Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, June 10, 2025

Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
By Harry H. Rimm and
Clark A. Freeman
E
very experienced litigator knows that perjury
in civil cases is common
and too often goes unpunished. Prof. Alan Dershowitz once testified before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that “no felony is committed more frequently in
this country than the genre of
perjury and false statements.”1
Unfortunately, he may be right.

Our legal system depends on the
veracity of sworn testimony.2
Witnesses affirm or take an oath
to tell the truth. If that oath or
affirmation is to mean anything,
there must be consequences for
witnesses who violate it. When
perjury goes unpunished, it
undermines our legal system and
public confidence in that system.

We acknowledge that our adversarial judicial system is designed to correct a certain amount of
perjury. “[T]he function of trial
is to sift the truth from a mass
of contradictory evidence, and
to do so the fact finding tribunal
must hear both truthful and false
witnesses.”3 Nevertheless, judges
should not rely solely on their
ability to assess self-interested
testimony, giving it only the
weight that it deserves, or on a
jury’s ability to follow instructions
regarding witness credibility.

Current methods for punishing
dishonest witnesses—and deterring would-be perjurers—have proved inadequate. In this article,
we cover the tools that courts have
at their disposal to police witness
perjury in deposition and in-court
testimony and provide some suggestions on ways to do it better.

We note that our focus is on cases
of clear perjury. It sometimes can
be difficult to determine whether a
witness has committed perjury, as
there are many shades of gray. We
leave how to deal with mere suspicious testimony for another day.

Criminal Prosecution
Perjury is a serious crime with
harsh penalties. Under federal law,
whoever knowingly makes a false
statement under oath “in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United
States … shall be fined … or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”4 Similarly, under New York
law, giving false testimony under
oath is punishable by up to seven
years in prison.5
The threat of criminal prosecution should deter witnesses from lying under oath, but its deterrent
effect is compromised by the infrequency of prosecutions. In the one-year period beginning Oct. 1,
2009 through Sept. 30, 2010, the
latest available period in the Federal Justice Statistics Series, only .2 percent of the matters referred
to U.S. attorneys were referred for
“perjury, contempt, and intimidation” offenses, and the U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute 60.1 percent of the perjury, contempt
and intimidation cases referred to
them.6 In the year 2012, the latest
available year from the Federal
Criminal Processing Statistics,
only .36 percent of federal
criminal cases filed involved
perjury, contempt or intimidation
offenses.7 These statistics do
not indicate how many of those
prosecutions were for lying under
oath in a civil proceeding.

This is not to say that witnesses
are not prosecuted for lying under
oath at depositions or in court.

They are—both at the federal and
state levels.8 State court judges,
as well as U.S. magistrate judges,
district judges and circuit judges

SERVING THE BENCH
AND BAR SINCE 1888
Combating the Perjury Problem in Civil Litigation
WWW. NYLJ.COM
JANUARY 12, 2015
HARRY H. RIMM, a former federal prosecutor, is a
litigation partner at Sullivan & Worcester. CLARK
FREEMAN is a litigation associate at the firm.

Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
can and do refer matters to the
U.S. attorneys for investigation
and prosecution.9
Rules of Procedure
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for sanctions in a variety of situations. None of the
Rules, however, is ideally suited
for sanctioning perjury at depositions or in court.

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules
is the most obvious choice. If a
party fails to cooperate in discovery, the opposing party may seek a court order compelling the
recalcitrant party’s compliance.

If the party fails to comply, then
the aggrieved party may move
for sanctions. Possible sanctions include an adverse inference, striking a pleading, claim or defense, staying the proceeding
until compliance, dismissing the
action in whole or in part, entering a default judgment and treating non-compliance as contempt of court.

Rule 37 falls short, however, as
a tool for punishing perjury in
certain important respects. By
its terms, it deals only with discovery sanctions and seems inapplicable to misconduct at trial.

