Eating Vietnamese - the Best Pho

I had the best Vietnamese food yesterday.Usually, I'm not a fan of eating at Vietnamese restaurants. Not because the food is not good, but they charge a low price and usually means the quality is bad. Broths usually taste like they're made from chicken cubes and not actual soup.

Pho - Beef Noodle Soup

But yesterday, my friend and I were just looking for a quick bite and some thing reasonably priced. Our usual place was crowded, so we settled to try this new Vietnamese restaurant. We ate at Pho Bang on 8450 Valley, Rosemead. I wasn't expecting much, but I was curious when I saw that it happened to be an East Coast restaurant that was reviewed by New York Daily (one of the top five newspapers).

The spring rolls were out of this world. The skin was crispy and golden. And when you bit into it, it had such a nice, hard crunch. Then when the spring roll cracked open in your mouth, the hot steam filled your mouth and immediately, you could taste the soft and chewy pork. It was the best spring roll I ever had. I was impressed. I want to go back, just writing about it.

The noodles tasted fresh. And as I tell people, nothing, I mean nothing, beats freshly made noodles. But I couldn't believe it. It wasn't that expensive. Were these fresh noodles? I asked the owner, and he confirmed that they order fresh noodles every other day. I knew they were fresh.

The owner brought me my French coffee. (Vietnam was once a French colony.) It had that wonderful smell of dark, roasted coffee and when I mixed it when the condensed milk, it was so wonderful. It was really balanced between that nutty coffee taste and sweet, creamy milk.

So, some of you are international readers. Go check out a Vietnamese place and have fried spring rolls and Pho. If you're in LA, Pho Bang is highly recommended. Get the French Coffee too, if you're a coffee fan.

Mayor and Cook in the Newspapers Again

Mayor Manuel Lozano Standing Outside of Small Claims Court -
where Paul Cook sued him.
Copyright of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Well - the San Gabriel Valley Tribune wrote a story about our trial. I thought it was a good piece.

Reporter Melissa Masatani wrote the story.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150306/paul-cooks-lawsuit-against-baldwin-park-mayor-manuel-lozano-dismissed

I like the quote they picked out for me: "[The court's decision] encourages people with more money and power to pick on those who tell the truth and not be held accountable for it, especially when those people are spending others’ money,” he wrote in an email.

When Mayor Lozano says that he's going to sue me again, now is that going to be on his money or our taxpayer money again? How many times do we have to tell him not to use the city bank account like his own credit card? (The most recent rumor about the Mayor is that he collected city money to go to a conference in Santa Barbara. Then he didn't go, but kept the money. Hey - now isn't that theft?)

Word on the street is that Council Member Ricardo Pacheco was gleeful that the suit got dismissed. That's because Pacheco stiffs bills at Baldwin Park restaurants and mechanics. He was afraid other people could sue him. Guess, what? You, could. If a Council Member doesn't pay - he or she doesn't get free food or services. And don't let them tell you otherwise.

If you need help suing any of these people in small claims court, I will help you. In some ways, this was still a victory for the people because the court never said that the Mayor was being sued as Mayor. In other words, the court still held him personally accountable, meaning if the Mayor lost - it was going to come out of his own bank account - not the city's. That's a good thing. So, if these politicians are administrators take advantage, contact me, and I'll teach you how to sue them personally too.

Small Claims Court Says That Mayors Can Slanderously File Lawsuits Against Citizens

The purpose of this post is to show you how difficult it is to hold a public official, like a Mayor accountable, even when one is sued personally. I'm also going to tell you why that small claims court judge was wrong and what I'm going to do about it.

