Letter from Jack Greenberg to Mr. Robert Semple RE: Voting Rights Article

    Mena from 

Constance L. Rice 1/7/ 70 

Ar 

ar, Ta NL 

ys ool 
Se Srrerey 

. 

1 57) CedFe rire ) 
LAC 

7 

 



     

  

LY 

OE BROWN’S SALVAGE & METALS, INC! 
i 
Fe 

    

  

H tia 
Pao) dtNis, a LNA A TA MS AD NS 8 Ab a 

AM UD 887769 

  

806 East 60th Street Los Angeles, CA 90001-1093 o (213) 231-4116 ¢ FAX: 231-7748 TELEX: BROWN 

965 “D”’ Street ¢ Union City, CA 94587 e (415) 487-1544 « FAX: 487-9368 

INFORMATION RELEASE: LEAD DUST POISONING DATE: Jan. 2, 1991 

LEAD DUST POISONING IN SOUTH LOS ANGELES AND COMPTON, AUTHORIZED BY 
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, FROM OCTOBER 1987, THROUGH OCTOBER, 
1989, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND INSISTENCE OF THE CALIFORNIA 
UTILITY, IN VIOLATION OF CAL/OSHA REGULATIONS AND FEDERAL, STATE, 
AND LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL. 

RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION 
PREPARED BY: BROWN'S SALVAGE & METALS 
CONTACT: ED BURBRIDGE 

 



WHERE IS THE LEAD DUST? WHERE IS PAC BELL'S DOCUMENTATION? 
  

Pac Bell violated environmental laws by knowingly processing 

its aerial and underground lead cable in an unsafe and 

irresponsible manner during the two year span from October, 1987 

until October, 1989, in South Los Angeles and Compton. 

Specifically, Pac Bell authorized its hazardous lead cable to 

be shipped, received and sorted, improperly discharging lead dust 

into the atmosphere. More importantly, Pac Bell did not make 

provisions to harness and collect its lead dust. 

The most damaging results of all of Pac Bell's lead processing 

and disposal, were to the black and other minority residents of 

South Los Angeles and Compton--the discharging of thousands of 

pounds of deadly, poisonous lead dust into the already 

environmentally sensitive community. 
5 

PAC BELL WAS WARNED BY CAL/OSHA 
  

Prior warning had been given to Pac Bell as far back as 1983, 

by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

commonly known as CAL/OSHA. 

CAL/OSHA ordered Pac Bell to take necessary steps to protect 

employees from exposure by lead cable processing, and also to 

collect all hazardous lead cable by-products (lead dust, sludge, 

and cuttings).  



  

Pac Bell's decision was not to continue to process its 

lead cable. Instead it commissioned Brown's Salvage & Metals 

to process the. lead cable in accordance with CAL/DSHA'S 

guidelines. 

The reason Pac Bell commissoned Brown's Salvage & Metals to 

process the lead cable was because Brown's Salvage & Metals was in 

the process of developing a lead cable processing facility to meet 

all: of CAL/DOSHA'S requirements. 

During the time Brown's Salvage & Metals was developing its 

facility, Pac Bell was encouraging Brown's Salvage to spend 

approximately $5 million, to build and equip its CAL/0OSHA 

approved cable and wire processing plant; at the same time, the 

giant utility company was also plotting to circumvent Brown's 

Salvage & Metals' contract price. 

5 

PAC BELL REVERTS TO NON-COMPLIANCE LEAD CABLE PROCESSING 
  

Abruptly, in 1987, Pac Bell dropped Brown's Salvage & Metals 

as its lead cable processor and refused to heed CAL/OSHA'S 

health and environmental warnings, showing complete disregard 

for federal, state and local regulations required for processing 

lead cable. 

Pac Bell went on to process 45,000,000 pounds of lead cable 

betveen October, 1987 and October, 1989, collecting none or little 

of the 90,000 to 200,000 pounds of hazardous lead by-products 

generated from its 45,000,000 pounds of lead cable. 

 



  

Where did the lead dust go? Where is Pac Bell's documentation 

for disposing of its poisonous and deadly lead dust waste? 

The public demands an answer--particularly the poor, 

underprivileged minority citizens who reside in Compton and South 

Los Angeles. 