In addition, it requires a party
to defy a court order before the
court can impose sanctions.10 A
party generally does not violate
a specific court order when he or
she lies under oath.

Rule 41 of the Federal Rules provides that if a party fails to comply with the Federal Rules or a court
order, the opposing party “may
move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it.” Such a dismissal
“operates as an adjudication on the
merits.” Rule 41 would be a useful
device for punishing perjury if the
Federal Rules explicitly prohibited
witnesses from lying in depositions or on the witness stand.

Rule 11 may not be very helpful
either, as it deals primarily with
attorney representations to the
court, not perjury by witnesses.

At least one court, however, has
tried to force perjured testimony
within the scope of Rule 11.11
New York’s civil rules are better, but not perfect. Section 3126 of the CPLR provides: “If any
party … refuses to obey an order
for disclosure or willfully fails to
disclose information which the
court finds ought to have been
disclosed pursuant to this article,
the court may make such orders
with regard to the failure or
refusal as are just.” It is broader
than Rule 37 because it allows
sanctions where a court finds
that a party or witness ought to
have disclosed information, not
just where a party or witness violates a court order. Like its federal counterpart, though, it is not designed to deal specifically with
perjury. Nevertheless, New York
courts sometimes do use CPLR
§3126 to sanction perjury.12
Court’s Inherent Authority
Separate and apart from procedural rules, courts are vested with inherent authority to punish
misconduct by parties and witnesses.13 This inherent authority is the best tool that a court has
to punish and deter perjury. It is
a broad power that allows a court
to impose a variety of sanctions,
including dismissal of an action,
in situations not covered by any
rule. While isolated instances
of perjury may not warrant
dismissal, “when a party lies
to the court and his adversary
intentionally, repeatedly, and
about issues that are central to
the truth-finding process, it can
fairly be said that he has forfeited
his right to have his claim decided
on the merits.”14
That a court’s inherent authority is broad and ill-defined is both a strength and a weakness.
“Because the[] [inherent] powers
spring from the very function of
the court, they ‘are shielded from
direct democratic controls, [and]
must be exercised with restraint
and discretion.’”15
Perjury in Criminal Proceedings
Interestingly, there are more
mechanisms for policing perjury
in the criminal context. For example, “Sentencing Guideline 3C1.1 provides for a two-level increase
in the offense level if a defendant
willfully obstructed or impeded,
or attempted to obstruct or
impede, the administration of justice. An example of obstructive conduct is committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury.”16 Agreements between the government and a defendant or a witness contain provisions subjecting the latter to penalties for perjury. Plea agreements typically allow the government to JANUARY 12, 2015
Harry H. Rimm and Clark A.

Freeman of Sullivan & Worcester
discuss tools that courts have at
their disposal to police witness
perjury in deposition and incourt testimony and provide some suggestions on ways to do
it better.

Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
seek an enhancement for a defendant’s obstruction of justice in accordance with U.S.S.G. §3C1.1.

Proffer agreements provide protection to a defendant or witness for statements made, except in
connection with a prosecution
for perjury. A Financial Affidavit
for appointed counsel in federal
court must be signed under penalty of perjury. Finally, the first question asked by the court at a
guilty plea—following a defendant
being sworn in—is whether the
defendant understands that he is
now under oath and that any false
statements given might result in a
prosecution for perjury.

Possible Improvements
The lack of more measures in
the civil litigation context is surprising given the importance of oral testimony in our legal system. It is time to consider new ways to reduce the incidence of
perjury. To accomplish that goal,
every player in the system—
judges, prosecutors, counsel and
the parties themselves—must be
vigilant and take increased care
to prevent and correct perjury
whenever possible. In addition,
new procedural rules are needed.

Judges at all levels of the federal
and state judiciaries should refer
more cases to increase the deterrent effect inherent in prosecutions. Prosecutors must continue to investigate these referrals and
pursue more prosecutions. To
increase resources available for
such prosecutions, U.S. attorneys, the state attorney general and district attorneys might
consider, for example, allowing
their colleagues from within their
offices’ civil divisions to assist, at
the very least, with perjury investigations, if not the prosecutions themselves.