Some background first. Mayor Manuel Lozano filed a temporary restraining order against me because he didn't like me exposing who he was and what he was doing. Read about it here: http://alchemistcook.blogspot.com/2014/07/mayor-lozano-files-restraining-order.html

For instance, he complained bitterly to the judge that I posted he was a bankrupt security guard. Yes, this personal detail matters. How do we expect someone that can't even manage his own finances to manage a city bank account of millions? That's right; no wonder why Baldwin Park is getting into bankruptcy because the people don't know how to manage money. (Who in this town doesn't have a bankruptcy? Even our Police Chief, Taylor has one.) The Mayor was also upset that I called him a racist against his own people. This is true too. In 2009, he stole $1.2 Million from the undocumented. Read about it here: http://alchemistcook.blogspot.com/2014/07/mayor-lozano-files-restraining-order.html

So, the Mayor filed a Temporary Restraining Order against me based on lies. http://alchemistcook.blogspot.com/2015/02/mayor-trial-resuls-good-bad-and-ugly.html

The TRO judge saw right through that and denied his order and said I have the right to tell the truth.

I felt violated though. This entire city wanted to get a restraining order against me so that I couldn't go to City Hall and protest them at the public park. I mean, aren't those basic rights of being an American citizen? I just couldn't believe they spewed so many lies to do that too. When people say to trust government, point them to the story of Baldwin Park and what it did to Paul Cook through Mayor Lozano.

Nonetheless, I was grateful that day to the TRO judge and my friends. So many other people who have spoken the truth before me have suffered a lot worse: Jesus, Ghandi, Sophie Scholl, and many others.

Nonetheless, I was violated because a City slandered my character by trying to paint me as violent. I don't even have a traffic citation against my record. I'm 5' 3" and weight 128-132. All this - for telling the truth that the City has also been engaged in a money laundering scam regarding their non-profit.

So, while running at Mt. Sac, a local community college, I got this idea. It was late at night. The moon was beaming down on me. A night owl flew over my head, perched on a tree, and watched me. That owl must've been my muse that day and brought me some genius insight.

Why don't I sue the Mayor, personally in small claims, for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Now, personally means that he'd have to pay if he lost - not the City. And that's the right result. Why should the City pay his bill for doing something evil? Can you believe that Mayor still asked the City to pay for his fees if he was found guilty in small claims at a Special Meeting? (Now you can see why he's bankrupt. He carries out his need for revenge, fails, and then charges it to the city, like it's his own personal credit card.)

Filing the suit against the Mayor in small claims got me a call from Judge Judy and Judge Mathis. It was all good fun to have Judge Judy and Judge Mathis call me, if we'd come on TV. I thoroughly enjoyed telling the producers of Judge Judy - "Well, the Mayor of Baldwin Park is not very bright." We both had a good laugh, but I think the Mayor didn't want to go on TV about the whole thing. He should've though.

The trial was good fun as well. I'm glad my friends supported me. It made me feel wealthier.

In contrast, the Mayor came alone. For someone that has a great democratic constituency, he had no one show up for him to be with him in court.

The most pathetic part was when Lozano claimed that being Mayor meant that his job included doing evil things like file restraining orders against his citizens. So, he should be immune from prosecution. I mean: come on. I had to tell the judge that Lozano was relying on the prosecutor statute, and that although he's a security guard, that doesn't make him a prosecutor. I should've added: and he must not be a good security guard if he can't handle people mocking him - too.

But getting the court ruling was really disappointing. It ruled I couldn't file for abuse of process because TROs are basically barred from an abuse of process claim. The Appellate Law holds otherwise. So, I don't get it.

It also argued that I couldn't file a malicious prosecution charge because the Mayor consulted with an attorney first; therefore, he made a good effort to determine that he had a claim before going forward. I don't think so. Those two conspired against me to shut me up and paint me as crazy. How is that a good faith effort?

I should say I appreciated that he changed his tentative to suggest that the Mayor was a liar. The court stated that Cook and his witnesses "strongly disputed" the Mayor's version of events. The court should've just come out and called our shameful Mayor a liar because that's the truth.

In any event, I was most disappointed with the fact that the court said that I should know there's limits to Free Speech and that it was good that the Mayor filed a TRO because I stopped going to City Council Meetings. The small claims court also quoted from the newspaper instead of the official TRO judge's ruling. (Does anyone find that as strange? The judge's ruling is official. What the newspaper reports on is not the judge's ruling?) The TRO judge told me to not go near the Mayor because she implied he'd lie again and file another TRO against me.

In the end, the Mayor's TRO kind of won in a big and bad way. He sent me a message. You speak the truth against me, this is what's going to happen to you. They chilled my speech and my democratic participation. The sad part is that the court found this to be a good thing.

