10801 Take Sign Down: Unite against urban blight & advertisers that endanger human Life

Paul E. Fisher, Esq. Suspended by CA State Bar & Other News

2010-03-20T22:51:00.000-07:00

Many developments have occurred since the last post here. Since no billboards have draped 10801, our job was done.

A few notable actions against the cohorts that posted illegal signs on 10801 are as follows:

Paul E. Fisher, attorney for World Wide Rush (individual that harassed and threatened Dr. David Allan back in 2009) has had his license suspended on account of convictions of rape and other felonies. Read about it here. Also here is the current status from the California Bar Association on Paul E. Fisher.

In an unrelated matter, here's a complaint filed Feb. 22, 2010 by the State of California and the City of Los Angeles for multiple violations against Barry Rush of World Wide Rush, Frank Rahban and Paul E Fisher.

To stay current with the latest on the billboard issues of Los Angeles, we direct you to the website Ban Billboard Blight.

VIDEO: KCET Documentary - Billboards Get Personal -- Featuring Dr. Allan and Frank Rahban

2009-04-17T03:55:00.000-07:00

Retribution takes place in this KCET SoCal Connected Video - Billboard Confidential Part 4 as Dr. Allan puts closure on the unscrupulous and greedy business dealings of Frank Rahban and his cohorts including World Wide Rush (signage company).

To read about the story of our protest along with compelling videos, click here.

To see the slogans and signs paraded around at the protest click here.

Frank Rahban and his attorney Joe Agapay declined to be interviewed in this video for obvious reasons - Why make a bigger fool of yourself. And their response that they were unaware of Dr. Allan's subtenacy is preposterous in light of all the evidence against them.

Frank's intentions were clearly to retaliate against Dr. Allan and this very blog for exposing their wrong doings. To understand more and the truth, click here and follow the folly of legal letters that led to the departure of Dr. Allan from his office he held for 16 years at 10801 National Blvd.

Sometimes a high price is paid for insult and injustice to your fellow citizens. In this video, Frank pays up and the entire world gets to watch and chime in. Thanks KCET for a job well done!

==============

Now, more comments aimed at the city officials of Los Angeles...

The spineless Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s appearance on this KCET video was pathetic and clearly shows how disinterested he is in helping the signage problems in Los Angeles. Do you believe there might be a conflict of interest weighing in on his decisions?

We have a message for the mayor and the city council -- Overblown, monstrous, Supergraphic signs blight the city and are not designed to cover up buildings. Also, the digital billboards is another disgrace that can be included here.

Here’s a checklist for Mayor Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council as you prepare to enact the new sign ordinance:

Supergraphics’ are a blight to the entire community at large
They disgrace and deface building designs
They are disruptive, obnoxious intrusions to all affected individuals that have to see these 24/7
Some of them can even pose serious fire and safety risks (as seen on this video). Our building was deemed unsafe by the fire department… and what was done to protect the tenants and all the occupants? NOTHING.
Supergraphics’ send the wrong message to anyone visiting Los Angeles
Supergraphics' don’t necessarily stimulate the economy; only a few folks benefit from this channel of advertising at a severe cost to our city.
We need to revert back to traditional forms of advertising and also consider new, creative ways to pitch products without so much disruption and upset to our city
Supergraphics' are meant to distract, and drivers already have more than enough distractions to deal with. Can't we surmise that additional distractions pose added dangers to drivers on our thoroughfares? The massive 10801 supergraphics' was positioned right up against the freeway. Now how safe can that be?
Are your intentions to support the citizens of Los Angeles, or the donors that fill your campaign coffers?
In summary: Advertising dollars that pad your election campaigns and in-your-face -- all-over-the-place advertising that force feed product pitches down the throats of the citizens you represent should not dictate a design for Los Angeles or for that matter, any city.

==============

And emails are coming in. Feel free to chime in and give us your best shot!

Hi David, I watched it on the internet. You were great!!! I so agree with you, and I support your standing up for the injustice bestowed upon you and others. Keep me posted! This guy seems like one greedy bas*****, and I loved that you went to his house to protest. The signs are obnoxious and putting them over windows is outrageous. I'll see you soon! From an anonymous patient.

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-16T01:00:00.000-07:00

This comment was in regards to this article.

Spencer Cross (spencercross) on January 21st, 2009 @ 11:07 am

I’m glad you posted this as I was debating it and hadn’t had a chance. That’s actually a photo of my old office building and I can tell you from first hand experience that everything they say about supergraphics blocking views and sunlight is totally true. They used to have unbelievable views out of that side of the building, but no more.

Anyway, what I found most infuriating about this story is the fact that new supergraphics are going up despite the city’s 90-day moratorium on outdoor advertisements. Yet another example of how the outdoor companies continue to flout the law and operate as if they’re not subject to regulation. It pisses me off to no end, and somebody in city government needs to step up and put the screws to them.

And we get comments from some bad apples...

2009-04-15T22:00:00.000-07:00

We are all about respecting freedom of speech, but that does not include the posting of notes by those who send in nasty and vulgar comments.

Please don't send in personal attacks for they will not be posted. Stay focused on the issues, that is what is important.

This website is set up to represent the tenants of 10801 and bring awareness and education to very important issues facing our society. We welcome debating on the topics that are posted.

Questions/Recommendations for Owners of 10801

2009-04-15T12:31:00.000-07:00

Although insignificant when it compares to the injustice served with the billboard issues of the building, several tenants have additional questions and recommendations to Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801.

Since the legal team for 10801 follows this blog closely, we suggest that you pass this information to the owners. If we get a response from Lois or Joe Agapay, we will post it. BTW -- It would be an honor to hear from Frank Rahban himself - That would be a treat! Our email is 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.

Questions from the tenants:

When are the windows going to be washed? Comments made include filthy, dirty and disgusting. We know they have not been washed for over 3 years and Lois has informed us that they are supposed to be washed every year. What gives?
How about the pigeon problem in the garage? It's not really the pigeons, it's what the pigeons leave behind as they do their business on the parked vehicles. Is there anything you intend to do about this problem?

Recommendations from the tenants:

Modernize the building. The automatic doors for the lobby and the garage and the video survellance on each floor have been a good addition, but we suggest more can be done and in the long run will save you money. Several tenants have recommend key cards that could be used to access the building and the elevator. Most modern buildings have this -- how about something like this for 10801? This could also replace the guard that just usually sits around all day -- especially on Sunday.
Access to the building on "holidays" and after hours. Many have complained that the building closes down for all major holidays. What if you don't celebrate Easter? Why not close the building for Passover? Also, some folks work on holidays or may just need to pick something up at the office. Why should the building be shut down? If someone is a tenant, shouldn't they have the right to access the building on a "holiday"? The same goes for after hours. Why does the building have to shut down? What if a legal team needs to work on a case through the night or something important needs to be picked up? These building rules are ridiculous and need to be changed. If there were key cards this problem could be handled easily.

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-15T01:00:00.000-07:00

Digital Display Boards are an eyesore. They destroy the natural beauty of California. I personally like the look of steel, glass, and cement in the cities. Most of the buildings are cool, but not the signs. Where did the advertising industry get the idea they had the right to use every ounce of public and private space for ads? They're talking about using outer space for advertising now. No, I'm not making that up.

There is a myth about advertising, that it reduces the cost of things. Just the opposite is true. It drives the cost of everything up. High prices are largely due to the cost of marketing and advertising. Mike Sirkin, Jan. 20, 2009 8:57 PM

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-14T01:00:00.000-07:00

I can't believe that anyone would think that it is ok to post an ad over a tenant's window. I would think that a big part of renting an office space would be to have a window. Otherwise why not rent a storage space?It is a testament to how brainwashed the public is that anyone would think that an ad is cool. It's so sad. Wake up people, the advertisers are laughing at you all the way to the bank, and they probably don't even use the products they are selling to you because they know what crap it is. Comment #19 , left at 02/05/09 04:44 PM.

In Memory of the Trees

2009-04-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

Have you been thirsty for more Tropicana O.J. lately?

"Instead of more billboards going up for Tropicana Orange Juice, more trees are going down."

See story: Rogue Tree Trimmers Elude Caltrans in Pulpy Mystery

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-13T01:00:00.000-07:00

How can anyone "support supergraphics"? Unless, I suppose, your living is made by the use of them. In which case-tough. Hopefully your day will be over soon and you'll be forced to pay up your fines and penalties, as well as take down these things spoiling the place.

I love how on one hand it's deemed trivial and ridiculous to protest this ugly and ILLEGAL (for a reason, namely quality of living) sign blight, but on the other hand some "supporters" also protest how terribly important to our failing economy having these monstrosities everywhere is. In any case, it's neither silly nor futile to protest and fight for retaining some quality of urban life in L.A. Ignoring illegal supergraphic signs all over large buildings, making companies richer isn't going to end hunger or war or help poor people, either. And remember, the fire department hates them too: they're unsafe for inhabitants of the buildings in case of a disaster. "Supporters"? Come on. Comment #41 , left at 04/07/09 02:27 PM .

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-12T01:00:00.000-07:00

Yes, L.A. is a major metropolitan city, but that doesn't mean our streets -- especially those in and near residential neighborhoods -- need to look like they have been taken over by advertisers and movie companies who see urban blight merely as an insignificant sidebar issue vs. their desire to profit off someone else's quality of life. Comment #18 , left at 04/06/09 01:00 PM .

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-11T01:00:00.000-07:00

I'm glad these huge signs are coming down. I don't want to see them. When I watch TV, I turn the channel when the commercials come on. When those building signs are so big, it's hard to just look away. Why do some people like having products forced down their throats with base advertising? Is that your idea of aesthetic beauty? Comment #26 , left at 02/05/09 11:46 PM.

No billboards on these buildings

2009-04-10T07:10:00.000-07:00

Of course no one would ever imagine putting a blown up tarp on a building like this. That is a statement we should ponder.

How about this quote from Coochicoos - Designs for Modern Parenting: "If you happen to be in Kansas City, as a resident or tourist, then pay a visit because I believe exposing young minds to great architecture affects them in powerful and emotional ways unlike any other creative expression."

Well what about feeding the older minds? Below are some examples of great architecture, both old and new. Enjoy!

Kansas City, MO.: When the massive Beaux Art Nelson-Atkins’ Building opened in 1933, newspapers nationwide reported visitors “amazed,” “gasping at its innovations and marveling at its luxury.” See more here.

Below you will find the additional buildings that were added. The Bloch Building has been called a process unfolding, a magical response to the landscape and to the original building. The design by Steven Holl Architects was chosen for its unique solution to the Museum’s problem: how to provide more space without compromising the original 1933 Nelson-Atkins Building. See an TIME article here.

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-10T01:00:00.000-07:00

Can residential renters take advantage of this lax billboard/signage ban? $600 for 15 days essentially covers half the rent for a 1-bd apartment. Comment #6, left at 02/25/09 01:03 AM

Retribution: KCET Documentary On It's Way

2009-04-09T04:37:00.000-07:00

At first the Coalition for 10801 was solely representing the tenants for the injustice brought on by the greedy actions of Frank Rahban and his partners and the other cohorts in this story -- World Wide Rush, Lois Agapay and Pepsico, Inc. We will let CBS and Dr. Phil off the hook since they quickly removed their illegal advertising from the building after it went up.

BTW -- Pepsico, Inc. is Tropicana, and they erred when they did not respond to our pleas for help and concern over their illegal advertising. Pepsico initially may have been unaware of the dangers of their advertising, but not to even respond to numerous calls and letters -- utterly shameful! And their recent supergraphics' campaign around the westside -- an insult to put it mildly. That's their corporate responsibility -- in-your-face all-over-the-place advertising.

We do give them credit for one thing -- several tenants that wrote in received some discount coupons for their next purchase of orange juice. Hmm, how come we didn't get any? We suggest you take a look at all the companies that Pepsico owns and avoid them.

Oh, getting back on track -- Our story got really ugly when only after a month of journaling the building events on this blog, the owners hand delivered a "default notice and a 30 day to cure" to Dr. Graff to inform him that he was in violation of his lease. The sequence of legal letters and comments can be reviewed by clicking here. To make a long story short, Dr. Allan was singled out. We suggest you ask Joe Agapay how many other offices have been served with a default notice of this kind? My guess is zero. Not to rehash the issue, I'm prepared to answer any questions the public may have. Just send in a qualified comment and I will answer it.

In addition to our rant, more 3rd party validation is on it's way. KCET has had a keen interest with our activities here. The show SoCal Connected brings local issues to the public and is set to air a 4th documentary on the signage problems in L.A. The heart of this story will feature how some citizens of Los Angeles are affected by this issue. From our understanding, we will play a big part in this documentary that will include the protest at Rahban's estate.

To get you up to speed, we suggest that you view previous episodes that can be found on the Internet. We have linked it for your convenience (it's already referenced in the "related links" section on the left bar):

Billboard Confidential - Part 1
Billboard Confidential - Part 2
Billboard Confidential - Part 3

We believe the show will air on Thursday, April 16th and will confirm all the details in an upcoming post.

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-09T01:00:00.000-07:00

World Wide Rush and the Sherman Oaks Galleria's "who me?" attitude is despicable. "We don't know what happened," Defevere said. "We think someone did it by mistake."

Really? How many legit midnight landscapers are there? I just wish the local government had some teeth. comment from Comment #2 , left at 02/24/09 02:40 PM.

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-08T07:03:00.000-07:00

"Let's cover the windows of the city councilmans offices at city hall... let's drape a banners over the city attorneys offices... and let's erect a digital billboard in the mayors office!" comment from: Comment #42 , left at 04/07/09 11:48 PM.

News coverage of protest

2009-04-07T09:15:00.000-07:00

See Tropicana Supergraphic in Tow, Protesters Hit Brentwood
Monday, April 6, 2009, by Dakota

Here's a comment that was found on the article that really articulates the issue:

It's too easy to oversimplify this issue... It isn't about whether you like or dislike signs. It is about our City having laws and people breaking them or abiding by them. The regulation of signs is a very complicated issue, made even more so complicated in our City because the City leaders have found it convenient to grant EXCEPTIONS to the rules (which the outdoor advertising industry has then used to go to the courts to stop any reasonable enforcement). Those commenting need to understand that Hollywood has been granted "sign district" status by the City. That venture has allowed much of what is seen there (although illegal signs have still been erected in that area by sign companies). The Hollywood sign ordinance was granted because the powers that be felt/feel that Hollywood is a unique entertainment area and that there should be an ability to have signage there. The truth is that despite a city moratorium passed by the City Council in December, many illegal signs have been installed. Why? Because the penalties for those that break the law are a small inconvenience and so minimal as to be a joke... $ 100 for a sign earning $ 10,000 or more a month? If you or I as residents did something against City code, we would be cited. All the billboard protesters want is for the City to enforce the law. We have had a ban on new outdoor advertising signage since 2002... but you would never know it. The outdoor advertising industry is among the most litigious; they challenge laws passed in almost every municipality seeking to delay enforcement. Some of Rahban's buildings are protected by an injunction and they ignore the Dec. moratorium that should take precedence over all signs and buildings.

Most important is the fact that the City is now considering a new ordinance to govern how signs will be regulated in the future. Much is at stake and one can only imagine the level of industry lobbying that will take place. At one recent City Planning Commission hearing on the proposal, FIVE attorneys from one prestigious/powerful law firm each got up to claim their one (or two?) minute chance at the mike to address the Commission. Who speaks for the public? How can the public have a fair shake at these hearings? Who can afford to take off 3/4 of a day from work to attend these hearings? Who has the access to meet with each of the City Council members to plead their case? I can tell you who and that is the industry to be regulated. I say BRAVO to those citizens who spend their time attending these meetings, to those citizens who call their Council offices when they see illegal signs erected, to those residents who take photos of illegal installations, to those who go to their neighborhood councils to raise the issue, who spend their time making signs and protesting. It may not be one of the most important issue in the world given the miserable state the world is in, but it is a local issue of importance and concern and the new law that will be passed will set the stage for future enforcement...or the lack of enforcement. We'll see what happens. All should keep a watch and thank those who give their time to do so.
Comment #30, left at 04/06/09 05:10 PM.

Blog reaches 5,000 visit milestone in U.S.

2009-04-07T07:48:00.001-07:00

Google Analytics tracks the numbers, and thanks to you, we've reached over the 5,000 visit mark. Below are the top 10 states viewing the blog. This is just in the United States -- we have readership all over the world.

This country/territory sent 5,091 visits via 47 regions

	State	Visits	Pages/Visit	Avg. Time on Site
1.	California	3,923	2.05	00:03:32
2.	New York	456	1.63	00:01:38
3.	Illinois	105	2.10	00:02:52
4.	Georgia	94	1.29	00:00:52
5.	Florida	58	2.29	00:01:42
6.	Texas	45	1.49	00:01:20
7.	Pennsylvania	35	1.51	00:00:55
8.	District of Columbia	28	1.61	00:01:58
9.	Virginia	26	1.31	00:00:24
10.	Massachusetts	25	1.24	00:00:25

Slogans Paraded At Protest Tell It All!

2009-04-06T03:08:00.000-07:00

This is what folks think of your advertising campaigns...

GRASSROOTS PROTEST HITS HOME FOR FRANK RAHBAN

2009-04-05T22:31:00.000-07:00

At face value, the grassroots signage protest at Frank Rabhan's estate was an unanimous success -- along with a pleasant surprise!