Another option is to create a
panel to investigate and report
on cases of suspected perjury in
order to assist courts in determining whether to impose sanctions or to assist prosecutors in deciding whether to prosecute.

Lawyer disciplinary committees
provide one example of how such
a committee could be structured.

Each of the Second Circuit, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Departments of the New York
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, has a lawyer disciplinary committee. In the First Department, the committee is comprised of lawyers and non-lawyers, all
of whom are appointed by the
First Department. The committee
receives complaints and investigates them in multiple phases, occasionally with formal hearings. If the committee determines that sanctions are warranted, it
drafts a report and recommendation and refers the matter to the First Department for consideration.

A committee for investigating
perjury could operate in similar
fashion. It could investigate and
report on cases upon referral
from a court. Committee members could be appointed by the courts and/or by one or more bar
associations. There is some precedent for such a committee; the New York City Bar Association
and the Federal Bar Council collaborated some years ago to work on a Joint Committee on Judicial Conduct that received and investigated complaints about
alleged improper conduct of federal judges. While an investigative committee admittedly could create problems of its own, the
potential obstacles are not insurmountable.

Another option is to form something akin to the Criminal Justice Act Panel—a panel of attorneys
who could be called upon to
assist with perjury investigations
and/or prosecutions. Appointing
these attorneys would allow prosecutors to pursue more perjury cases than they can with their
current resources. While there
might be a problem with this idea
at the federal level due to Department of Justice regulations, there would be fewer impediments at
the state level. In fact, the New
York County District Attorney’s
Office currently has a program
through which practicing attorneys are deputized as special assistant district attorneys to
prosecute criminal appeals on a
pro bono basis.

Counsel, while being mindful
of Rule 3.4 of the New York Rules
of Professional Conduct (prohibiting threats of criminal prosecution solely in order to obtain an advantage in a civil matter)
and 28 U.S.C. §1927 (prohibiting
vexatious multiplication of proceedings), could use existing procedural rules more effectively by bringing clear perjury from deposition testimony to a court’s attention. Counsel also must carefully prepare parties and witnesses so
that they are more likely not to
give false testimony.

New procedural rules also are
needed. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure could contain a
rule that specifically addresses
JANUARY 12, 2015
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
perjury during discovery and in
court. Such a rule would codify,
but not replace, the court’s inherent authority. It would define more clearly the authority of the
court and impose a measure of
control that would free the court
from some of the restraint it necessarily must exercise in acting under its inherent power.

To that end, the rule could lay
out the procedures and burden
of proof to find perjury, as well as
the available sanctions. The procedural protections would vary with the severity of the sanctions,
and the severity of the sanctions
would vary with the materiality
of the false statements and the
extent of the witness’s wrongdoing. The rule also could provide for a formal fee shifting mechanism, whereby a losing party that has committed perjury may be
required to pay some or all of the
opposing party’s costs and attorney fees.

Conclusion
Maintaining the effectiveness
of and the citizenry’s confidence
in our system of justice is critical. To that end, the Second Circuit recently announced a
program of public engagement
and civic education designed to
bring its constituencies into the
Circuit’s courthouses to educate
them about the justice system,
to share ideas for improving the
administration of justice in the
federal courts and to empower
them as citizens to support the
federal judiciary. Reducing perjury and punishing those who opt to do it is an important part
of securing public support and
engagement.

Endnotes:

1. Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Dec. 1, 1998.

2. McMunn v. Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 191 F. Supp. 2d 440, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

3. In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224,
227-28 (1945).

4. 18 U.S.C. §1623; see also 18
U.S.C. §§1621-22.

