When There Is No Recourse For Housing Right Violations

Kini Cosma

P.O. Box 7918

Klamath Falls, OR 97602

(541) 880-4534

In Properia Persona

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

Kini Cosma,                                   Plaintiff,                                                   vs. SHIRLEY MUNSON DBA MUNSON, MOBILE HOME PARK, STEVE JONES, JELD-WEN, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.                                  Defendant(s)

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: COMPLAINT 42 U.S.C. §3604 and §3617: OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT; 42 U.S.C. § 3617; §§804, 813, 818; GOVERNMENT CODE §§12955-12956.2; INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

________________________________/

(1) Defendant, Munson Mobile Home Park is a private company owned and operated by Shirley Munson, aka the Shirley Munson Living Trust, at . The principal place of business is at 3711 Laverne Ave., Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603.

2. Defendant, Jeld-Wen is registered with the Oregon Secretary of State as an assumed business name (ABN) with it's principal place of business at 401 Harbor Isles Blvd. in Klamath Falls, OR 97601.
3. Defendant Steve Jones is the manager -landlord, (herein referred to as “the landlord”), of the Munson Mobile Home Park, resides at 3740 Crest Street in Klamath Falls, Oregon and is employed by Jeld-Wen.

(4) Plaintiff, Kini Cosma, is a tenant who agreed with the landlord to a long-term lease of a 50 ft x 30 ft parcel of property to use as her private residence at 3711 Laverne Avenue in Klamath Falls, Oregon.

(5) Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

JURISDICTION

(SEE SEALED AFFIDAVIT)

I.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFENDANTS, JELD-WEN, FALSELY ADVERTISED 

ATTRACTING PLAINTIFF TO ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM 

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION WITH 

 

MUNSON MOBILE HOME PARK

(6) Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-5 inclusive, herein.

(7) According to Defendant Jeld-Wen's written mission statements, logos, and other written public propaganda, they describe themselves with excessive pride and self-satisfaction declaring: “employees are to live in a fashion that inspires good works and keeps a positive influence.”

 
(8) Defendants exults of “improving neighborhoods and building better communities” and boasts that their “Core Values and Beliefs” are “to support worthy causes that have a direct, positive impact on the long-term health, well-being and future of JELD-WEN families and communities.”

(9) Defendants Jeld-Wen avow, “at the heart of the JELD-WEN Foundation is a desire and commitment to give back to working JELD-WEN families and communities, to improve the lives of those we are privileged to serve as well as others who benefit as a result...”
 
(10) Defendants claim they recognize and “value the fact that it is a rare privilege to live in a society that is as free and as prosperous as ours and believe we have a duty and responsibility to contribute to its success. We believe the best help offers long-term solutions, not just temporary bandages..."

(11) Defendant Steve Jones their employee, resides four houses within the direct vicinity of plaintiff and has not lived up to these expectations forcing plaintiff to live in unsafe, unsanitary and unhealthy conditions.

II.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFENDANT STEVE JONES RETALIATED AGAINST 

PLAINTIFF FOR EXERCISING HER HOUSING RIGHTS

(12) Plaintiffs incorporates paragraphs 1-11 inclusive, herein.

(13) When plaintiff began her tenancy, a substantial and very important priority was her request for a reasonable accommodation of privacy asking permission to place a fence surrounding her area at her expense. Plaintiff also asked whether she could work on a vehicle she had. This request was also approved by Jones.

(14) Defendant Jones was aware of plaintiff being a single female tenant when applying for the tenancy. Jones was also aware that he was harboring (directly behind plaintiff) a younger male, herein described as an “individual,” with a history of being extremely loud, obnoxious, and constantly involved in scuffles and other disturbances.

(15) What began the retaliation was on November 4, 2012, before leaving, plaintiff asked the individual¹ to please not park in her area because she would be blocked in.

(16) On Friday, November 5, 2012, at approximately 8:30 a.m., plaintiff was preparing to leave her residence to help a friend at the local public library with his legal case when she noticed that the individual deliberately parked in the area plaintiff asked him not to park in. Before getting in her vehicle and driving away, plaintiff told the individual that she would be hiring someone who was to arrive that day to help with the fence; his vehicle was in the way and it would need to be moved.

(17) Around 2:30 pm – 3:30 pm, the person plaintiff hired arrived. Not only was the individual's pickup still in the way but he had chained it to the salvage and wrecked motor home sideways crossing over into plaintiff's vicinity.

(18) Plaintiff's assistant noticed a dummy chain attached and proceeded to removed it. Plaintiff then towed the pickup a few feet when she saw a Klamath County Sheriff driving by. Waving him down, the officer proceeded to observe and ask questions about the property and pickup. He indicated to plaintiff to do whatever she felt was necessary.