Brown's Salvage & Metals went to extraordinary lengths to 

communicate to Pac Bell management, on a continuous basis, from 

1983 through October, 1989, the correct practices and procedures 

it had developed in processing lead cable and disposing of lead 

by-products. 

Further, Brown's Salvage & Metals made available to Pac Bell 

its Health and Safety Program manual, including how-to 

presentations. 

Brown's Salvage & Metals' Health and Safety manual pointed out 

to Pac Bell the exact dangers involved in its non-compliance 

operations affecting thousands of people causing: headaches, 

nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anemia, permanent brain damage, nervous 

disorder, colic, kidney damage, impotence, sterility, convulsions, 

seizures, coma, and death. 

Inspite of written and documented evidence of the 

immeasurable harm to the health of the community's citizens and to 

the environment, as well as the ultimate closing down of Brown's 

Salvage & Metals lead processing facility, causing the dismissal of 

more than 90 minority employees, Pac Bell continued to process its 

lead cable in an unlawful manner. 

 



  

The dismissal of 90 minority employees and the closing down of 

the lead processing facility, caused a grave economic hardship to 

Brown's Salvage & Metals. 

Repeated offers to Pac Bell in the form of various plans to 

keep the plant open and the employees on the payroll, including 

out-right sale of the plant to Pac Bell, structured payments for 

lead material, and a joint-venture fell on deaf ears. 

It was clear at this point that Pac Bell was profit-motivated, 

and demonstrated total health and environmental indifference, which 

was also aimed at driving its minority contractor out of the lead 

processing and copper recovery business. 

HOW DID PAC BELL CONTAMINATE THE ENVIRONMENT? 
  

During this critical period between October, 1987 and October, 

989, inspite of all the advice, expertise and business efficiency 

offered by Brown's Salvage & Metals to Pac Bell (now regarded as 

the profit-motivated utility) there was no documented evidence of 

Pac Bell's compliance with CAL/OSHA or other federal, state and 

local regulations for handling and disposing of lead's hazardous 

by-products. 

On the other hand, if Pac Bell claims it did capture its lead 

dust and oxides, and properly disposed of them, the public and 

Brown's Salvage & Metals wants to know how and where these 

lethal-lead wastes were disposed. 

Brown's Salvage & Metals wants to know: "Where is the 

documentation?" The public demands an answer! 

 



  

Brown's Salvage & Metals has on hand Pac Bell's lead 

by-products collected from January 1, 1987 through October, 

1987, approximately 80,000 pounds, available for inspection by 

any concerned parties. 

Brown's Salvage & Metals has its own lawsuit pending against 

Pac Bell. 

A recent class-action lawsuit, filed December 20,1990. in 

U.S. District Court, San Francisco, by various plaintiffs 

including the Natural Resources Defense Council,the NAACP Legal 

Defense and Education Fund, People United for a Better Oakland, 

the Legal Aid Society, the American Civil Liberties Union and the 

National Health Law Program, charged that up to 50,000 California 

youths may unknowningly suffer from lead poisoning. 

How much responsibility can be placed upon Pacific Bell 

Teldphone Company for short-changing the public and its minority 

sub-contractor, in order to process its poisonous lead cable at a 

lower price, while knowingly dumping tons of deadly dust and 

oxides on the black and minority residents of Compton and South 

Los Angeles? 

These are unanswered questions, and the public wants the 

answers. The public has a right to know--where are Pac Bell's 

lead dust and oxides, and where is the documentation? 

Research and Documentation 
Prepared by: Brown's Salvage & Metals 
Contact: Ed Burbridge 
Additional facts, information and documentation upon request. 

 



JAN - 2 168 
LEONARD A. GOLDMAN, ESQ. - 26992 3 
GOLDMAN, GORDON & LIPSTONE D 
1801 Century Park East ORIGINAL FILED | 
Suite 1920 ocr 8 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 2 3 1930 
(213) 277-7171 

COUN yf CLERK 

Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

PACIFIC BELL, a corporation, CASE NO. (C729444 

Plaintiff, {PROPOSFED) FIRST AMENDED 

CROSS-COMPLAINT BY 

BROWN SALVAGE & METALS, 

INC., FOB INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 

FRAUD AND DECEIT; UNFAIR 

BUSINESS PRACTICES: 

BROWN SALVAGE & METALS, IRC., DISCRIMINATION 

HERBERT BROWN, DENNIS BROWN, 

PATRICK BROWN, DOES 1-25, 

Inclusive, 

Defendants. 