Also, how could a court encourage people to make up lies and file restraining orders against peaceful citizens - like myself? Now - that certainly is not living in a civil society. But then again, governments like Baldwin Park are unsafe places, not because of the people, but because of people running it - like the Mayor.

Small claims is the perfect forum for what happened because the typical activist doesn't have tons of money. He or she can't litigate in a big courtroom and someone like the Mayor will of course hire an attorney. But in small claims it's just the activist against the Mayor, personally. And that's how it should be, if a Mayor does something as vile as he did to me - he should answer for it himself. And I'm happy, I got him to answer.

Well - we all learned some thing. Even though, I don't think that judge liked Lozano much, the courts don't want people suing people who work for government for this type of stuff. But that's sad. If we can't hold public officials accountable for their misconduct personally, then the courts really are telling the people: just shut up and don't talk bad about government - even when they are wrong.

In any event, after many activists encouraged me and after reflecting about it for awhile, I've decided to appeal the case by writ. The chances of writ review are low, but hey, so are the chances of Mayors getting sued in small claims court. So - I press on!

PS: I've filed my first Cal. Supreme Court Petition. If it gets granted, (which the chances are low), that means the Justices of Cal. Sup. Ct. will know who I am. Now that's cool. I've decided, I'm going to take this case all the way to the State Supreme Court. Yes, chances are low of getting it heard there, but hey - once again - when will I get the to tell the Supreme Court Justices to hear a case on a bankrupted security guard Mayor who goes around filing restraining orders against his own citizen?

Small Claims Court Says That Mayors Can File Slanderous Lawsuits

The small claims court stated that there's nothing citizens can do if the government files a slanderous restraining order against you. It held that the abuse of process claim doesn't apply - though the reasoning wasn't really explained thoroughly. Malicious prosecution doesn't apply if a government official, like the Mayor, consults with a lawyer in "good faith." And Lozano consulted with our attorney, Robert Nacionales-Tafoya, who we all know acts in "good faith." Let's not forget that Tafoya forged a document with the court in the Casas 2 case. In other words, the small claims court said that the Mayor doesn't have anything to worry about when he perjures statements against his citizens and lies about them in an attempt to slander their character and shut them up.

I'll be writing more of a commentary on this, later. As of now, that's the news.

But hey - it's not over until the Fat Lady Sings, right? This is only Round 1.

Los Angeles Police Officers Kill Homeless Man named Africa - A Commentary

In the video above, a Los Angeles Police Department Officer shoots a homeless man who is struggling on the ground, five times. Was this shooting justified? It's hard to say, but it appears that the officer resorted to force and violence because his authority was challenged. This type of behavior is happening all over the country and the people need to demand it stop.

In the video, I think I can hear the officer say, "Drop the gun, drop the gun." But it's not clear - whether the homeless man on the floor, who went by the name of Africa, had a gun or not.

The confrontation happened because the LAPD allegedly asked Africa to take down his tent - who refused to do so. What probably happened was that Africa said no, and the LAPD and Africa entered into a struggle - where an officer takes down the homeless man.

What looks like to be a transient woman tries to come to his rescue, but an officer takes her down too. Then you hear seven blasts from the gun - but it's difficult to tell what's actually happening between Africa and the officer because the camera vision is obscured.

It appears that the white, younger police officer entered into a pissing match with a homeless person. And when the homeless person didn't obey his orders, it turned into a foul escalation, which ended up with two tragedies.

The first one is that the world lost this man named Africa. My mother asked me why I cared so much about someone I didn't know. And I said to her, "Mom, you know that someone gave birth to him? He had or has a mother somewhere. He had or has a father. He might even have a brother or sister. And now he's gone, and they have to live with that."

She stopped and said, "You know, you're right."

I mean, I've been the victim of police violence here in Baldwin Park. Remember when I was passing out articles at the park, and the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Mayor didn't want me around. They ordered the paramilitary force of the Baldwin Park Police to grab me, put me in an arm bar, and throw me into jail. And I refused to listen to authority too because they were wrong. I have the right to be at park, to say boo to the Director, and to pass out leaflets. Just because I didn't listen to the Mayor and the Director and Police - should I be shot at too?

