Lots of evidence that firemen from that station were going to the drug parties, if they were going there they had to be taking drugs and having sex with them, that's what they do in those drug parties.Fire station
472 feet from ghost ship
Who has sex with drugs? That's just wierd....
East Bay Times said:Vella and Oddie allegedly wanted Keimach to pick Domenick Weaver, a union leader and an Alameda fire captain. Instead, she picked Edmond Rodriguez, the chief of the Salinas Fire Department, saying he was more qualified.
The charter puts all hiring decisions for key personnel in the hands of the city manager. Council interference is prohibited and can be grounds for removal from office.
Rodriguez will start work Nov. 13. He takes over from Doug Long, who is retiring after serving as chief since 2015.
The chief’s job pays about $265,000 annually.
In an Oct. 2 letter to the council, or the day before announcing that Rodriguez was her pick, Keimach said she was subjected to “unseemly” and “intense and unrelenting” pressure to go with the candidate who was favored by the local firefighters union.
She also said her job evaluation had been continually postponed since March, a delay that she said made it appear as if a positive evaluation hinged on who she selected as chief.
Kern said her goal is to have an outside investigator identified by the end of this week to review Keimach’s allegations.
While Kern said she would recommend that Keimach’s job evaluation again get postponed until after the investigation, Kern also said it was up to the council to decide whether to go forward with it.¹
I always wondered what they did at those parties!
East Bay Times said:OAKLAND — Oakland may have had a duty to enforce building and fire codes at the Ghost Ship warehouse, according to a significant court ruling that could eventually leave the city liable for 36 deaths in the horrific Dec. 2 fire.
The Nov. 8 decision by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman pierces through broad immunities protecting California cities from civil lawsuits in which workers botched inspections of a building or failed to perform the inspection at all.
In his tentative ruling, Seligman cited the allegations by attorneys for the families of the victims and said their civil lawsuit “exhaustively” documented the dangerous conditions of the Fruitvale district artist collective:
“The plaintiffs allege the city ‘knew in advance’ of the fire of various unpermitted uses and dangers, including a ‘likely risk of fire’ and that ‘in the evert (sic) of a fire occupants of the building were likely to die or suffer serious bodily injury due to the many violations of mandated building codes and safety provisions, all of which the city was aware of and required to enforce at all relevant times,’” Seligman wrote.
Stay up to date on East Bay news by downloading our mobile app for free. Get it from the Apple app store or the Google Play store.
The ruling wasn’t on the merits of the plaintiffs’ complaint but overruled a demurrer filed by the city of Oakland in opposition to the lawsuit. The judge said at this point, all allegations have to be considered until the facts of the case are argued. City spokeswoman Karen Boyd referred questions to the City Attorney’s Office, which did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Records show Oakland police, firefighters and building inspectors visited the warehouse before the December inferno, sometimes going inside the labyrinth-like collective stuffed with pianos and a maze of extension cords where more than 20 people illegally lived.¹
Another thing you have to take into consideration is California has "comparative liability", an old high school buddy made case law and didn't even know it, he was unconscious in a hospital throughout the legal proceedings, he recovered and I later saw him at a school reunion and told him about it.
The facts were: He was living in the mountains and took his girlfriend to a bar one evening, they both got drunk but someone determined that he was more drunk than she was so it was decided that she drive home. She had few assets and only had legal minimum insurance (I think$35,000) and drove through a barricade on a winding mountain road, she was relatively unscathed but he was seriously injured, the jury came back with her 98% liable, the barricade manufacturer 1% liable, and the county also 1% liable for lack of maintenance on the road, her insurance company tendered policy limits, the barricade manufacturer tendered policy limits, so the county was stuck for the rest of the judgment, many millions for his injuries even though they were only found to be 1% liable, that's comparative liability for you, the one with the money pays.
I would agree with fatboy that this would be difficult to prove in this situation. I'm glad it's not me. We went from having multiple lawsuits per year to not having one in the 7 years I've worked for my department. I'd like very much to keep that up.