5. NY Penal Law §§70.00, 210.15.

6. Mark Motivans, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics, 2010—Statistical
Tables 9, 11 (2013), available
at http://www.bjs.gov/index.
cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4861.

7. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Federal Justice Statistics Program, http://www.bjs.gov/fjsrc/ (search run Dec. 15, 2014).

8. See, e.g., United States v. Kross,
14 F.3d 751, 752 (2d Cir. 1994);
People v. Weiss, 99 A.D.3d 1035,
1037-40 (3d Dep’t 2012).

9. State: see, e.g., Carroll v. Gammerman, 193 A.D.2d 202, 206 (1st Dep’t 1993); Riverbay v. Houston,
L&T 8785/08, 2009 WL 921355, at
*5 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. April 2, 2009); see
also Argent Mortg. v. Mentesana,
No. 25828/2004, 2009 WL 1110635,
at *4 (N.Y. Sup. April 17, 2009).

Federal: see, e.g., Negrete v. Nat’l
R.R. Passenger, 547 F.3d 721, 722
(7th Cir. 2008) (circuit panel);
United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d
748, 750 (2d Cir. 1999) (district
judge); Ades v. 57th St. Laser Cosmetica, No. 11 CIV. 8800 (KNF), 2013 WL 2449185, at *13 (S.D.N.Y.

June 6, 2013) (magistrate judge).

10. See, e.g., McMunn, 191 F.

Supp. 2d at 442.

11. See, e.g., Bower v. Weisman,
674 F. Supp. 109, 112 (S.D.N.Y.
1987).

12. See, e.g., 317 W. 87 Assocs. v.

Dannenberg, 159 A.D.2d 245, 245-
46 (1st Dep’t 1990).

13. CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen,
23 N.Y.3d 307, 318 (2014) (citing
Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 227
(1821)).

14. McMunn, 191 F. Supp. 2d at
445.

15. Bower, 674 F. Supp. at 112
(quoting Roadway Exp. v Piper,
447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980)); Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991).

16. United States v. Armstrong,
620 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt.
n.4(b)) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted); United
States v. Salim, 549 F.3d 67, 73-75
(2d Cir. 2008).

JANUARY 12, 2015
Reprinted with permission from the January 12, 2015 edition of the NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL © 2022 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-256-2472 or [email protected]. # NYLJ-7062022-552667 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Gmail - Officer DelCrognale #3770 Cover Up 1131 14th Street unit 8 RENT CONTROL 2/14/25, 2:49 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=a…gid=msg-a:r2144755951890140800&simpl=msg-a:r2144755951890140800 Page 1 of 2 Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Officer DelCrognale #3770 Cover Up 1131 14th Street unit 8 RENT CONTROL Zoe <[email protected]> Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:48 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Manju <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Chief Batista, Lieutenant Flores and Members of the SMPSOC, As you are aware I have been dealing with landlord harassment since December of 2021. LAst week it escalated to battery assault at the hands of Marty Kaplan and identity theft by her and her attorney Avraham Sinai. After collecting some of my winter wardrobe I left my apartment and was told I could request a police report when I return from my trip to the east coast. I left confi=dent that that was going to be the case. Today I received an electronic communication that there was no report. I have video from the lawyer of the property owner telling the officer, there will be no report because there was no crime.

The day of the incident I called the SMPD to deploy an officer to the location. I believe I mentioned the assault, I have video of the battery assault. I was looking forward to sharing the video for the investigation. However I find myself facing the pattern of cover up that plagued the SMPD in the case of EWric Uller. That is plain negligence that exposes the city to litigation. I am writing to give the SMPD the opportunity to correct a wrong, also to alert of the lack of appropriate training for Landlord/Tenant cases. This is what started me into civic life for a very similar incident in December 2011 to March 2012 at a different unit that exposed the city to litigation and embarrassment.

