it is in violation of well- established law. the representative does not know that, then she is woefully ignorant of the applicable law. i am astounded that she is standing up here and arguing with a straight face that i had an obligation to allow an inspection. the u.s. supreme court has declared to the contrary. if they do not know it, they should know it. commissioner murphy: can i ask you one question? why don't you let the inspectors in? >> because i believe in freedom. i have rights, just like i have a right to free speech. i do not have to explain to anyone why. it says in the fourth amendment i have these rights. it says i have a right to privacy in the california constitution, a right to dignity. i do not need to be exposed to unsolicited accusations. if they have a problem, they have no remedies. i am insisting on my rights. i think we would be a better country, quite frankly, if more people did that. commissioner walker: i am ready to talk about it. >> thank you for your time. the point is, there is nothing to abate,

is there section 2 violation or equal protection violation? if there aren't those does that create a section 5 violation? that is different from the pre clearance question. on that section 5 questioned the burden is not logically on the state. the same section 5 questions the court considered on its own motion. doesn't understand that even when it takes a plan it has to be consistent with section 5 principles. justice kennedy, you asked what if you take section 5 out of this? that it is an easy case. then it is the preliminary injunction standard. how can you take section 5 out? there is not an interference with section 5 because texas still understand it needs to get pre clearance before it changes

the orders for the violation are mentioned in a couple of instances.apter three of the san francisco housing code requires all apartment buildings three units or more be subject to periodic health and safety inspections. when the inspector could not get in, he found himself at the adjacent property. he saw the peeling paint on the subject building, there is a presumption of lead-based paint. he wrote that notice of violation, but we never had a chance to get in to see the whole building. there has been a conversation as of september of this year between the inspector and property owner, but we have not yet been able to get in and see that. while we were able to see parts of the south side, we were not able to see this location. it is not our policy to try to crash addition policies -- adjacent policies when we are doing a routine inspection, so that -- had the inspection occurred, we would have seen that he painted the building, given documentation to show us the fire escape at the front of the building was serviced, as far as maintenance. we have not

the types of code violations were discovered included fire safety and exiting violations. this is an obstructed egress on the second floor. fire and life safety issues with the doorway with a six-foot opening. it is supposed to be a minimum of 6'8". >> when you modify a building, you cannot have steps in the path of trouble -- travel. there are head clearance issues and others in this one particular area. there were multiple mechanical and blogging code violations. -- plumbing code violations. we also found sanitary, sewer, plumbing vents open inside the bathrooms. there were electrical code violations. there was exposed electrical power. power demand exceeded circuit capacity because of the wiring. i think this was a high-tech incubator, assembly. it was a very creative occupancy. they were doing creative things in order to be there. the electrical code violations included electrical panels that had exposed supply. the panels did not have the panel covers. the doors were not attached. it was a life-safety hazard in many different ways. part of our project, now we're getti

is there a section to violation or equal protection violation? if there aren't and use the state plan does that create a section five violation that is different from the preclearance question and on that the burden is not logically on the state and that is the same section five question that the court considered on its own motion because it understands that even when it takes a plan that has to be consistent with section five principles. justice kennedy, you ask the question what if we take section 5 out of this what happens? the nets and easy case it is the injunction standard. the objection is how can you take section 5 of?

the sound a violation is straightforward. sound can be heard from the venue of of the hon. -- and the and in the area. and just from a distance of anywhere from 5-10, 25 yards away. the security plan violations citations range, predominantly from things as simple as no guard cars, to security not been easily identified as security, one not stepping into their role to a set -- to assure the safety of patrons. in one incident, someone was a salted within 3 feet of the front door of the venue, where security was unable to stop the attack but step in -- and unable to step in for the safety of that particular patron. those citations were issued over the last few weeks, following the list of -- incidents from san francisco police reports, which said that officer matthias will speak about this. as i have not been here i did not have a lot to report. >> i have one question. which venue -- had somebody within a certain number of feet of the door with security -- >> can you say this over again? >> a patron had left the parlor and was a

so i'm just getting violations. just getting violations. i came to prison for a dui.r that, and six-month drug program. i left from the hole last time like a year and a half ago, they -- since i was in the shoe when i left, they brought me back in the hole. that's how i do it. now i'm waiting to go to icc to find out when they're going to let me get out. >> matthew usually returns to prison for petty crimes. he has a history of committing more serious offenses behind bars. >> he's capable of a lot of violence in custody in the prison system. and in fact, he hasn't been in a general population setting since i think maybe 2003. and that's because he keeps getting in trouble. he batters the officers. he's resistant, uses alcohol in custody. ♪ >> whoops. that didn't work. >> good, how are you? >> good. >> this is institution classification committee. this is for administrative segregation inmates and this is a due process issue where we bring them in, review why they're in ad seg and you know, go over the issues of why they're locked up in ad seg and what they can expect