(19) According to ORS §98.810 (2), an unauthorized parking of a vehicle on proscribed property is prohibited without the permission of the owner. Specifically, not to leave or park any vehicle on the proscribed property whether or not there is a sign prohibiting or restricting parking on the proscribed property. Further, if a vehicle has been left or parked in violation of ORS 98.810, just and reasonable charges can be requested.

(20) During the course of towing the individual's pickup, plaintiff sustained damages to her vehicle amounting to $595 to $600 (See estimates).

(21) The landlord failed to make an individualized assessment when plaintiff went to discuss the damage of her vehicle. Plaintiff contends the landlord needs to be held responsible for not disclosing to plaintiff that he harbored a loud, obnoxious, and hostile tenant, unable to control his tenant's actions by not setting boundaries of the properties he manages. The landlord contended that the individual should be held responsible in “small claims court”. As a result, plaintiff refused to pay one months rent.

(22) The landlord continued to bill plaintiff for the lapse in rent payments of $185 (EXHIBIT A) while using the individual to spew garbage all over the property (EXHIBIT B) and to retaliate², intimidate and harass plaintiff. The landlord refused to lay boundaries so that this individual would directly harass plaintiff in the proximity of plaintiffs' residence thereby increasing the damage's plaintiff complains herein.

(23) Defendants took negative actions and omitted actions against plaintiff; interfering with those concerned³ about plaintiff and her exercising the enjoyment of her fair housing rights; Retaliatory conduct- a pattern showing harassment, threatening significant physical or emotional harm through the use of derogatory or inappropriate names, insults, verbal assaults, profanity, or ridicule, coercion, punishment, implied threats, intimidation, humiliation, mental cruelty.

III.

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS TO 

 

RETAIN FAIR HOUSING BASED ON GENDER AND 

 

SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION

(24) Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-23 inclusive, herein.

(25) The landlord discriminated against plaintiff because she opposed acts, policies, and practices made unlawful by this part or in the past. He allowed the individual to harass and intimidate plaintiff in an effort to prevent her from the use of her accommodations by allowing him to violate her privacy.

(26) Defendants conduct is not equal to that afforded to other tenants who reside at the Munson Mobile Home Park. This denial of equal opportunities enjoyed by other tenants has been intentionally and unreasonably done for the purpose of causing plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress interfering with and substantially impairing the enjoyment and use of the premises others are entitled to.

(27) As a proximate result of the nature and cost of these actions, furthering the undisputed historical facts of unresolved probable cause, outright intentional exclusion, malicious prosecutions constituting a deprivation of liberty without due process of law conducted with the intent to deprive a plaintiff of equal protection of the laws or is otherwise intended to subject her to a denial of constitutional rights by the United States for over 15 years, plaintiffs prays that this court will grant household living arrangements away from tortious injuries; damages that are usually considered to go beyond traditional pain and suffering or mental anguish and for this individual’s inability to pursue a proper residential household as demonstrated; that defendants have been motivated by a discriminatory purpose, selected or reaffirmed by a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group or the anti-retaliation provision set forth.

IV.

CONCLUSION

(28) WHEREFORE, plaintiff, pursuant to Section 810(g)(2)(a) of the Act, hereby charges defendants with engaging in discriminatory housing practices, in violation of Section 804 and 818 of the Act [42 U.S.C. Sections 3604 and 3617], and prays that an order be issued that:

(29) 1. Declares that the discriminatory housing practices of defendants, as set forth above, violate the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19;

(30) 2. Enjoins defendants, his agents, employees and successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with him, from harassing, retaliating, and discriminating against plaintiff because of her gender, sexual orientation, and disability in any aspect of the rental;

(31) 3. Award such damages as willfully to compensate plaintiff for her economic loss, inconvenience, physical and emotional distress and loss of an important housing opportunity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(3), and any other damages to which plaintiff is legally entitled;

(32) 4. Award a maximum civil penalty of $11,000 for each discriminatory housing practice found against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(3); and,

(33) 5. Award such additional relief as may be appropriate under the All Writs Act of 28 USC 1651; S.47, the Violence Against Women Act of 2013; Full Faith And Credit Provision and 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(3) of the Act because the landlord knew or should have known about the conditions posing an imminent and serious threat to the health or safety of the occupants and must be liable for money damages of either two months' rent or up to twice the damages the tenant sustained as a result of the violation, whichever is greater.

(34) Award any other damages to which plaintiff is legally entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Signed: Dated:

Printed: Kini Cosma, Plaintiff

P.O. Box 7918

Klamath Falls, OR 97602

(541) 880-4534

Inpropria Persona

VERIFICATION

I, Kini Cosma, am a plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Signed: ________ Dated: __________________________

Affidavit Under Seal

(1) The impact on my everyday life in the United States under The Human Rights Act and the right to respect for privacy and guaranteeing core components of the human rights framework for economic and social rights of women's rights including access to education, health and violence against women under Article 8 in the pervasive culture of impunity in both with regard to past abuses remain an overall decline in the policy and practice of democratic and human rights standards.

