|
Media Coverage of Teresa Li
|
Teresa Li Interviewed by Record Searchlight
July 2, 2018
Former IASCO student: 'I believe I can find the real justice in America'Amber SandhuUpdated 10:08 a.m. PT July 2, 2018Xunyi "Max" Zhang, a former IASCO Flight School student, said he was relieved charges were filed against two staff members accused of kidnapping a former student. Amber Sandhu/Record Searchlight
Two Chinese flight students in Redding faced a harrowing experience a month ago when they were nearly sent back to China against their will. It ultimately led to the arrest of two Redding flight school employees who now face kidnapping and other criminal charges.
In a story that made national headlines after they spoke publicly about what happened to them, Tianshu "Chris" Shi, 21, and Xunyi “Max” Zhang, 24, have both retained lawyers and say they want justice.
Teresa Li, a San Francisco attorney representing Shi, said her client is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming not only from the May 25 confrontation with the two IASCO Flight Training officials but also the manner in which he was treated during classes at the flight school.
During the alleged kidnapping that Friday in May, police said Jonathan Lipton McConkey, the IASCO Flight Training general manager, and Kelsi Caylyn Hoser, the school's director of administration and secretary, threatened Shi and forcibly tried to deport him.
Zhang, who was with Shi in the van bound for Redding Municipal Airport, went to police after McConkey and Hoser's arrests to report a similar problem. Hoser had told him to stay quiet about what he had seen or he would go to jail, according to the police report.
The pair are charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment by violence and first-degree residential burglary.
That first-degree burglary charge stems from the pair allegedly entering Shi's home unlawfully with the intent to commit a felony.
McConkey, 48, also is individually charged with making criminal threats, while Hoser, 50, is separately charged with preventing or dissuading a witness or victim from reporting a crime.
IASCO general manager Jonathan McConkey, left, is shown Friday in Shasta County Superior Court with his co-defendant, Kelsi Hoser, far right, and their attorneys, John Runfola and Naomi Chung. (Photo: Amber Sandhu/Record Searchlight)
Zhang was present for the arraignment of McConkey and Hoser. Following their brief appearance on Friday at Shasta Superior Court, Zhang said he is prepared to return to China but intends to see the kidnapping case make its way through the courts.
“I want to solve all of this while in America, not in China,” Zhang said. “I’m really happy that the prosecutor finally filed a case. I believe I can find the real justice in America and what happened to me (those) two days ... I don’t think I should be treated in that way. And I’m really happy to be looking forward to what happens next.”
Zhang is represented by Redding attorney Brandon Storment.
Since last month, Zhang has continued to stay in Redding. He can no longer attend the school since his contract with Xiamen Airlines, a company that was sponsoring him to attend school, was terminated. He's also been ordered to return to China by mid-July.
Storment said they don’t officially know the status of Zhang’s visa, but they did express to Xiamen Airlines that it’s important Zhang stay in the country to see the case to completion.
“He’s a victim of a serious crime and needs to stay to participate in the criminal justice system,” Storment said.
Chico attorney Sergio Garcia commented in May that foreigners living in or visiting the U.S. who become crime victims or are witnesses and also are cooperating with law enforcement can get a U visa to participate in legal proceedings.
Zhang said his parents are worried about him, but they know he has a lawyer.
Storment said that Zhang doesn’t have ulterior motives to stay in the country.
“He has a fiancé and family in China,” Storment said.
Prior to the incident on May 25, both Shi and Zhang were “grounded,” a term used in flight school when they are unable to fly or train.
John Runfola, a lawyer representing Jonathan McConkey general manager at IASCO Flight School in Redding, said his client did not kidnap a flight school student from China, as police have alleged.
John Runfola, who represents McConkey, disputes the abduction charges and said the whole case was a setup. Rather, he has said McConkey and Hoser were taking Shi to the airport for a flight home to China because he flunked his classes and his visa had expired. He since has added Zhang was a “school washout.”
Hoser’s lawyer Naomi Chung said it was the first time she’d seen a witness come to court with a lawyer.
Shi did not attend the arraignment.
Two top officials with the IASCO Flight School in Redding were arraigned Friday on kidnapping and other felonies. Redding Record Searchlight
Li said Shi and his mother, who flew out from China shortly after the alleged incident, are no longer in Redding.
She did not elaborate where they are both staying, but maintains the May 25 occurrence trails a period of "emotional abuse" Shi faced at the school.
Li alleges that during a training exercise, an instructor yelled at Shi inches from his ear. Another time, Shi told her he was in the back seat during flight instruction and saw an instructor berate a student.
“I can teach a monkey like ten times and they’ll do better than you,” Li said Shi told him about the instructor.
Li also counters Shi was never suicidal. What he's dealing with is a diagnosis of PTSD after what she said was a long period of emotional abuse, she said.
“He’s not well. Anything reminding him of this, he starts shaking,” she said.
This image shows Redding police walking a man believed to be IASCO Flight Training general manager Jonathan McConkey. The photo was provided to the Record Searchlight by flight school student Zhang Xun Yi. (Photo: Submitted photo)
According to the police report by Redding officer Joseph Rossi, while an officer was interviewing Shi in a private room at 6701 Airway Drive, McConkey twice entered the room "seemingly for no legitimate purpose.”
In one of those instances, he “stood there for a moment looking around the room,” the report said.
Shi “sat up straight and his body tensed,” Rossi wrote in the report. He added Shi physically relaxed in the chair once McConkey left the room.
Li said Shi disclosed to her the day after the alleged kidnapping, his mother arrived to be with him.
At 10 p.m. on May 26, a white man showed up at Shi's home ready to evict him. Another man showed up at 11 p.m., Li said, ordering Shi’s mom be removed from the home. Li said the man then waited in his car monitoring them.
Shi and his mother called the police again that night.
Li provided a copy of the eviction notice, which came from IASCO Flight Training. California law states landlords must provide at least three days' notice if they intend to evict a person for being short or behind on rent, Li said.
Shi was up to date on his payments, Li said.
The following eviction notice was handed to Tianshu "Chris" Shi by IASCO Flight Training, according to Shi's lawyer, Teresa Li. (Photo: Contributed photo)
According to Redding Police Department logs, officers did go to a Wyla Walk residence at 12:44 a.m. for a “suspicious circumstances” call, and told a man near the residence to leave.
“They didn’t learn their lesson, they just kept on with the intimidation,” Li said about the school staff.
But Chung, Hoser’s lawyer, said the eviction notice, despite being made out to Shi, was intended for Shi’s mother.
“We weren’t trying to evict Chris in the middle of the night,” Chung said. “It’s a house full of men. It’s essentially a school dorm with shared bathrooms.”
Chung said some of Shi’s roommates and IASCO Flight Training staff had expressed concern that Shi’s mother was still there.
Chung said she and Runfola were also concerned of Shi’s mother's access to the roommates and her potential to tamper with the witnesses.
She was on the phone with the school staff and tried to explain the situation to the two responding officers, Chung said. But she alleges one of the officers became aggressive and angry with the school staff member.
Chung said the whole incident turned out to be a misunderstanding, and the staff member left.
For Zhang — despite attending court — he made his feelings clear about McConkey and Hoser.
“Actually, I’m still very afraid of them right now,” Zhang said.