How much of an impact will it have on city government? We'll wait and see.

Roughly 40 folks banded together to get out of bed early Sunday morning on the 5th of April to meet at 251 N. Bristol Ave, L.A. 90049 and troop with signs and slogans up and down the block where Frank Rabhan lives - an individual that has brought quite a lot of attention to himself due to his blatant disregard for public safety at one of his office buildings at 10801 National Blvd. He has also angered city officials and surrounding neighborhoods by supergraphics both at his National building as well as his building at Overland and Pico. To top it off, he used technicalities in the lease to "evict" (force out) Dr. Allan from his building where he practiced there for over 16 years.

If you're new to this saga, we suggest you first read "For New Comers - Start Here" located on the left side bar of this blog.

The idea of this protest has been floating the thought waves for some time now, and it was amazing to see how quickly it came together. Knowing that the KCET camera crew and other media outlets would be there gave us the motivation to go for it! The protest was born out of frustration with the fact that citizens of Los Angeles have been dealt a crummy hand when it comes to the out-of-control billboard and supergraphics' issues that plague the city. The bungled dealings and closed door decisions by city government that has placed the signage regulatory mechanisms on it's heels, leads us to believe that the mayor and city council really don't care what most citizens think.

Below is a closing statement made at the protest by Barbara Broide that poses some great questions and messages to our city government, building owners and the sign industry about the signage problems in L.A.

BARBARA BROIDE DELIVERS A COMPELLING MESSAGE TO THE FRANK RAHBAN, L.A. CITY COUNCIL, THE MEDIA AND THE SUPPORTERS AT THE FOOT OF FRANK RABHAN'S MANSION. A MUST LISTEN!

Oh... And The Surprise? Well, we had no idea whether or not Frank Rahban would be home, but nearing the close of the protest -- with a thundering exit, his slick Mercedes throttled out the gated entry, handed Karen Foshay of KCET a document and raced down the quiet residential street at speeds way beyond the speed limit.

WE BELIEVE FRANK WAS STUNNED TO SEE OUR PROTEST. HERE'S FRANK'S GETAWAY CAUGHT ON FILM PLUS SOME REACTION FROM THE CROWD.

Billboard Comment of the Day

2009-04-03T15:09:00.000-07:00

From an anonymous viewer:

"As stated in the article, those huge billboards and advertisements are part of the of Paris cityscape. It would be like demanding all of the billboards should be taken down in Times Square. They are part of the urban landscape, and if people don't want to see them they should move. You don't go to NYC expecting to see cows."

Hmm, that's actually not a bad idea. Here's my response:

And regarding the Paris landscape, it's really up to the city and residents what they feel is important. Do you know what they did in Sao Paulo? They banned virtually all ads from the city. Click here to see what happened in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Since that time 70% have approved of this ban.

NY and Paris can have their visual pollution; L.A.'s got my vote to shut it down. Bring in some nice trees and sculpture.

Here's a great quote I came across on that news story about Sao Paulo...

“Presence always trumps presents.” From Joe Kelly of Campaign for a commercial-free childhood

Arraignment continued again to 05/13/09

2009-04-03T14:45:00.000-07:00

The recent Federal Court ruling against the City of Los Angeles has forced the City Attorney's office to regroup their efforts in combating supergraphics'. Sources tell us they are are still working on a solution. As a result, the arraignment in the criminal case was continued to May 13th.

Raban now threatens Dr. Allan

2009-03-31T07:23:00.000-07:00

Am I looking for a fight? Am I looking for a lawsuit? Absolutely not!

Of course we received a letter back from Mr. Agapay. At this point, I am not posting any more letters, unless I am sued. Then the public can follow every word of this case -- every step of the way. Hopefully you will decide this is not in your best interest.

National Investment company is now threatening to sue me for derogatory and defamatory comments.

Whoa -- wait a minute. Let's back things up and let's clean the slate. Let's refocus.

This blog was not designed as a forum for bashing anyone. For proof of what I am saying here, you can visit a previous post - Clean up of blog underway. This post was in response to an inflammatory letter from Paul Fisher, attorney for World Wide Rush. I acknowledged that some comments may have went over board and I apologized and overhauled the entire blog. I went through every post and took out any item I thought was too edgy. I even told Paul publicly to call or write to me if there was anything in the blog that was upsetting.

I did this because I took him seriously and did not want to deal with getting sued. I have not heard from Paul since, so I imagine that we are okay in this department.

BTW -- The items I removed were not specific to World Wide Rush. They were any item that I thought was over the top and too edgy including numerous items concerning Frank Rahban and National Investment Company. I removed all personal items regarding Frank such as business address and phone numbers. I monitor all the comments that come in. Do I post all of them? Absolutely not. There are a lot of nasty and mean people out there. I received Frank's personal home address, cell numbers, etc. and did I post them. Absolutely not. I don't want to provide information that could harm or harass any person. If I posted all that public info, it would set fuel for people to harass Frank. That is not my intention now and was never my intention.

Just as with Paul Fisher, do I take Joe Agapay's letter to sue seriously? Absolutely.

So I am asking Joe to send a letter to my attorney referencing any derogatory or defaming comments that I've said about Frank Rahban and NIC. Yes, I mean that. I will address them and remove them or reword any item if necessary.

So for the record, in the nicest way possible, these are some honest feelings I have at this moment:

I feel I was singled out and "forced out" of the place I practiced in for the past 16 years. The timing is too suspect. I had two leases previously with NIC and therefore I was responsible for the rent. When I applied for those two leases, did I have to submit any financial information? No. Mind you, when you have a lease, you are responsible for that contract period. For the last 3.5 years, I've been without a lease and have been paying the doctors in the suite and the doctors were responsible for the lease payment. Now NIC is saying that they were unaware I was a subtenant until they heard it on this blog. Let's just say that is true. So what? After all these years, why now would you demand my financial information to determine if I am acceptable? If you don't have a bone to pick with me, why the formality? Isn't a perfect 16 year track record and even a recommendation letter from your wife enough to satisfy your requirements for authorization? Am I really unauthorized, or is this about retaliation? We believe it is.
I direct your attention to the press conference that was held at the foot of 10801. Click here to see the complete conference on video. I direct your attention to what L.A. Fire Department Chief Fry had to say: "They are looking more at profit then at safety of their residents inside". Can't you see why everyone is so upset with you? When the Los Angeles Fire Department issued fire code violations and pleaded with you to take down your sign, did you? No. In fact when the first sign contract expired, you put up another one. Then the LAFD cited you again with fire code violations and put the building on a fire watch. The only reason that sign came down (after 6 days) was becasue of all the negative press Dr. Phil received. If that's not the case, please let me know.
What I am stating is nothing more than what Chief Fry has said, "Frank Rahban and NIC care more about money earned vs. the welfare of the 10801 tenants. That's why I stated the blog -- "for safety and justice". If Frank Rahban and NIC are not concerned about the safety and welfare of their tenants, then I was out to start a coalition and I did. There were many of us in the building concerned about our safety and welfare. We were the ones in the building, not you.

Once again, the purpose of this blog is to be a coalition for 10801 tenant safety and justice, not a bashing site to anyone.

Signage Problems: Education the Key

2009-03-30T22:05:00.001-07:00

photo from Ban Billboard Blight
Are these two supergraphic's the same?

In a stimulating article from Ban Billboard Blight,

Are Billboard Opponents Overwrought? Do Supergraphic Signs Make L.A. a More Interesting Place? An Architect Answers the L.A. Times’ Architectural Critic

(Click on the title)

an education takes place. It explains the phrase that comes to mind when we think about these oversized tarps that are draped over buildings and structures -- "Enough is enough".

"Enough is enough" is our inner voice telling us what is right and what is good. But how do we put words to paper as a law or ordinance? This will forever be a challenge coupled with the fact that not everyone will see the supergraphics as an ad method gone too far -- But most do. That's why they are outlawing them in the new city ordinance.

All of this attention to this issue is fantastic. Part of the problems here has to do with lack of awareness and education. That's what makes the above article so great.

Get educated. Find out the difference between the Hollywood sign and a pair of knockers that are barely covered pitching a product. There's a huge difference.

In a previous post, we refer to the beauty of architecture in London. There is an education here too! Putting up supergraphics is a sign of disrespect. You would never wrap a tarp around a piece of sculpture or your home? Well, I take that back -- for a price anything can happen. It's called selling out. If one wants to do that on a personal level -- that we can live with -- but when it effects us as a community -- "Enough is enough".

7 LETTERS HELP EXPLAIN DR. ALLAN'S STORY

2009-03-29T21:43:00.001-07:00

How can Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801 National kick a doctor out of his office -- a thriving practice he has maintained in the same building for over 16 years? Let's take a closer look so you can understand.

I've given you my suggestions and now you can be the judge. I've decided to reveal a series of legal letters that will help the public understand this injustice. There is unfinished business regarding this story and the truth needs to be told and the owners need to be exposed for their unscrupulous behavior. For the record -- I refuse to play the victim and am not looking for sympathy. The owners were not right to do such a thing, and with this post I can set the record straight and reprimand and expose the folks responsible for these actions.

MAIN TREATING ROOM AT SUITE 580 - Now Empty.

Retaliation is the only basis for this "eviction" (forced out) and furthermore, the wrong message was sent to the public and the tenants of 10801. The retaliation was in response to this very blog. See left side bar for more details.

Oh yes, we welcome any comments from NIC -- and we will gladly post them. We are looking for a formal apology along with reinstatement to have my office back. Right now Dr. Graff has two empty rooms on account of the owner's actions – and you know it’s not easy filling office space in this current economy.

Media outlets should contact our email address - 10801takesigndown@gmail.com -- We would greatly appreciate help in getting this story out and help direct traffic to this site.

Also you can contact my attorney Kevin P. Hall by clicking on his name. I've given him permission to speak with the media regarding this case.

Here are 7 letters with comments to help explain this unreal series of events. (A signed PDF is available for all of these letters on request)

===========================

Letter #1:

February 16, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff

Notice of Default

NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE
Via Hand Delivery

February 16, 2009

TO: ANDREW C. GRAFF, D.C.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 580

Los Angeles, California 90064

YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED within thirty (30) days after this notice is served upon you either to:

a. Cure the breach by you of Section 10 of the January 5, 2004 Lease you have with National Investment Company ("NIC") , as amended by First Addendum date May 1, 2008, for the premises, consisting of business accommodations, said premises are known and described as 10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580, Los Angeles, California 90064, of which you hold possession. Your breach consists of the unauthorized subleasing by you of all or a portion of the premises to David Allan, D.C.; or

b. To surrender and deliver up possession of said premises to NIC.; or

c. Remove your unauthorized subtenant and his property from the premises. If you fail to do so, legal proceedings will be commenced against you to recover possession of said premises with such other damages as may be allowed by law.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY DECLARES AND GIVES NOTICE that Section 10 of the aforesaid Lease has been breached in that David Allan has stated orally and in writing throughout the blog he commenced publishing and disseminating to the public on January 14, 2009, that David Allan is a subtenant in the premises. The consent or approval of such sub-tenant has never been applied for by you nor granted by NIC or any agent of NIC and David Allan is therefore an illegal subtenant. If you wish to cure this breach by seeking the consent of NIC, you must submit to NIC within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this notice, your written request for the right to sublease to David Allan with a description of the nature of the proposed subtenant's business to be conducted on the premises, a current balance sheet and profit an loss statement for and signed by David Allan together with the written consent and authorization of David Allan for NIC to obtain a credit report on him, and a copy of the proposed sublease terms under which your proposed subtenant would occupy the premises should NIC give its consent to such sublease.

Upon timely submission to NIC of your written request and the additional materials listed about, before commencing its review thereof, pursuant to Section 23 of the aforesaid Lease you will be required to pay NIC such reasonable fee as NIC establishes for reviewing or preparing documents and /or credit reports applicable thereto.

NIC is mindful of its contractual and statutory obligations to not unreasonably withhold approval of your proposed subtenant. Therefore in order to assist NIC in making a reasonable and thorough analysis of whether approval of your proposed subtenant should be granted, the greater the detail provided in his current financial statements, the more likely it will be that NIC will be able to make an informed and fair decision. Conversely if no or only sketchy financial information is provided it would be less likely that NIC will be in position to consent to your proposed subtenant as NIC, through no fault of its own, will not have been provided sufficient information to make an informed decision and would therefore have a reasonable basis for withholding its consent.

Should you fail to timely cure the breach of Section 10 of the Lease, NIC WILL DECLARE A FORFEITURE of the Lease under which you hold possession of said premises, and will proceed to commence legal action for recovery of possession of said premises and for all monies due and owing under the terms of Sections 23 and 26 of said Lease.

February 16, 2009

NATIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY
By: JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., INC.
A Professional Corporation
10801 National Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90064
jma@agapay.com
Off 310-470-1700
FAX 310-470-2602

Comments: This letter shocked both Dr. Graff and myself and many others that have the same office sharing arrangement in the building. The biggest shock the fact that they were asking for my financial records. Mind you, I'm not even on the lease or responsible to pay the owners directly. Keep in mind that in two previous leases with the owners, I was never asked to supply them with my financial records. Now they want detailed records to prove I'm authorized? It was clear that the owners were not happy with my blog and wanted to seek retaliation and found a sly technical way to put the squeeze on Dr. Graff to force me out.

Since Dr. Graff did not want to deal with a lawsuit, we decided it would be best for me to move out and he requested a two week extension to make it easier on him so he could have more time to find another occupant. That brings us to the next letter.

===========================

Letter #2

March 12, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff

Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant

JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., APC
Attorneys at Law
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, California 90064-4184
Telephone (310) 470-1700
Fax (310) 470-2602

E-mail: jma@agapay.com

March 12, 2009

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064

Re: Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant

Dear Dr. Graff:

Please be advised that your March 9, 2009 memorandum to National Investment Company ("NIC") is not in compliance with the terms of your written lease of Suite 580 in general, nor does it constitute an authorized modification or satisfaction, partial or otherwise, of the NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE ("Notice") that was dated and served upon you on February 16, 2009.

Your rights and obligations concerning occupancy of Suite 580 are clearly set forth in the written lease and the application of those obligations to the unauthorized occupancy of your suite by David Allan is specifically addressed in the Notice.

You have recently made an oral request for an extension or delay of the 30-day time frame in which the Notice must be complied with in order to avoid institution of legal proceeding under the lease terms. There is no legal basis for such a request, and NIC is satisfied it has, under the Notice terms, given appropriate and adequate time for you to either cure or commence the process of curing your default relating to the unauthorized subtenancy of David Allan.

Your failure to timely cure your default under the lease will result in legal proceedings being instituted against you without further notice and at your further costs.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb

cc: National Investment Company

Comments: This refusal not to give us a few more weeks was a pivotal point in this legal saga. I sought legal counsel and found an excellent attorney -- Kevin P. Hall. Dr. Graff sent a letter to the owners to give him permission to have Dr. Allan as a subtenant. That brings us to letter #3.

======================

Letter #3

March 16, 2009; Graff letter to Agapay

RE: Notice of Default

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Blvd.
Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA 90064

March 16, 2009

BY HAND DELIVERY

Mr. Joe M. Agapay, Jr., APC
Attorney at Law
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Re: Notice of Default

Dear Mr. Agapay:

In response to the notice of default that I received, I would like to address some points raised by the request that Dr. Allan leave the premises.

I do not believe that the office sharing arrangement that I have had with Dr. Allan, which the landlord and building representatives have known about for months, constitutes a sublease or breach of my lease. Furthermore, my relationship with Dr. Allan is similar to office sharing arrangements enjoyed by many other occupants of the building, who also share their offices with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord and its representatives. In fact, I am aware that Dr. Allan shared Suite 250 with Dr. Nancy Livingstone and Dr. Nelson Santos for approximately 3 years prior to his move into my office under the same sharing arrangement, i.e. without prior written approval from the landlord.

Be that as it may, I am hereby requesting that the landlord agree to the continued office sharing relationship I have had with Dr. Allan. Dr. Allan has practiced in this building for approximately 15 years. In fact we shared Suite 607 in 1996 for some years without any issues or consequences. For the time previously and now, he has been a responsible individual and an asset to have in the office. He maintains a current business and professional license as a Doctor of Chiropractic. His practice is thriving and relocation of his practice will no doubt cause him to suffer a substantial loss of patients and business. My own financial situation remains solid and I remain fully responsible for the rent for my office space.

Although Dr. Allan's relocation will result in a significant loss of cash flow for me, the building is not in any risk of default by me in the payment of rent.

In my conversation with Dr. Allan, we are certain that Lois Agapay, the building manager, has known and has been aware of Dr. Allan's arrangements for the last several years, since his name is on our door and in the locked directories in the garage and in the main lobby. I also understand that Dr. Allan had two different leases with the owners and has demonstrated his obligations to those leases without any consequences. Since I am fully responsible for the rent, singling him out at this time is unreasonable.

Therefore, I believe the refusal of the landlord to agree to Dr. Allan's continued sharing of space in the office can really only be attributed to seeking retaliation for the unrelated disputes that the landlord has with Dr. Allan concerning his blog. As you know, I have not had any part in the blog and therefore I believe it is also unfair to penalize me for your client's own separate and unrelated dispute with Dr. Allan.

