a standard Silicon Valley business practice.

Rent arbitrage thru airbnb.

It is standard, it even has a name.


13 people like this
Posted by Rod
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2019 at 4:35 pm

There's no excuse for the landlord's behavior but there's no question that our laws are not landlord friendly and evicting a tenant is a frustrating, exhausting and expensive process. It's interesting that the family just moved here two weeks ago from N Carolina and were struggling to pay rent. Clearly they would have known they didn't have rent money before they rented the place so sounds like they were planning to stiff the landlord from the get-go. The "scheme" may have been on the part of the tenants. There are some that do this- move in, don't pay, it takes months to evict the tenant so they live for free for a long time then after they finally get evicted they move to the next place and do the same thing.


11 people like this
Posted by psr
a resident of The Crossings
on Aug 30, 2019 at 6:40 pm

psr is a registered user.

It does sound like the people took the apartment knowing they couldn't/wouldn't pay their rent. I don't approve of the tactics, but I sure understand why a landlord might be driven to such lengths.

Landlords get the shaft at every turn. Extra fees from the city without extra benefits. When a tenant doesn't pay rent, the landlord is the one to foot the bill to get them out, often including paying extra to the sheriff's department when and if it comes to that. They foot the bill whenever the tenant breaks something and need to respond nights, weekends and holidays for issues. They are limited in their amount of security, but tenants often cause more damage and the landlords has to jump through hoops to get their money back. Meanwhile, tenants must get their money back promptly or there is hell to pay.

The benefits? Tenants that whine at the drop of a hat, people calling them slumlords on the word of a disgruntled tenant and city councils who throw them under the bus because there are more renters than landlords. Now city councils want the power to force them to stay in business even when it isn't profitable and drains them financially and emotionally.

It's no wonder that smaller landlords don't want to bother with the hassle and abuse anymore.


29 people like this
Posted by Criminal Behavior
a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2019 at 7:28 pm

The idea that this woman could lease the property and then seek to gauge subtenants is bad enough. She was totally unethical in her behavior just by doing that. She's then in mediation after a disagreement has been registered with the city's program. The weak nature of the city program shows there, where it favors landlords to the exclusion of reasonable care for the tenant. But then after documenting the game she's playing, she hires THUGS with criminal records to operate on her behalf, and not only that, she commits further offenses under the law by doing things such as shutting off the power to the unit and sending spies onto the property without notice to the tenant.

[Portion removed.]


11 people like this
Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2019 at 8:20 am

The laundry list of potential charges includes prowling, trespassing, armed robbery, false imprisonment, burglary, assault, child endangerment with multiple victims, and conspiracy to commit all of the crimes. This would make a good movie, if it were not so sad.
Was there no security deposit or first and last month paid in advance, which seem to be standard requirements?
Now the ousted family will likely end up owning the building as damages for their injuries, PTSD.
The good news is 8,800 people moved out of Santa Clara County according to the news last night. That should free up some places to live.


6 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2019 at 10:37 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Posted by Schmedly you said:

“That said, the regs are so skewed against landlords I wonder who would actually want to be one. I know of cases where tenants hadn't paid rent for 6-8 months before they could be evicted.”

BUT THAT IS THE LEGAL PROCESS. THE CAA PROCLAIMS THAT ITS CODE OF CONDUCT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. WHY HAS THE CAA NOT CONDEMNED THIS ACTION UNLESS IT ACTUALLY ENDORSES IT. You said:

“I am not a landlord and honestly wouldn't want to be one in this area. I do wonder how much potential rental inventory is just not on the market due to the extremely landlord unfriendly laws we have.”

THE COSTA HAWKINS ACT WAS IN EFFECT SINCE 1995 AND IT WAS THE MOST LANDLORD FRIENDLY LAW THAT EVER EXISTED. NO PRICE CONTRLS ON ANY BUILDING SINCE 1995, AND NOT ALLOWING PRICE CONTROLS ON ALL KINDS OF HOUSING. SO NICE TRY TO IMPLY THAT THIS BUSINESS WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF LANDLORDS.

Rod said:

“Clearly they would have known they didn't have rent money before they rented the place so sounds like they were planning to stiff the landlord from the get-go. The "scheme" may have been on the part of the tenants. There are some that do this- move in, don't pay, it takes months to evict the tenant so they live for free for a long time then after they finally get evicted they move to the next place and do the same thing.”