According to Runfola, both Shi and Zhang intend to sue.
July 2, 2018
Former IASCO student: 'I believe I can find the real justice in America'Amber SandhuUpdated 10:08 a.m. PT July 2, 2018Xunyi "Max" Zhang, a former IASCO Flight School student, said he was relieved charges were filed against two staff members accused of kidnapping a former student. Amber Sandhu/Record Searchlight
Two Chinese flight students in Redding faced a harrowing experience a month ago when they were nearly sent back to China against their will. It ultimately led to the arrest of two Redding flight school employees who now face kidnapping and other criminal charges.
In a story that made national headlines after they spoke publicly about what happened to them, Tianshu "Chris" Shi, 21, and Xunyi “Max” Zhang, 24, have both retained lawyers and say they want justice.
Teresa Li, a San Francisco attorney representing Shi, said her client is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming not only from the May 25 confrontation with the two IASCO Flight Training officials but also the manner in which he was treated during classes at the flight school.
During the alleged kidnapping that Friday in May, police said Jonathan Lipton McConkey, the IASCO Flight Training general manager, and Kelsi Caylyn Hoser, the school's director of administration and secretary, threatened Shi and forcibly tried to deport him.
Zhang, who was with Shi in the van bound for Redding Municipal Airport, went to police after McConkey and Hoser's arrests to report a similar problem. Hoser had told him to stay quiet about what he had seen or he would go to jail, according to the police report.
The pair are charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment by violence and first-degree residential burglary.
That first-degree burglary charge stems from the pair allegedly entering Shi's home unlawfully with the intent to commit a felony.
McConkey, 48, also is individually charged with making criminal threats, while Hoser, 50, is separately charged with preventing or dissuading a witness or victim from reporting a crime.
IASCO general manager Jonathan McConkey, left, is shown Friday in Shasta County Superior Court with his co-defendant, Kelsi Hoser, far right, and their attorneys, John Runfola and Naomi Chung. (Photo: Amber Sandhu/Record Searchlight)
Zhang was present for the arraignment of McConkey and Hoser. Following their brief appearance on Friday at Shasta Superior Court, Zhang said he is prepared to return to China but intends to see the kidnapping case make its way through the courts.
“I want to solve all of this while in America, not in China,” Zhang said. “I’m really happy that the prosecutor finally filed a case. I believe I can find the real justice in America and what happened to me (those) two days ... I don’t think I should be treated in that way. And I’m really happy to be looking forward to what happens next.”
Zhang is represented by Redding attorney Brandon Storment.
Since last month, Zhang has continued to stay in Redding. He can no longer attend the school since his contract with Xiamen Airlines, a company that was sponsoring him to attend school, was terminated. He's also been ordered to return to China by mid-July.
Storment said they don’t officially know the status of Zhang’s visa, but they did express to Xiamen Airlines that it’s important Zhang stay in the country to see the case to completion.
“He’s a victim of a serious crime and needs to stay to participate in the criminal justice system,” Storment said.
Chico attorney Sergio Garcia commented in May that foreigners living in or visiting the U.S. who become crime victims or are witnesses and also are cooperating with law enforcement can get a U visa to participate in legal proceedings.
Zhang said his parents are worried about him, but they know he has a lawyer.
Storment said that Zhang doesn’t have ulterior motives to stay in the country.
“He has a fiancé and family in China,” Storment said.
Prior to the incident on May 25, both Shi and Zhang were “grounded,” a term used in flight school when they are unable to fly or train.
John Runfola, a lawyer representing Jonathan McConkey general manager at IASCO Flight School in Redding, said his client did not kidnap a flight school student from China, as police have alleged.
John Runfola, who represents McConkey, disputes the abduction charges and said the whole case was a setup. Rather, he has said McConkey and Hoser were taking Shi to the airport for a flight home to China because he flunked his classes and his visa had expired. He since has added Zhang was a “school washout.”
Hoser’s lawyer Naomi Chung said it was the first time she’d seen a witness come to court with a lawyer.
Shi did not attend the arraignment.
Two top officials with the IASCO Flight School in Redding were arraigned Friday on kidnapping and other felonies. Redding Record Searchlight
Li said Shi and his mother, who flew out from China shortly after the alleged incident, are no longer in Redding.
She did not elaborate where they are both staying, but maintains the May 25 occurrence trails a period of "emotional abuse" Shi faced at the school.
Li alleges that during a training exercise, an instructor yelled at Shi inches from his ear. Another time, Shi told her he was in the back seat during flight instruction and saw an instructor berate a student.
“I can teach a monkey like ten times and they’ll do better than you,” Li said Shi told him about the instructor.
Li also counters Shi was never suicidal. What he's dealing with is a diagnosis of PTSD after what she said was a long period of emotional abuse, she said.
“He’s not well. Anything reminding him of this, he starts shaking,” she said.
This image shows Redding police walking a man believed to be IASCO Flight Training general manager Jonathan McConkey. The photo was provided to the Record Searchlight by flight school student Zhang Xun Yi. (Photo: Submitted photo)
According to the police report by Redding officer Joseph Rossi, while an officer was interviewing Shi in a private room at 6701 Airway Drive, McConkey twice entered the room "seemingly for no legitimate purpose.”
In one of those instances, he “stood there for a moment looking around the room,” the report said.
Shi “sat up straight and his body tensed,” Rossi wrote in the report. He added Shi physically relaxed in the chair once McConkey left the room.
Li said Shi disclosed to her the day after the alleged kidnapping, his mother arrived to be with him.
At 10 p.m. on May 26, a white man showed up at Shi's home ready to evict him. Another man showed up at 11 p.m., Li said, ordering Shi’s mom be removed from the home. Li said the man then waited in his car monitoring them.
Shi and his mother called the police again that night.
Li provided a copy of the eviction notice, which came from IASCO Flight Training. California law states landlords must provide at least three days' notice if they intend to evict a person for being short or behind on rent, Li said.
Shi was up to date on his payments, Li said.
The following eviction notice was handed to Tianshu "Chris" Shi by IASCO Flight Training, according to Shi's lawyer, Teresa Li. (Photo: Contributed photo)
According to Redding Police Department logs, officers did go to a Wyla Walk residence at 12:44 a.m. for a “suspicious circumstances” call, and told a man near the residence to leave.
“They didn’t learn their lesson, they just kept on with the intimidation,” Li said about the school staff.
But Chung, Hoser’s lawyer, said the eviction notice, despite being made out to Shi, was intended for Shi’s mother.
“We weren’t trying to evict Chris in the middle of the night,” Chung said. “It’s a house full of men. It’s essentially a school dorm with shared bathrooms.”
Chung said some of Shi’s roommates and IASCO Flight Training staff had expressed concern that Shi’s mother was still there.
Chung said she and Runfola were also concerned of Shi’s mother's access to the roommates and her potential to tamper with the witnesses.
She was on the phone with the school staff and tried to explain the situation to the two responding officers, Chung said. But she alleges one of the officers became aggressive and angry with the school staff member.
Chung said the whole incident turned out to be a misunderstanding, and the staff member left.
For Zhang — despite attending court — he made his feelings clear about McConkey and Hoser.
“Actually, I’m still very afraid of them right now,” Zhang said.
According to Runfola, both Shi and Zhang intend to sue.