Officer Del Crognale and Officer Chabon showed up, because I called them. There is a record of that. The body cameras were turned on. The videos me and my witness took that day are being turned over to SMPD Officer Prosser for his investigation of 23-114378. Nevertheless Officer Del Crognale needs disciplinary intervention if he refuses to write a report and turn the body camera footage. I called Brigette Garay from the City Attorney's Office when this c=was taking place. This goes against the Santa Monica Rent Control Agency and the tenant harassment protections from the Office of Consumer Protections.

Where is law enforcement letting this slide when there is a history and precedent of violent behavior and lack of intervention from the Santa Monica Police. I find that alarming given the fact I was assaulted, I have a disability, and I have video of the incident. There is a battery report against the property owner Marty Kaplan, and data theft from all my documents and identity records that have been stolen by the lawyer (Avraham Sinai), who SMPD officers interviewed. The body cameras were on. How do I get the footage of the body cameras? How do I get the email of Officer Del Crognale Badge #3770 if he refused to write on? Kindly reply; thank you.

Zoё Muntaner
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear?"- Tao Te Ching IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed to and may contain privileged and confidential information. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it safely, Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Gmail - Officer DelCrognale #3770 Cover Up 1131 14th Street unit 8 RENT CONTROL 2/14/25, 2:49 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=…gid=msg-a:r2144755951890140800&simpl=msg-a:r2144755951890140800 Page 2 of 2 securely, and confidentially. Unauthorized re-disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this message from your computer.

Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Follow-Up Regarding Returned Sole 24 Electric Bike
Zoe <[email protected]> Wed, May 28, 2025 at 5:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Also note that in an article published by Voyage LA on January 8, 2017, Kitty Monsalud said on the record:
"Our mechanics and salespeople do not sell you the most expensive bike in the shop. We look at what you really need and make sure you have no buyer’s remorse later on." This is a flat out lie. I specifically asked for a bike I could use everyday and with an adjustable saddle. That was not the case. When I visited the shop to tell them the saddle didn't adjust, it was when they told me the bike is designed more as a moped for short rides and not for long rides.

Kindly adjust the price to reflect the full refund. Thank you. [Quoted text hidden]
--
Zoё Muntaner
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear?"- Tao Te Ching IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed to and may contain privileged and confidential information. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it safely, securely, and confidentially. Unauthorized re-disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this message from your computer. 5/28/25, 4:47 PM Gmail - Fwd: Your bike exchange
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-8119763826918207864&simpl=msg-a:r-8119763826918207864 1/1 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Follow-Up Regarding Returned Sole 24 Electric Bike
Zoe <[email protected]> Wed, May 28, 2025 at 5:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected] I received a letter from Deputy City Attorney Romy Ganshaw today. My reply is clear, the investigation from the Santa Monica City Attorney Consumer Protection Unit did not evaluate state law that should be enforced. The letter contains some inaccuracies. Bike Attack is not charging a restocking fee. The email sent by Kit Monsalud says usage fee. They are charging for a usage fee, and that was not included in the sale tag or the receipt.

In California, usage fees, often referred to as surcharges or junk fees, are now largely prohibited under Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) and its amendment, SB 1524. This law requires businesses to include all mandatory fees in the advertised price, meaning what a customer sees is what they pay. Beginning July 1, 2024, the “Honest Pricing Law” or “Hidden Fees Statute,” SB 478, which was recently amended by SB 1524, makes it illegal for most businesses to advertise or list a price for a good or service that does not include all required fees or charges other than certain government taxes and shipping costs. SB 478 is a price transparency bill. The statute does not change what price a business can charge or what may be included in that price. The law simply requires that the price listed include all mandatory charges. Look at the bicycle sales tag from bike attack, there was ro usage fee included. Put simply, the price a Californian sees should be the price they pay. Kindly look at attachment and reconsider the legal interpretation of your assessment. Do you consider that "good faith" ? It does not look as if Ms. Kit Monsalud understands California law.

