The Santa Clara court situation may be moot. Within this week the Contra Costa Court is considering the same kind of case with the same pleading from the CAA. This court rejected the TRO and if it rejects the injunction, this is a strong predictor that the cases brought forth have no chance of actually winning.

What I found insane is that the CAA argued in Contra Costa court that if the CAA eventually loses, that renters will be able to recoup overpaid rent after the fact. That is simply irrational. I guarantee that if the CAA loses the property owners in Richmond as well as Mountain View will declare bankruptcy in order to prevent having to reimburse tenants. And that will be granted.

This is because if the cases drags out for years, think about the fact that the rent reimbursement will multiply and have interest on top of it. If in fact many landlords are not well off because of their prior decisions, this will simply completely destroy them, but at the same time rip off the tenants for their legal right to pay the rent controlled rate.

NOW that is theft, because for the time being landlords are receiving overpaid rent in Mountain View already, and Richmond residents are going to give free money to their landlords if the injunction is in fact granted.

But the legal bar to be granted a TRO is very low and the Contra Costa court did not find grounds to order it. The only reason Santa Clara court issued it was that the City of Mountain View agreed to it. The Preliminary Injunction level is much higher, the CAA will have to present proof of the allegations made in the complaint and prove by proof they are legally likely to prevail in their case. Since the Contra Costa court did not grant the TRO, and that the bar being so much higher now, makes it a lot harder to get an injunction without proof to substantiate the CAA argument in that court.

We will see this week.

If consenting adults enter into a legally binding agreement like a lease for rental property and the monthly remuneration is defined while this agreement remains in effect because Measure V has not been implemented for any reason (administrative, legal challenge etc.) there is no "theft". Maybe in spirit if the beneficiary of the measure V expected immediate implementation, but legally, nothing is owed for lost opportunity to capitalize pre-implementation, post-election. Compensation for this to renters is wishful thinking and won't happen. Landlords won't go bankrupt, but tenants may cry uncle and move onto naturally occurring lower rents elsewhere. It has been widely reported that rents have been on the decline in the bay area.

Theft?

I do not argue with you regarding the consenting adults, except for one thing, the CAA has been operating as a modern syndicate, in effect eliminating competition via a coordinated effort to share the market, coordinating the property owners so that they can as a unified group raise prices for rent. And establishing a state wide price fixing arrangement. This results in reality leases that have been made under unfair conditions.

I am surprised they have not been investigated as a violator of the Antitrust laws both Federal and State. Except that they buy the politicians, thus preventing any legal investigations from occurring.

THe simple truth is that rent price fixing being a statewide situation can be said to create lease agreements that are in fact non-consensual, the tenants are under duress because the industry has in fact coordinated to not compete, but rather raise prices in the entire state.

Of course you will just argue that "So what, they do not have to live here in CA, just leave". That logic in itself shows that all that really is going on here is raising private taxes, (i.e. rent prices) by those who have rigged the state-wide market for their own private benefit via a "trade-organization".

Boy, the Contra Costa Court has not yet made a decision, what do you think might be going on?

I would not be surprised that the Contra Costa Court is communicating with Santa Clara Court. Primarily because the 14th Amendment of the U.S> Constitution and Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution. In this specific situation, the Contra Costa Court seized control of the case away from Santa Clara due to proceeding with the case without delays.

The Santa CLara Courts are notoriously delayed, the court does not even keep its records in proper shape. I know this because it lost documents I submitted to it in the recent past, this court has severe problems in its operations.

I have an appeal at the state appellate court to address it, but the Santa Clara court is withholding the record from the state court. 2 reasons, one that the state law was not followed by the Santa Clara court judge in my case, and second the loss of documents submitted and improper handling of them.

So I am very grateful that the Contra Costa Court is going to establish an up to date precedence in this matter.

I need to ask the CAA a question, how long was Nemat Malekalehi a memeber of the CAA?

I just read the article called "Bad Landlord has Criminal Record" in the daily post today.

In the article he was convicted or plead guilty of:

2001 Fraud against HUD of $1.4 Million. Where he claimed subsidies for non-existent tenants or empty properties.

2000 Welfare fraud for arranging his mistress and her mother welfare benefit during 1990-1996.

Section 8 fraud by receiving vouchers when the tenant moved out of his property and did not notify the agency of change of address.

He was in the news because he plead guilty to shooting shooting at his tenants vehicles he wanted to move out because they were receiving section 8 subsidies and he wanted to rent the apartments to new tenants at a much higher rent rate.

And it is the landlords that criticize those receiving welfare or section 8 vouchers for causing the property owners problems? I cannot believe that they love to state this when if the public looks at their history, they themselves may be guilty of criminal acts involving welfare and subsidies.

If the CAA wants to be considered a legitimate trade-organization, it must take responsibility for the potential criminals that they advocate for publicly. My simple question is, will they provide a list of members so that the public can see if their members are criminals themselves.

That would seem to be a reasonable request, if they make any argument against it, this would be a very good indicator that either they are protecting criminal activity, or worse, they could be accomplices after the fact regarding any criminal acts perpetrated by their members.

Until then, why is any politician taking any advice or donations from what could be a criminal organization?

I misspelled the name it was Nemat Maleksalehi, I am sorry.