Teresa Li Interviewed by New York Times
August 2, 2017
Airbnb Sued by Guest Who Says a Host Sexually Assaulted Her
An Airbnb guest has filed a lawsuit against the company, saying it failed to do a background check that would have uncovered the previous arrest of a host who she said sexually assaulted her.
The property owner, who had earned the upper-tier status of “superhost” and had never been convicted of a crime, has said the assault never happened. Airbnb, for its part, defended its screening measures and has since barred the owner from listing on its site.
The suit arrives as Airbnb, the peer-to-peer vacation rental and hospitality site, is touting on-the-ground hosts who guide guests through customized itineraries, bringing the groups into increasing contact with one another. It also lays bare the complications of peer-to-peer sharing, even through an established company like Airbnb, which says it performs background checks on hosts and guests in the United States annually, and also has a law enforcement liaison that helps its clients around the world manage potential criminal matters.
But the lawsuit, filed by Leslie Lapayowker and first reported in The Guardian, contends that a background check would have uncovered the fact that the owner had been arrested and charged with battery, and prevented him from listing property on Airbnb.
The suit charges that in July 2016, Ms. Lapayowker rented a studio apartment in Los Angeles that was attached to the home of Carlos Del Olmo, listed as a superhost because of his positive reviews on the site. Though she rented the property for a month, the suit says she had stayed only three nights because Mr. Del Olmo’s behavior — making sexually suggestive comments, using drugs in front of his underage son, pounding on her windshield while she was sitting inside her car — made her uncomfortable.
According to the suit, the assault occurred when she returned a week after leaving the studio, to retrieve belongings she had left behind. Mr. Del Olmo told her that he wanted to show her something important inside the studio, the suit says, and locked the door after she followed him in. She was held in a chair, against her will, as he proceeded to masturbate in front of her, finally ejaculating into a trash can, the lawsuit says. Before she fled the scene, the suit charges, he said to her, “Don’t forget to leave me a positive review on Airbnb.”
When Ms. Lapayowker complained to Airbnb about the attack a month a later, the company immediately removed Mr. Del Olmo as a host from its site, according to Nick Shapiro, the company’s global head of trust and risk management. “We supported her right away and took him off our platform,” he said.
Mr. Shapiro would not comment on whether Airbnb knew that Mr. Del Olmo had previously been arrested, citing the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which prohibits the disclosure of the results of one user’s background check to another. He added that a background check had been done on Mr. Del Olmo and showed no prior convictions.
But Ms. Lapayowker’s lawyer, Teresa Li, said the company should have informed Ms. Lapayowker that Mr. Del Olmo had previously been arrested and charged with battery, in 2013, in Florida. He was accused of pulling his former girlfriend by her hair, from the back to the front seat of his car, in front of his child; Mr. Del Olmo was referred to an anger management program after the arrest, but was never convicted.
Mr. Del Olmo said he was not happy with Airbnb’s response.
“I have not done anything wrong, and have lost between $30,000 and $70,000 a year in income, because Airbnb abandoned me,” he said in a phone interview.
Airbnb has been on the receiving end of such complaints before. One woman said her son was sexually assaulted by an Airbnb host in Madrid in 2015. A host in Fukuoka, Japan, was arrested and charged in the assault of a Korean tourist staying there. In England, a prosecutor charged a Couchsurfing host in Leeds with the rape of a Chinese tourist.
There were no figures available on the number of such assaults domestically or internationally, and a sampling of vacation rental sites, when contacted, did not respond when asked about their policies on background checks.
August 2, 2017
Airbnb Sued by Guest Who Says a Host Sexually Assaulted Her
An Airbnb guest has filed a lawsuit against the company, saying it failed to do a background check that would have uncovered the previous arrest of a host who she said sexually assaulted her.
The property owner, who had earned the upper-tier status of “superhost” and had never been convicted of a crime, has said the assault never happened. Airbnb, for its part, defended its screening measures and has since barred the owner from listing on its site.
The suit arrives as Airbnb, the peer-to-peer vacation rental and hospitality site, is touting on-the-ground hosts who guide guests through customized itineraries, bringing the groups into increasing contact with one another. It also lays bare the complications of peer-to-peer sharing, even through an established company like Airbnb, which says it performs background checks on hosts and guests in the United States annually, and also has a law enforcement liaison that helps its clients around the world manage potential criminal matters.
But the lawsuit, filed by Leslie Lapayowker and first reported in The Guardian, contends that a background check would have uncovered the fact that the owner had been arrested and charged with battery, and prevented him from listing property on Airbnb.
The suit charges that in July 2016, Ms. Lapayowker rented a studio apartment in Los Angeles that was attached to the home of Carlos Del Olmo, listed as a superhost because of his positive reviews on the site. Though she rented the property for a month, the suit says she had stayed only three nights because Mr. Del Olmo’s behavior — making sexually suggestive comments, using drugs in front of his underage son, pounding on her windshield while she was sitting inside her car — made her uncomfortable.
According to the suit, the assault occurred when she returned a week after leaving the studio, to retrieve belongings she had left behind. Mr. Del Olmo told her that he wanted to show her something important inside the studio, the suit says, and locked the door after she followed him in. She was held in a chair, against her will, as he proceeded to masturbate in front of her, finally ejaculating into a trash can, the lawsuit says. Before she fled the scene, the suit charges, he said to her, “Don’t forget to leave me a positive review on Airbnb.”
When Ms. Lapayowker complained to Airbnb about the attack a month a later, the company immediately removed Mr. Del Olmo as a host from its site, according to Nick Shapiro, the company’s global head of trust and risk management. “We supported her right away and took him off our platform,” he said.
Mr. Shapiro would not comment on whether Airbnb knew that Mr. Del Olmo had previously been arrested, citing the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which prohibits the disclosure of the results of one user’s background check to another. He added that a background check had been done on Mr. Del Olmo and showed no prior convictions.
But Ms. Lapayowker’s lawyer, Teresa Li, said the company should have informed Ms. Lapayowker that Mr. Del Olmo had previously been arrested and charged with battery, in 2013, in Florida. He was accused of pulling his former girlfriend by her hair, from the back to the front seat of his car, in front of his child; Mr. Del Olmo was referred to an anger management program after the arrest, but was never convicted.
Mr. Del Olmo said he was not happy with Airbnb’s response.
“I have not done anything wrong, and have lost between $30,000 and $70,000 a year in income, because Airbnb abandoned me,” he said in a phone interview.
Airbnb has been on the receiving end of such complaints before. One woman said her son was sexually assaulted by an Airbnb host in Madrid in 2015. A host in Fukuoka, Japan, was arrested and charged in the assault of a Korean tourist staying there. In England, a prosecutor charged a Couchsurfing host in Leeds with the rape of a Chinese tourist.
There were no figures available on the number of such assaults domestically or internationally, and a sampling of vacation rental sites, when contacted, did not respond when asked about their policies on background checks.
Teresa Li Interviewed By San Francisco Chronicle for Her Civil Rights Work
June 22, 2017
SF Planners Delay Decision on Visitacion Valley Cannabis Store
A San Francisco Planning Commission vote on a contentious medical marijuana dispensary proposed for Visitacion Valley was postponed Thursday to give the city more time to investigate whether a nearby community center qualifies as a “youth serving facility” that would preclude the cannabis store from locating there.