Thank you.
[Quoted text hidden]
5 attachments
Bike Attack Tag.HEIC
1680K
Bike Attack Price.HEIC
1458K
Kit Monsalud email reply.pdf
114K
Bike Attack USAGE? Fee?.pdf
108K
6/10/25, 11:57 AM Gmail - Follow-Up Regarding Returned Sole 24 Electric Bike https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r2822637135465055428&simpl=msg-a:r2822637135465055428 1/2 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Bike Attack reply to usage fee.pdf
166K
6/10/25, 11:57 AM Gmail - Follow-Up Regarding Returned Sole 24 Electric Bike https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r2822637135465055428&simpl=msg-a:r2822637135465055428 2/2 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Gmail - Automatic reply: SM Community Corp 2/11/25, 4:54 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=…gid=msg-a:r1564880698075376881&simpl=msg-a:r1564880698075376881 Page 1 of 2 Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Automatic reply: SM Community Corp
Zoe <[email protected]> Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 3:40 PM
To: Brigette Garay <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Brigette Garay
Santa Monica City Attorney's Office
Consumer Protection Unit
Senior Legal Analyst/Investigator
Ms. Garay,
I was not able to leave the letter with the City Attorney's office receptionist yesterday but will do it later today. By your email I noticed that you were not in the office yesterday but will be in the City Hall offices today.

It was brought to my attention that you are willfully delaying the investigation in an attempt to protect Sean Besser from the consequences of his actions and breaking the law. Last night I attended the Ocean Park Association meeting where he is president of the local neighborhood association where I live. I sat next to Gina Cabeza Cifuentes for the duration of the meeting. As I listened to Halima Barreto (Crime Prevention Coordinator) presentation of the reported crime in the neighborhood I noticed that the incident I reported was not included.

Last night I emailed her and cc. Chief Ramón Batista to let them know. Councilmember Ellis Raskin attended the meeting. As you know the President of this particular neighborhood association in Santa Monica is being investigated by the Santa Monica Rent Control, Code Enforcement Unit and CONSUMER PROTECTION UNIT of the City Attorney's Office where you are leading the investigation for Tenant Harassment and violations to the short term rentals ordinance.

Let;'s face it, the facts point that all three complaints have been willfully delayed to protect Sean Besser and his wife Dr. SAMANTHA BESSER, a board certified endodontist who practices at Personal Dental Office in who trespassed my apartment, refused to identify herself when asked what she was doing in the apartment and called me ttrash as she drove away in a blue Tesla Motors vehicle. If it was the other way around I would have been arrested and charged for a hate crime and antisemitism.

As of today none of them have been arrested or charged. I have reported the crime, city officials know about the incident. Both of the Besser's are white and jewish. Remember when Fey Wells' neighbor called 911 over a suspected break in to her own apartment and 19 armed cops showed up to her door? Ms. Wells is a black media executive graduate from Dartmouth Tuck Business School. Also remember the Santa Monica Police arrested me for entering my own apartment in 500 California Avenue Unit 12 in March of 2011. The Santa Monica City Attorney's office charged me for trespassing my own apartment without doing any legal research, exposing the city to major litigation for discrimination. The case was dismissed when the Public Defender representing me, Cathy Pattinson, showed the court that I was the legal tenant of the unit. On top of that I had a Temporary Restraining Order against Elizabeth Craig SS021907, when I was assaulted by Craig and her friends at my apartment. Craig broke into the unit after she moved out and the locks were changed. The Santa Monica Police Department was called, officers showed up to the Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Gmail - Automatic reply: SM Community Corp 2/11/25, 4:54 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=…gid=msg-a:r1564880698075376881&simpl=msg-a:r1564880698075376881 Page 2 of 2 apartment and left Craig in possession of the unit even though she voluntarily moved out a month before. All my possessions, food, money, jewelry, and rest of the items I had were destroyed or stolen. That night I had to go to Saint John's Hospital for medical care and was diagnosed with a concussion. Yet, Santa Monica officials decided to treat me like a second class citizen, they never filed charges against Elizabeth Craig, or Pat Cramer. Cramer was behind the orchestration of the strategy to get me out of the unit without a proper legal eviction process. Pat Cramer has political influence in the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Courthouse because he is a long time resident and the biggest owner of private real estate housing in the city. Both Craig and Cramer are white.