that would be something -- it could be part of a nearly year violation. i know we have a bunch of complaints on this building. somersault, some not resolved. some of them are held up because of appeals. that back wall did not look the best in the photograph. >> it also looks like it does not matched the drawing. >> it is hard to tell. some issues with the building. inspection services could get involved in the bathroom tissue and the maintenance of the building. i think they are. i do not have anything with me tonight. >> we will take public comment. >> thank you. to the comments he made earlier about giving a forum for people who do not have attorneys, i appreciate you remembering the details of my bathroom. i stand here today eight months later, six months after i saw you, with no bathroom. about the rent board, they rolled in my favor. the rent board does not have the authority to make the bathroom go back and. inspection has been out three times. i have a trial date set for july 2012. must i wait until then for a superior court to rule if i should hav

violation of the interim rules and procedures for patrol special officer and their assistants. >> sustained. >> second. >> on the motion of number three. president mazzucco: aye. vice president marshall: aye. commissioner kingsley: aye. commissioner terman: aye. >> specification #four. -- number four. failure to follow procedures for patrol special officers. is there motion? >> second. >> on specification #four. president mazzucco: aye. vice president marshall: aye. commissioner chan: aye. commissioner kingsley: no. there was a sign off on the procedure by a member of the police department. i believe that under these circumstances, this was somewhat limited. there was some disparity between the rule and actual practice. i vote no on specification #four. commissioner terman: aye. >> sustained by a vote of 4-1. >> specification #five. -- commissioner kingsley: specification number five. being evasive during an interim in violation of the procedures for special patrol officers and their assistants. is there a motion? >> sustained. commissioner kingsley: is there second? >> sustained. >> specif

they have a commission president to has been found in willful violation. you have no concept of how corrupt these people are. i certainly found nothing comparable in society. they are ripping off a public institution of millions of dollars, and a finding of being unethical or violating sunshine ordinances and laws is just an opportunity to show how impervious they are and how we any sort of democracy is compared to the influence of money and corporate power that they possess. the fact of the matter is if you come to this ethics commission meeting and just shuffle paper, you need to be aware of how much damage you are doing because you are demonstrating how powerless democracy is, and of course, the laws cost more than the money. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is dr. -- after 20 years at laguna honda hospital, i became a whistle-blower, and then i was laid off. in the past six years, you have dismissed 29 consecutive sunshine complaints. even though you substantiated 20% of them, none resulted in any enforcement action, and only one was

out that a letter had been sent using the phrase, which i do not have before me, dismissing or no violation found, as though the ethics commission had actually had some process in place. it was pretty shocking. and i wanted to tell you about the real-world consequences of this, which i think is important for you to recognize. this is not just a piece of paper over year and another piece of a lot over here, and do they or do they not match up, but there were very significant consequences in the real world that hurts library users. thank you. >> commissioners, the director of san francisco open government. as documented in a recent civil grand jury report, this ethics commission has failed to carry out and responsibilities related to the sunshine ordinance. through this, the ethics committee has sided with the city and against citizens in every case where public records were withheld. not only has this ethics commission failed in its duties, in as woefully and knowingly avoided the efforts of the sunshine ordinance task force. it has done this for years while representing its efforts as tryin

i am not in violation. as far as why i am not -- i appear to be evasive, you have got to understand when the commission and the chief of police make these agreements with the attorney, i want to make sure at understand it and i do understand it except for that one point. you say you hold in abeyance, is it for anything i do or it is these six things. i did not understand that. i thought it was for anything and everything i do for the rest of my life. having been made clear that, i accept it. there is no unclearness. i understand everything. president mazzucco: you have had a hearing. you have already had a hearing. this is why you were given a call. your due process rights. commissioner kingsley sadr hearing with you. evidence was presented. this entire trial was read. we can move on and go on what we think should be the disposition. are you clear about that? >> i am. everything is up to you. i have told the truth. i have not lied. i leave it up to you. if you -- whatever you want to do. president mazzucco:

5 violation. that's not what motivated the court's opinion, and you can -- i mean, look at page 96 of the joint appendix, where the court specifically says -- look, texas has always been cleared. they need to get preclearance. so this is not about enjoining them from implementing the plan. the constitutional violation that is being remedied here and the only thing that gave the texas court any authority is the one person, one vote violation with the old plans. >> that's what they said they are doing. i mean, i count eight times in the house plan, the state house plan, and several times in the senate plan where it's clear and i think it's fairly clear in the u.s. house plan, they say things like, "the court began by considering the uncontested districts from the enacted plan that embraced neutral districting principles, although it wasn't required to give any deference." and you say they are wrong about that. "the court attempted to embrace as many of the uncontested districts as possible." so afte

the filing deadline, this is not directly related to the public financing program, and to th i y violate the single subject rule, with respect to the ordnances. >> do we have that? you mentioned that these comments -- >> again, i have no particular problem with the 15,000 threshold for the incumbents and i agree with mr. hill, you can make that change in the third tier 2 address that. with respect to the mayor, i still think this should be raised to 80,000, and if you use the same 1.5 factor that would require 120,000 in qualifying contributions from at least 1200 contributors by a certain deadline. if they are incumbent i would support the mayoral iec of $2 million on page four and five. the timing of the payments on page 7, 142 days. i think that this kind of works. i would look at something in that neighborhood that was like 147. there was a provision elsewhere that candidates can claim the funds up to 40 days after the election and i thought that the program has 40 days post for a total of 180 days. this is close to that. 142 eventually falls on a sunday. and there is a proposal to e