The project sponsor, Connected SF, is proposing a 2,198-square-foot medical cannabis dispensary, or MCD, in two contiguous retail spaces at 5 Leland Ave. and 2400 Bayshore Blvd. The MCD is one of two proposed for that block at the entrance to Visitacion Valley’s retail district. The other, at 2442 Bayshore Blvd., was approved by the Planning Commission in January but has been appealed.
That appeal will be heard on July 19, and the new date for the 5 Leland St. hearing is Sept. 14.
The Connected SF project is opposed by community groups that argue it would have an adverse impact on several nearby facilities that serve young people in a low-income, largely immigrant corner of the city. They contend the two MCDs are being strategically located on the border with San Mateo County, which does not have any dispensaries, to attract customers from out of the city.
Proponents of the project say it would create jobs for residents, provide medicine for the sick, and bolster Visitacion Valley’s retail district by drawing foot traffic.
At the center of the Planning Commission’s decision to postpone the vote was the question of whether the preschool and after-school programs at the Cross Cultural Family Center would qualify as “primarily serving persons under the age of 18.”
Teresa Li, an attorney representing opponents of the MCD, said the continuance “could also mean that the city commissioners are taking the issue seriously and have began considering the disparate impact of having these MCDs to be concentrated in minority low-income neighborhoods.”
If the Board of Appeals overturns the Planning Commission’s approval of 2442 Bayshore, it would probably impact the outcome of the 5 Leland St. dispensary.
Quentin Platt, a partner in the Connected SF dispensary, said the postponement “is a bit of an unexpected delay, but we look forward to presenting our plans to serve the patients and benefit the Visitacion Valley community soon.”
J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen
June 22, 2017
SF Planners Delay Decision on Visitacion Valley Cannabis Store
A San Francisco Planning Commission vote on a contentious medical marijuana dispensary proposed for Visitacion Valley was postponed Thursday to give the city more time to investigate whether a nearby community center qualifies as a “youth serving facility” that would preclude the cannabis store from locating there.
The project sponsor, Connected SF, is proposing a 2,198-square-foot medical cannabis dispensary, or MCD, in two contiguous retail spaces at 5 Leland Ave. and 2400 Bayshore Blvd. The MCD is one of two proposed for that block at the entrance to Visitacion Valley’s retail district. The other, at 2442 Bayshore Blvd., was approved by the Planning Commission in January but has been appealed.
That appeal will be heard on July 19, and the new date for the 5 Leland St. hearing is Sept. 14.
The Connected SF project is opposed by community groups that argue it would have an adverse impact on several nearby facilities that serve young people in a low-income, largely immigrant corner of the city. They contend the two MCDs are being strategically located on the border with San Mateo County, which does not have any dispensaries, to attract customers from out of the city.
Proponents of the project say it would create jobs for residents, provide medicine for the sick, and bolster Visitacion Valley’s retail district by drawing foot traffic.
At the center of the Planning Commission’s decision to postpone the vote was the question of whether the preschool and after-school programs at the Cross Cultural Family Center would qualify as “primarily serving persons under the age of 18.”
Teresa Li, an attorney representing opponents of the MCD, said the continuance “could also mean that the city commissioners are taking the issue seriously and have began considering the disparate impact of having these MCDs to be concentrated in minority low-income neighborhoods.”
If the Board of Appeals overturns the Planning Commission’s approval of 2442 Bayshore, it would probably impact the outcome of the 5 Leland St. dispensary.
Quentin Platt, a partner in the Connected SF dispensary, said the postponement “is a bit of an unexpected delay, but we look forward to presenting our plans to serve the patients and benefit the Visitacion Valley community soon.”
J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen
Teresa Li Interviewed By San Francisco Chronicle for Her Pro Bono Work
SF's 'Green Rush' for New Cannabis Stores - and a Growing Opposition
The small Leland Avenue commercial corridor in San Francisco’s Visitacion Valley neighborhood has two nail salons, two dry cleaners, three convenience stores and a couple of Chinese bakeries. Pretty soon it could have two medical marijuana dispensaries, as well.
In a trend that is fueling land-use fights in neighborhoods across the city, working-class Visitacion Valley has become the latest focus for cannabis entrepreneurs looking to take advantage of the so-called “green rush” that gained momentum after California voters last year approved Proposition 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana.
While the city has set a Sept. 1 deadline to determine how recreational cannabis will be regulated, many investors are betting those regulations will include a mechanism to convert medical pot shops into recreational outlets.
In January, the Planning Commission approved a dispensary in the commercial corridor at 2442 Bayshore Blvd., despite a large number of residents speaking out against it. On Thursday, the commission will decide the fate of a second cannabis outlet at 5 Leland Ave., just 259 feet away and around the corner from the first.
The possible pairing of two dispensaries at the gateway to a low-income, largely immigrant community has prompted significant neighborhood opposition. Visitacion Valley residents say the dispensaries will take prime real estate at the entrance to the neighborhood’s small retail district and will be incompatible with several youth-serving organizations nearby.
Marlene Tran, a retired public school teacher and neighborhood activist who has lived in Visitacion Valley since 1980, said, “What the neighborhood needs is opportunities for our youth and businesses that benefit our youth.” That the 5 Leland Ave. project would occupy two retail storefronts — a former 99-cent store and convenience store — is a waste of prime space, she said.
“We have a lot of needs in this community — maybe a clothing store, a bookstore, stores for children, sporting goods,” she said. “Things that we can all patronize. Having a mini-mall (medical cannabis dispensary) at the entrance to our commercial district will not benefit most people.”
San Francisco now has 36 such dispensaries, a number that is set to skyrocket: The Planning Department is processing applications for 25 more dispensaries. And for every would-be dispensary owner who applies, another is exploring sites.
Since the beginning of 2016, the Planning Department’s zoning administrator has received requests from 24 property owners looking for “letters of determination” on whether a dispensary would be a legal use at a particular site. Of the 24 potential sites, the city determined that eight of them were suitable.
“There is a green rush going on — people are staking their claim,” Planning Commissioner Dennis Richards said. “To have the number of (medical cannabis dispensaries) almost double is kind of insane.”
The city’s 2005 medical cannabis legislation created a “green zone” where outlets are allowed. Those regulations excluded many neighborhoods and precluded dispensaries from opening within 1,000 feet of youth-serving establishments such as recreation centers, schools and community centers. The 1,000-foot limit eliminates many neighborhoods from consideration. This year, four dispensary applicants have been turned away from proposed sites that would be with 1,000 feet of the Mission Pool and Playground on Valencia Street.
But Visitacion Valley residents say that the 1,000-foot rule is being applied unevenly. The city ruled that youth-serving organizations near 5 Leland Ave. — the Asian Pacific American Community Center and the Cross Cultural Family Center — did not qualify as “primarily serving persons under 18 years of age.” The Cross Cultural Family Center provides child care services.
Attorney Teresa Li, representing neighbors trying to stave off the dispensaries, pointed to the city’s rejection of applications for several other spots, including 865 Post St., which is near a youth center and a preschool.
“There is a double standard,” Li said. “Why is it OK to open a (dispensary) on Leland Avenue next to a child-care facility but not on Post Street? That is why we are seeing a concentration of (dispensaries) in low-income, minority neighborhoods. Our children don’t seem to matter as much.”