  

BROWN SALVAGE & METALS, INC., 

a corporation, HERBERT 
BROWN AND DENNIS BROWN, 

Cross-Complainants, 

DATE: TO ‘BE SET 

Ver TIME: 

PLACE: Department 82 
PACIFIC BELL, a corporation, 
and Does 1-258, Inclusive, | DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE: N/A 

: MOTION CUT-OFF DATE: N/A 
Cross-Defendants. TRIAL DATE: N/A 

  

{LY 

/// 

11 

1{000\\xemp. and 

a        



      

COMES NOW Cross-Complainants, Brown Salvage & Metals, Inc., 

Herbert Brown and Dennis Brown, and alleges as follows: 

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF 
  

  

ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 
  

1. At all times herein mentioned, the Cross-Complainant, 

Brown Salvage & Metals, 1Inc.,' was, and still is, a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, 

doing business in the County of Los Angeles. 

2. At all times herein mentioned, Cross-Complainant, 

Herbert Brown, was a person coming within the ambit and meaning of 

California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et Seq and 

17500, et seq. 
& 

ic 1 At all times herein mentioned, Cross-Complainant, 

Dennis Brown, was a person coming within the ambit and meaning of 

California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et Seq and 

17500, et seq. 

4. Cross—-Complainants are informed, believe, and 

therefore alleges that Cross-Defendant, Pacific Bell 

{(Cross-Defendant) is and at all times herein mentioned was a 

corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of 

California. 

Be Cross-Complainants do not know the true names and 

capacities of those Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-25, and for this 

reason, sue such Defendants under such fictitious names. 

Cross-Complainants will amend this Complaint to allege their true 

names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 

6. Cross-Complainants are informed, believe, and 

therefore allege, that at all times herein mentioned, each of the 

11000\\xcmp. amd 2 

  

 



      

Cross-Defendants was the agent, employee, servant, authorized 

representative, alter-ego, or co-conspirator of each of the other 

Cross-Defendants, and acted within the course and scope of such 

agency, employment, servitude, or representative capacity. 

2, At all times herein mentioned, the Cross-Defendant 

was and still is, a telephone company, providing telephone services 

to the public and as the incidence of such service, it generates 

scrap communication cables which it sells to private vendors. A 

significant amount of this scrap cable consist of lead wires which 

brings in various human health environmental issues. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST 
  

ALL DEFENDANTS FOR INJUNCTION 
  

8. Cross-Complainants hereby incorporate the allegations 

as contained in paragraph 1 through 7 inclusively, as though said 

paragraphs were set forth in full herein and further allege: 

9. Beginning. in 1981 ‘and continuing through 1987, 

Cross-Complainants and Cross-Defendant entered into numerous 

contracts whereby Cross-Complainants agreed to purchase the scrap 
‘ 

lead cables from the Cross-Defendant, process such cables, and 

dispose of such processed cables in other markets. 

10. During the course of their business dealings, the 

parties, through their respective agents, acknowledged and discussed 

the- potential dangers that the processing of lead cables would have 

on the environment, the potential health dangers to the workers, and 

the general potential health and environmental dangers of the 

community. The parties acknowledged that ‘the workers who were 

processing the lead cables needed a special work environment with 

11000\\xcmp. amd 3 

  

 



  

nN
) 

    

strict quality standards, to control and insure that the workers’ 

health were not being jeopardized; and further that special equipment 

and facilities were needed to prevent lead dust from entering into 

the air, potentially polluting the surrounding Los Angeles Community; 

and finally, the parties acknowledged that lead dust particles 

presented a danger to water tables and local water streams resulting 

from the run-off of the lead residue on the ground around the 

facility. 2 

11. It was during these discussions and acknowledgements 

that the Cross-Defendant, through its agents represented’ to the 

Cross-Complainants, that if it would build the facility to protect 

the public health and the safety of the workers, that it, the 

Cross-Defendant, would make Cross-Complainants its exclusive vendor 

for scrap cables, and such exclusivity would last until another 

Vendor built or caused to be built a comparable facility. 