Nevertheless, if the landlord insists on disrupting my relationship with Dr. Allan and to avoid legal proceedings against me, he will be prepared to leave within the 30 day period that the landlord has already declined to extend if he is not approved. In light of the information enclosed in this letter, I anticipate that the landlord will agree to my request. Please let me know if Dr. Allan is approved by tomorrow, Tuesday, March 17, 2009 or no later than Wednesday, since that is the 30th day from your initial notice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.

cc: Dr. David Allan

Comments: From the beginning, we felt the owners were acting in bad faith and did not want and/or need to provide financial information to them. Dr. Graff and myself felt that any amount of financial documents were still going to result in a rejection. In a matter of hours we got a reply from Joe Agapay - Letter #4.

===========================

Letter #4

March 16, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff

Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default

JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., APC
Attorneys at Law
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, California 90064-4184
Telephone (310) 470-1700
Fax (310) 470-2602

E-mail: jma@agapay.com

March 16, 2009

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064

Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default

Dear Dr. Graff:

We are in receipt of a letter of this date that appears to bear your signature. A copy was received mid-day via FAX and what appears to be an additional copy was hand delivered to my office by Dr. David Allan.

This letter commences with an inaccurate and an unwarranted accusatory charge. National Investment Company ("NIC") has made no "request that Dr. Allan leave the premises."
To the contrary, NIC has set out in detail the means by which you and Dr. Allan can, pursuant to the terms of your lease provide sufficient and justifiable information that would, in accordance with NIC's statutory and contractual obligations, compel NIC to not unreasonably withhold approval of Dr. Allan as a subtenant.

After setting forth numerous reasons why the author of this letter believes the "office sharing arrangement" between you and Dr. Allan does not constitute a breach of your lease with NIC the letter requests NIC to advise if Dr. Allan is approved (presumably as a subtenant). In promoting his chiropractic practice in his blog, Dr. Allan has made his subtenancy with you irrefutably clear.

No information of any nature has been received by NIC that would enable it to make a reasonably informed decision as to whether Dr. Allan is or is not an acceptable subtenant. Based on the history Dr. Allan has with NIC as a former tenant that resulted in NIC refusing to any longer enter into a lease with him, and in the absence of any current financial information on Dr. Allan, NIC must conclude Dr. Allan is an unacceptable subtenant.

If the terms of your lease and the cure provisions of the February 16, 2009 Notice of Default are not complied with as of March 18, 2009, an unlawful detainer complaint will be filed against you without any further notice.

Sincerely,
Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb
cc: National Investment Company

Comments: First, Dr. Graff did authorize the March 16, 2009 letter to Agapay and all the statements are true. The letter advised Agapay that Dr. Graff remains financially responsible and that Dr. Allan has a thriving practice. Agapay chose to ignore that info and falsely claimed that no info was provided. Furthermore, the owners have already concluded that "Dr. Allan is an unacceptable subtenant". It's clear that the owners are conducting this campaign as a way of retaliation against my blog and that no amount of additional info will persuade them otherwise.

This letter falsely claims that you made "no request that Dr. Allan leave the premises." Agapay did indeed demand the "removal" of Dr. Allan in the Notice of Default, which demanded that Graff "remove [my] unauthorized subtenant" or face a lawsuit.

Regarding the history of "Dr. Allan", I never applied for another lease with NIC -- So how did NIC refuse to lease to me? How can you possibly question my ability to respond when I have paid rent for 190 consecutive months without any problems.

Joe Agapay may not be aware that I was planning to leave the building in 2005 when my last lease expired, but His wife Lois did. When I was planning to get another place in another building, I asked Lois for a letter of recommendation. That brings us to letter #5.

==============================

Letter #5

Lois Agapay (aka Lois Forshee) to Whom it may concern

Recommendation letter for Dr. Allan

Lois Forshee, Building Manager
10801 National Blvd Suite 601
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 475-5779

3-28-05

To Whom It May Concern:

Dr. David Allan Orenstein has been a tenant in our AIG / Sun America building for well over 10 years. I certainly do not mind offering my name as a viable reference because he has proven to be a good tenant and has always paid his rent on time. If you have any questions regarding this issue -- please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Lois Forshee

Comments: When I was planning to move in 2005 from the building, I got a recommendation letter from my residental landlord and one from my business landlord. In Agapay's last letter dated March 16, 2009, Joe was trying to discredit me, when in fact his wife has recommended me as a good tenant. You gotta love that one. FYI - David Allan Orenstein is my full name and my profile and contact info can be accessed on the left side bar of the home page.

=======================

Letter #6

March 18, 2009; Graff letter to Allan

Final letter from one friend and partner to another and refund

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles CA 90064
phone (310) xxxx-xxxx

March 18, 2009

Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default

Dr. David Allan
10801 National Blvd., Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064

Dear Dr. Allan:

As you know, I fought very hard to keep you as a subtenant in my office. In spite of my efforts, NIC has informed me that it concluded that you are not an acceptable subtenant. They have further informed me that you must vacate the office no later than close of business on March 18, 2009 or I will be in default of my lease agreement and an unlawful detainer complaint will be filed against me.

Consequently, I have no choice but to demand that you vacate the premises on March 18, 2009. Enclosed is a check in the sum of $361.29 which represents the balance of the rent for the month of March.

I certainly regret this situation but I have done all that I can do to assist you. I wish you well in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
ACG/tm

Comments: Although we have a strong case against the owners, Graff's lease declares that the prevailing parties in a lawsuit will recover fees from the losing side. Since I was not on the lease, in the event we lose the case, he would be on the hook for the damages. It was not the risk he was willing to take and I can understand and respect his decision. That's why I moved out -- to protect my friend.

=========================

Letter #7

March 27, 2009; Kevin P. Hall to Agapay

RE: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al

KULL•HALL LLP
1337 Ocean Avenue, Suite B
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (310) 451-6100
Fax: (310) 451-6033
www.kullhall.com

March 27, 2009

BY FAX 310.470.2602
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Joe M. Agapay, Esq.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Re: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al.

Dear Mr. Agapay:

We represent Dr. David Allan in connection with his wrongful eviction from Suite 580 in the building located at 10801 National Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064 (the “Building”) and your client’s wrongful interference with his business relationship with Dr. Andrew Graff.

Dr. Allan has shared office space in the Building, with Dr. Graff and others, for approximately 15 years. Your client, the landlord National Investment Company (“landlord” or “NIC”), and your client’s agents and representatives, including you and your wife, Lois Agapay, who is an on-site manager for the landlord, have known about and consented to these office sharing arrangements during Dr. Allan’s lengthy tenure in the Building.

In January 2009, Dr. Allan started a blog about the unpermitted and unlawful supergraphic signs erected by the landlord on the sides of the Building. The signs are the subject of a 44-count criminal complaint against the landlord and its agents, including Lois Agapay, and others, in the action styled People of the State of California vs. World Wide Rush, etc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 9CA00023A. According to the criminal complaint, the supergraphic signs were erected by your client without required permits and in violation of various municipal code provisions and a City moratorium on off-site signs (Section 91.6201.1 et seq. of the Los Angeles Municipal Code). The supergraphic signs have also been cited by the Los Angeles Fire Department for other violations and they constitute hazards and a “clear danger” to public health and safety. According to the criminal complaint, the signs also violate the Outdoor Advertising Act codified in the Business and Professions Code, §§ 5200 et seq.

Concerned about the fire and building and safety code violations and the lack of information, input, or warning to occupants and visitors to the Building, Dr. Allan also helped to organize the public into the Coalition for 10801Tenant Safety and Justice (the “Coalition”). The purpose of the Coalition is to educate the public about the hazardous and unlawful conditions at the Building and help prepare occupants and visitors to the Building to deal with the threats to their health and safety.

Within one month of Dr. Allan’s organizing of the Coalition and the posting of his blog on the internet, you served a written Notice of Default and Thirty-Day Notice to Cure to Dr. Graff, falsely accusing him of being in breach of his lease and claiming that the landlord had not consented to his office arrangement with Dr. Allan, when in fact you, your wife and the landlord have known of and consented to their current arrangement and Dr. Allan’s office sharing arrangements with other workers in the Building. Your client’s knowledge and consent are evidenced by, among other things, the placement of Dr. Allan’s name and suite number on the lobby directory and name plate on the suite’s front door.

You also threatened to sue Dr. Graff if he did not terminate his arrangements with Dr. Allan and your client subsequently changed the locks to the suite, effectively locking Dr. Allan out of his own office. Your threats to Dr. Graff unlawfully interfere with Dr. Allan’s existing and prospective economic relations with Dr. Graff and threaten both of their livelihoods. Your client’s threats and false accusations to Dr. Graff are a direct result of, and in retaliation for, Dr. Allan’s complaints about the unlawful and hazardous building and health and safety issues. Your client is also no doubt motivated to stifle public awareness, suppress organization of tenants and workers in the Building, and inhibit tenants, workers and members of the public from asserting their rights.

Dr. Allan is incurring the loss of patients, business, opportunities and other damages every day since he has been wrongfully evicted due to your client’s retaliation and interference with his office sharing arrangements with Dr. Graff. We urge you and your client to reconsider the unlawful and ill-advised eviction of Dr. Allan and demand that he be restored to his offices in Suite 580 in the Building. In the meantime, all of Dr. Allan’s rights, remedies, and claims against the landlord and all others acting in concert with the landlord are hereby reserved.

Please direct all future communications to our office and refrain from any communication with our client.

Very truly yours,

Kevin P. Hall

Comments: There you have it. Once again, no pity please for me. That's the last reason for taking this action. I refuse to play the victim and will never ever consider an emotional distress claim against the owners... Now damages for business losses, and exposing the owners for who they really are -- that's another story.

Two options to respond:

Enter a comment directly to this post or

Send an email to: 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.

Patient Letter to Frank Rahban and NIC

2009-03-28T07:36:00.000-07:00

"I've been a health care professional for close to thirty years and have been a licensed doctor of chiropractic since 1991. Here is a letter from one of my dear patients" Dr. David Allan, D.C.

To the Owners of 10801 National Boulevard:

Unbelievable! Outrageous! Wrong! Those were my first reactions upon hearing that Dr. David Allan had been expelled from the building where he has practiced for so long. I have been a patient of Dr. Allan's since January of 1994, and during that time, I have visited him in three different suites in the 10801 National Boulevard building. The sudden realization that he is an "unauthorized subtenant" which happens to "coincidentally" coincide with his campaign for safety and his opinion of aesthetic (with which I happen to strongly agree) is unscrupulous and also against the right of free speech in this country.

What's wrong with you? Turning your office building into a giant freeway billboard adds to the visual pollution of the city and is low class thing to do. Ignoring fire or building codes is criminal! What motivates you to ignore the laws of the land? Knowingly compromising public safety is unconscionable. How dare you put people at risk to line your pockets?! You should be extraordinarily ashamed of your contemptuous behavior.

Would you like to look at the back side of one of these signs all day long? Would you like to feel your safety is compromised? Do you want to increase the possibility of greater damage to your income property should there be a fire? Please consider your super-graphic billboards as an experiment that didn't pan out and move on.

Donna Holden

Ms. Usher speaks at L.A. City Planning Commission

2009-03-27T07:53:00.000-07:00

Here's another video clip from the March 18th L.A. City Planning Commission hearing.

Jane Usher had some very important points to bring to the table and that's why we are posting it.

Jane Usher presents her position
on Signage to the City Planning Commission.

Barbara Broide comments on new sign law

2009-03-27T05:12:00.000-07:00

Barbara Broide, a staunch anti-billboard activist weighs in on the new sign law just passed by the L.A. City Planning Commission.

An email from Barbara:

Christine Pelisek's article captures fairly well the sense of the City Planning Commission meeting today. The one item that she missed and might have included was that there was the addition of some new language into the ordinance that was worked out since last week's hearing. (The CPC's subcommitte on this ordinance met yesterday.) The most important addition/change was/is the requirement that for every new ditigal or off-site sign allowed in a sign district that there be a mandatory REDUCTION in signage (within an adjacent "sign impact area" (which would be defined as part of a sign district's language). The creation of a sign impact area broadens the area where signs might be reduced from the earlier draft which would have allowed (but not mandate) a reduction inside of the sign district (where there might not be any signs or few in number) or provide for the establishment of a community betterment program to do the removal of grafitti, trash, etc. (which would have been trading one blight for another!).

We pushed very hard to have the ordinance address the need to reduce existing signage. Dennis Hathaway of Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight provided staff with language to do so recommended by the pro bono attorney with sign expertise working with CBBB from Minnesota. The LA ordinance as passed doesn't do enough reduction, but some is better than none. The ordinance did not specify the exact amount of reduction other than it be greater than 1:1 - for every one squre foot of new sign area that goes up, more than one square foot of existing sign area must come down. (We know that a digital sign is worth many times the space of a conventional billboard, so there needs to be a ratio of equivalent values kept in mind when this is applied. Whether there is any hope to expand this provision or seek additional measures when the ordinance goes to PLUM or City Council remains to be seen.

Other recommended amendments to the ordinance:

--limitations on roof signs (I don't know whether this amendment was adopted for certain)
--defining some of the notification and size requirements for Comprehensive Sign Programs. There was an added finding, "The size, illumination, height, projection, location and street orientation of proposed signs within 500 feet of a residentially zoned lot are compatible with residential uses."
--administrative civil penalties: requirement to provide more notice of the public hearings. expanded notification of the public hearing to inlcude property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the illegal sign. {However, note that they did not adopt language requiring notification of the local neighborhood council.}
--right of private action: it is being limited to the owners or occupants of real property within a 500 foot radium of the subject property. (We wanted others to be able to bring action in addition to the neighbors should the city fail to enforce the law.)
--sign districts: in addition to the sign reduction requirement, there will be language that says that only the demolition of existing, lawfully permitted off-site signs count toward the mandatory sign reduction. (This is necessary because in the past, some outdoor advertising companies, when faced with the requirement to remove signage, have taken down illegal unpermitted signs and had them "count" when they never should have been there in the first place.) A new finding was added for sign districts: "The proposed special sign regulations will further the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the urban form and neighborhood design chapter of the Framework Element of the General Plan."
Within 6 nonths of hte date of the new ordinance's adoption, staff are being instructed to adopt guidelines to review the proposed sign districts.
Only those sign districts (2) that had been heard before the CPC and approved as of today, shall be subject to the existing code (ie--grandfathered in). All other proposed sign districts will be subject to the new ordinance. (This is a significant win for our side.)

The issue as to whether or not to include a provision allowing the City to revoke the business licenses of sign companies that repeatedly violate the sign regulations or do not pay their assessed civil penalties has been referred to the City Attorney for advice.

Within one year after the ordinance goes into effect, a task force will be convened (representing diverse points of view) to review the impact of the ordinance, propsed necesasry amendments, study the feasibility of regulating digital on-site signs (now banned), and to study the feasibility of requiring billboard registration with Building and Safety (which I believe is already a power granted to B & S as part of the inspection program).

Mike Woo introduced additional language that is being added into the purpose of the ordinance (rather than as additional findings which is what Commissioner Woo had sought). He also requested language that would specify that the ordinance applies to the digital signs allowed by the billboard settlements so that new digital signs would/could not be erected outside of sign districts (that conversions would only be allowed in sign districts). He asked for language referencing the possibility that communities, within their community plans could use special use districts to create SIGN FREE DISTRICTS (off-site sign free), sending a very clear message that this is very much a possibility and tool that can be used for this purpose. Those sitting near me (and I) did not think that Commissioner Woo's amendments had been adopted but others with whom we spoke afterwards thought that they had.

Commissioners Woo, and Kezios have been the voice for good legislation at the hearings since this issue first appeared on the agenda of the CPC, under the leadership of Chairperson Usher. I have no doubt that if Ms. Usher were still the Chair of the CPC that the final product would appear significantly different on a number of important points. At the recent CPC meetings, Commissioner Cindy Montanez joined Commissioners Woo and Kezios asking very directed questions to address shortcomings in the ordinance. She joined Woo and Kezios in voting against the final product today.

One result of today's meeting may be that there be some challenge related to Brown Act compliance because the CPC did not allow testimony to be taken today at the hearing. The Chair indicated that since this was the FIFTH hearing on the topic (unprecidented) and since they had already heard a great deal from those interested, that they would not be allowing testimony. However, they introduced changes in the ordinance --changes none of us had seen or heard in advance AND copies of the language were not distributed until after the vote when the CPC had moved on to another item. Some believe this to be a breach of the Brown Act. I suspect there will be follow up on this.

I would expect that the LA Times will have a story on this in Friday's paper as one of their reporters was there today. (There was a not so well appreciated article on signage in today's paper by an architecture critic.) Also in the audience were members of a film team that is working on a documentary on signage (internationally) as well as the KCET producer for SoCal Connected who did the earlier three segments on signage and may be doing a fourth one.

Barbara

I suggest that individuals write to Commissioner Mike Woo, Father /Commissioner Spencer Kezios, and Commissioner Cindy Montanez to thank them for their leadership on this issue and for their efforts on behalf of the City. If you write to them in care of the Commission's Executive Assistant James Williams, they will get your notes: james.k.williams@lacity.org. Ask him to forward your message to each of the three Commissioners.

Keep those letters coming...

2009-03-26T19:42:00.000-07:00

Here's a few more letters and the first one was also sent directly to JOE AGAPAY, ESQ.

