The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07 CONSIDERTION OF CLAIM OF EDWARD REZEK, CLAIM NO. 10-05Agenda Item ~ 7 Reviewed: AGENDA ~,EPORT City Manager i ~• .~s~"' Finance Director N/A MEETING DATE: JULY 6, 2010 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: KRISTI RECCHIA, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CLAIM OF EDWARD REZEK, CLAIM NO. 10-05 SUMMARY: The Claimant alleges that he was assaulted, battered and seized by Tustin Police Officers, and that the Tustin Police Department conspired to cover up an unlawful seizure and assault. The claimant was arrested by Tustin Police on October 15, 2009 after he was witnessed causing damage to a security vehicle. During the arrest, the claimant resisted and struggled with the Officers. Mr. Rezek complained of pain to his right arm once he was in custody. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny Claim Number 10-05, Edward Rezek, and direct Staff to send notice thereof to the Claimant. FISCAL IMPACT: None. DISCUSSION: The City's Claims Administrator has found no fault attributable to the City of Tustin in this incident. The Officers involved were acting lawfully in arresting the claimant. Additionally, the injuries sustained by the claimant were a result of his resisting/struggling with the Police Officers. Staff is recommending denial of the claim. ~~~ ~ Kristi Recchia ~ " Director of Human Resources ATTACHMENT: Copy of Claim No. 10-05 ( ~~ ~` "~ THE BECK LAW FIRM 10377 LOS ALAMITOS BOULEVARD THOMAS E. BECK LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 Tel: (562) 795-5835 Fax: (562) 795-5821 April 5, 2010 Office of the City Clerk City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Attention: City Clerk Re: Edward Rezek v. City of Tustin Date of Incident: October 23, 2009 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed herewith please find the following document ready for filing in the above-mentioned matter. 1. Claim for Damages -California Government Code Section 910 Please file, conform and return the conformed copy to this office in the self- addressed stamped envelope enclosed for your convenience. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, THE BECK LAW FIRM teb/jm Encl. Thomas E. Beck, Esq. SBN 81557 THE BECK LAW FIRM 10377 Los Alamitos Boulevard Los Alamitos, California 90720 Telephone: (562) 795-5835 Facsimile: (562) 795-5821 Email: becklaw@earthlink.net I n re EDWARD REZEK Claimant, vs. CITY OF TUSTIN, et. al Respondent. CITY OF TUSTIf~1 ORIGINAL ZQIO APR 12 A 4~ 2 3 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Calif. Govt. Code § 910 Claimant hereby make a claim against the CITY OF TUSTIN pursuant to Government Code Section 910, et. seq. (a) Claimant Name and Address: EDWARD REZEK c/o THE BECK LAW FIRM, 10377 LOS ALAMITOS BOULEVARD, LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA 90720. (b) Notices concerning this claim are to be sent to: THE BECK LAW FIRM, 10377 LOS ALAMITOS BOULEVARD, LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720. (c) Date and situs: Commencing Friday, October 23, 2009, at the District at Tustin Mall at Auld Dubliner Restaurant, 2497 Park Ave. Tustin. Claimant was assaulted, battered and seized by Tustin PD officers B. CHUPP #1069 and TURNER - 1 - #1002. Following their assault, B. CHUPP #1069, TURNER #1002 and others yet to be identified conspired to cover up the unlawful seizure and assault upon the claimant by knowingly false accusations of crimes and by suppression of witnesses favorable to the Claimant and the preparation and submission of intentionally false and misleading crime and arrest reports which resulted in the filing of criminal charges in Orange County Superior Court lOCM00225. Claimant reported the criminal misconduct against himselfto Tustin Chief of Police October 19, 2009 to no avail. Tustin PD conducted a superficial and results oriented adminstrative "investigation" into Claimant's report of criminal felony wrongdoing by Tustin PD employees and exonerated B. Chupp and Turner from appropriate responsibility for their wrongdoing. By reason of the foregoing, Claimant sustained general and special damages and required hospitalization and urgent medical treatment for broken bones and seeks punitive damages against the individual Tustin PD employees responsible for the aforesaid wrongdoing. This claim is made for deprivations of federal and California civil rights, false arrest, abuse of process, illegal searches, trespass, trespass to chattel, invasion of privacy, slander, defamation and libel, conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to maliciously prosecute, conspiracy to deprive civil rights, torts in essence via violations of California Penal Code Sections 132 (false evidence), P.C. § 146 (false arrest under color of law) and P.C. § 207 (kidnapping), P.C. § 118.1 (false crime report by peace officer), P.C. § 127 subornation ofperjury, P.C. § 145 (unlawful arrest by peace officer), P.C. § 147 (willful oppression and inhumanity to prisoner), P.C. - 2 - § 182(2)(3)(5) (criminal conspiracies), P.C. § 148.5 (false report of crime), P.C. § 132 (offering false evidence), P.C. § 133 (deceiving witnesses), P.C. § 134 (preparation of false evidence), P.C. § 135 (destroying evidence), P.C. § 136 (intimidating witnesses), P.C. § 136.1 (preventing and dissuading witnesses), P.C. §832.5 (misconduct complaint investigations required), Gov. Code § 1031 (duty to investigate hires), negligence, negligent employment, retention and supervision of peace officers; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; customs, policies, and practices ofthe City of Tustin Police Department to discourage and/or ignore civilian complaints of police misconduct, failures and refusals to impartially investigate such reports ofmisconduct in accordance with acceptable law enforcement standards, tacit and express condonation of police officer illegality, custom, practice and abuse of peace officer powers, brutality, wrongful deaths, corruption, dishonesty, a peace officer's code of silence and the refusal to report known incidents of police misconduct to the California Department of Justice. (d) Personal injuries, medical expenses, defense costs, attorneys fees and general damages to Claimants in excess of $10,000.00. (e} The identities of all possible officials involved beyond those identified in C above, are not presently known. .,,\ ' _ DATED: April 2, 2010 THOMAS E. BECK, ESQ. - 3 - PROOF OF SERVICE EDWARD REZEK v. CITY OF TUSTIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the aforesaid county, State of California; I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10377 Los Alamitos Boulevard, Los Alamitos, California 90720. On April S, 2010, I served the within CLAIM FOR DAMAGES on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Office of the City Clerk Ci of Tustin 30~Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 xx BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing corres ondence for mailing Under that practice it would be posited with U.~. postal service on that same day with postage thereon y prepaid at Los Alamitos, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal, cancellation or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY TELECOPIER: In addition to the above service byy mail or hand delivery, I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by telecopier to the addressee(s). xx (Federal/State) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on April 5, 2010, at Los Alamitos, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Stake of California that the above is true and correct. =--~ orge - 4 -