If the landlord did not follow proper legal procedures regarding acquiring A SECURITY DEPOSIT, LAST MONTHS RENT, AND THE CURRENT RENT UP FRONT, then they did not know how to RUN A RENTAL UNIT BUSINESS. If the landlord had done this THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ISSUE AT ALL.

Finally, you cannot practice your business under the assumption that all tenants deserve hostile treatment because not all of them have caused any problems. This issue also applies to the comment made by PSR. It simply appears that those do not know how to run such a business in effect want to violate business laws in the state. That is not the way to solve that problem. You cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense.

AGAIN I MAKE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

WHEN WILL CURT CONROY GO ON THE RECORD OF CONDEMING THIS ACTION? IF HE DOES NOT HE ENDORSES IT.

WHEN WILL JOHN INKS GO ON THE RECORD OF CONDEMING THIS ACTION? IF HE DOES NOT HE ENDORSES IT.

WHEN WILL MEASUREVTOOCOSTLY GO ON THE RECORD OF CONDEMING THIS ACTION? IF HE DOES NOT IT ENDORSES IT.

WHEN WILL JOSHUA HOWARD AND THE CAA GO ON THE RECORD OF CONDEMING THIS ACTION? IF HE AND THEY DOES NOT HE ENDORSES IT.

Bad business laws cannot be used as an “AFFIRMATIVE” defense regarding criminal activity. “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE” in California allows for the following situation: “12) Necessity, The California legal defense of “necessity” excuses criminal conduct when it is done only to avoid an even greater harm. If you reasonably believe that you or another person are about to suffer significant bodily harm… and there is no other reasonable legal alternative to engaging in the criminal conduct… you may be entitled to an acquittal of the charged offense(s).21” Of course this does not apply. Economic harm is not recognized under the law as to apply to violence.

“IGNORANCE” of the business laws are not a defense. And “IGNORANCE” of potential criminal acts do not apply either.

The landlord by committing these acts the landlord lost the advantage of the “CLEAN HANDS” doctrine regarding going to court for eviction. The clean hands doctrine is defined as: Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith.

By committing the criminal act, they destroyed any rights under the law to seek remedy via eviction.

THE CITY COUNCIL MUST NO CONSIDER ANY INTERESTS REGARDING THE CURRENT MEASURE V COMMITTEE UNTILL ALL LANDLORDS TESTIFY THAT THEY CONDEMN THIS ACTION. IF THE CITY COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD, THEY WILL ENDORSE A CRIMINAL ACT.


6 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 31, 2019 at 12:01 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Hey, The Business Man. Some landlords are actually foolish enough to use the article to promote lies about the law. This is great. As I stated in posting on the first article, it takes 3-7 weeks to evict a tenant legally in Santa Clara County. The first article stated that the tenant in this case thought the agreement was $3,900 month-to-month but the landlord (here, holder of a lease) claimed the rent was $10,000 per month. As I recall the story - being too lazy to re-read it- the housing unit was one of three on the property. If the City Council is going to propose any changes to Measure V, one should be to expand its application to properties like this one. Of course, there is so far no reason to believe the City Council majority is interested in anything but REPEALING RENT CONTROL ENTIRELY. The Voice should continue to report on the criminal case(s) against this so-called "landlord" and her cohorts. And the Voice should investigate the other places this Reenu Saine has leased and rented out.


26 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 31, 2019 at 1:30 pm

Gary is a registered user.

I see the Chronicle story too - about the court appearance. It notes that the judge - in addition to bail - required the Ms. Saine surrender her passport and check in if released. It also notes she is wanted on a $20,000 warrant out of San Mateo County for failing to appear for trial in a vandalism case. I looked up her online. She lists herself as operating a CA LLC she named Reesha Capital, LLC. The Secretary of State's business search website shows such an LLC she formed in 2016. I would not be surprised if she uses an LLC (limited liability company) as the party to her AirBNB contracts. The Chronicle article also has a link to (one of) her AirBNB businesses called WHITE LINEN showing 11 apts for rent - 6 in Mountain View. It will be interesting to find out if the property owners extended leases to this lady or one of her businesses allowing or not allowing sub-letting or AirBNB. She evidently has no license to operate as a property manager - which may be required for non-owner in this situation. But there is plenty to investigate to shed light on this shady line of business. Finally, the address she provides for Reesha Capital, LLC is 1333 Gough Street, Unit 5B in San Francisco which appears to be a large apt complex - quite possibly subject to San Francisco rent control. Her rent may be controlled. What a poster-child this "landlord" makes. Classic!