Dear Dr. Allan,

It is outrageous that the building owners and manager have reacted so arrogantly to your exercising of your legal rights to speak out against their actions. Mr. Agapay should know better since he passed the Bar. Have these people no conscience or regard for others? Apparently they don't care about the tenants enough to listen to their concerns and they do not care enough about the law to actually follow it.

It is appalling that they have acted so illegally in 1) putting up the signage, 2) keeping it up despite legal orders to take it down, and 3) evicting you for pointing out the facts. The wheels of justice may take awhile to turn, but they will eventually turn against the unjust acts of a few greedy and self-centered individuals.

I am glad you are practicing in another space, I would not want to go the the 10801 building for any reason. It seems the owners of the building understand the power of money, so perhaps the power of others in the building leaving out of their own accord will leave the owners with empty real estate as a consequence of their actions.

Sincerely,
A Sincere Supporter

===============================

Hi David

I'm glad that you are ok. It is very sad that the owners of the building at 10801 National consistently attempt to twist the laws of our land in their favor. Anyone with any common decency should know that a sign should not be covering up the entire side of a building's windows. It is ironic that the owners forced you to move out just because you used your First Amendment right to free speech while they erroneously claim First Amendment rights to advertise commercially.

It's a shame that these commercial property owners would chose to tie up our courts with ridiculous claims of First Amendment rights when clearly all they really care about is the money. Otherwise, why would they have forced you to move out if they were so keen on the First Amendment?

Also, David, I wanted to let you know that I have put my house up for sale. The looming supergraphic visible from my house is one of the reasons I am selling.

take care,

A Supporter

L.A. Approves New Billboard Law

2009-03-26T18:34:00.000-07:00

From the L.A. Times Today -- see Billboard regulations would ban most digitals and restrict supergraphics.

It appears that this law leaves the door open to sign districts that will continue to plague the city with legal problems.

Owners retaliate against Dr. Allan

2009-03-26T12:59:00.000-07:00

We are getting mail from concerned citizens about the blatant retaliation by Frank Rahban and National Investment Company. "HOW CAN THEY DO THIS AND GET AWAY WITH IT". Send us your letters -- see below for email.

A letter from someone in the coalition:

Hello David,

I feel that it is unfair to you that the Management of 10801 would evict you for your advocacy.

Your website was informative and useful to all of us and I am sure it had and effect towards getting that stupid sign removed. It is ironic that you are in fact evicted for exercising your freedom of speech rights... while the World Wide Rush... is able to steam roll over you to exercise their freedom of speech.

We are in a pivotal point of defining where rights of free speech legitimate and where they are abused in favor of the profit margin. But it may come down to the reality of what corporate America is really all about. I wonder what would have happened had we been more aggressive with the Tropicana/Pepsi People directly rather than getting caught up in the issue of fire safety. The fire safety strikes me as the tail wagging the dog.

Like the AIG Bonuses getting all the press when they were only 1/10 of 1% of the money spent. It just shows you how much things can be spun in the wrong direction if you have enough power. Of course I'm concerned with fire safety and stood out in the parking lot with the Fire Chief as they observed the building and wondered out loud if they could see anyone inside the building with the banner obscuring the windows... they decided that they probably couldn't.

But I'm sitting inside the building every day and am feeling the sensation of a "visual waterboarding"... And that is not what we paid for. Anyway, good luck in the future and again, sorry about that eviction thing... that was not nice.

Signed -- a supporter.

================================

Our best offense now is to exercise your right to voice your opinion and concerns for this injustice.

Send us your letters and we will post them.

Send them to 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.

Also cc: Joe Agapay (attorney for the owners) jma@agapay.com and tell them you are outraged.

We will keep you anonymous unless you tell us that you don't mind having your name included in your letter. Let Frank Rahban and National Investment Company know that these actions are despicable and an outrage.

DR. ALLAN EVICTED TODAY - PUBLIC STATEMENT

2009-03-26T02:43:00.000-07:00

As this post is entered, the City Planning Commission is prepared to vote on the billboard and sign regulations in Los Angeles today.

In the meantime, we are playing catch up and have not posted for a week due to Dr. Allan's eviction from 10801. We will go into details and let you know what is really going on at 10801 in just a moment, but first...

Last week on Wednesday, March 18th, the City Planning Commission met at City Hall to determine the final policy regarding the regulation of signage in Los Angeles and to also hear from the public.

Anyone that wanted to speak on this topic went before the commissioners to give their pitch. Everyone was given 2 minutes and a timer was set to keep the meeting moving. We recorded a few notable speakers and we will present one today from Dennis Hathaway, President of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight.

Dennis Hathaway presents his position
on Signage to the City Planning Commission.

Now the rest of the story...

Dr. David Allan also came before the commission, but painted a completely different story. In an emotional statement, Dr. Allan described how this saga has turned ugly and dirty.

After more than 16 years of practicing at 10801 National Blvd. -- Frank Rahan and National Investment Company wrongfully had Dr. Allan "EVICTED" from the building.

Frank knew that he could not stop Dr. Allan from blogging and expressing the disgust from the coalition against their actions, but FRANK RAHBAN and National Investment Company knew that they could seek retaliation and use their power to have Dr. Allan removed from the building -- basically on a technicality. Details will be provided in due time.

What National Investment Company did is a total outrage and injustice against Dr. Allan and this is not the end of the story.

Here is the public statement by Dr. Allan that was presented to the commission:

My name is Dr. David Allan and I am a chiropractor from Los Angeles and the spokesperson for the Coalition for 10801 Tenant Safety and Justice.

10801 National Blvd. is the site where the owner, Frank Rahban, National Investment Company and World Wide Rush slapped up a hazardous supergraphic across the entire side of the building that sits up against the 10 freeway facing a prominent West Los Angeles neighborhood. The sign serves no one except the advertisers that want to throw their product pitches down our throats and pad the pockets of the disingenuous building owners and sign companies that could care less about the visual landscape of our city, and in our case -- disregard warnings from the Fire Chief putting all the occupants at 10801 at a serious safety risk.

Along with this injustice, another one is occurring today as I speak. Today is a sad day -- Since reporting the news at 10801 and exposing the disregard the owners have for the tenants and the community on the blog "www.10801TakeSignDown.blogspot.com", today is the last day I am allowed to practice in my suite.

For the sake of retaliation, Frank Rahban and National Investment Company has singled me out as a whistle blower and last month gave the doctor I share my space with -- a 30 day default notice to have me removed from the premises. After 16 years of not missing a monthly rent payment -- that's over 190 consecutive months of paying my rent on time with a thriving health care practice at this location, the owners have deemed me not qualified to practice in his building.

The message here is not to feel sorry for my predicament, but to send a message to the City that safeguards are needed to help protect every individuals right to speak up for themselves without the fear of retaliation from building owners and big business with deep pockets that would not think twice or hesitate to ruin your career or displace you from your livelihood.

Judge's ruling slaps L.A. City in the face

2009-03-17T09:06:00.000-07:00

Here is a summary of what happened in federal court yesterday -- See L.A. TIMES ARTICLE.

Here's how we see it...

This ruling is a blow to L.A. City Officials and an injustice to the citizens of Los Angeles.

L.A. needs to get their act together and put this to the voters. We are the ones that have to live in this mess. We are the ones that are harmed by greedy building owners and sign companies that intend to pollute our landscape.

None of this takes away from the safety hazards that came along with the signs at 10801. And none of this takes away from what we know at 10801:

FRANK RAHBAN (Owner of 10801) along with National Investment Company disregards his responsibility to his tenants.

In his actions, it's crystal clear that FRANK RAHBAN COULD CARE LESS ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE BUT THE LININGS OF HIS POCKETS

Here's the bottom line:

Without warning to the tenants of 10801, FRANK puts up this monstrous ad covering the entire side of the building -- COVERING THE BIG BEAUTIFUL WINDOWS AND OBSTRUCTING THE VIEW FOR ALL THE TENANTS THAT WERE AFFECTED. When the tenants signed their lease because of the beautiful view, did they think for a second that FRANK would cover up their view with a plastic tarp?
Without warning to the tenants of 10801, FRANK puts up this monstrous ad covering the entire side of the building -- COVERING THE WINDOWS AND CREATING A FIRE HAZARD. With the windows covered, all the occupants are at risk. This impedes fire and emergency personnel from accessing the building and rescue operations in case of evacuation. Also the tarp will trap in toxic gases in the event of a fire -- Smoke has been known to be the killer in many fires.
Without warning to the tenants of 10801, FRANK puts up this monstrous ad covering the entire side of the building -- POLLUTING THE LANDSCAPE AND ESCALATING THE PROLIFERATION OF THIS TRASH AROUND THE CITY. Do you think most citizens want to see ads at every turn? HEY FRANK -- WOULD YOU LIKE ONE OF THESE POSTED RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR BRENTWOOD MANSION?
Without warning to the tenants of 10801, FRANK puts up this monstrous ad covering the entire side of the building -- BLIGHTING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This ad faces a West Los Angeles residential neighborhood. HEY FRANK -- DID YOU WARN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THE TRASH THEY WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYDAY?
Without warning to the tenants of 10801, FRANK puts up this monstrous ad covering the entire side of the building -- FRANK HAS DEFACED A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING THAT HAS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. The famous architect, Edward Durell Stone designed 10801 National and he would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what Frank has done to the building. FRANK INSTALLED FLOODLIGHTS ACROSS THE TOP OF THIS BUILDING AND THUS DEFACING IT.
Ask Frank when was the last time the windows were washed? These are fixed windows that cannot be opened. They are filthy and have not been washed in over 3 years.
Paint can be seen to be flaking off the tops and needs a good painting. Ask Frank to budget some of that cash he's making on that trashy hazardous tarp and put some much needed improvements into the building.

Hearing Set in Federal Court 03/09 RE: Sign Co.

2009-03-13T22:09:00.000-07:00

THIS COULD BE HUGE: U.S. District Court Judge Audrey Collins will hear an extremely important case -- Monday at 10AM. This can affect the city's control to regulate signs throughtout the City of Los Angeles.

Here are the Details:

Monday, March 16, 2009

United States Government Secret Service:
Roybal Federal Building - Courtroom 680
255 E Temple St
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-4830
secretservice.gov

We had a conversation today with a source at the L.A. City Attorney's office and have a small preview of this hearing...

There will be 120 plaintiffs -- WOW seems like a coalition (individuals from the various sign companies including World Wide Rush) facing the City of Los Angeles and challenging the constitutionality of the Los Angeles Sign Ordinance.

One of the components of this hearing (4 cases will be heard in all) is a contempt of court issue filed by World Wide Rush (WWR) and this directly relates to the goings on at 10801 National.

You may have wondered why it's been so quiet over at our location??

You got it -- WWR and the owner (Frank Rahban) are waiting to see how Judge Collins will rule on this issue. From our understanding, a tentative ruling will be set forth by the judge and soon after we will get an official ruling either later that day or sometime during the week.

OR... Just drive by 10801 later in the week and if you see a tarp over the building and the windows, you can be certain Judge Collins ruled in favor of the sign mongers \*^).

To access information on the ruling you can call (213)978-8120 or (213)978-8100.
Folks at these numbers should be able to provide you with information or direct you to a source that can access information on the ruling.

This could produce some interesting drama -- Stay tuned.

Outraged By Tree Cutting? Things You Can Do

2009-03-10T22:33:00.001-07:00

Here's a great news story from Ban Billboard Blight

Outraged By the Cutting of Trees on Public Property to Enhance Billboard Visibility? Here Are Some Things To Do

See before and after pictures on the side bar.

On Feb. 25, the Los Angeles Times published an article, “Vandals Cut Down Nearly Two Dozen Trees That Blocked View of Billboards.” The only plausible explanation for the cutting of these trees, along the rights-of-way of the 10 and 405 freeways, was to give motorists a clear view of “supergraphic” signs draped across multiple stories of an office building and the wall of a shopping mall parking structure.

A spokesman for Caltrans, the state agency that owns the land, said he was “annoyed” by the tree cutting and that Caltrans was investigating the fact that the company that put up the sign, World Wide Rush, had not obtained the required state permit for the sign. This tepid response to criminal destruction of public property was compounded by the spokesman’s admission that Caltrans had been aware of the tree cutting for almost two months. It apparently never occurred to anyone at the agency that publicizing the fact could alert people who might have observed suspicious activity, and help lead to the apprehension of those responsible before the trail turned entirely cold.

But is this outrageous criminal act actually being investigated? And if not, why? Should we let our public servants shrug at the possibility that someone believed it was okay to trespass onto public land and destroy public property to enhance the profits of a sign company, a property owner, and a corporate advertiser?

Send a message to the Caltrans director and the state legislators who represent the areas where this crime took place. Use a descriptive subject line like “Investigate Tree Cutting for Billboards!” Ask for an immediate, vigorous investigation, with the establishment of a reward for information leading the arrest and conviction of those responsible.

To paraphrase a former president, WE CANNOT LET THIS STAND!

Caltrans Director Will Kempton:
caltrans_director@DOT.ca.gov

28th District Senator Jenny Oropeza
oropeza@sen.ca.gov

47th District Assemblyperson Karen Bass:
Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov

42nd District Assemblyperson Mike Feuer:
Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger:
governor@governor.ca.gov

10801 Blog reaches over 4000 visits in the U.S.

2009-03-10T22:12:00.000-07:00

This country/territory sent 4,110 visits via 46 regions

Comparison

	Detail Level: Region City Region	Visits	Pages/Visit	Avg. Time on Site	% New Visits	Bounce Rate
1.	California	3,128	2.07	00:03:34	56.46%	67.46%
2.	New York	352	1.66	00:01:38	44.60%	71.59%
3.	Illinois	96	2.18	00:03:03	71.88%	60.42%
4.	Georgia	69	1.35	00:00:45	28.99%	84.06%
5.	Florida	51	2.37	00:01:19	50.98%	76.47%
6.	Texas	40	1.18	00:00:32	77.50%	90.00%
7.	Pennsylvania	33	1.55	00:00:58	66.67%	72.73%
8.	Virginia	25	1.32	00:00:25	96.00%	76.00%
9.	District of Columbia	25	1.60	00:02:08	72.00%	72.00%
10.	Massachusetts	24	1.25	00:00:26	83.33%	83.33%

See how Europe tackles billboard problems

2009-02-28T16:56:00.000-08:00

Here's a piece of news from across the pond. This is how one group deals with the billboard problems in France.

DISPATCH FROM PARIS

In Paris, an anti-ad insurgency

Activists opposed to billboards invite police to rallies where they tag the offending signs, seeking a day in court.

By Sebastian Rotella and Audrey Bastide
7:33 PM PST, January 31, 2009

Reporting from Paris -- Over the centuries, the French have cultivated the fine art of rebellion.

The list of targets encompasses tyrants, wars, colonialism and, above all, capitalism in its many manifestations. The latest enemy may seem unlikely: billboards.

The Dismantlers, as a nationwide group of anti-ad crusaders call themselves, aren't violent or loud or clandestine. In fact, they invite the police to protest rallies where they deface signs. With a copywriter's flair, one of their slogans warns: "Attention! Avert your eyes from ads: You risk being very strongly manipulated." The goal of the Dismantlers is to get arrested, argue the righteousness of their cause in court and, you guessed it, gain publicity.

"We challenge the mercantile society that destroys all human relationships, professional relationships, health, the environment," said Alexandre Baret, 35, a founder of the group. "It's a message that proposes to attack advertising as the fuel of this not very healthy society."

Despite the stick-it-to-the-man rhetoric, there were neckties and briefcases in the crowd at an evening rally here a while back. Part-time insurgents had come from work for the gathering in the Place Malesherbes, an elegant, tree-lined plaza graced by statues of the author Alexandre Dumas and his musketeer hero D'Artagnan, one of literature's most irrepressible swashbucklers.

The 80-odd demonstrators, looking bohemian and stylish, listened to Baret set the ideological stage. The red-bearded schoolteacher and father of four explained that he doesn't want to abolish advertising, just limit signs to no more than 1.2 feet by 1.6 feet. The current wall-size dimensions are obtrusive and oppressive, he said.

The large and colorful billboards that are a fixture of the Paris streetscape are hard to ignore, especially the many suggestive ads for undergarments. Some consider them artistic; religious fundamentalists condemn them as proof of Western decadence.

"You see commercial messages every day, you get them right in the face, in the subway, in the street, all the time, and if you don't want to, you do not have the choice," Baret declared over a megaphone. "So we are obliged to resort to civil disobedience. In a symbolic manner, we will tag a few billboards in order to provoke debate and push for things to progress."

Baret urged the crowd to give a cordial welcome to the police. Advised by the activists ahead of time, the authorities had dispatched a squad of riot police, the renowned head-thumpers of the CRS, or Republican Security Companies.

The officers formed a cordon: burly and stern in blue uniforms, black gloves, pants tucked into lace-up boots. They looked bemused. They were no doubt thankful to tangle with polite leftists instead of housing-project gangs who have been known to "welcome" police with bricks, Molotov cocktails and gunfire.

Under Baret's direction, three activists approached billboards promoting audiovisual products and a television talk show and spray-painted them with slogans. The police slapped on handcuffs and led their prisoners to a van. There was applause. An accordion accompanied the crowd in a popular song, "The Deserter," with lyrics modified for the occasion. And that was that.