Quentin Platt, who is part of the group that wants to open the Leland Avenue dispensary, said poorer areas like Visitacion Valley deserve the same access to medical cannabis as wealthier parts of town like the Castro, Marina or Financial District neighborhoods.
“Legalized cannabis is an opportunity to stop criminalizing people of color and start creating opportunities in a safe, exciting new industry,” he said.
The store will create at least 15 jobs and plans to hire directly from the neighborhood as much as possible, he said. Having two dispensaries would translate into “more choices and better prices for patients who depend on cannabis to help them treat diseases like HIV, glaucoma and cancer.”
MORE BY J.K. DINEEN
Medical cannabis patient and advocate David Goldman said Visitacion Valley should embrace the industry.
”They should be thrilled. There is not much going on in that neighborhood,” Goldman said. “They could use a few more businesses. When I go to a new dispensary, I always plan something else in the neighborhood — I go to the stores, I eat in the restaurants.”
Longtime resident Russel Morine, who used to own a cafe across the street from 5 Leland, said the high rent that dispensaries can pay is “skewing the marketplace” in a way that will lead to higher asking rents for other neighborhood properties.
“There is a lot of irrational exuberance at work,” he said. “They see the cheap rents and that it is close to Brisbane and San Mateo County,” where there are no dispensaries. And, “they can pay whatever the landlord is asking.”
J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen
SF's 'Green Rush' for New Cannabis Stores - and a Growing Opposition
The small Leland Avenue commercial corridor in San Francisco’s Visitacion Valley neighborhood has two nail salons, two dry cleaners, three convenience stores and a couple of Chinese bakeries. Pretty soon it could have two medical marijuana dispensaries, as well.
In a trend that is fueling land-use fights in neighborhoods across the city, working-class Visitacion Valley has become the latest focus for cannabis entrepreneurs looking to take advantage of the so-called “green rush” that gained momentum after California voters last year approved Proposition 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana.
While the city has set a Sept. 1 deadline to determine how recreational cannabis will be regulated, many investors are betting those regulations will include a mechanism to convert medical pot shops into recreational outlets.
In January, the Planning Commission approved a dispensary in the commercial corridor at 2442 Bayshore Blvd., despite a large number of residents speaking out against it. On Thursday, the commission will decide the fate of a second cannabis outlet at 5 Leland Ave., just 259 feet away and around the corner from the first.
The possible pairing of two dispensaries at the gateway to a low-income, largely immigrant community has prompted significant neighborhood opposition. Visitacion Valley residents say the dispensaries will take prime real estate at the entrance to the neighborhood’s small retail district and will be incompatible with several youth-serving organizations nearby.
Marlene Tran, a retired public school teacher and neighborhood activist who has lived in Visitacion Valley since 1980, said, “What the neighborhood needs is opportunities for our youth and businesses that benefit our youth.” That the 5 Leland Ave. project would occupy two retail storefronts — a former 99-cent store and convenience store — is a waste of prime space, she said.
“We have a lot of needs in this community — maybe a clothing store, a bookstore, stores for children, sporting goods,” she said. “Things that we can all patronize. Having a mini-mall (medical cannabis dispensary) at the entrance to our commercial district will not benefit most people.”
San Francisco now has 36 such dispensaries, a number that is set to skyrocket: The Planning Department is processing applications for 25 more dispensaries. And for every would-be dispensary owner who applies, another is exploring sites.
Since the beginning of 2016, the Planning Department’s zoning administrator has received requests from 24 property owners looking for “letters of determination” on whether a dispensary would be a legal use at a particular site. Of the 24 potential sites, the city determined that eight of them were suitable.
“There is a green rush going on — people are staking their claim,” Planning Commissioner Dennis Richards said. “To have the number of (medical cannabis dispensaries) almost double is kind of insane.”
The city’s 2005 medical cannabis legislation created a “green zone” where outlets are allowed. Those regulations excluded many neighborhoods and precluded dispensaries from opening within 1,000 feet of youth-serving establishments such as recreation centers, schools and community centers. The 1,000-foot limit eliminates many neighborhoods from consideration. This year, four dispensary applicants have been turned away from proposed sites that would be with 1,000 feet of the Mission Pool and Playground on Valencia Street.
But Visitacion Valley residents say that the 1,000-foot rule is being applied unevenly. The city ruled that youth-serving organizations near 5 Leland Ave. — the Asian Pacific American Community Center and the Cross Cultural Family Center — did not qualify as “primarily serving persons under 18 years of age.” The Cross Cultural Family Center provides child care services.
Attorney Teresa Li, representing neighbors trying to stave off the dispensaries, pointed to the city’s rejection of applications for several other spots, including 865 Post St., which is near a youth center and a preschool.
“There is a double standard,” Li said. “Why is it OK to open a (dispensary) on Leland Avenue next to a child-care facility but not on Post Street? That is why we are seeing a concentration of (dispensaries) in low-income, minority neighborhoods. Our children don’t seem to matter as much.”
Quentin Platt, who is part of the group that wants to open the Leland Avenue dispensary, said poorer areas like Visitacion Valley deserve the same access to medical cannabis as wealthier parts of town like the Castro, Marina or Financial District neighborhoods.
“Legalized cannabis is an opportunity to stop criminalizing people of color and start creating opportunities in a safe, exciting new industry,” he said.
The store will create at least 15 jobs and plans to hire directly from the neighborhood as much as possible, he said. Having two dispensaries would translate into “more choices and better prices for patients who depend on cannabis to help them treat diseases like HIV, glaucoma and cancer.”
MORE BY J.K. DINEEN
Outer Mission commercial block struggling to rebuild a year after
Starcity turning commercial buildings into group housing
New building for nonprofits OKd in Mission over opposition
SF's Pier 70 shipyard closes after 150 years
Medical cannabis patient and advocate David Goldman said Visitacion Valley should embrace the industry.
”They should be thrilled. There is not much going on in that neighborhood,” Goldman said. “They could use a few more businesses. When I go to a new dispensary, I always plan something else in the neighborhood — I go to the stores, I eat in the restaurants.”
Longtime resident Russel Morine, who used to own a cafe across the street from 5 Leland, said the high rent that dispensaries can pay is “skewing the marketplace” in a way that will lead to higher asking rents for other neighborhood properties.
“There is a lot of irrational exuberance at work,” he said. “They see the cheap rents and that it is close to Brisbane and San Mateo County,” where there are no dispensaries. And, “they can pay whatever the landlord is asking.”