2 people like this
Posted by Criminal Behavior
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2019 at 2:52 pm

At least for the Rock Street building, it is owned by someone in Connecticut. The perpetrator in this incident isn't the building owner. The building is a 5+ unit apartment building with an attached house, which was the subject of the problem. One of the apartments in the 2 story portion is listed online at $3295/mo. The house is listed as being leased for $395 per day in a different set of locations online (short term rental sites).

If the rental had been done for $3995/mo, it would have established the attached 1 story unit as being under rent control. No more renting it at $395/day if the tenant wanted to stay. It adds a motive to the change of heart by the landlord making the deal, i.e. not wanting to make the unit come under rent control because short term rentals is the way she gets $12K/mo for the unit.

One of the place the deluxe unit is listed is hotels.com.


7 people like this
Posted by Criminal Behavior
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2019 at 2:56 pm

Of course, Mountain View has rules limiting the short term rental to 60 days per year since it was unhosted. It appears likely there was an attempt to violate that as well. This situation is exposing a lot of problems.


5 people like this
Posted by Jazmine
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 31, 2019 at 2:59 pm

"The family’s father, whom the Voice is not identifying, told police they had been living in the unit for only two weeks after moving out from North Carolina."

Only two weeks behind on rent and they take it to this level?


6 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 31, 2019 at 3:09 pm

Gary is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2019 at 7:00 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Criminal Behavior
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2019 at 9:14 pm

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 31, 2019 at 9:52 pm

Gary is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by These Folks Should Be
a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2019 at 11:01 am

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 1, 2019 at 11:07 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


10 people like this
Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2019 at 10:40 am

If I get sued I want you guys as investigators


30 people like this
Posted by The business Woman
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 2, 2019 at 12:03 pm

[Post removed.]


10 people like this
Posted by Really?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2019 at 12:06 pm

She was renting via Airbnb the apartment that she tried to “evict the tenants” from. As the “tenants” did not stay there for more than 30 days, according the CA law they do not have a tenants rights and there is no need for the mediation process. The police she called earlier should have help her to remove the customers from her property instead they told them about “tenants rights” they clearly did not have (staying in Airbnb for 2 weeks does not give them these rights).


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 2, 2019 at 12:30 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The business Woman you said:

[Portion removed due to being in all-caps/repetitive]

Simply put it is not enough. The landlords have been acting as if they can ASSUME they are being cheated by tenants. SO THEY ARE HOSTILE TO TENANTS ALL THE TIME. Just look at the comments and speeches made by Curt Conroy, John Inks, Joshua Howard, and others have made during the last 3 years. They have been in effect creating such a hostile situation that tenants have had to act in defense of their legal behaviors, I.E. political action and voting.

In response to Really? You said:

“She was renting via Airbnb the apartment that she tried to “evict the tenants” from. As the “tenants” did not stay there for more than 30 days, according the CA law they do not have a tenants rights and there is no need for the mediation process.”

What law are you talking about? The “VERBAL” agreement became enforceable after 15 days as long as the landlord doers not have a SIGNED lease agreement. In fact you should read this article (Web Link) It stated:

“Within 15 days of any oral agreement, for instance, a landlord must write down the contact information for any manager or person authorized to accept rent or handle complaints, and the form in which rent may be paid. Also the California Civil Code provides that “a debtor has a right to require from his creditor a written receipt for any property delivered in performance of his obligation.”

Your landlord should therefore issue a written receipt for any payment of rent you made. You might eliminate this difficulty by paying by check or money order to create your own payment trail. A landlord cannot demand payment in cash unless a previous check or money order has been dishonored or stopped.

Because there is no written agreement, you are by default a month-to-month tenant. Unless you are in a jurisdiction that requires “just cause” for termination, California Civil Code Section 1946.1 governs the rules for terminating a month-to-month tenancy.