Then, after it happens, they'll make up something - that I lunged after them or that I was mentally unwell. You see - this is the type of practice and behavior, we the people need to demand to change because if they could do it to a nameless homeless person, they could do it to anyone of us.

The German Christian Anti-Nazi activist, Martin Niemoeller knew this principle. The Nazis locked him up in a concentration camp for seven years, where he was close to being executed. He's best known for this poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I've lived in New Zealand for three and a half years and a good amount of time in Germany. In both these countries, law enforcement don't even have guns. Here, in America, the police are becoming a force that shoot and ask questions later.

To be sure, force can be necessary under such situations. But there's a highly disproportionate amount of police shootings happening from young males, not women, and not older men. So - I think the problem is one that highlights how immature, young men, in the police force, who probably have never had authority in their lives, are responding to having their authority challenged.

The second tragedy, though is for that officer who shot Africa. Even though he'll be in denial that he did any wrong, I'm sure that it'll weigh on him for the rest of his life that he killed a homeless man. That can take a toll on a person.

My final thoughts in this situation is the lack of transparency by the City of Los Angeles and the police. Here, the police are claiming that they have video from the body cameras of two officers, but they won't release it for investigation reasons.

What could be the harm of the public knowing the truth about what really happened?  

Just like I keep telling Baldwin Park: we have the right to know. And you need to tell us. Stop feeding us lies.

Activists Accuse Royal Coaches of Profiting From The Undocumented

They say that Royal Coaches is really the "Robbing Coaches"

Royal Coaches Tow Truck Parading Next to the El Monte Police Department in October

Photo and Article by: Isaías Alvarado

Translation by: Paul Cook

In Baldwin Park, the activist mock and nickname [Baldwin Park's official tow company], Royal Coaches, "Robbing Coaches."
 
According to activists, the tow company has taken advantage of immigrants in the San Gabriel Valley, where it has contracts with four cities and the insurance company AAA.

"Royal Coaches preys on the undocumented, who are afraid and don't fight back," said attorney, Paul Cook, who has represented immigrants who have had their cars impounded in the Royal Coaches' tow yard.

In Baldwin Park, Royal Coaches maximized its profits by continually setting up police DUI checkpoints. In 2009 alone, the city received a 25% commission on the $1.2 million revenue earned from selling the captured cars, more than any other city in the region. 

"They are exploiting our community by stealing cars," said the activist Silvia Villanueva.

In late 2013, the city seized dozens of cars and their drivers - almost all of them undocumented - whom were detained for several house because the police refused to acknowledge their foreign driver's licenses.

Accustomed to donating to various political candidates in Baldwin Park, Royal Coaches also donated $500 in 2011 to now deputy mayor of El Monte [the neighboring City looking for a new tow company], Bart Patel, according to official reports.

Patel and the other [El Monte City] Councillors decide in a few days if Royal Coaches will be awarded the contract, El Monte's Albert's Towing once had but has been rescinded, after it was discovered that it committed various misconduct.

Patel said through his spokesperson, Xavier Hermosillo, that the contributions are legal and ethical. "It's not illegal to vote for someone who gives a contribution. It's only illegal or unethical if its not reported or if its used for personal gain," he said. 

Although undocumented workers can now obtain driver's licenses, activists say there are many in the San Gabriel Valley who have not gone through the process. This business, they say, is not over.

Original Article Here:

http://www.laopinion.com/noticias-san-gabriel-california/article/20150227/activistas-acusan-royal-coaches-lucro-con-migrantes 

They Steal The Little We've Earned [Testimonials]

Rafael Ortiz is a mechanic who lost his truck in the Royal Coaches's towyard in 2013 because he could not pay the fee of over $2,000 that he was charged for the city seizing his car. Police pulled him over for not having a driver's license.

"Now that its gone, it's affected me because it was the car I used to go to work," said the native of the Mexican state of Nayarit.

Ortiz's wife and brother were stopped at the dreaded Baldwin Park checkpoint. "The police took my wife's car, sold it, and they still charged her $300," Ortiz said.