J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen
Teresa Li Interviewed by NTDTV Station About Her Pro Bono Work
新唐人2017年06月03日讯】明年(2018)起，加州将开始实施娱乐大麻合法化，在旧金山，药用大麻店也将华人聚集的社区作为目标，不断提出开店申请。为了保护家园，华人社区积极研讨对策，力争在反对大麻的攻防战中取得先机。
〝大麻是毒品，危害孩子、影响社区〞，这是华人对待大麻的普遍态度。6月2号，旧金山华裔民主党俱乐部（CADC）宣布，将统一协调全市反对大麻药店的活动，调配资源，制定对应策略。
旧金山华裔民主党主席朱元吉：〝旧金山华人民主党俱乐部目前正在参与全市社区活动家联合会，协助社区防止大麻店在附近开放。社区民众的呼声非常强烈，（每个区）都有他们各自独立的需求。〞
亚裔选民协会创办者招霞表示，目前旧金山华人社区面对很大压力，大麻店要在华人社区的地方开设，同时要开设十三家，而旧金山华裔民主党是有六十年历史最早代表华人社区发声的政治组织，他们能够直接向政府官员去提出社区民众的上诉和要求。
亚裔选民协会创办者招霞：〝我希望每个区的民众听从他们的领导，认真地配合，然后把这个事情赢下来。〞
目前，已有3家大麻药店在华人社区申请开店。其中访谷区（Visitacion Valley ）海岸大街（Bayshore Ave）2442号的店面已经获得通过；Leland街5号的店面即将在6月22号开始听证。
律师表示已经获得通过的大麻店申请存在法律疑问。
李天叶律师：〝旧金山的分区法专门规定，如果一个药用大麻店要开的话，它的1千英尺之内，不能有学校或者是托儿所，或者是儿童服务中心，而在（访谷区）这个地方1千英尺之内有至少2个儿童服务中心。〞
目前，针对访谷区（Visitacion Valley ）海岸大街（Bayshore Ave）2442号获得通过的店面律师已向法院居民已于5月26号提出诉讼，日落区（Sunset）Noriega街2505号店面的申请，大麻业主将奥克兰前华裔市长关丽珍推到台前，在社区的强烈反对下，已经延后到7月13号进行听证。
新唐人记者景雅兰、于伟旧金山采访报导
新唐人2017年06月03日讯】明年(2018)起，加州将开始实施娱乐大麻合法化，在旧金山，药用大麻店也将华人聚集的社区作为目标，不断提出开店申请。为了保护家园，华人社区积极研讨对策，力争在反对大麻的攻防战中取得先机。
〝大麻是毒品，危害孩子、影响社区〞，这是华人对待大麻的普遍态度。6月2号，旧金山华裔民主党俱乐部（CADC）宣布，将统一协调全市反对大麻药店的活动，调配资源，制定对应策略。
旧金山华裔民主党主席朱元吉：〝旧金山华人民主党俱乐部目前正在参与全市社区活动家联合会，协助社区防止大麻店在附近开放。社区民众的呼声非常强烈，（每个区）都有他们各自独立的需求。〞
亚裔选民协会创办者招霞表示，目前旧金山华人社区面对很大压力，大麻店要在华人社区的地方开设，同时要开设十三家，而旧金山华裔民主党是有六十年历史最早代表华人社区发声的政治组织，他们能够直接向政府官员去提出社区民众的上诉和要求。
亚裔选民协会创办者招霞：〝我希望每个区的民众听从他们的领导，认真地配合，然后把这个事情赢下来。〞
目前，已有3家大麻药店在华人社区申请开店。其中访谷区（Visitacion Valley ）海岸大街（Bayshore Ave）2442号的店面已经获得通过；Leland街5号的店面即将在6月22号开始听证。
律师表示已经获得通过的大麻店申请存在法律疑问。
李天叶律师：〝旧金山的分区法专门规定，如果一个药用大麻店要开的话，它的1千英尺之内，不能有学校或者是托儿所，或者是儿童服务中心，而在（访谷区）这个地方1千英尺之内有至少2个儿童服务中心。〞
目前，针对访谷区（Visitacion Valley ）海岸大街（Bayshore Ave）2442号获得通过的店面律师已向法院居民已于5月26号提出诉讼，日落区（Sunset）Noriega街2505号店面的申请，大麻业主将奥克兰前华裔市长关丽珍推到台前，在社区的强烈反对下，已经延后到7月13号进行听证。
新唐人记者景雅兰、于伟旧金山采访报导
Teresa Li Interviewed by KVTO 1400 AM About How to Obtain Monetary Compensation for Personal Injury Cases
主持人：石头
嘉 賓： 李天葉律師
1、最常见的人身伤害有哪些面？
2、怎样区别人身伤害和工伤、医疗事故之间的关系？
3、人身伤害受害人有哪些权利？
4、出车祸了，我们首先应该怎样保护自己？
嘉宾简介：
李天叶律师：旧金山的人身伤害法辩护律师。
她被超级律师杂志多次评为超级律师新星。
她还曾经被旧金山杂志多次评选为北加州顶级律师。
只有2.5%的加州律师才能拿到这样荣誉。
主持人：石头
嘉 賓： 李天葉律師
1、最常见的人身伤害有哪些面？
2、怎样区别人身伤害和工伤、医疗事故之间的关系？
3、人身伤害受害人有哪些权利？
4、出车祸了，我们首先应该怎样保护自己？
嘉宾简介：
李天叶律师：旧金山的人身伤害法辩护律师。
她被超级律师杂志多次评为超级律师新星。
她还曾经被旧金山杂志多次评选为北加州顶级律师。
只有2.5%的加州律师才能拿到这样荣誉。
Teresa Li Interviewed By FM96.1 About How to Obtain Monetary Recovery in Personal Injury Cases
意外受傷後怎樣索賠？
主持人：丁悅 /
嘉 賓： 李天葉律師 /
一旦在生活中，突發了什麼意外，讓您或者您的家人不小心受了傷的話，我們該怎麼正確處理？怎麼進行索賠？ 如果在索賠中遇到了糾紛又該如何處理？需不需要請律師？ 律師是怎麼收費的？
本期節目中，我們請來專業處理人身傷害案件的李天葉律師來做詳細的解答。
現場聽眾熱線
San Jose 李小姐：幾年前陪孩子做MRI，過程中耳塞掉了，結果出來後導致昏迷，不知能否索賠？
Fremont 沈先生： 今年滑雪摔倒，小腿受傷手術後發炎，請問能否向醫院索賠？
嘉賓介紹
李天葉律師，專業處理人身傷害案件的律師。她被Super Lawyers 雜誌多次評為超級律師新星，還曾被舊金山雜誌多次的評選為北加州的頂級律師。
免費諮詢電話 (888) 635-3259
更多詳情可查 www.LawOfficesOfTeresaLi.com
意外受傷後怎樣索賠？
主持人：丁悅 /
嘉 賓： 李天葉律師 /
一旦在生活中，突發了什麼意外，讓您或者您的家人不小心受了傷的話，我們該怎麼正確處理？怎麼進行索賠？ 如果在索賠中遇到了糾紛又該如何處理？需不需要請律師？ 律師是怎麼收費的？
本期節目中，我們請來專業處理人身傷害案件的李天葉律師來做詳細的解答。
現場聽眾熱線