The Dismantlers represent an enduring contradiction of the French mentality. The center-right won the last elections by a comfortable margin. Juggernaut industries sell the world everything from jets to trains to wine. The average citizen enjoys long vacations, a beach or country home and a lifestyle that is the envy of the West.

Nonetheless, a large percentage of the population tells pollsters that it is hostile to the capitalist system. That ideological current produced the anti-advertising movement, which took off in 2003 and has won sympathy with its mix of economic and environmental messages.

"I think that when you get down to it, they are right," said Marina, 33, a restaurant worker who stopped to see what the fuss was about in the Place Malesherbes. "Between TV, Internet and advertising billboards, we are told about consumption all the time."

But Marina expressed doubt that this particular mini-revolution would triumph.

"I find it funny, but a little useless," she said. "I think tagging ads bothers passersby more than anything. A sign full of graffiti is even worse than having to look at an ad."

Unlike anarchists or other groups that engage in hit-and-run tactics, the Dismantlers see the courtroom as a battlefield of choice. They gather contributions to pay fines that are often low because judges tend to be lenient and the vandalism is calculated to remain minimal.

Baret appeared at a hearing last month on charges of "unauthorized advertising." The case involved an incident in 2007 when he was caught plastering commuter trains with the "avert your eyes" stickers.

Baret, who like his fellow insurgents is a veteran defendant, had refused to pay the $58 fine. His lawyer argued that his actions were less destructive than the 57,000 giant signs that fill the train stations of France.

"The advertisements are energy-intensive, they use paper from forests," the lawyer said. "It's an assault on individual liberties, an advertising aggression."

In response, the prosecutor reminded the accused that "the tribunal is not a tribune." A lawyer representing the French railroad company, which demanded a symbolic $1.30 in damages and $650 for legal costs, chided the activists for returning to rabble-rousing of "years ago."

A verdict is expected in February. But the Dismantlers say they have already won by making people stop and think about the messages that bombard them each day.

"The advertising budget in France is $39 billion a year," said Antoine Trouillard, a 26-year-old philosophy student and activist.

"That's equivalent to the entire education budget in France. . . . Our movement goes a lot further than a simple symbolic gesture. And that's what we want the public to understand."

rotella@latimes.com

Bastide is a special correspondent.

Arraignment continued in 10801 sign case

2009-02-26T21:59:00.000-08:00

Today was the arraignment date for a 44 count criminal complaint handed down by the City of Los Angeles and levied against Barry Rush of World Wide Rush, 10801 building owners Frank Rahban and a list of others -- see all the individuals involved and details by clicking here.

They are charged with numerous infractions from fire code violations to unlawfully installing OUTDOOR LIGHTING WITHOUT A PERMIT. We were notified that the arraignment date was continued and a new arraignment was set for April 2, 2009. We learned that many times these complicated cases follow in this direction.

Stay tuned.

NEWS STORY LINKS WWR TO TREE CUTTING

2009-02-26T21:35:00.000-08:00

Lori Shepler / Los Angeles Times

One of the 15 trees that got a major whacking is next to the 405 Freeway near the Sherman Oaks Galleria. A row of 15-foot trees were cut down to 3 or 4 feet.

Lori Shepler / Los Angeles Times

L.A. officials miffed at mysterious trimming of trees near billboards
One of the 15 trees that got a major whacking is next to the 405 Freeway near the Sherman Oaks Galleria. A row of 15-foot trees were cut down to 3 or 4 feet.

Removal of the landscaping improved the visibility of enormous ads placed by outdoor advertising firm World Wide Rush. Company officials deny involvement in the vandalism.

By Alexandra Zavis
9:02 PM PST, February 25, 2009

The mysterious felling of roughly two dozen trees near city billboards has provoked finger pointing between state transportation officials and an advertising firm, and added fuel to a heated debate involving outdoor advertising in Los Angeles.

Vandals apparently used chain saws to cut back the trees, which had been planted along the 10 and 405 freeways under a California Department of Transportation landscaping initiative. It seems the rogue tree cutters wanted to increase the visibility of enormous ads erected by the World Wide Rush advertising company, said Daniel Freeman, a Caltrans deputy district director for maintenance.

"I can't imagine why anyone else would want to cut down these trees," Freeman said.

The advertising firm says it had nothing to do with the matter.

Paul Fisher, a Newport Beach lawyer representing World Wide Rush, accused officials of looking for ways to get around federal rulings that limit the city's ability to ban digital signs and large ads known as "supergraphics," which cover entire buildings.

Freeman said the trees were cut back in December and January, just before World Wide Rush put up supergraphics for Tropicana juice on a parking structure at the Sherman Oaks Galleria and a six-story building on National Boulevard, near the 10 Freeway.

The damaged landscaping included a row of 15-foot Brisbane box evergreens that were cut down to 3 or 4 feet, Freeman said. Caltrans had planted the trees near the Galleria at a cost of about $2,500 to $3,000 each, in order to screen the 405 Freeway, he said.

"I am particularly annoyed that these were the ones that got hit," Freeman said. "These were essentially brand new."

Five or six more trees were felled near the building on National Boulevard, he said, along with five belonging to the shopping mall.

Katherine Defever, a Galleria representative, said mall officials were baffled when they noticed the destruction and had initially assumed that Caltrans officials were cutting back landscaping themselves.

Freeman said Caltrans was notified of the cutting by City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, who filed criminal charges in January against World Wide Rush and National Investment Co. -- owners of the building at 10801 National Blvd. -- for allegedly putting up an unauthorized sign and violating safety regulations.

World Wide Rush contends the charges are in contempt of a federal ruling that found a 2002 city ban on new billboards unconstitutional. Although that decision is under appeal, the company won an injunction preventing officials from banning supergraphics at 34 buildings, including the one on National.

Freeman said the sign on National violates the California Outdoor Advertising Act, which gives Caltrans control over advertising displayed within 660 feet of a freeway. The department is conducting its own investigation into the matter, he said.

While Freeman hopes to replace the damaged landscaping, he said the department would not be able to afford to put in mature trees like the ones that were lost.

alexandra.zavis@latimes.com

IF CALTRANS DIDN'T CHOP DOWN THOSE TREES...

2009-02-24T06:57:00.000-08:00

Reports say that healthy trees in front of 10801 were hacked down -- and not by Caltrans state officials. See story from the Daily News:

Felled roadside trees stump Caltrans Officials

By Sue Doyle, Staff Writer

Updated: 02/23/2009 09:52:13 PM PST

Toxic spills, chunks of concrete and discarded mattresses are among the things Caltrans workers keep a watchful eye on.

Now they have something else to add to their list of worries: rogue landscapers.

Over the past several months, rows of 15-foot trees that were to be used as noise barriers or screens near the 405 and 10 freeways have been cut down in an apparent bid to make nearby billboards - one of them illegal - more visible.

All of the ads were for Tropicana orange juice and all of them might have been put up by the same billboard company, World Wide Rush, which did not return phone calls. Tropicana also did not return calls.

It's not the first time trees near billboards have disappeared in Los Angeles. A

Some photos of the 21 heavily trimmed trees.

magnolia tree was hacked down in 2001 along the Sunset Strip and three palm trees were poisoned near Los Angeles International Airport a few years later.

But this is one of the first times Caltrans has had to deal with the problem. As for who the culprits could be, officials say they're stumped.

"It's really disturbing to me and disturbing to staff, because we have a lot of dead and dying landscape," said Daniel Freeman, Caltrans' deputy district director of maintenance. "And here someone comes along and cuts down healthy ones for no good reason."

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo has filed charges against World Wide Rush, which put up the illegal billboard near the 10 Freeway and National Boulevard, and the owner of the

six-story building where it hangs.

A spokeswoman for the Sherman Oaks Galleria said World Wide Rush also operated the two billboards attached to the mall's parking structures, where other trees were cut down.

But the culprits - who probably used chain saws to take down a total of 17 Brisbane Box evergreens that can grow to 60 feet - have never been seen, or heard of, despite their noisy trade.

Their hasty landscaping jobs can be seen near the Sherman Oaks mall, where 12 trees were cut down, and at the 10 Freeway and National Boulevard offramp, where five other trees were felled. The trees cost at least $1,500 each, plus some $1,000 has spent to keep them up over the years.

"They did a terrible job cutting them down," Freeman said, describing the $42,500 in damage. "They weren't landscapers."

Given today's free-falling economy, it's unknown when the state agency can afford to replace the mutilated trees, Freeman said.

The trees are part of a massive landscaping investment the state agency makes to muffle clanky roadway noise and add easy-breathing aesthetics to its 45,000 miles of highway and freeway lanes.

Freeman said it looks like the trees were cut with chain saws, allowing the vandals to act quickly.

Vandals are believed to have worked in the dead of night, chopping each tree, leaving about half standing jagged in the ground and then hiding the debris behind other landscaping.

Caltrans was notified of its trashed trees near National Boulevard after receiving a phone call in late January from Delgadillo's office.

Delgadillo filed criminal charges on Jan. 30 against World Wide Rush and the building owner for illegally erecting the massive billboard without a permit and for installing a bright supergraphic sign after the city issued a moratorium on them.

The Federal Highway Administration is producing a study for Congress on supergraphic and digital signs to see if their razzle-dazzle displays distract drivers and endanger the highways. The report should be done this year.

When charges were filed, the supergraphic billboard in question advertised Tropicana orange juice. It has since been changed.

"It's still illegal. It doesn't matter what it says," said Asha Greenberg, assistant city attorney. "It's the fact that it's there."

Greenberg said charges for cutting down the trees are not included in the lawsuit, but that the office is interested in hearing from anybody who saw it happen.

Staff at the Sherman Oaks Galleria noticed a "severe pruning of the trees" next to the 405 Freeway and on five of their own trees in late December, said Katherine Defevere, general manager.

Weeks later two billboards for Tropicana orange juice were hung from the landmark mall's parking structure. Defevere said they are owned by World Wide Rush and that it's the first time the mega mall ever displayed billboards on its parking garage.

Defevere said the trees were too short to ever block the freeway view of the signs and believes that the hacked trees were a landscaping error.

"We don't know what happened," Defevere said. "We think someone did it by mistake."

sue.doyle@dailynews.com 818-713-3741

BILLBOARD Q & A OF THE DAY

2009-02-23T22:27:00.000-08:00

Q: Outside of downtown, most of the city’s commercial areas are composed of streets closely bordered by apartment houses and single-family homes. What measures would you support to protect residents in those apartments and homes from light trespass and views of billboards, supergraphic signs, and other commercial advertising located on adjacent commercial properties?

A: We can regulate bright lights as a nuisance. As noted above, moreover, I support a ban on new billboards — including wrapping buildings in tacky plastic bags.

WALTER MOORE, CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR, L.A., CA

Click here to find out what other public figures who are running for government positions have to say about the signage problem in Los Angeles.

Dr. Allan with the Bill Handel Show KFI AM640

2009-02-23T20:37:00.000-08:00

First interview was aired on the John and Ken Show on Saturday 1/31/09 -- See audio link below the related links on the left side bar.

Second interview was aired on the Bill Hanel Show on Friday 2/20/09 -- See audio link on the top of page on the left side bar.

There was another interview on the Doug McIntyre show on 02/04/09, but there was not much time to get the message out, but we did follow up with a post that sent the message loud and clear.

What Happens in Court at a Criminal Arraignment?

2009-02-22T20:59:00.000-08:00

From an article on the web... for link click here.
By Steve Thompson

Arraignment is one of the lesser-understood portions of the criminal court process, and is necessary to establish the identity of a defendant and to determine a plea. Each state handles criminal arraignment differently, but there are a few things that remain the same no matter where you live.

The most important thing to remember is that criminal arraignment is a court appearance, and should be treated as such.When you appear in court at a criminal arraignment, you will be taken in front of a judge. You have the option to request legal counsel at that time, either in the form of a private attorney or as a public defender.

You can also waive your right to counsel if you prefer to represent yourself, but this isn't advisable. Not only are you entering a plea, but you will also be given a bail amount.When you first stand in front of the judge in court at a criminal arraignment, you will be asked to verify who you are. This is to ensure that there are no mistakes in the identity of a defendant, and to avoid such defenses later at trial.

You may be asked to provide photo identification for the court, or your word may be taken at face-value.In some states, the judge will take the time at a criminal arraignment to explain the charges against the defendant. If this is the case, he or she may also state the possible punishment, such as the maximum fine or jail sentence.

In other states, the defendant is simply handed a statement that has been prepared by the prosecutor, and outlines the charges and the reasons for their existence.You will also be asked to enter a plea at criminal arraignment, which will be put on the record. It is not advisable to enter a guilty plea in court at this time because, even if you intend to plead guilty, you may be able to receive a reduced charge as a result of a plea agreement with the prosecutor. However, you do have the choice to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or, in some states, no contest.Once you have entered a plea, your defense attorney (or you) and the prosecutor will be allowed to make recommendations as to the bail amount.

The judge can do one of three things: set a bail amount, release the defendant on his own recognizance, or deny bail entirely. In most states, remand (bail denial) is reserved only for first-degree murder charges, and only non-violent offenders are released on their own recognizance (ROR).The final court business at a criminal arraignment is the scheduling of future trials and hearings. For misdemeanors and other smaller crimes, the trial date may be set at this time, and you'll be told to appear whenever the court fits you in.

For felony charges, however, a preliminary hearing is usually scheduled, but not the actual trial date. The trial will not commence until after discover, jury selection and motion hearings.

2009 © Associated Content, All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

WOW: AMENDED 44 COUNT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

2009-02-22T20:36:00.000-08:00

Here's a scanned document of the 44 count criminal complaint. This copy is for reference only -- Since it was scanned, there most likely are some errors. If you would like to have a signed and sealed pdf, send an email and we will reply back with one to you.

ARRAIGNMENT SET FOR THURSDAY, FEB. 26, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
VA 02/26/2009 Bkg no. Plaintiff,
vs.
WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC. HORBORCO, LLC.
BARRY LEIGH RUSH M 08/05/1957
LESLYE M. RUSH F 05/25/1961
FRANK RAHBAN M 03/05/1942
LOIS F. AGAPAY F 03/24/1951
aka LOIS KAY GLOWOSKI, LOIS KAY FORSHEE
SENOUBAR RAHBAN F 01/08/1921
DJAMSHID YOUNESSI M 06/12/1945
SAEED YOUNESI M 11/29/1952
PERRY RAHBAN M 04/06/1940
aka PARVIZ RAHBAN
SAID RAHBAN M 09/17/1945
RALPH ABOULAFIA M 10/28/1923
MD GRAPHIC INSTALLERS, INC.
MARK DENNY M 12/17/1966
LAMC 91.6201.4, LAMC 57.12.02, BP 5405,
BP 5440, BP 5350, PC 372
(44 COUNTS) Defendant(s).

FIRST AMENDED MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT
FILED IN L.A. SUPERIOR COURT FEB. 17, 2009
SIGNED: JOHN A. CLARKE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK
Issued by
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO City Attorney
By: ERIC ROSENBLATT,
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

INTRODUCTION

On December 26, 2008, city of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 180445, also known as the Interim Control Ordinance ("ICO"), became effective. That ordinance provides in relevant part that, "for a period of 90 days from the effective date of this ordinance, or until a permanent ordinance which amends the citywide provisions governing Off-Site Signs, including Supergraphic Signs becomes effective, whichever occurs first[,]... [n]o person shall erect, place, alter or construct any Off-Site Sign…”

As of the date of the filing of this First Amended Complaint, the ICO remains effective.