"Roberto," (who has changed his name for fear of city retaliation), was one of Royal Coaches's "client." He said that in eight years, their family had their car confiscated three times for being unlicensed and paid $3,600 in total.

"What the company is doing is unfair to everyone who cannot get licenses [which at the time was not possible]," he said.

The last seizure, told "Roberto," happened in November and he paid $600 for the storage and towing fees for his truck. [It was only one night.] He could've used that money to pay the rent, which he then had to borrow.

"The little guy ends up paying for the City bills, which is stealing from us," said the twenty year Baldwin Park resident. "When Royal Coaches goes to El Monte, they'll do the same thing there."

Mayor Trial Results - The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

The results of the Mayor's trial are almost all in, although the final ruling has been giving.

The Bad
The bad part of the Mayor Trial is that the judge tenatively ruled for the Mayor that I have not met my burden.

I was disappointed in the court that it tentatively ruled against me for the Abuse of Process claim. Abuse of process exists when ANY judicial process is abused. For some reason, the court said it didn't apply to the filing of a new lawsuit. Why it believed that, I'm not sure?

Furthermore, regarding malicious prosecution, the court stated that the Mayor may have a defense because he in good faith consulted with an attorney. I pointed out that the key term is "good faith." There is no good faith consultation with an attorney, if the Mayor was attempting to get a TRO against me because he was motivated by revenge.

Not all was lost though. I believe the court found Mr. Lozano to be in the constant habit of perjuring himself and being motivated by retaliatory and ugly motives.

The Ugly
In court, Lozano lied in four instances. The people in court were disgusted when Lozano was caught in his lies. Let me remind the reader, this is illegal. It's called perjury.

The Mayor first said that he got a restraining order against me because I opened the gate and tried to attack him at the podium.

I stated, "Lozano's allegation states that this happened in June to July, 2013. This is impossible. I was in Europe then."

Ct: "Mr. Lozano were you talking about another time?"

Mayor: "Oh, I can't remember."

Ct: "Mr. Cook could this have happened at another time?"

Cook: "It may have happened in May, after the City fired the boxing coach."

Ct: "Why would you approach the podium gateway?"

Cook: "Because, like the gateway here, the clerk is next to it. I hand papers to the clerk during City Council meetings. And Mr. Lozano and the police prevent me from passing them out."

Ct: "Is it true that he passes papers to the court?"

Mayor: "Yes, he does some time. But he still tried to jump over the gateway."

Cook: "And, after I jump passed this gateway, can Mr. Lozano tell the court what I do after?"

Mayor: "He just keeps attacking me."

[The point is that I never jumped over the gateway.]

At that point, my friends Gordon and Julian testified that they were at the meeting. The Mayor accused Julian and I being schemers against him. Julian testified that he worked for the City for 17 years but then the City fired. The judge looked upset by it all. Gordon then said he was at that meeting too and that I never tried to pass the gateway.

The court then asked why I stood up and screamed at Mr. Lozano at City Council Meeting.

Cook: "One time, when we came to serve the city with a lawsuit, the Mayor shutdown public comments period. He's not supposed to do that. So, I brought the boxers to speak out against the city at another time. Then, the Mayor said he was going to shorten public comments from three minutes to two minutes. So, I stood up and started saying, 'That's not right. You can't do that. If you want to do that, go amend the city ordinance.' I had to speak loudly because the Mayor has a microphone, and I don't."

Lozano: "Yes, Your Honor. I made a mistake of cutting public comments from three minutes to two minutes. . . . But Cook stalks me. He knows where my favorite restaurant is and waits for me there."

Cook: "Yes, I guess I've gained psychic abilities now and just know everything about Mr. Lozano." I went to explain how I bumped into Lozano at that restaurant coincidentally after he arrested me because Julian texted me to come. Julian testified to this.

Lozano started shaking at this point. He was sweating. And his face looked more and more evil.

Then the court asked me why I purposely yelled at Lozano at the Park in front of his 90 year old father.

Cook: "Can Mr. Lozano explain when I ever met or seen his father? How am I supposed to even know what he looks like?"