This statute requires 60 days’ written notice from your landlord to terminate most tenancies that have lasted more than one year. Also, California law requires a landlord to use the unlawful detainer legal process to remove you from this tenancy. It precludes landlord “constructive eviction” efforts to force you to leave, such as cutting off your utilities or blocking your entrance.”

So your claim you state here:

“The police she called earlier should have help her to remove the customers from her property instead they told them about “tenants rights” they clearly did not have (staying in Airbnb for 2 weeks does not give them these rights).”

I simply NOT the law. CVC 1946.1 clearly proves you wrong. Why do landlords assume that these laws do not exist?

LET’S NOT FORGET WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID REGARDING THE CITIZENS RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW:

Once Measure V was certified on December 13, 2016 the City Council ordered the City Attorney to agree to not enforce the CSFRA on December 22, 2016. This was a VIOLATION of the law and the charter.

Then the City Council put the RHC into debt by accepting the claims that the landlords were going to file hundreds of petitions once the CSFRA was in effect.

By exploiting the language of the CSFRA, the City Council in effect made the RHC in debt of over $1 Million before it even started. AND it demanded it be repaid in 1 year.

How many petitions were filed since then? 50 in 2018, and 18 in 2017, so there were 70 petitions. But the RHC was told they needed to create funding for at least 100 petitions. This grossly inflated the budget base on a threat by landlords.

[Portion removed due to being in all-caps.]


9 people like this
Posted by Really?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2019 at 8:19 pm

TBM” CVC 1946.1 clearly proves you wrong.”
As usual, you do not know what you are talking about. Transient rentals (<30 days) are excluded from provisions in chapter 2. You can read about it in chapter 1, but whom am I kidding, you are a writer, not a reader.


6 people like this
Posted by Criminal Behavior
a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2019 at 8:54 pm

If you pay attention, you will see that they were under a MONTHLY rate, not AirBNB.
They started off in another one of her AirBNB rentals and moved to this "deluxe" one. It was an untaken AirBNB rental. She rented it to them on a month to month basis. Initially she said $3995 per month. Then she brought them a rental agreement that
had a new MONTHLY rate of $10K per month. She may have tricked them into signing that. But either way this was a monthly tenancy. It's not true that for the first month of a long term tenancy short term laws apply. They needed an unlawful detainer action to remove them.

In any event, what gives her the right to hire goons to break into the place either way? Either she hired goons BEFORE calling the police because she knew she had no right to evict them, or she hired goons even though she could have sent them away without eviction actions. Neither way is excusable or even really explainable. She's lucky no one got hurt in this exercise.


2 people like this
Posted by Criminal Behavior
a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2019 at 8:56 pm

Also note that her AirBNB and Hotels.com rate for this property was $395 per day, which works out to more like $12K per month. She wasn't able to find takers at $395 per day. Note that hotel rooms in the area go for well below $395 per day. This place wasn't worth more than a hotel. No room service. Terrible service in general.


Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2019 at 10:28 pm

Read section 1940
Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 3, 2019 at 2:42 am

Gary is a registered user.

Civil Code section 1940 does differentiate between the relationship of an operator of a motel and lodgers as opposed to landlords and tenants. But the exception to the application of landlord-tenant rules is based on the occupant being not just a "transient" but one who is subject to a transient occupany tax (TOT) that is collected by the operator. I appreciate the thinking, though. This landlord and her accomplices could say that she was operating basically a motel in an apartment where, by agreement, the occupants were to stay as temporary lodgers like in a real motel. Although this lady (and her "friends") did not come up with that story when asked by police at the scene - and at least Ms. Saine described a tenancy - maybe she and they will start saying now that they were confused about their whereabouts that day - operating so many rentals as they do. Or maybe the initial confusion, they could say, stemmed from intoxication, prescription drug use or all the sleep they didn't get when this family did not pay as demanded. In any event, this episode should inspire Mountain View and other cities (and counties) to clarify what is allowed and disallowed. How about this: the pro-landlord City Council could propose or pass a law turning all apartments into motel rooms from which occupants can be more easily removed.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 3, 2019 at 6:06 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Really? You said:

“7 hours ago

Read section 1940

Web Link”

There is a serious problem with this argument. You have to have a license to operate a hotel or motel in the state of California. Nonetheless you are offering an airBnB.