San Jose 李小姐：幾年前陪孩子做MRI，過程中耳塞掉了，結果出來後導致昏迷，不知能否索賠？
Fremont 沈先生： 今年滑雪摔倒，小腿受傷手術後發炎，請問能否向醫院索賠？
嘉賓介紹
李天葉律師，專業處理人身傷害案件的律師。她被Super Lawyers 雜誌多次評為超級律師新星，還曾被舊金山雜誌多次的評選為北加州的頂級律師。
免費諮詢電話 (888) 635-3259
更多詳情可查 www.LawOfficesOfTeresaLi.com
Teresa Li Interviewed About the New Legislation that Prevents Disclosure of Immigration Status in Personal Injury Lawsuits
Singtao Oversee, 2016-8-29
州長簽意外索賠法案 保障居民同等待遇(本報記者黃偉江三藩市報道)
加州州長已簽署AB2159法案，保障意外傷害索賠時無證居民與合法居民同等待遇，明年1月1日生效。
加州無證居民受到意外傷害，將獲得合法居民同等待遇。加州州長簽署批准的AB2159法案，要求法院和被告方不能在過失致傷人或死亡的案件中，查詢受傷害者的移民身分。無證居民受傷害者，將再也不需要因為身分問題放棄自己依法應得的合法權益。無證移民權益團體稱該新法案是無證居民權利的一大進步。
三藩市民事律師李天葉（Teresa Li）指出，加州高級法院對於無證移民意外傷害罪索賠案件的處理一直沿用30年前的處理方法：如果傷害者是無證居民，傷害者不能和合法居民享受同樣的權利。例如計算其未來的工資損失只能限制於他原籍國家的類似工作的收入，即使索償者已在美國居住和工作了幾十年。
多年前一名來自中國的建築工人，工作時從20米高的腳手架摔下來。經檢查發現，摔下來的原因是另外一個分包商沒有檢查已經生銹的腳手架，無法承受重量而發生意外，石頭砸到他的手導致殘廢。工人起訴分包商，要求賠償。根據以上案例，如果按照美國的建築工人的工資來算，他的將來的工資損失能有幾百萬美元，但中國無證工人將來的工資損失是按照中國的建築工人的工資來算，所以只能領取10萬美元。
................（更多新聞，請參閱 《星島日報》）
Singtao Oversee, 2016-8-29
州長簽意外索賠法案 保障居民同等待遇(本報記者黃偉江三藩市報道)
加州州長已簽署AB2159法案，保障意外傷害索賠時無證居民與合法居民同等待遇，明年1月1日生效。
加州無證居民受到意外傷害，將獲得合法居民同等待遇。加州州長簽署批准的AB2159法案，要求法院和被告方不能在過失致傷人或死亡的案件中，查詢受傷害者的移民身分。無證居民受傷害者，將再也不需要因為身分問題放棄自己依法應得的合法權益。無證移民權益團體稱該新法案是無證居民權利的一大進步。
三藩市民事律師李天葉（Teresa Li）指出，加州高級法院對於無證移民意外傷害罪索賠案件的處理一直沿用30年前的處理方法：如果傷害者是無證居民，傷害者不能和合法居民享受同樣的權利。例如計算其未來的工資損失只能限制於他原籍國家的類似工作的收入，即使索償者已在美國居住和工作了幾十年。
多年前一名來自中國的建築工人，工作時從20米高的腳手架摔下來。經檢查發現，摔下來的原因是另外一個分包商沒有檢查已經生銹的腳手架，無法承受重量而發生意外，石頭砸到他的手導致殘廢。工人起訴分包商，要求賠償。根據以上案例，如果按照美國的建築工人的工資來算，他的將來的工資損失能有幾百萬美元，但中國無證工人將來的工資損失是按照中國的建築工人的工資來算，所以只能領取10萬美元。
................（更多新聞，請參閱 《星島日報》）
Teresa Li Commented on Tree Branch Falls on Woman in San Francisco Park
Singtao Oversee, 2016-8-26
周翠盈将索偿市府 律师称可达八位数
《星岛日报》报道：旧金山访谷区居民周翠盈在华盛顿公园被坠落树干砸伤的案件，尽管市长李孟贤前天（23日）已经亲身到医院正式道歉，但伤者的家属昨天表态，将通过法律维权和索偿。
伤者的丈夫谭建聪表示，意外发生后，他觉得自己就像掉进了地狱。面对一对女儿嚷着要妈妈，他的脑子一片混乱，他也不知道该如何向孩子们解释？唯有不断安慰女儿，说只要她们听话，妈妈很快就能站起来，像以前那样，带她们一起到公园去。
谢《星岛》与各界热心人
至于是庭外和解还是法律诉讼？该如何索赔？索赔多少？谭建聪坦言自己心里没谱，需要缓过神来再做处理。目前，他最关心的就是让妻子早日康复，全家团聚。他特别感谢《星岛日报》报道后，社区各界热心人士纷纷捐款和慰问。截稿前，账户https://www.gofundme.com/2kvmdm4已经收到捐款25,085元。
专注人身伤害案件的旧金山民事女律师李天叶（Teresa Li）指出，伤者只有6个月的时间来向政府要求赔偿。周翠盈可以拿到她的以前和今后的医疗费，如果她以前有工作的话，她可以拿到以前和今后的收入损失赔偿以及她的精神损害赔偿。
李天叶表示，除了伤者本人，她丈夫也可以起诉政府，要求政府赔偿。因为太太受伤后，不能帮助家务，或照顾小孩，也失去感情支持和关怀。
圣地亚哥案例赔760万
李律师称， 2012年圣地亚哥有一个相似的案子：有一个人被街上的一棵树突然压倒而致瘫痪。经过法律诉讼，伤者获得760万元赔偿。
2012年的案子，受害者看见自己停的车被另一棵树压着，没有马上离开，还要前去察看，结果，又有一根树枝掉下来，把他的腿给压坏了。有人指出，伤者负有一定的责任，因为明知所在地有危险，却没有采取措施避让。相对而言，周翠盈这个案子比2012年的案子更为严重，周翠盈的头部和脊柱都被压重伤。而且，周翠盈并不知道这棵树不安全，也没有看到任何警告和提示，她只是坐在公园里看孩子玩。所以，李律师认为，这个案子获胜的把握很大，至少可以获得7位数的赔偿，有可能拿到8位数的赔偿。为此，她建议伤者和家人及时物色律师，找一个以前曾经起诉政府并获胜、并且值得信任的律师，让律师告诉他们如何保护自己的利益。
因为这个事故无法避免，李律师建议大众，如受伤要赶紧寻医，请家属拍现场的照片，还有在医院时，也要拍伤者的照片，要不然以后打官司没有证据。
Singtao Oversee, 2016-8-26
周翠盈将索偿市府 律师称可达八位数
《星岛日报》报道：旧金山访谷区居民周翠盈在华盛顿公园被坠落树干砸伤的案件，尽管市长李孟贤前天（23日）已经亲身到医院正式道歉，但伤者的家属昨天表态，将通过法律维权和索偿。
伤者的丈夫谭建聪表示，意外发生后，他觉得自己就像掉进了地狱。面对一对女儿嚷着要妈妈，他的脑子一片混乱，他也不知道该如何向孩子们解释？唯有不断安慰女儿，说只要她们听话，妈妈很快就能站起来，像以前那样，带她们一起到公园去。
谢《星岛》与各界热心人