Are you sure you need anything else from me to get an arrest and file charges or are you pretending to do an investigation to appease me? It seems like the latter. I would like this email to be included as part of tonight's City Council Agenda packet and discussion on Item 12 on Safety. Last night a member of the OPA publicly said that the city of Santa Monica is "broke". I don't know about the finances of the city, but I know you keep exposing the city to litigation that can break the financial stability and ability to pay for community services residents pay in taxes to this city.

Arrest Sean Besser's wife today, otherwise you leave me no other alternative than filing a claim against the City Attorney's Office tomorrow. To be fair let the Santa Monica Daily Press know of the arrest in order for them to include it in their column like they include mine in 2011. Also a mugshot is necessary, I went through the same indignity and trauma.

Kindly reply, thank you.
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Zoё Muntaner
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear?"- Tao Te Ching IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed to and may contain privileged and confidential information. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it safely, securely, and confidentially. Unauthorized re-disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this message from your computer.

Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Gmail - Code Enforcement Violation-Co Living (hostel) on 643 Pacific Street 2/6/25, 3:38 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=a…gid=msg-a:r6186611093547527003&simpl=msg-a:r6186611093547527003 Page 1 of 1 Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Code Enforcement Violation-Co Living (hostel) on 643 Pacific Street Zoe <[email protected]> Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:00 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected] Hi Daniel & Armando,
Again I have a problem with a Landlord. Mika from Rent Control told me to make a report for a Code Enforcement violation. The building is located on 643 Pacific Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405. They are operating a Co-living Space without a license ( akin to a hostel). One of the owners is an attorney and board member from the Ocean Park Neighborhood Association.

Mika said that short-term rental co-living spaces are not legal in the city. I spoke to Oscar de La Torre two weeks ago and he told me I was correct. You should send an inspector to the building. How should I proceed? Kindly reply; thank you.

Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Your Consumer Complaint
Zoe <[email protected]> Wed, May 28, 2025 at 5:04 PM
To: Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>
Ms. Ganshow,
The letter contains some inaccuracies. Bike Attack is not charging a restocking fee. The email sent by Kit Monsalud says usage fee. They are charging for a usage fee, and that was not included in the sale or the receipt. In California, usage fees, often referred to as surcharges or junk fees, are now largely prohibited under Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) and its amendment, SB 1524. This law requires businesses to include all mandatory fees in the advertised price, meaning what a customer sees is what they pay.

Beginning July 1, 2024, the “Honest Pricing Law” or “Hidden Fees Statute,” SB 478, which was recently amended by SB 1524, makes it illegal for most businesses to advertise or list a price for a good or service that does not include all required fees or charges other than certain government taxes and shipping costs. SB 478 is a price transparency bill. The statute does not change what price a business can charge or what may be included in that price. The law simply requires that the price listed include all mandatory charges. Look at the bicycle sales tag from bike attack, there was ro usage fee included.

Put simply, the price a Californian sees should be the price they pay. Kindly look at attachment and reconsider the legal interpretation of your assessment.