Court: "Mr. Lozano, even if he stood in front of your father, how was Mr. Cook supposed to know who he was?"

Mayor: "Well, Cook always attacks me. He's a fabricator and a perjurer. He even posted my bankruptcy online. I just needed to file it because I was reorganizing my debt. And that report - it has my family members' names and addresses."

Court: "So, you're saying that Mr. Cook would know what they looked like by having that information?"

Mayor: "Yes."

Cook: "I didn't know by having names and address information, that would tell me what people's faces also looked like."

Court: "Let's move on."

The highlight of the trial was when Lozano tried to claim that he couldn't be sued because he was immune under prosecutorial immunity, which is a law that protects prosecutors (and some times police officers) from being sued.

Cook: "I know that Mr. Lozano is a security guard, and in his mind, that makes him a security guard, but I'm sorry he still is not a prosecutor on behalf of the city. Now, if Mr. Lozano would like to say that it's in his employment description to file restraining orders against citizens, then I suppose immunity would apply."

Mayor: "See?! Your Honor. Mr. Cook keeps attacking me. I just want to let you know I work for a big, reputable department. Mr. Cook has to keep saying these things about me. He keeps attacking me. He's a perjurer and fabricator."

The audience laughed. I was smiling too. Even if I lost, that's a memory I'll have for the rest of my life. Someone told me, I should've added, "Maybe you shouldn't be a security guard too, if you think all words against you are an attack."

After the trial, the Mayor exited and Veronica, an activist said, "You're a slimeball."

The Mayor claimed his life was in danger. He had security escort him through the back doors of court because he didn't want photographers to sneak up and take a photo of him, like last time. I can't believe this is our Mayor. He's the most shameful Mayor in the world.

The Good
To conclude, I was really grateful that Veronica, Julian, Gordon, Rick, Alex, the LA Times, and San Gabriel Valley Tribune all showed up. 

My personal take on the case is that the small claims court doesn't want to open up litigation of abuse of process and malicious prosecution - which are complex torts. In short, they don't want to hear these activist cases.

I guess there's no real way to hold a public official, like a Mayor, who perjures you and defames your character, to try to paint you as crazy and get a restraining order against you, accountable. Let me add, he also did all this on taxpayer money. And this was a personal lawsuit. Personal! Why should the taxpayer pay for any of it?

In any event, the LA Times and Tribune were there to report on it. So, it'll be great, even if I lose, if they report on all this. People need to know how wrong this is to do to a citizen, all because he speaks the truth against these people.

These are the three lessons I learned from the whole ordeal. And if you're an activist, listen up. It can save you.

1. When dealing with city officials, always have witnesses with you. My witnesses, Gordon and Julian, proved the Mayor lied. Without them, it would have been the Mayor's word against mine, and the court will believe the Mayor over you any day.

2. The court system, as it is, encourages government (including police officers) to lie. We can't do it because we can get in trouble for perjury. But they can. And, it gives them an unfair advantage. And as evidenced here, they do lie because they can get away with it. We really need to have legislative reform about this.

3. Currently, there is no way for a citizen who is targeted and retaliated by the government to hold its members personally accountable. For instance, the Mayor kept asking the taxpayer to pay for his lawsuit and damages. Why? He personally filed this against me. If he shoots me or punches me, and I have damages, should the city pay for this too. No. And the law says that it is illegal to indemnify these people for such behavior, but they do it anyways. Take for instance, why did Los Angeles pay for Huizar's legal fees for sexual harassment? Why did San Diego do the same for Mayor Filsner? Sexual harassment is not part of a Mayor's job description - last I checked.

Those are the lessons. But hey - now I can tell everyone - I had it out with a Mayor - and I made him answer for his nasty and evil behavior in court. Now that was great!

Here's something to think about. I mean, what can a person do to hold someone accountable, who makes up instances of violent behavior to get a frivolous restraining order against you because you're exposing the person and all his corrupt misconduct? And just because they're a Mayor, he can do this again and again without being held accountable. Some thing is really broken in our system.

The Tribune wrote a piece on it here.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150225/judge-delays-ruling-in-dispute-between-baldwin-park-mayor-resident