至于是庭外和解还是法律诉讼？该如何索赔？索赔多少？谭建聪坦言自己心里没谱，需要缓过神来再做处理。目前，他最关心的就是让妻子早日康复，全家团聚。他特别感谢《星岛日报》报道后，社区各界热心人士纷纷捐款和慰问。截稿前，账户https://www.gofundme.com/2kvmdm4已经收到捐款25,085元。
专注人身伤害案件的旧金山民事女律师李天叶（Teresa Li）指出，伤者只有6个月的时间来向政府要求赔偿。周翠盈可以拿到她的以前和今后的医疗费，如果她以前有工作的话，她可以拿到以前和今后的收入损失赔偿以及她的精神损害赔偿。
李天叶表示，除了伤者本人，她丈夫也可以起诉政府，要求政府赔偿。因为太太受伤后，不能帮助家务，或照顾小孩，也失去感情支持和关怀。
圣地亚哥案例赔760万
李律师称， 2012年圣地亚哥有一个相似的案子：有一个人被街上的一棵树突然压倒而致瘫痪。经过法律诉讼，伤者获得760万元赔偿。
2012年的案子，受害者看见自己停的车被另一棵树压着，没有马上离开，还要前去察看，结果，又有一根树枝掉下来，把他的腿给压坏了。有人指出，伤者负有一定的责任，因为明知所在地有危险，却没有采取措施避让。相对而言，周翠盈这个案子比2012年的案子更为严重，周翠盈的头部和脊柱都被压重伤。而且，周翠盈并不知道这棵树不安全，也没有看到任何警告和提示，她只是坐在公园里看孩子玩。所以，李律师认为，这个案子获胜的把握很大，至少可以获得7位数的赔偿，有可能拿到8位数的赔偿。为此，她建议伤者和家人及时物色律师，找一个以前曾经起诉政府并获胜、并且值得信任的律师，让律师告诉他们如何保护自己的利益。
因为这个事故无法避免，李律师建议大众，如受伤要赶紧寻医，请家属拍现场的照片，还有在医院时，也要拍伤者的照片，要不然以后打官司没有证据。
Teresa Li Commented on Tree Branch Falls on Woman in San Francisco Park
Singtao USA, 2016-8-25
周翠盈将索偿市府 律师称可达八位数
三藩市访谷区居民周翠盈在华盛顿公园被坠落树干砸伤的案件，尽管市长李孟贤前天（23日）已经亲身到医院正式道歉，但伤者的家属昨天表态，将通过法律维权和索偿。
伤者的丈夫谭建聪表示，意外发生后，他觉得自己就像掉进了地狱。面对一对女儿嚷着要妈妈，他的脑子一片混乱，他也不知道该如何向孩子们解释？唯有不断安慰女儿，说只要她们听话，妈妈很快就能站起来，像以前那样，带她们一起到公园去。
谢《星岛》与各界热心人
至于是庭外和解还是法律诉讼？该如何索赔？索赔多少？谭建聪坦言自己心里没谱，需要缓过神来再做处理。目前，他最关心的就是让妻子早日康复，全家团聚。他特别感谢《星岛日报》报道后，社区各界热心人士纷纷捐款和慰问。截稿前，帐户https://www.gofundme.com/2kvmdm4已经收到捐款25,085元。
专注人身伤害案件的三藩市民事女律师李天叶（Teresa Li）指出，伤者只有6个月的时间来向政府要求赔偿。周翠盈可以拿到她的以前和今后的医疗费，如果她以前有工作的话，她可以拿到以前和今后的收入损失赔偿以及她的精神损害赔偿。
................（更多新闻，请参阅 《星岛日报》）
Singtao USA, 2016-8-25
周翠盈将索偿市府 律师称可达八位数
三藩市访谷区居民周翠盈在华盛顿公园被坠落树干砸伤的案件，尽管市长李孟贤前天（23日）已经亲身到医院正式道歉，但伤者的家属昨天表态，将通过法律维权和索偿。
伤者的丈夫谭建聪表示，意外发生后，他觉得自己就像掉进了地狱。面对一对女儿嚷着要妈妈，他的脑子一片混乱，他也不知道该如何向孩子们解释？唯有不断安慰女儿，说只要她们听话，妈妈很快就能站起来，像以前那样，带她们一起到公园去。
谢《星岛》与各界热心人
至于是庭外和解还是法律诉讼？该如何索赔？索赔多少？谭建聪坦言自己心里没谱，需要缓过神来再做处理。目前，他最关心的就是让妻子早日康复，全家团聚。他特别感谢《星岛日报》报道后，社区各界热心人士纷纷捐款和慰问。截稿前，帐户https://www.gofundme.com/2kvmdm4已经收到捐款25,085元。
专注人身伤害案件的三藩市民事女律师李天叶（Teresa Li）指出，伤者只有6个月的时间来向政府要求赔偿。周翠盈可以拿到她的以前和今后的医疗费，如果她以前有工作的话，她可以拿到以前和今后的收入损失赔偿以及她的精神损害赔偿。
................（更多新闻，请参阅 《星岛日报》）
Teresa Li Appeared in Trial in a Derivative Lawsuit in San Francisco
Singtao USA, 2015-11-18
撤旗官司 谢帆淡定“只讲事实”( 本报记者张劲林三藩市报道 )
中华总会馆的撤旗官司庭审进行到第二日，主要证人、总会馆书记谢帆、为胜利堂装修的黄姓男子及文件翻译人、菲蒙学区委员邵阳出庭。
原告周达昌、关宗鲁和张耀廷及被告黄荣达、雷华钦分别与他们的代表律师邵宜台、卡岑巴赫及高钤、李天叶和James Ficenec现身法庭，但由于时间关系，未能接受律师庭上质询。
法官怀思曼(Rebacca Wiseman)在庭上多次驳回律师的“反对”(objection)意见，表示她希望从证人的回答中了解官司的文化背景，以及相关的内容，为未来判决带来帮助。
开庭前便表明“立场中立，只讲事实”的谢帆表现非常淡定与自信，并无迷失在律师目的性非常强的诱导性询问中，甚至多次指正引用不正确之处。
卡岑巴赫就一张照片问谢帆，里面的两旗帜是什么？谢帆答，美国国旗与青天白日满地红旗。卡岑巴赫续问，“青天白日满地红旗”是否就是“中华民国国旗”，谢帆略作思考后回答，“1949年之前是，1949年之后不是”。
................（更多新闻，请参阅 《星岛日报》）
Singtao USA, 2015-11-18
撤旗官司 谢帆淡定“只讲事实”( 本报记者张劲林三藩市报道 )
中华总会馆的撤旗官司庭审进行到第二日，主要证人、总会馆书记谢帆、为胜利堂装修的黄姓男子及文件翻译人、菲蒙学区委员邵阳出庭。
原告周达昌、关宗鲁和张耀廷及被告黄荣达、雷华钦分别与他们的代表律师邵宜台、卡岑巴赫及高钤、李天叶和James Ficenec现身法庭，但由于时间关系，未能接受律师庭上质询。
法官怀思曼(Rebacca Wiseman)在庭上多次驳回律师的“反对”(objection)意见，表示她希望从证人的回答中了解官司的文化背景，以及相关的内容，为未来判决带来帮助。
开庭前便表明“立场中立，只讲事实”的谢帆表现非常淡定与自信，并无迷失在律师目的性非常强的诱导性询问中，甚至多次指正引用不正确之处。
卡岑巴赫就一张照片问谢帆，里面的两旗帜是什么？谢帆答，美国国旗与青天白日满地红旗。卡岑巴赫续问，“青天白日满地红旗”是否就是“中华民国国旗”，谢帆略作思考后回答，“1949年之前是，1949年之后不是”。
................（更多新闻，请参阅 《星岛日报》）