12. Between 1981 and 1937, while relying upon the 

representations of the Cross-Defendant, the Cross-Complainants 

expended Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) creating an environment 

to process the lead cable in a manner whereby the workers were safe, 

one whereby no lead dust was allowed to escape into the air, and a 

facility whereby no lead dust was allowed to escape to the ground to 

become a part of the water run-off. 

13. In 19837 the Cross-Defendant, without justification, 

terminated its business contract with the Cross-Complainants, and 

began disposing its cables to other vendors who neither had the 

facility to protect the environment, nor to guarantee a safe working 

environment for the workers. Said vendors have been observed openly 

allowing lead dust to mix with the air in the City of Compton and the 

11000\\ xcmp . amd 4 

  

 



    

surrounding communities; and on other occasions such vendors have 

been observed secretly disposing hazardous waste materials, including 

the lead waste in Mexico. 

14. The Cross-Complainants are informed, believes, and 

therefore allege, that the Cross-Defendant and its agents know or 

have ‘reasons to know that its current vendors do not have the 

facility to protect the public from lead dust escaping into the air, 

and fromthe water run-off, but notwithstanding such defects, 

Cross-Defendant continues to engage in conduct with such vendors 

which pollutes the air, the water, and cause damage to the public 

health. 

15. Cross-Defendants, Herbert Brown and Dennis Brown, 

while acting as private attorney generals allege that such conduct 

by the Cross-Defendant represents an unfair business practice within 

tHe meaning Business and Professions Code Section, 17200 et seq., and 
q 

is injurious to the public health and the environment. 

16. On the behalf of themselves individually, the citizens 

Of the County of 1os Angeles, and particularly the citizens of 

Compton, California, Cross-Complainants ask that the court enjoin 

such conduct by the Cross-Defendant until such time when such injury 

Lo the health and welfare of the public can be abated, 

17,00 A8 an incidence to such injunctiive relief, 

Cross-Complainants ask that Cross-Defendants be ordered to pay into 

a trust fund for the benefit of the public, the sum of Five Hundred 

Million Dollars ($500,000,000.00) to compensate those individuals who 

have suffered lead poisoning and other related health problems 

stemming from Cross-Defendants conduct and its vendors. 

[7 

11000\\xcmp. amd    



    

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL 

DEFENDANTS FOR FRAUD AND DECEIT 
  

18. Cross-Complainants hereby incorporate the allegations 

as contained in paragraph 1 through 7 inclusively, as though said 

paragraphs were set forth in full herein and further allege: 

19. Pursuant to the representations nade by | the 

Cross—-Defendant, Cross-Complainants expended Ten Million Dollars 

($10,000,000.00) in building a facility which met all environmental 

and health requirements as required by law, and hired a staff of 150 

employees, added special equipment and created a capacity to process 

Eighty Million Dollars ($80,000,000) worth of lead cables annually 

in a manner that is safe to its workers and the public health. 

20. Cross-Complainants' reliance upon the representations 

that were made by the Cross-Defendant was justifiable because the 

Cross-Defendant being a quasi-public entity, would naturally place 

the interest of the public first, and thus such representations were 

reasonable. Moreover, Cross-Complainants were justifiable in relying 

on the representations that were made by the Cross-Defendant because 

its facility was the only one on the West Coast which was capable of 

processing lead cable in an efficient and safe manner. 

21. Cross-Defendants knew that Cross-Complainants had 

relied upon such representations because Cross-Defendants discussed 

such environmental concerns on numerous occasions and sent its agents 

to inspect the Cross-Complainants's facilities to insure such 

facilities met all environmental and safety requirements required by 

law. 

22. Cross-Defendant's representations were false and its 

knew such representations were false in that Cross-Defendant had no 

11000\\xcmp. amd    



      

intention of protecting the public by restricting the sale of their 

cable to business meeting health and environmental standards which 

had been met by the Cross-Complainants. 