COUNT I
On or about DECEMBER 27, 2008 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully erect, construct, or install a sign support structure, to wit, did install cables and eyebolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3, and in contravention to the Interim Control Ordinance.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT II
For a further, separate and SECOND cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in Count I hereof, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 15, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT III
For a further, separate and THIRD cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 16, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT IV
For a further, separate and FOURTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 17, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI
AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT V
For a further, separate and FIFTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 18, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT VI
For a further, separate and SIXTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 19, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT VII
For a further, separate and SEVENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 20, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY -RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT VIII
For a further, separate and EIGHTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 21, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT IX
For a further, separate and NINTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 22, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT X
For a further, separate and TENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 23, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XI
For a further, separate and ELEVENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 24, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XII
For a further, separate and TWELFTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 25, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XIII
For a further, separate and THIRTEENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 26, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XIV
For a further, separate and FOURTEENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 27, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XV
For a further, separate and FIFTEENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 28, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XVI
For a further, separate and SIXTEENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 29, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit, those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XVIII
For a further, separate and SEVENTEENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 30, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XVIII
For a further, separate and EIGHTEENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about JANUARY 31, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XIX
For a further, separate and NINETEENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 1, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XX
For a further, separate and TWENTIETH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 2, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXI
For a further, separate and TWENTY-FIRST cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 3, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXII
For a further, separate and TWENTY-SECOND cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009, and until on or about FEBRUARY 4, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Subsection A of Section 57.12.02 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; FRANK RAHBAN; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully install and maintain an obstruction to an opening in an exterior wall required for Fire Department access, in such a manner as to obstruct access or egress, or cause a hazardous condition in the event of fire or other emergency, by obstructing windows of an occupied high-rise building at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles with the installation of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts.
MCI 57.12.02/01

COUNT XXIII
For a further, separate and TWENTY-THIRD cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009 and until on or about FEBRUARY 4, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5405 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, within 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the I-10 Freeway, which is an interstate or primary highway, which advertising display was and is visible from an interstate or primary highway, without a written permit from the Director of the California Department of Transportation, in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq.
MCI BP 5405/04

COUNT XXIV
For a further, separate and TWENTY-FOURTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009 and until on or about FEBRUARY 4, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5440 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, on property adjacent to a section of a freeway that has been landscaped, which advertising display was and is designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way of the landscaped freeway, in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq.
MCI 5440/04

COUNT XXV
For a further, separate and TWENTY-FIFTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009 and until on or about FEBRUARY 4, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5350 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, within an area affected by the provisions of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq., in the State of California, without first having secured a written permit from the Director of the California Department of Transportation or from his authorized agent.
MCI 5350/04

COUNT XXVI
For a further, separate and TWENTY-SIXTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009 and until on or about FEBRUARY 4, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 372 of the California Penal Code was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN;
`DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully maintain or commit a public nuisance, as defined in Section 5461 of the Business and Professions Code by the placement or existence of en advertising display in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq., and did so by placing and maintaining a sign, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles.
MCI 372/21

COUNT XXVII
For a further, separate and TWENTY-SEVENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in Count I hereof, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully erect, construct, install, alter, move, convert, use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXVIII
For a further, separate and TWENTY-EIGHTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 13, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXIX
For a further, separate and TWENTY-NINTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 14, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was
committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXX
For a further, separate and THIRTIETH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 15, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXXI
For a further, separate and THIRTY-FIRST cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 16, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXXII
For a further, separate and THIRTY-SECOND cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 17, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully use or maintain a sign or sign support structure, to wit, an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXXIII
For a further, separate and THIRTY-THIRD cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 and continuing thereafter, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Subsection A of Section 57.12.02 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; FRANK RAHBAN; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully install and maintain an obstruction to an opening in an exterior wall required for Fire Department access, in such a manner as to obstruct access or egress, or cause a hazardous condition in the event of fire or other emergency, by obstructing windows of an occupied high-rise building at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles with the installation of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts. MCI 57.12.02/01

COUNT XXXIV
For a further, separate and THIRTY-FOURTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 and continuing thereafter, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5405 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, within 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the I-10 Freeway, which is an interstate or primary highway, which advertising display was and is visible from an interstate or primary highway, without a written permit from the Director of the California Department of Transportation, in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq.
MCI BP 5405/04

COUNT XXXV
For a further, separate and THIRTY-FIFTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 and continuing thereafter, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5440 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, on property adjacent to a section of a freeway that has been landscaped, which advertising display was and is designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way of the landscaped freeway, in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq.
MCI 5440/04

COUNT XXXVI
For a further, separate and THIRTY-SIXTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 and continuing thereafter, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5350 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR. RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, within an area affected by the provisions of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq., in the State of California, without first having secured a written permit from the Director of the California Department of Transportation or from his authorized agent.
MCI 5350/04

COUNT XXXVII
For a further, separate and THIRTY-SEVENTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 and continuing thereafter, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 372 of the California Penal Code was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully maintain or commit a public nuisance, as defined in Section 5461 of the Business and Professions Code by the placement or existence of an advertising display in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq., and did so by placing and maintaining a sign, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising DR. PHIL and CBS TELEVISION, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles.
MCI 372/21

COUNT XXXVIII
For a further, separate and THIRTY-EIGHTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 and continuing thereafter, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 93.0201 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully install, alter, reconstruct or repair any electrical wiring, to wit, OUTDOOR ELECTRICAL ILLUMINATION, without having obtained a permit therefor from the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.
TCIS 93.0201/01

different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that on or about FEBRUARY 12, 2009 and continuing thereafter, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 93.0104 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code was committed by WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC; HARBORCO, LLC; BARRY LEIGH RUSH; LESLYE M. RUSH; FRANK RAHBAN; LOIS F. AGAPAY AKA LOIS KAY GLOWASKI AKA LOIS KAY FORSHEE; SENOUBAR RAHBAN; DJAMSHID YOUNESSI; SAEED YOUNESI; PERRY RAHBAN AKA PARVIZ RAHBAN; SAID RAHBAN; AND RALPH ABOULAFIA, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully install, operate or maintain electrical systems or equipment, to wit, OUTDOOR ELECTRICAL ILLUMINATION WITHOUT A PERMIT, which do not comply with all of the applicable provisions of the Los Angeles Electrical Code.
TCIS 93.0104/01

COUNT XXXX
For a further, separate and FORTIETH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about DECEMBER 27, 2008 and until on or about JANUARY 15, 2009 at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 91.6201.4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by MD GRAPHIC INSTALLERS, INC. and MARK ALLEN DENNY, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully erect, construct, or install a sign or sign support structure, to wit, did install cables and eye-bolts and an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, or cause or permit those actions to be done, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, without having first obtained a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety in accordance with the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 91.6201.2 and 91.106.3.
TCIS 91.6201.4/01

COUNT XXXXI
For a further, separate and FORTY-FIRST cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Subsection A of Section 57.12.02 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, was committed by MD GRAPHIC INSTALLERS, INC. and MARK DENNY, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully install and maintain an obstruction to an opening in an exterior wall required for Fire Department access, in such a manner as to obstruct access or egress, or cause a hazardous condition in the event of fire or other emergency, by obstructing windows of an occupied high-rise building at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles with the installation of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts.
MCI 57.12.02/01

COUNT XXXXII
For a further, separate and FORTY-SECOND cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth in the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5405 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by MD GRAPHIC INSTALLERS, INC. and MARK DENNY, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, within 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the I-10 Freeway, which is an interstate or primary highway, which advertising display was and is visible from an interstate or primary highway, without a written permit from the Director of the California Department of Transportation, in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq.
MCI BP 5405/04

COUNT XXXXIII
For a further, separate and FORTY-THIRD cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5440 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by MD GRAPHIC INSTALLERS, INC. and MARK DENNY, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, on property adjacent to a section of a freeway that has been landscaped, which advertising display was and is designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way of the landscaped freeway, in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq.
MCI 5440/04

COUNT XXXXIV
For a further, separate and FORTY-FOURTH cause of action, being a different offense but belonging to the same class of crimes and offenses set forth the previous counts herein alleged, affiant further alleges that beginning on or about JANUARY 15, 2009, at and in the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, a misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of Section 5350 of the California Business and Professions Code, was committed by MD GRAPHIC INSTALLERS, INC. and MARK DENNY, who at the time and place last aforesaid, did unlawfully place and maintain an advertising display, consisting of an approximately 50' by 140' vinyl sign advertising TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE, attached to the north exterior wall of the building by way of cables and eye-bolts, at 10801 WEST NATIONAL BOULEVARD within the City of Los Angeles, within an area affected by the provisions of the Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 5200 et seq., in the State of California, without first having secured a written permit from the Director of the California Department of Transportation or from his authorized agent.
MCI 5350/04

DR. PHIL'S SIGN COMES DOWN IN 6 DAYS

2009-02-21T18:00:00.000-08:00

We give CBS and Dr. Phil credit here. Their ad went up against the 10801 building last week, and with all the negative feedback from the public, they ordered it to come down.

Paul Fisher, attorney for World Wide Rush states in the article printed below: "We would not have posted a sign if we were not absolutely certain that it was not a hazard".

Mr. Fisher said the sign met all state and local fire safety standards.

We would like to know what does that mean? If we can get that documentaion from Mr. Fisher, we would be glad to post it. In a previous sign (Tropacana O.J. Ad -- Pepsico, Inc.) that went up on the 10801 building, the Los Angeles Fire Dept. cited the building for 2 fire code violations and put the building on a fire watch. Then when they put up another sign (CBS - Dr. Phil Show), the LAFD again cited them for fire code violations and put the building on a fire watch.

How many citations from the LAFD does the building owners and World Wide Rush have to receive before they stop putting up these hazardous signs that risk public safety? To see the fire code violations, click here.

Has Mr. Fisher had any conversations with the Chiefs or Captains.of the LAFD? We suggest that you contact Chief Fry at 213-978-3575 and he will explain the dangers that your sign poses to the occupants of 10801.

Here's the latest from the Associated Press:

Outcry spurs removal of `Dr. Phil' billboard

By Robert Jablon, The Associated Press

Updated: 02/20/2009 10:16:13 PM PST -- For Article link, click here.

An enormous advertisement for the "Dr. Phil" show was removed from the side of a West Los Angeles building after tenants complained that it blocked their view and might be a fire hazard.

At the request of show officials, the 60-by-100-foot ad was removed on Thursday night from a building on National Boulevard in West Los Angeles, less than a week after it was erected.

"We simply responded to the concerns of the tenants," Theresa Corigliano, a spokeswoman for the show, said Friday. "We would rather have folks view our show, than to block their view."

The billboard company that placed the ad on the six-story building took it down at the request of CBS and the show, said Paul Fisher, an attorney for World Wide Rush LLC.

Corigliano said she received three e-mails from tenants. However, Fisher said he understood that the network and show had received "quite a bit of e-mails and correspondence and phone calls" from people who believed the vinyl mesh sign was a fire hazard.

Fisher said the sign met all state and local fire safety standards.

"We would not have posted a sign if we were not absolutely certain that it was not a hazard," he said.

The Pennsylvania-based company has been locked in a battle with the city over so-called supergraphics, the wall-sized ads placed on the sides of more than a dozen local buildings to serve as enormous billboards.

The ads can cost more than $100,000. Fisher said that the "Dr. Phil" sign was supposed to remain up for 90 days. Because it was taken down sooner, Fisher said, the billboard company will not charge the advertisers for putting it up. He estimated the loss at tens of thousands of dollars.

City prosecutors are investigating supergraphics that allegedly went up in violation of a 90-day city moratorium on the giant signs that went into effect in December. More than 20 criminal charges have been filed against World Wide Rush, alleging fire code violations and other offenses from a juice ad that preceded the "Dr. Phil" sign.

The moratorium was put in place while the city considered new regulations to limit billboards. The Planning Commission was scheduled to consider the rules on Thursday.

New Blog Format Underway

2009-02-21T16:48:00.000-08:00

As promised, the posts are cleaned up.

There was quite a bit to go through. If there is any place where you feel personal comments are made against any one's character, write the blog or make a comment.

Once again, why was this done?

To avoid leagal battles with anyone
To bring all the attention to the the issues: Keep advertising safe, Stop blighting the urban landscape

CLEAN UP OF BLOG UNDER WAY

2009-02-20T12:58:00.000-08:00

After reviewing the blog, I can see how it can be offensive and I've already removed one third of the material. I plan to have this as an issue based site with no personal attacks.

I am aware that legal is tracking this site closely and I don't want to create problems. I really don't. I feel we have made our point and will be scaling back all the fluff. Give us a day and by tomorrow it will be cleaned up.

I especially want Paul Fisher to email me after today, if there are any parts of the blog that needs deleting. I plan to keep our issues in line with the information coming out of the L.A. government.

We will move away from personal references that may be offensive and keep it issue based. We welcome your comments.

World Wide Rush threatens Dr. Allan

2009-02-20T05:19:00.000-08:00

In one of my recent posts, I asked folks from the other side of the issue to write and I just received a very serious letter from the attorney that is representing World Wide Rush, LLC, the company responsible for putting up the last two supergraphics over the 10801 location.

I am considering this a harassment letter and I have already contacted the city attorney's office by email asking for their help.

I will include everything in this post that is involved with this notification. This post will consist of 3 main items:

First, I will let you see the letter, then I will comment on the contents, then I will include the email I sent to the city attorney's office.

============

1) Paul E. Fisher's letter to me

Law Office of

Paul E. Fisher

A Professional Corporation

Paul E. Fisher

1000 Bristol St. No., #17-106

Newport Beach, California 92660

Tel (949) 675-5619

Fax (949) 675-5641

February 17, 2009

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

David Allan a/k/a David Allan Overstein

10801 National Blvd., Suite 580

Los Angeles, CA 90064

RE: 10801 National Blvd.

Dear Mr. Allan,

This office represents World Wide Rush, LLC in regard to this matter. My client currently operate a supergraphic signs at 10801 National Blvd. pursuant to a permanent injunction issued by a federal district court judge. The injunction prohibits the City of Los Angeles from, among other things, interfering with the signs’ operation or issuing citations to it because the City refuses to process any permit applications or conduct any inspections of the signs.

My client has alerted us to a website which you have apparently created seeking to have the sign removed. We have represented outdoor advertising companies in First Amendment matters for almost 20 years and vigorously support the concept of freedom of expression. However, I must advise you that the purpose of your website appears to be to damage my client’s business relations both with the owner of this property and with its advertising clientele.

While you are certainly entitled to communicate truthful information to whomever you choose, please be aware that you are publicizing false and misleading information. For example, you have repeatedly referred to our client’s sign as “illegal.” As indicated above, the signs are not illegal in any way and have not been so adjudicated in any court. Furthermore, you have recently posted comments on your website which call for violence. While not a complete list, you have suggested that Dr. Phil be wrapped in the supergraphic sign and be “toss[ed]…off the pier.” You have also suggested that someone should take a gun and shoot out the lighting fixtures illuminating the signs. You have also called for “revenge” and suggested that it would be appropriate for individuals to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye.”

The types of signs currently displayed at the above referenced property are lawful and comply with all safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code as well as state and local fire codes. Any suggestion that the signs represent any type of safety hazard is completely false. We demand that you immediately retract all false, misleading and dangerous statements and issue an apology. If you do not do so by Friday, February 20, 2009, we will take all appropriate legal steps to protect our client’s legal interests.

Very truly yours,

PAUL E. FISHER

PEF/tpb

==============

2) Comments and response to the letter

Mr. Fisher, overall I view your letter as a form of harassment and an infringement of my first amendment rights. I view this as a very serious matter and don't take what you say lightly.

First a little housekeeping issues: You misspelled my name and also addressed me as Mr. Allan. From now on it's Dr. Allan to you. Thank you.

I would first like to respond as best I can to your allegations. My responses will be preceded by "DA:". Whatever is not said, I refer you to the email I just sent to the City Attorney's office. That will be in section 3 of this post.

In paragraph 2, "My client has alerted us to a website which you have apparently created..."

DA: Let's be honest with the viewers. Your client didn't alert you to anything. We meet when the second sign went up on Feb. 12, 2009 -- and you told me you were familiar with the blog. Frankly, I liked you. You were very professional and I thought we had a very mature, relaxed conversation. I even told you I sympathized with World Wide Rush (WWR) regarding the lawsuit, but that did not have anything to do with the issue at hand -- the fact that your sign company was putting up a second sign -- the same sign that was deemed to be a fire hazard and a danger to the entire building.

In paragraph 2, "the purpose of your website appears to be to damage my client's business relations both with the owner of this property and with its advertising clientele"

DA: The purpose of my blog is to provide information, both facts and commentary as a way to alert the public. I enjoy writing and like to have some fun when I can. It so happens that a lot of the information that has revolved around your client is negative. I don't have anything personal against World Wide Rush, I just want WWR to obey the law and don't endanger lives with their advertising.

There may be things looked at as personal attacks, and if that's the case I definitely don't endorse that and I apologise for any personal attacks on character. My upset with this issue may have triggered a few comments here and there that were a little harsh. For this I am sorry. I promise that from this point forward to make sure that the focus is more issue based. I did purposely name names for the sake of shaming them -- I want to believe that this will make a difference and prevent others from doing the same.

In paragraph 3, "...false and misleading information."

DA: My statements were based on the public information I heard with my own 2 ears. The term "illegal" is used at Jack Weiss's press conference -- see letter in next section.

In paragraph 3, "...on your website which calls for violence."

DA: I never called for violence. those quotes you reference were other comments from another article. Take a look at a few of these comments:

Let's roll Dr. Phil up in that thing and throw him off a pier.Comment #20, left at 02/13/09 04:16 PM

Wouldn't it be cool if some tagger was able to spray paint a devil's horn's and goatee on that kid?Comment #19, left at 02/13/09 03:21 PM

These quotes and other similar ones can be found here.

You neglected this quote in the blog that I actually stated: statement dated February 17, 2009 7:16 PM: And I want to state publicly that I always seek lawful, non-violent ways to handle disputes. I intend to continue to stand up for what is right with this blog and will intensify actions legally and non-violently until justice is served.

And if that doesn't tell you enough, then I will make a formal statement here and now: I want to make it really clear... I am a non-violent type of person, I'm quiet and to myself, I'm a musician, father, and doctor. I help folks with their health everyday. My main job is to help people live a healthier life -- to live longer, feel better and look younger. I'm a doc that works with kids and families. I've never been a vocal activist regarding any cause. This is the first time I am just standing up for myself against what I believe to be a major injustice against me and the tenants of 10801 and many folks in our beautiful city. I seek non-violent means to bring my point across. If you look here at this post, I give the readers the true power and it's everything but violent -- WRITE, VOTE, TAKE LEGAL ACTION, SPREAD THE WORD. Don't take a few sentences out of context and tell me I'm promoting violence!

In your last paragraph, I find what you say here is appalling: "The types of signs currently displayed at the above referenced property are lawful and comply with all safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code as well as state and local fire codes. Any suggestion that the signs represent any type of safety hazard is completely false."

DA: I'm not familiar with the Uniform Building Code. All I know is what my city officials told me and it's the exact opposite to what you are saying -- see letter.