the provision could be removed from office simply for a campaign violation while in office as opposed to a candidate running who is not -- who has not attained office. this may be the construction but maybe i am wrong, i am not certain if i am reading this correctly. >> i am hillary ronin and i work for supervisor campos and i want to thank you for the work you have done and for meeting with our office, and what is before you today, i wanted you to know that his intention is not to move ahead with the ordinance that is currently before the place on the june ballot. if you do approve, what is before you today, this meets the approval of the board of supervisors. there is only one difference between the proposal today, this is the software the hard cap. he had a small preference for the hard cap because this was cleaner, and the safest way to go, he agrees with the preferences for the soft cap. this may indeed come before him. thank you very much. >> do you have comments on this legislation? >> i think that the confusion is because there are a couple of tyoppos. this should be the priva

that happen within the city that demonstrate that the ethics staff opinion that is only willful violations is elegant misleading and perhaps incorrect because, first of all, the ethics commission is tasked with collecting all of the signatures stating that the required employee's and elected officials and public officials have taken sunshine training, so you are clearly involved, and in section -- one section, it refers specifically to the ethics commission. it says, in addition, the commission adopt rules and regulations related to carrying out the purposes and provisions of ordinances regarding open meetings and public records. the individual clauses of the sunshine ordinance do not work outside of a law, the of the laws. big public records act and the brown act, and you are also tasked with upholding those. it is not just individual provisions that you can argue to untangle them or untangle them, depending on what you do or do not want to do. none of the ethics commissioners as commissioners want to rely fully on staff without really investigating it, the people hear them all of the tim

, planning violations, and so forth. why don't i turn it to officer more -- moore? vice chair joseph: his karaoke bar on taravel, has that come before us before? >> i would need an address and a name to confirm it. vice chair joseph: officer? officer moore: good evening again. what the inspector just said -- he mentioned his first visit on august 13, where he advised mr. chang, and then when we cited him for the permit violation. in addition, they have an abc license but have sales and consumption on the second floor. every karaoke room has been outfitted with plastic cups of vice -- of dice. there are also gambling tiles. i have photos. after i issued from -- issued him the citation, i received a recommendation for a place of entertainment. the former commanding officer at the station recommended denial, based on our previous encounters. he continued to run it as a place of entertainment. there were yelp reviews, people saying they used the karaoke rooms after the citation occurred. i visited shabu pub during the days h

they have been faced by live ammunition and machine guns and violations of human rights. it is promoting they said the harbor against it. this is null and void because it betrays the military regarding the events in syria that have been the result of government policy more than thousands of people have died and so many detainees still lurk in prisons. the killing machine continues unabated. funeral processions have been scenes of massacres and schools have been transformed into military headquarters and houses of worship have not been spared. such oppression has reached that is wha the killers did with cartoonists fingers being broken. it is well-known that the human rights downs council adopted resolutions that strongly condemned syria because of the flagrant and systematic violations that may rise to be crimes against humanity. in the resolution, 66-176 of 19 december, the general assembly condemned with a vast majority the continuation by syrian authorities of the serious and systematic violations of human rights, the secretary general of the violations hold to assume

. >> rule violation number 38, indecent exposure/exhibitionism. that's the inmate that's masturbating. it was really, really bad when i got here in 1998. i mean, it was horrible. >> indecent exposure is one of our major disciplinary problems. >> when warden grant culliver arrived at holman in 2002, he instituted a zero tolerance policy for violations of rule 38. >> it's a sign of disrespect. and not only disrespect to those officers because they know the environment they're coming into, but you know it's disrespectful to expose yourself even to the man that's standing next to you. >> inmate johnson, ivan black, 206812, was standing behind the old jail door with half his body showing fully exposed masturbating while watching officer bonds. do you understand these charges? >> yes, sir. >> do you wish to plead guilty or not guilty? >> not guilty. >> during our shoot at holman, inmate ivan johnson faced a disciplinary hearing for a rule 38 charge. >> i looked up toward the main camp. this j-3 was standing at the red door with his body halfway behind t

asked the judge to impose sanctions on them saying they violated a judge's federal orders. the city argues hargraves covered his name to protect his loved ones. the impetus was concern for safety of the family. >> it's just the same as if a poor person comes into a store and steals a whole bunch of food and then says, well, i'm poor. i needed to do this for my family. would the police accept that excuse? of course not. >> reporter: he is under orders not to talk about the officer's disciplinary action. this is the first time an officer has been disciplined over "occupy oakland." highly publicized clashes with police involving an iraq war veteran. and an "occupy" supporter shot with a projectile are still under investigation. chan none believes the incident says one thing about the culture attached pd. >> the department as a whole is still out of control. >> reporter: oakland police today told me that they recognized that a violation occurred but said they cannot discuss personnel matters. channon and another attorney are asking that any sanctions that are awarded go to a we