Nothing in the record indicated that she had one, you should be aware of this. The requirement in documented here (Web Link). And in the State of California you must have a license to operate a hotel (Web Link).

If she did not have one, she is running an illegal business and simply cannot use that portion of the CVC. This was not a legal motel or hotel of any kind. Thus that provision of the law cannot apply here. Also, if she had more than 1 unit registered with Air BnB it would violate the Air BnB Terms and conditions here (Web Link.). If she was the only “Host” then she violated the Air BnB requirements and the listings are illegal.

Nice try. But you are simply grasping at straws to try to declare this was a legitimate action, it was NOT!

[Post removed due to all-caps/repetitive]


Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 3, 2019 at 7:12 am

@Gary, TOT is collected by Airbnb:
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Sep 3, 2019 at 7:27 am

Really?

If they have no license to operate in Mountain View a hotel/motel, it doesn't matter.

They were operating an illegal business.


Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 3, 2019 at 7:39 am

TBM, please, read this before screaming in all caps.
Web Link
Grace period is till September 1st and you have no idea if she was registered or not.
And this:

An Airbnb host seeking to oust occupants asked her Facebook community for advice. Now she’s in jail Web Link

I have no sympathy to the people who are trying to make a quick buck on the housing shortage, but I think police was wrong not helping her fist time she called.


11 people like this
Posted by A resident
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Sep 3, 2019 at 8:10 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 3, 2019 at 8:58 am

[Post removed due to being off-topic]


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Sep 3, 2019 at 9:07 am

[Post removed due to being off-topic]


10 people like this
Posted by Serve up Some Justice
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 3, 2019 at 9:15 am

Wow! The "discourse" on this subject veered waaaaaaay away from the core story: An owner, manager or whatever her connection to the property, instead of using the clearly written laws on evictions and procedures therein, used muscle, intimidation and property destruction to oust a family from a residence. There were KIDS in there, for God's sake! [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


22 people like this
Posted by Really?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 3, 2019 at 5:51 pm

It is only possible to have a dialogue with a person who listens to other party’s arguments. It is impossible to have a dialogue with TBM because he likes to listen to himself, and he exhibitsall al the signs of a graphomaniac.
I got tired replying on the pages and pages of complete nonsense.


14 people like this
Posted by Hollywood
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2019 at 9:22 am

This Carling guy seems like he's right out of Central Casting. Director: "Okay, for this scene we need an anger-filled, intimidating moron to kick down the door and scare the bejesus out of the family. Get me Carling."


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2019 at 7:37 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

WHAT LANDLORDS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW?

Many people are also guilty of being accessories of this criminal act. The First amendment has exceptions regarding can free speech be found civilly liable or criminal. Curt Conroy, John Inks, Margaret Abe Koga, Joshua Howard, the Rental Housing Committee, and the City Council and others are on the record of acting like this(Web Link):

“Fighting words and offensive speech

Main article: Fighting words

A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[31] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "TEND[S] TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "PERSONALLY ABUSIVE [WORD] WHICH, WHEN ADDRESSED TO THE ORDINARY CITIZEN, IS, AS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE, INHERENTLY LIKELY TO PROVOKE A VIOLENT REACTION".[32] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "THUS LIKELY TO BE SEEN AS A 'DIRECT PERSONAL INSULT'".[33][34]

“True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "THREATS MAY NOT BE PUNISHED IF A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND THEM AS OBVIOUS HYPERBOLE", he writes.[36][37] Additionally, threats of "SOCIAL OSTRACISM" and of "POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BOYCOTTS" are constitutionally protected.[38]”

OBVIOUS HYPERBOLE is defined as:

“In the case of Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969)[54] , the United States Supreme Court ruled that mere political hyperbole must be distinguished from true threats. At a DuBois Club public rally on the Washington Monument grounds, a member of the assembled group suggested that the young people present should get more education before expressing their views. The defendant, an 18-year-old, replied:

According to court testimony, the defendant in speaking made a gesture of sighting down the barrel of a rifle. The audience responded with laughter and applause, which the Court of Appeals would later view as potentially ominous:

The boy was arrested and found to be in possession of cannabis, but a Court of General Sessions Judge suppressed the cannabis because he found that there had been no probable cause for the Secret Service agents to believe the defendant's words constituted a threat to the President.[55] This did not prevent a federal court from convicting him for threatening the President. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed his conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed, stating, "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise." In a concurring opinion, William O. Douglas noted, "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution."[56]”

But in this context, these individuals in effect justified any action to be made on a tenants because they posed a “THREAT” to the City by categorizing them as CRIMINALS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, and claiming that the landlords rights SUPERSEDE THE RIGHTS OF TENANTS EVEN IF THE LAW DOES NOT STATE SO. So this exception may not apply here.