In closing, I feel your way off base here in your letter and I view this as a form of harassment. I would just like you to leave me alone. I don't want to get tangled up in any legal battle. If you continue to push the issue, I'll have no choice but to find some high powered city official to support my position -- Exercising my first amendment right. The right to freedom of speech -- the right you told me you believe in.

=============

3) Email to City Attorney's Office (City Attorney to remain anonymous for now):

2/20/09

Dear L.A. City Attorney:

I just received this disturbing letter from Paul E. Fisher, who is the attorney representing World Wide Rush, LLC. (see attached pdf file). He is accusing me of false statements on my blog that will adversely affect his client's reputation with the building owner at 10801 and with other advertising accounts.

He wants me to retract statements that he believes to be false and told me that if I don't retract these statements he will pursue all appropriate legal steps to protect his client's legal interests (please see letter). Isn't it ironic that the very attorney that has represented freedom of speech and the first amendment for the last 20 years, is trying to suppress an American citizen from having that same freedom. I'm asking for help from the city attorney's office, because almost all the information I've been posting in my blog has come from information disseminated from government employees. I view his letter as harassment and I want Paul E. Fisher to leave me alone. FYI: Since I've shared everything to this point with my blog readers and followers, I have also posted this email.

I placed his letter on my blog and responded to his concerns as best I could, but most of his comments contradict statements I've heard from city and fire department personnel (please review that information at www.10801takesigndown.blogspot.com). He wanted an apology and I did apologise. I apologised for any statements I made that personally attacked any person's character. I don't think that is fair and if I said anything in that way, it was in a moment of upset and I apologise. And for the record from this point on, I will be extremely careful not to focus on any one person's character, but focus on the issues at hand -- Don't risk lives with advertising campaigns. Urban blight is another issue I've become passionate about since this ordeal started. I realized if the owners could get away with the sign at 10801, what message would that relay to all office buildings in L.A. Our city would look awful, tacky and inhospitable.

Many statements I made were tongue and cheek comments that would offer the readers a little fun. I also included some posts just for fun to add a little entertainment value to a very serious message.

Mr. Fisher insinuated that my blog had violent overtones and I was promoting violence. That's the farthest from the truth. The violence he referred to were other comments from readers and not my own thoughts or recommendations. He neglected to include this statement dated February 17, 2009 7:16 PM: And I want to state publicly that I always seek lawful, non-violent ways to handle disputes. I intend to continue to stand up for what is right with this blog and will intensify actions legally and non-violently until justice is served.

I did purposely list names of folks that are involved with this issue, because I felt that some public shame would stop them from their negligent deeds and unfortunately that proved not to be the case. Those involved may not have liked their names put on the public airwaves, but that did not stop them from continuing to endanger the public. I believe all those public statements are within my first amendment rights.

According to my video files from the Jack Weiss press conference, documentation from the LAFD and numerous conversations I've had with Capt. McCarthy, Capt. Fasmer and Chief Fry of the LAFD all point to the information I put out on the public airwaves.

These are quotes verbatim from Council member Jack Weiss's press conference:

Council member Jack Weiss: "Not only is this sign illegal because it was put up after the city banned new signs, but it is clearly a danger to the lives of the people working inside this building. LAFD came out to inspect this building and issued a notice to comply. This notice to comply is based on the fact that the fire department thinks this is dangerous and a hazard to public health. The fire department has asked that this sign be taken down, and was it taken down?"

Jack Weiss demanded that the owner of this building should "HAVE THE BOOK THROWN AT THEM"!

Los Angeles Fire Chief Fry: "Supergraphic signs (referring to the sign that was put up by World Wide Rush) trap people inside the buildings preventing firefighters from getting in and getting people out. LAFD has no idea how this product will react if exposed to any fire. This could become almost like a gasoline type of material to where a small fire can become a tremendous catastrophe for the people inside. So we have a huge concern. Because WORLD WIDE RUSH IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE LAFD, THEY ARE MORE INTERESTED IN PROFITS RATHER THAN SAFETY."

Barbara Brodie (from the Coalition to Ban Blight): "This sign is a fire hazard for the tenants in the building and the firefighters. Also, these signs are designed to distract so this endangers drivers and pedestrians across the city."

So this is where I've received my information from and I'm informing the public and expressing my first amendment rights. It appears that Mr. Fisher has much different views than our city leaders. I see Paul Fisher has a role -- and that is to protect World Wide Rush's interests. I see our city leaders have a role to protect the City of Los Angeles Citizens and to stand up against companies that break the law. That's why I choose to believe in our city leaders and if Paul Fisher wants to take legal action at what I've said, then he must also take legal action against all of our city leaders that have spoken on this issue.

I'm asking for your help. Please have the city shield me from Paul E. Fisher and World Wide Rush and help protect my first amendment rights.

Sincerely,

Dr. David Allan

--
Dr. David Allan, D.C., C.C.F.C.
spokesperson for
The Coalition for 10801 Tenant Safety & Justice
10801 National Blvd Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA 90064
www.10801takesigndown.blogspot.com

cc: "Rocky Delgadillo LA City Attorney" <Rocky.Delgadillo@lacity.org>, "Jack Weiss LA City Council" <Councilmember.Weiss@lacity.org>, "Mayor Antonio R Villaraigosa" <mayor@lacity.org>

BREAKING NEWS: CBS-DR. PHIL SIGN IS DOWN!!

2009-02-19T23:02:00.000-08:00

YOU'VE HEARD IT AND SEEN IT HERE FIRST!

In the cover of darkness, it was gone as fast as it was put up. Good ridden to another eyesore and fire hazard -- 9PM, Thursday Feb. 19, 2009. May it rest and may we now have some peace!

I was on the scene when it first was going up late Thursday evening (Feb. 12th) and immediately called the police to take action and intervene. The sign workers quickly called their legal spearhead Attorney Paul Fisher. Respectfully they all waited for the authorities and individually we all had discussions with the officers. I painted the story of how the previous sign was deemed a fire hazard by LAFD and then Mr. Fisher presented the Judgment and Permanent Injunction and the case was closed and the sign went up. This Dr. Phil hazardous tarp was put up in the wee hours of the morning -- last Friday, Feb. 13, 2009. With all the commotion that it took to get this up, it sure didn't last long. Less than one week and zippo -- GONE. WOW GREAT NEWS -- SPREAD THE NEWS!!!!!

Thurs. 2/19/09 - Approximately 8:30 PM -- Just recently erected CBS - Dr. Phil HOOT comes crashing down. Curtains To Another Eyesore and Fire Hazard!

New AP story on Billboard/Supergraphic Advertising

2009-02-18T19:05:00.000-08:00

In a national story that just came off the AP wire, Outcry Prompts LA To Rethink Billboard Regulations, World Wide Rush (signage company) was quoted saying "The last thing I'd ever want to do is endanger somebody".

This is contrary to what the LAFD says. They have determined this to be a fire hazard and that lives are threatened at 10801. They have put 10801 on a fire watch.

OUR MESSAGE:

STOP ILLEGAL ADVERTISING THAT ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC!

Oh, BTW, for those that would like to know what a FIRE WATCH is:

A fire watch shall be maintained until such time the Chief determines that the building or premises is safe from hazard to life or property or when fire protection equipment or systems are restored. A fire watch shall consist of a minimum of 2 qualified persons that have responsibility for continuous patrol of the entire premises for the purpose of detecting fires and transmitting an immediate alarm to the fire department and the building occupants.

Billboard Quote of the Day

2009-02-17T22:21:00.000-08:00

The City and it's government need to get a handle on all this signage. It's out of control, and it will be getting worse. How long do you think it's gonna be before all the digital billboards start adding sound? Then motion? Before long, you'll have full on commercials running on those things! And the owners of this crap say it's a first amendment issue! Some smart lawyers better figure this one out soon, or it's gonna be a big fat mess. Comment #7, left at 02/13/09 02:02 PM.

More Media Coverage -- WE ADORE THAT!

2009-02-17T21:18:00.000-08:00

Story By Zach Behrens in News on February 17, 2009 11:55 AM from laist

CBS Decides to Pull Illegal Dr. Phil Supergraphic from Building

To the astonishment of building tenants and just about everyone else, an illegal supergraphic went up last week on the same building that was used by the city as an example of the verboten advertisements. In late January, the building at National and Westwood Boulevard--then with a Tropicana supergraphic--was used as a press conference backdrop to talk about fire department safety concerns and how the city is looking to have stricter penalties.

Soon after, 23 counts of criminal charges were filed by City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo against the building owner, advertising company and various others connected to the building. But that didn't seem to matter--last week, the building owners let the advertising company install a new supergraphic for the Dr. Phil Show and are trying their best to preempt the charges in court.

After we asked the Dr. Phil show last week what they thought about being an unwilling participant in the middle of this controversy, they e-mailed LAist this morning saying that the billboard is being taken down as soon as possible. "We would rather have people view our shows than block their views,” a CBS spokesperson said.

===============================
From Curbed LA

All stories about "Supergraphics"

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

> Now Dr. Phil is Upset* —

LAist.com is reporting that CBS wants to to remove the Dr. Phil sign that went up last week on that building at 10801 National Blvd. After emailing the show to see what they thought of being dragged into the supergraphic controversy, LAist.com got an email back from CBS saying that the graphic is being "taken down as soon as possible." "We would rather have people view our shows than block their views,” a CBS spokesperson wrote to the blog. The hair suite will be celebrating. [LAist.com] UPDATE: CBS may not be as altruistic as they'd have you believe. There's no confirmation on this, but this is what a commenter says: "The real reason that CBS is hurrying to take the supergraphic down is that CBS has its own billboard company, but some idiot has contracted with another advertising company to erect these illegal supergraphics. A little embarrassing; they are complicit in breaking the law, and they are giving revenues away to another company when they could be doing the advertisements in house. Last year, they had the same problem with an illegal supergraphic on Beverly Blvd. (Right across from CBS); they got that taken down pretty fast, too." The billboard company referenced is CBS Outdoor. UPDATE: Someone else disputes that commenter's theory.

Don't Use Legal Loopholes When Lives Are In Danger!

2009-02-16T19:08:00.000-08:00

Here are the folks on the criminal complaint:

*BARRY RUSH -- WORLD WIDE RUSH, A PENNSYLVANIA LLC. HARBORCO, LLC.
*OWNER - FRANK RAHBAN M 03/08/1942
*BUILDING MANAGER - LOIS F. AGAPAY F 03/24/1951
aka LOIS KAY GLOWOSKI, LOIS KAY FORSHEE
*SENOUBAR RAHBAN F 01/08/1921
*DJAMSHID YOUNESSI M 06/12/1945
*SAEED YOUNESI M 11/29/1952
*PERRY RAHBAN M 04/06/1940
Aka PARVIZ RAHBAN
*SAID RAHBAN M 09/17/1945
*RALPH ABOULAFIA M 10/28/1945

Also legal team representing the owners:

Joe M. Agapay, Jr., Inc.
Paul E. Fisher

===================================

First a message to the public...
Please refer to the previous post to understand the contents of this letter or click here to read this post first.
Here is our message:

Let's have the public look closely at what your defense is against the current fire code violations. In the previous post, you mention that the material of the sign meets the city’s standards for fireproof materials.

What you are saying here is that the material cannot catch on fire. To us, that's what fire proof means. Now in the letter that you sent to the tenants on Jan. 21, 2009, you enclosed a certificate from a state fire marshal's office that says:

This product meets the minimum requirements of flame resistance established by the California State Fire Marshal for products identified in Section 13115, California Health and Safety Code.
The scope of the approved use of this product is provided in the current edition of the CALIFORNIA APPROVED LIST OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS AND FABRICS, GENERAL AND LIMITED APPLICATIONS CONCERNS published by the California State Fire Marshal.

Minimum requirements of flame resistance to us doesn't mean fire proof.

The second argument against the next fire code violation is most serious. The violation is for obstruction (click here to see the fire code violations) and you say that no office tenants are put at risk by the material covering windows because the windows do not open.

We spoke at length with Chief Fry and Captain Fasmer of the L.A. Fire Department and they told us point blank that you are misinformed. Even though the windows are fixed, they constitute an external opening and will need to be unobstructed in the event of a fire or an emergency. These must be unobstructed so fire fighters or emergency personnel can gain access.

COVERING THE BUILDING WITH YOUR SIGN CONSTITUTES A FIRE HAZARD AND YOU ARE ENDANGERING THE OCCUPANTS OF AN ENTIRE 6 STORY BUILDING -- AND NOT JUST ANY BUILDING -- THE BUILDING YOU OWN.

To find out more about the dangers and risks you have set up for all the occupants of 10801, I suggest you contact Los Angeles Fire Department Capt. Curt Fasmer at 213-978-3604. He told us that he would be available to discuss the dangers your sign poses and tell you that you are putting everyone at 10801 in harm's way.

Sign Company Holds the City in Contempt of Court

2009-02-16T16:29:00.000-08:00

We don't usually post full stories from other sources, but this is news that really affects us hard. We will not let these thugs get away with this!!!

Sign Company Charged With Criminal Violations Wants City Held in Contempt of Court

Story from Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight.

The Pennsylvania company charged with criminal violations of building and fire codes for covering windows of a West L.A. office building with a huge supergraphic advertising sign has asked a federal judge to hold the city in contempt of court. The company, World Wide Rush, claims that a 2008 injunction barring the city from forcing the removal of a supergraphic from a blank wall of the building also precludes any action against the second, much larger supergraphic that city officials say presents a hazard to the tenants in the event of a fire.

The company claims that its ”business and its business relationship will be irreparably damaged” if the city proceeds with prosecution. The injunction granted last summer barred the city from forcing World Wide Rush to remove a multi-story supergraphic ad for a Fox TV program affixed to one end of the 5-story office building at 10801 National Blvd. The judge in the case ruled that the city couldn’t ban the ad because it had allowed legal exceptions for similar supergraphics in special sign districts and specific plan areas in Hollywood and downtown.

In January of this year, a second supergraphic went up, this one stretching across all the windows on the longer wall of the building. When an order to take it down was ignored, the city attorney filed multiple criminal charges against World Wide Rush and the building owner.

The company is seeking the contempt of court order on the grounds that the injunction applied to the original supergraphic on the blank wall also precludes the city from taking any action to force removal of the supergraphic signs covering the building’s windows. The injunction states that the city cannot enforce its ban on “off-site” advertising signs at the address, but adds that “The City may inspect and verify Plaintiffs’ signs to ensure that they have been constructed according to applicable code provisions to ensure the safe construction of signs.”

In affadavits filed with the court, the company claims that the supergraphic sign meets the city’s standards for fireproof materials. The company also claims that no office tenants are put at risk by the material covering windows because the windows do not open. However, fire officials have said that firefighters might need to break through fixed windows to rescue people, or allow smoke to escape, and that the sign material could pose a hazard by impeding them.

The criminal complaints against World Wide Rush and the building owners are scheduled for hearing in L.A. County Superior Court
on Feb. 26.

Take action against the new supergraphic

2009-02-16T04:26:00.000-08:00

Isn't it interesting that Dr. Phil is talking about a "change reaction"? Now what the heck does that mean?

Obviously it's a made up statement -- Either by the shrink or the advertisers looking to make a twist on words.

Well, we can can make a play on words too -- and use it for this post. "For things to change, L.A. has to change -- for things to get better, L.A. has to get better".

When we win, we don't stop to think -- except to feel the moment and to revel in the accomplishment -- and so it should be. But when we lose, oh that's a whole different feeling. But wait, what an opportunity. What lesson can we learn from a loss? How can we turn this around?

This negative event is getting the city to really deal with this problem we face with our fellow advertisers, and that in itself is a great thing. If you have been following the blog, you're well aware of our heartfelt feelings for all the folks responsible for this injustice. Who wants advertising stuffed down their throat or better yet -- to endanger their life? Let's use this injustice to motivate L.A. to change for the better.

Here's the best ways to bring this change:

WRITE. The pen is mightier than the sword! We have reached thousands of folks and know that we are making a difference. This is not a L.A. problem. Folks outside L.A. -- we want to hear from you! Write to the blog and tell us and the world how the advertisers are affecting your life. What's going on in other cities? What's going on in other countries? Is advertising getting out of hand where you live? L.A. folks write to Jack Weiss or your city council member. Write to the mayor. For all -- write to Dr. Phil or CBS.
VOTE. In L.A. elections are coming up. Find out what your candidates will do with this issue. See Questions for L.A. City Candidates at the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight. We desperately need the laws changed to prohibit folks profiting from putting up illegal signage.
TAKE LEGAL ACTION. Here in L.A., the city has filed a criminal complaint against the parties involved and the arraignment is set for Feb. 26th. We are also considering a class action suit against 10801.
SPREAD THE WORD. Send this blog to someone and educate them to this injustice so this can be aware of unsafe and illegal advertising.

Whatever you do, don't let apathy set in. It's a disease that kills the spirit. Your voice can make a difference. In your mind, what you believe is your reality. Believe you can make a difference and you will. Let's hear from you!

Chopping Down Trees for Profit

2009-02-15T15:31:00.001-08:00

Here's a view from the freeway facing the 10801 National building with the trees in place (Courtesy of a follower -- from google maps). They are blocking the side of the building that continues to display the illegal advertising fueled by CBS.

The trees are no longer there and have been suspiciously removed before these illegal signs were put up.