23. The true facts were, Cross-Defendant has absolutely 

no concern for the health of the workers processing lead cables, nor 

the safety of the environment of the surrounding communities, and 

such representations were mere "lip service" to create a false image 

of its company's policies. 

24. AS the actual and proximate result of 

Cross-Defendant's misrepresentations, Cross-Complainants has suffered 

damages by loss of income, of loss of resource utilization, and the 

lost of its goodwill and standing An the community in the amount of 

Three Hundred Twenty Five Million Dollars ($325,000,000.00). 

25.  Cross—Defendant's conduct was willful and oppressive 

which justifies the awarding of punitive damages in the amount of 

One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00). 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION BASED 
  

UPON RACE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 
  

26. Cross-Complainants hereby incorporate the allegations 

as contained in paragraph 1 through 7 inclusively, as though said 

paragraphs were set forth in full herein and further allege: 

27.  Herpert Brown and Dennis Brown are individuals 

belonging to the Black race and as such individuals meant to be 

protected by California Civil Code, Section 51.5. 

28. Cross-Defendant, through its agents has publicly 

declared that it 44d not want a Black-owned company to be its 

exclusive vendor, and the health and environmental concerns 

11000\\xcmp. amd 7 

  

 



      

notwithstanding, it would not allow such a condition to exist. 

29. Cross-Complainants are informed, believe, and 

therefore allege, that such attitude as ‘set forth in paragraph 28 

coupled with actions consistent with such attitude, constitute a 

violation of Civil Code Section 51.5. 

30. ‘As the actual and proximate result of 

Cross—-Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Cross-Complainants have | 

lost business opportunity, revenue, and consequential damages in the 

amount of Three Hundred Twenty Five Million Dollars 

($325,000,000.00). 

31. Cross-Defendant's conduct was willful and oppressive, 

is purtiiet aggravated by the fact that is a quasi-public agency which 

justifies the awarding of punitive damages in the amount of One 

Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00), 

5 

WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray judgment as follows: 

  

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 

1. For injunction; 

2. For the establishment of a public trust fund in the 

amount of Five Hundred Million Dollars 

($500,000, 000.00). 

AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 
  

3. Dritacies in the amount of Three Hundred Twenty Five 

Million Dollars ($325,000,000.00) ; 

LL, 

[77 

11000\\xcmp.. amd 8 

  

 



      

Punitive damages in the amount of One Billion Dollars 

{$1,000,000,000.00):; 

AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: 
    

Bx Damages in the amount of Three Hundred Twenty Five 

Million Dollars ($325,000,000.00); 

Punitive damages in the amount of One Billion Dollars 

|] 

($1,000,000,000.00) .4 

AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 
  

fg 3" Damages according to proof; 

8. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem 

: to be proper and just; ‘ 

DATED: October 22.1990 GOLDMAN, GORDON & LIPSTONE 

11000\\xcmp. amd 

) / 
x : | 

BY : Aol 
U LEONARD A. GOLDMAN 

Attorneys for 
Defendants/Cross-Complainants 

  

  
  

O
 

  
 



VERIFICATION 

88466, 2015.5, C.CaP.) 
  

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

I have read the foregoing (PPCPOSED) FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT BY 

BPOWN'S SALVAGE & METALS, INC., FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; FRAUD AND DECEIT; UNFAIR BUSINESS 
  

  

CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH 

I am a party to this action, The matters stated in it 
are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters 
which are stated on information and belief, and as to 
those matters, 1 believe them to be true. 

I am an officer __.._ a partner 
a : of 

a party to this action, and am 
authorized to make this verification, for an on its 

behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I 

am informed and believe and on that ground allege that 

the matters stated in it are true. 

  

      

  

I am one of the attorneys for 
  

  
a party to this action. Such party is absent from the 

county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their 

offices, and I make this verification for an on behalf 

of that party for that reason. 1 am informed and 

believe and on that ground allege that the matters 

stated in it are true. 

  

Executed on CCTOBER 22, 1930 , at Los Angeles, California. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 

correct. i 
—T 

Set rd 

9 il 

Epa a lA Oa 
xX rd : 55 go Tr 

pl HEREERT BROW 
  

(NOTARIZATION OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA) 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on 
  

  

Notary Public for Said County and State 

)