Thank you.
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Zoё Muntaner
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear?"- Tao Te Ching IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed to and may contain privileged and confidential information. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it safely, securely, and confidentially. Unauthorized re-disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this message from your computer. 5 attachments
Bike Attack Tag.HEIC
1680K
6/10/25, 11:58 AM Gmail - Your Consumer Complaint
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r4155190064589793453&simpl=msg-a:r4155190064589793453 1/2 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Bike Attack Price.HEIC
1458K
Bike Attack USAGE? Fee?.pdf
108K
Bike Attack reply to usage fee.pdf
166K
Kit Monsalud email reply.pdf
114K
6/10/25, 11:58 AM Gmail - Your Consumer Complaint
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r4155190064589793453&simpl=msg-a:r4155190064589793453 2/2 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Your Consumer Complaint
Romy Ganschow <[email protected]> Wed, May 28, 2025 at 8:39 PM To: Zoe <[email protected]>
Ms. Muntaner,
Civil Code 1770(a)(29), as amended by SB 478, makes it unlawful to advertise, display, or offer a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than taxes or postage. A fee to process the return of a used item, whether referred to as a stocking fee, usage fee, or something else, is not a mandatory fee for that item since it is only charged if the customer chooses to return the item. Therefore, SB 478 does not apply to this situation.

Romy Ganschow
Chief Deputy City Attorney
Consumer Protection Unit
City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310) 458-8348
[email protected]
santamonica.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458-8336) and delete the original message.

Thank you.

From: Zoe <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 5:40 PM
To: Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Your Consumer Complaint
6/10/25, 11:59 AM Gmail - Your Consumer Complaint
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1833424639665014086&simpl=msg-f:1833424639665014086 1/2 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025

EXTERNAL
[Quoted text hidden]
6/10/25, 11:59 AM Gmail - Your Consumer Complaint
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1833424639665014086&simpl=msg-f:1833424639665014086 2/2 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Your Consumer Complaint
Zoe <[email protected]> Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:33 PM
To: Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>
Working late Ms. Ganshow,
That is your interpretation of the law, not what the law is designed to do. Once again there is no usage fee allowed. It was not presented to me at the time of sale.

The fact is that the article in the LA Voyage I sent you establishes that good faith was not applied to the sale. The reference article quotes Kitty Monsalud: "Our mechanics and salespeople do not sell you the most expensive bike in the shop. We look at what you really need and make sure you have no buyer’s remorse later on." I did not have buyers remorse, her sales staff did not make sure to sell me what I needed. An Instagram post about this transaction has already garnered the attention and support of residents and bike experts. 55 like, love and care reactions, and 31 comments. A former Commissioner at Bicycling, Transportation, and Street Safety Commission, City of Davis wrote that no adjustable saddle is unconscionable in a bicycle. He furthered his support writing: that has the ergonomics or form of a motorcycle, which makes no sense on something that requires muscle power. At the same price point you can get an Aventon from a bricks and mortar shop in your area, which will also provide support, something which is generally needed a bit more with electric assist bikes.

I am confused. Are you defending and enabling business and people like Sean Besser and Maureen Morris who steal from the city by not paying the fees and breaking laws, or consumers. I would think that the Consumer Protection Unit of the Santa Monica City Attorney's office is supposed to protect Consumers, right? Correct me if I am wrong.

Please reconsider your interpretation of the law which is designed to protect consumers, not unscrupulous businesses.

Otherwise I would have to file a claim against the city for not protecting consumer rights. I am kindly requesting to stop wasting my time and act with integrity.

That is not a good faith transaction.
[Quoted text hidden]
6/10/25, 11:56 AM Gmail - Follow-Up Regarding Returned Sole 24 Electric Bike https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3b31a130d8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-3490888118466559770&simpl=msg-a:r-3490888118466559770 1/1 Item 1
June 10, 2025
Item 1
June 10, 2025
Zoë Muntaner <[email protected]>
Follow-Up Regarding Returned Sole 24 Electric Bike
Zoe <[email protected]> Wed, May 28, 2025 at 5:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected] I received a letter from Deputy City Attorney Romy Ganshaw today. My reply is clear, the investigation from the Santa Monica City Attorney Consumer Protection Unit did not evaluate state law that should be enforced. The letter contains some inaccuracies. Bike Attack is not charging a restocking fee. The email sent by Kit Monsalud says usage fee. They are charging for a usage fee, and that was not included in the sale tag or the receipt.