We have received a tip that a white van or truck with a half dozen or so men wearing white and/or orange jumpsuits and hard hats we noticed on the scene where these trees were cut down. The tipster felt it was an odd scene to have all these folks out there and not have any identification to their company. He mentioned it was not Cal Trans workers or equipment. Also he noticed that all the trimmings were being left at the scene.

If authorities can determine that no state or city agency cut down these trees, then it points to the sign company or the building owners maliciously chopping down these trees -- all for the sake of the big $.

If anyone knows or has seen anything regarding this issue, please contact us immediately.

L.A. -- What can we learn from the Britts?

2009-02-15T10:10:00.000-08:00

On my first trip to London, I was in awe of the architecture -- Such history, such attention to detail -- such elegance and grace. The beautiful designs abound exude a refinement that reflect in it's culture and heritage.

Can you imagine a Supergraphic pitched up against this architecture?

What do you think the Brits would do if they woke up one morning and found out a building owner slapped up a 6 story CBS -- Dr. Phil Supergraphic?

I'll tell you -- They'd go nuts!!

Now back in L.A., it's like the wild, wild west -- and the land of opportunity, even when it comes to raping the landscape. Where's our pride? Where's our dignity?

This issue is huge, because in it you can see all the inner connections to many other injustices that occur on a regular basis that stem from govenment corruption and corporate power and greed. Even business owners think they can use existing billboard laws to make their fortunes.

For these and other matters, we have no one to blame except ourselves -- because we do have a say in this and our voice can make a difference. Look at what is done in Santa Monica -- There's no place for Supergraphics in our city -- especially on office buildings. The famous architect, Edward Durell Stone designed 10801 National and he would be rolling over in his grave if he saw his building design covered with a hideous CBS advertisment.

There are elections coming up and you should take a peek at the folks up for election. Oh, your voice can make a difference - But you have to use it.

Majestic Architecture in downtown London

Older Architecture: Saint Paul's Cathedral

Newer Designs: Lloyd's of London

WE'VE CLEANED UP THE SMOG;
SEND A MESSAGE TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO CLEAN UP THE LANDSCAPE!

More Before and After Pics from Suite

2009-02-14T10:10:00.000-08:00

Before:
Here is our 8ft x 3ft
window with beautiful vistas.
Clear and unobstructed

After:
With HOOT on -- Obstructed.
Green and Black letters cover us now.

========================

You might just say so what? That's how it goes and now if you don't like it, move.

Hmm... If you are thinking this, you have not read our story. The view is just one angle on this story. We already had one of these HOOTs (Hazardous-Oversized-Obnoxious-Tarp) up last month and the L.A. Fire Dept cited the building owners with 2 fire code violations and told the ownership and the general public in a special press conference held at the foot of our building that this type of sign endangers all the occupants of the building and is illegal.

They only took down the last HOOT when the ad contract expired. Knowing all the pressure from the city, criminal complaints levied against them, LAPD warning them of the dangers to the public --- They did what???

They installed super high intensity flood lights that span across the top of the building and slapped up another HOOT featuring CBS and Dr. Phil.

Do you think these folks care about anyone else but the linings of their own pockets.

The owners and sign company are thumbing their noses at everyone including the forces of the Los Angeles City Council and the L.A. City Attorney's office. Their arraignment for their last offenses will be this Feb. 26, 2009.

WOW! ANOTHER ILLEGAL SIGN GOES UP

2009-02-12T23:54:00.001-08:00

Here's the time line of what happened this early morning at 10801.

I arrived at my office the night before 2/12 at approx. 10pm. I came back from a meeting and came back to the office to unload my gear. Earlier that day, to my disbelief, the owners put up super high intensity flood lights at the top of the building -- see previous post with the obvious fact that they were planning another HOOT for the building and prepared to have it lit for viewing during evening hours.

I sat down to write a post to this very fact and heard loud noises coming from outside the building. I took the elevator down to check out my suspicion. There she blows -- heavy equipment lined the parking lot with a HOOT rolled up at the building entrance. I heard of illegal HOOTs going up all over the city and they did this under cover of darkness late at night. I immediately called the police (now 11pm) and told them of this illegal activity and they said they will come down there to check it out.

The workmen shut down their operation for the time being and called their boss. Paul E. Fisher, esq. shows up on the workmen's behalf and we have a chat. He told me bottom line that he was in the right and he had papers to prove it. So we all waited for the police and they finally came at approx. 1am, Friday 2/13/09. They were really nice officers and we had a great discussion. I gave them the real scoop and they were all ears. They wished to remain anonymous and I will respect their wishes -- No need to pull them through the muck.

Mr. Fisher was armed with a permanent injunction to show to the police -- See Letter and Documentation From Owner. The officers told me they could not stand in the way. I said is there anything I can do... They said I can talk with their supervisor. Sure enough, another police car was summoned and once again Mr. Fisher flashed the injunction and the ruling fell in favor to allow this HOOT to go up.

So here ya go...

Workmen prepare to put CBS HOOT up.

There's that cool architecture getting covered by Dr. Phil and CBS.

There she blows!

I must admit -- these guys are good.

Finishing touches on this Picasso.

There you have it!! First we're squeezed by Pepsico and now Dr. Phil's got us on the couch.

Wow -- Live and learn. This story is unbelievable...

I started this blog with the help of many vocal tenants in disgust of what the owners did.

What they did to the tenants, to the local neighborhood, to the city of Los Angeles. See the top side bar if you are new to this story.

It's been a learning experience and a real eye opener.

I started this blog as a protest against injustice. We didn't know who to target, so we addressed the owner(s). But at that time, we didn't even know who the owners were. The blog is a great time line and if you follow it, you will see this very fuzzy story become crystal clear.

There's 4 perpetrators here that twists and turns through the story. We will start from most offensive to least:

Big time corporations fueling the charge and will do what ever it takes to get name recognition to the public.
L.A. City Gov. sending mixed messages and not having their act together in the business of regulating billboards and supergraphics. Paul E. Fisher, esq. on the scene gave me his last final comments of the evening when I asked for it: Jack Weiss, council member has been ingenuious regarding this whole bilboard debate. Now he's up for City Attorney and wants to look tough. Putting politics aside, since I've been covering this case, Jack Weiss and city officials have come to the rescue. Frankly I don't give a hoot what happened in the past -- I'm interested in what is going on now and who wants to deal with this mess.
Signage companies -- In this case, World Wide Rush. I've listed WWR third, but it's possible they are right up there with number one -- They don't seem to care about the urban landscape.
The building owners -- In this case it's Frank Rahban and his cohorts. They will participate in this illegal activity because the fines can't come close to the money that will come in. Sources tell us that the sign at 10801 can bring in as much as 100k a month.

In closing, I'm appalled at the owners actions -- They have COJONES.

Los Angeles heed this warning.

Do whatever you can legally to remove this HOOT -- or else every building owner in the city will want to participate and soon the City of Angels will become the City of a NASCAR Jumpsuit.

OH NO ANOTHER SIGN - WHERE'S THE POLICE

2009-02-12T23:54:00.000-08:00

I'm outside our building with a crew of workmen, two cranes and the attorney for the sign company. Where's Clark Kent when you need em'.

If I cut this short that means the police have arrived and must see what will happen here.

I had a conversation with the attorney and he seems like a nice guy -- "from the first amendment clan) and he says that he has the paperwork to show the cops that he has every right to put this HOOT up.

We had a civil discussion and said that if he was in this office building and they put this thing up, he would be upset too. We went into the politics and he said that Jack Weiss and Rocky Delgadillo are to blame for this. He said the city has received $$ to put up some signs, but not allowed others. Well, I agree with that if that's the case.

He said the only reason why Jack and Rocky are fighting the sign on our building is because of politics -- and how Jack is running for City Attorney of L.A. and needs to "look tough".

I feel they all have to go. Imagine if these folks can put up this HOOT and with LIGHTS YET... every building owner in L.A. will get the message that it's okay to do this. Our City of Angels will be the City of a NASCAR JUMPSUIT.

This is breaking news, L.A. Times... you owe us one.

I'm at the back of the building now where they have this HOOT rolled up and all the workers have disappeared. It's a little chilly out, but I'm gonna hang in there to get the story.

Stay tuned.... I think the cops are here!

I JUST CALLED THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!

2009-02-12T21:39:00.000-08:00

HOLY COW!!!!! (We have other expressions for this but we'll keep it G rated for the youngsters).

Frank Rahban and his cohorts are at it again! They are already facing criminal charges from the City of Los Angeles --See BREAKING NEWS: CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST OWNER OF 10801.

We've used some yiddish terms as a Goniff and having Chutzpah for doing this to Los Angeles, Tenants and the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Oh no... Gotta Run....

I'm at the office and they are putting up another sign as we speak. I just called the police and told them they are putting up another illegal sign. UNBELIVEABLE!!!!!

Can you believe this view from inside the office? When these go on, we will be blinded by the light!!

Discussion of Boycott against Pepsico, Inc.

2009-02-12T08:11:00.000-08:00

We are asking for your help. We are now formulating a petition/boycott against corporations like Pepsico, Inc. that continue to break the law, put citizens in danger, and blight the urban landscape.

President Obama grew his grass roots campaign through the Internet and without the Internet, his chances for president were nil. He did not have the campaign coffers the other candidates had, but grew his powerful messages and gathered his following through many Internet channels.

We too cannot match the corporate coffers, but can use the Internet to bring our important message to the public and grow our campaign against corporate arrogance and injustice.

If you would like to participate in our efforts, write to the blog or email us at 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.

ANOTHER LETTER TO PEPSICO, INC.

2009-02-09T22:42:00.000-08:00

This post will be forwarded to the following at Pepsico, Inc.:

Jamie Stein
Director, Public Relations
(312) 821-2017
jamie.stein@tropicana.com

Dave DeCecco
Director, Media Bureau
(914) 253-2655
dave.dececco@pepsi.com

Bonin Bough
Director, Social Media
(914) 253-3058
bonin.bough@pepsico.com

stephanie.white@pepsi.com

Larry Jabbonsky; VP, Communications
larry.jabbonsky@pepsi.com
(914)253-2647

Cc to the following Corporate Folks:

Indra K. Nooyi, C.E.O.

Michael D. White, C.E.O., PepsiCo International & Vice Chair, PepsiCo

Mitch Adamek, Sr. V.P. & Chief Procurement Officer

Peter A. Bridgman, Sr. V.P. and Controller

Richard Goodman, C.F.O.

Wahid Hamid, Sr. V.P., Corporate Strategy & Development

Julie Hamp, Sr. V.P., Communications

Mehmood Khan, C.S.O.

Lionel L. Nowell III, Sr. V.P. and Treasurer

Ronald C. Parker, Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer

Larry D. Thompson, Sr. V.P., Gov Affairs, Gen. Counsel & Sec.

Cynthia M. Trudell, Sr. V.P. & C.P.O.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Dear Pepsico, Inc.:

In a great movie, Shawshank Redemption, Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne was a wrongly accused man living the life of a convict at Shawshank prison. If you remember, Andy Dufresne on good behavior, received some great prison jobs including a position at the jailhouse library.

The main problem Andy faced was getting funds to stock the library shelves. Well, he was determined to get those funds one way or another. So he started a writing campaign -- is this message sounding familiar?

Well, he wrote and he wrote. When no one returned his messages, he wrote some more. Finally he broke through and got a response and got his funding for the library.

How many letters or signatures on a petition do you need before we get a response from you? How many tragedies will it take for you to address your billboard/supergraphic policies? Oh, we've created another term for the taking -- HOOT (Hazardous-Oversized-Obnoxious-Tarp).

Do you really want this campaign against your company to gather moss? Our global audience is watching your response and so is the media. We've made friends with the L.A. Times, L.A. Weekly, KABC talk radio and KFI AM640 and we will not be afraid to bend their ears.

From a PR point of view, damage control will be much easier at this stage of the game. Just address our questions in our original letter to you.

Just as Andy Dufresne, we are determined to get a response and to see appropriate corporate responsibility take place.

Sincerely,

THE COALITION FOR 10801 TENANT SAFETY AND JUSTICE

2nd Letter From Tropicana/Pepsico, Inc.

2009-02-05T23:34:00.000-08:00

We heard from Tropicana today, their 2nd letter to us.

from: stephanie.white@pepsi.com
to: 10801takesigndown@gmail.com
date: Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:00 PM
subject: A Message from Consumer Relations 011880789B

Dear David,

Thank you for your email message.

Can you please provide us with more information regarding your email. Which product is on the sign and where is it specifically located?

can be assured that I will share your feedback with the appropriate people here at headquarters.

Thanks again for writing. We greatly appreciate your friendship and support.

Stephanie White
Consumer Relations Representative
stephanie.white@pepsi.com
011880789B

Our Response:

from: Dr. David Allan <10801takesigndown@gmail.com>
to: stephanie.white@pepsi.com
cc: Larry Jabbonsky <larry.jabbansky@pepsi.com> , Jamie Stein jamie.stein@tropicana.com
date: Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:14 PM
subject: Re: A Message from Consumer Relations 011880789B

Dear Stephanie-

You've got to be kidding with this response! Did you bother to read my message? Do you know that I sent you an web address that contains more than you probably want to know about this very serious matter?

...And why would you assume that I want to be your friend or offer you support? My recommendation is to truly read a letter that comes in first before you send out an automated lame response like this.

Oh, and the appropriate person at headquarters to address this issue is the C.E.O. of Pepsico, Inc. - Indra K. Nooyi. I'm not writing to you about a pepsi bottle that has a defective cap, I'm writing about a company you work for that is endangering thousands of citizens in Los Angeles.

Once again I'm gonna refer you to www.10801takesigndown.blogspot.com for all the details and then I suggest you move this letter to the front of the line unless you don't mind participating in a public relations nightmare.

FYI -- I will be forwarding you two letters that were already sent to Pepsico, Inc. I suggest you urge them to respond to our letters. Please don't send us another email with PR spin on it. We don't want to be your friend, we just want answers to our questions and to be assured that Pepsico, Inc. will not endanger lives with their advertising campaigns.

Sincerely,

Dr. David Allan

Cc: Indra K. Nooyi, C.E.O., Michael D. White, C.E.O., PepsiCo International & Vice Chair, PepsiCo, Mitch Adamek, Sr. V.P. & Chief Procurement Officer, Peter A. Bridgman, Sr. V.P. and Controller, Richard Goodman, C.F.O., Wahid Hamid, Sr. V.P., Corporate Strategy & Development, Julie Hamp, Sr. V.P., Communications, Mehmood Khan, C.S.O., Lionel L. Nowell III, Sr. V.P. and Treasurer, Ronald C. Parker, Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, Larry D. Thompson, Sr. V.P., Gov Affairs, Gen. Counsel & Sec., Cynthia M. Trudell, Sr. V.P. & C.P.O

--
Dr. David Allan, D.C.
Spokesperson for
The Coalition for 10801 Tenant Safety & Justice
10801 National Blvd Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA 90064
10801takesigndown@gmail.com
www.10801takesigndown.blogspot.com

The letters are coming in...

2009-02-05T16:03:00.000-08:00

Pepsico, Inc. -- This is just the beginning. We will seek media attention!

-----Original Message-----
From: Blog Follower
To: larry.jabbansky@pepsi.com
Sent: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 1:30 pm
Subject: Supergraphics

Mr. Jabbansky:

I for one will make sure that I NEVER buy products that are advertised via Supergraphics and will advise my friends and family to do the same. Do you people realize that you are further blighting an already blighted Los Angeles? Are you so damn greedy that you feel it is acceptable to deface the sides of buildings with ugly advertisements that just anger the public? How would you like to look out of your kitchen, living room or bedroom window at a gigantic ad? I am sure you wouldn't want that at all. But you probably live in some gated community that protects you from what you foist off on others. Why don't you try to do some good in our community instead of what you are doing? In the end this will surely backfire on you and the products you represent.

Letter Writing Campaign to Pepsico, Inc

2009-02-05T12:34:00.000-08:00

Message to the public: If we are the only one's ranting an raving about this issue, nothing will change. Pepsico, Inc. will look at a blog like this and think "fringe element". I don't think that will be the case as the public is educated to the facts.

Here's a letter from a blog follower and it's addressed to Larry. I suggest all of us jot down a note to Larry and Cc: us, but also Cc: the folks at Tropicana. I'm sure they will deliver your message to the advertising guns at Pepsico Inc.

So send your letters to:

larry.jabbonsky@pepsi.com

Cc:
10801takesigndown@gmail.com
ConsumerRelations@cs.tropicana.com

We will post this letter writing campaign on the left column later today. This will get us the attention we need.

from A blog follower
to larry.jabbonsky@pepsi.com
cc 10801takesigndown@gmail.com
date Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:04 PM
subject supergraphics in LA--bad idea

Dear Mr. Jabbonsky,

I am writing in regard to your ad camaign in Los Angeles featuring non-permitted supergraphics. I don't see how you can justify doing something that is illegal in order to sell your product. That sir, does not make a good businessman. Recently, one of your supergraphics covered the whole side of a building in West Los Angeles. Would you like to have a 'view' like that from your office? Times are changing, and the people of Los Angeles aren't buying your ill conceived ad campaign. Now that the people of Los Angeles know that Tropicana, Pepsi and Frito Lay are all affiliated, you can be sure that there will be an active boycott of your products. Shame on you and shame on Pepsi.