One can argue that the conduct by those described above, as recorded on MeasureVTooCostly, youtube, the city of mountain views city council and rental housing committee video or audio recordings, and various news reports can establish that their conduct crossed the line. The fact that any landlord acting out in a criminal act then establishes that their conduct contributed to the criminal act. Thus they can be charged as accessories of the crime.

"SOCIAL OSTRACISM" and of "POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BOYCOTTS" is defined as:

“NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

THE NONVIOLENT ELEMENTS OF A BOYCOTT ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982),[1] is a landmark civil rights case[2] in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they can not prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott.[1]

In a decision by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Mississippi's decision, holding that the nonviolent elements of the petitioners' activities were protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and holding that the petitioners were not liable in damages for the consequences of their nonviolent, protected activity.[9] This decisions means that "boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech, occupying “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”[10]”

If Curt Conroy, John Inks, Margaret Abe Koga, Mike Kasperzak, MeasureVTooCostly, Members of the RHC, and Memebers of the City Council PROMOTED A BOYCOTT, this is protected under the first amendment. But ANY language that can be said to contribute to A LANDLORD’S CONDUCT THAT SUPERSEDES THE LEGAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF TENANTS CAN BE SAID TO BE ACCESSORIES OF THE CRIMINAL ACT.

These people know this. IN EFFECT THE CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD ACT ACCORDINGLY AND SIMPLY DISREGARD THESE PEOPLES POINT OF VIEW UNTIL THEY COME FORWARD AND DECLARE THEIR GUILT FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THIS CRIMINAL ACT.

So much a coincidence that the MEASUREVTOOCOSTLY website has been taken down. Because it was a for profit group that is guilty of being an accessory of committing the crime that occurred here.


4 people like this
Posted by LongResident
a resident of another community
on Sep 10, 2019 at 10:28 pm

LongResident is a registered user.

All I can say is that the tenant has grounds for action against the landlord for a variety of reasons. It certainly is an enhanced reason for a substantial compensation if the landlord reached out to the victims employer, whether or not the victim was terminated. It is not something that the landlord has the right to do, to contact the employer.

As an example, Judge Judy was extremely irate against a landlord who did something like this in a case on her show. It's difficult to say what will arouse ire in the judge. Reaching out like this is certainly a candidate action to motivate a heavy hand in the administration of justice.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 13, 2019 at 7:10 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Any Status Updates regarding the criminal case?


2 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 15, 2019 at 4:30 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Property has no "rights." People and artificial people (legal entities) can have an interest in property - including real property - as defined by law. But getting back to the article: let's SEE ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP IN THE VOICE ABOUT THE STATUS OF EACH PERSON ARRESTED.


2 people like this
Posted by Reenu Saini
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 28, 2019 at 9:12 pm

[Post removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by Alice Palmer
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2019 at 12:30 am

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Alice palmer
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2019 at 12:54 am

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 29, 2019 at 2:47 am

Of course the occupants of the unit don't want to answer questions or draw attention to themselves, why would they? Did anyone ever ask them to show proof that they had ever paid any rent or deposit to live there? Or maybe show a copy of a lease? If they were only there 2 weeks,as Marc the father admitted, then how could they possibly have been behind on rent?


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2019 at 7:29 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Reenu Saini
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 29, 2019 at 8:14 am

I asked for my own comment to be taken down.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Chick-fil-A quietly starts delivering out of DoorDash kitchen in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 50 comments | 9,027 views

Palo Altans and their Virtue Signaling
By Sherry Listgarten | 24 comments | 2,372 views

Differentiating Grief from Clinical Depression
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,103 views