(2) It remains an overall decline relating to my children in the pervasive culture of impunity with regard to past abuses and those who are interested in the added value of human rights.

FUTILE EFFORTS TO ACCESS COURTS AND JURISDICTION UPDATE

STATUS OF STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS 

 

California Local, State, and Federal Cases:

DISMISSED

DISMISSED

DISMISSED 

DISMISSED

DISMISSED

Appeal Fee paid 12/7/99 CV-F-97-5994-OWW: $105.00

DISMISSED

DISMISSED 

DISMISSED

DISMISSED 

DISMISSED

COLLATERAL DAMAGES: Undetermined Amount

Oregon Local, State, and Federal Cases:

Oregon State Circuit Court, 13^th Judicial District, Klamath 

County

Judges Roxanne Osborne 

Richard Rambo 

CASE NO.:0803782CV DISMISSED

CASE NO.:0803718CV DISMISSED

CASE NO.:0804232CV DISMISSED

Cameron Wogan CASE NO.:09-1352 DISMISSED

CASE NO.:11-464CR DISMISSED

COLLATERAL DAMAGES: Undetermined Amount

COUNTY OF MARION CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF 

OREGON

CASE NO.: NONE ASSIGNED DISMISSED

Oregon Court of Appeals 

 

CASE NO.: A149568 DISMISSED

CASE NO.: A145734 DISMISSED

 

Oregon Supreme Court 

 

CASE NO.: 8058661

Oregon Federal District Court:

CASE NO.: 10CV3062-CL DISMISSED

CASE NO.: 11-3062-CL DISMISSED

CASE NO.: 1:12-cv-01767-CL DISMISSED

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:

CASE NO.: 98-16415

CASE NO.: 98-16672

CASE NO.: 98-16673

CASE NO.: 08-16561 DISMISSED

CASE NO.: 11-35438 DISMISSED

COLLATERAL DAMAGES: Undetermined Amount

TIME FRAME IN CURRENT CASE

September 2012: I complained to landlord about the individual and his noise all night long and about the water spicket he burst all over my carport I was constructing.

September 22-23 2012: Complained to police about the individual's drug addict friends glaring at me. One came to my door twice with a ruse. Loitering guests

November 4, 2012: Cosma asked individual to please not park in her area because she would be blocked in.

November 5, 2012, at approximately 8:30 a.m.: Individual deliberately parked in the area not permitted to park in. Around 2:30 pm – 3:30 pm, the person plaintiff hired arrived and individual's vehicle was still in the way. The individual deliberately chained his pickup to the salvage and wrecked motor home. I waved down Klamath County Sheriff Webber to report that the individual's truck was deliberately chained to his RV when parked in my area.

February 21, 2013: Landlord ordered that individual and Steve's son-in-law, Brandon Love, tear down an old wrecked RV no longer in operation. In the process of this job, they spewed wood, nails, other debris and metal material all over the round about where tenants drive through.

February 25, 2013: I needed to drive my van over to feed my horses others are entitled to enjoy but me. Fearing I would be unable to repark my vehicle when returning, I called the police for them to witness the debris spewed in the driveway. Nails and other material would inflict further damage to my vehicle. The individual knows I do not have reverse in my van and he targets this vulnerability to harass me (The reverse kick down band has disengaged). Regardless, if he remembers or not. All of us use the driveway for a turn around.

March 8, 2013: Individual put his sleeping bag on my fence line. I asked him to remove it.

March 9, 2013: Individual put a phallic looking material in the driveway. Called the police. Reported this to landlord.

March 14, 2013: Individual tried to assault me with his truck. AGAIN contacted the police. I told the police that I was told he did not have a valid driver's license, insurance, or registration. The police told me they would be aware for his truck and enforce vehicle laws. To date, the individual drives it around, mostly at night. Very noisy like no muffler.

Proof of Services

I, Kini Cosma, declare I am a resident of the County of Klamath, State of Oregon. I am

a competent person 18 years of age or older. I AM A PARTY to or attorney in this proceeding. I certify that the person, firm, or corporation served is the identical one named in this action.

On the day of __________________________, 20________ , I personally deposited a true copy of the:

at the United States Postal Service, via first class mail, in a sealed envelope, postage

prepaid, addressed to the party (Defendant(s)-Respondent(s) to be served, at the party’s business address listed:

JELD-WEN Foundation and Executive Director: Robert Kingzett Klamath Falls Office: 3250 Lakeport Boulevard Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Phone: (541) 880-2185

Jeld-Wen Inc 1500 SW 1st Ave Ste 1100 Portland OR 97201

Jeld-Wen Foundation 3737 Lakeport Blvd Klamath Falls (541) 882-3451

1 The police later refused to provide this individual's name indicating it was “private”

2 Retaliation: ORS § 90.385

3This uninhabitable property is so disgustingly filthy, plaintiff's friends won't come by to check up on her