How Gilligan Plays Into Bill Gross Neighbor Feud

series Ballers, and a million dollar glass sculpture. Today, Grows issued a public statement offering to end all hostilities with his Laguna Beach neighbor, but Talfick rejected the settlement, calling it a stunt to stem the tide of negative press. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who's covering the trial. Why is a neighbor's dispute in court and for so long? Well, I think it has to too.

It's a combination of the bad feelings between these two neighbors, provoked dueling, harassment complaints, and as a result, it's because of the pandemic it's taking so long, But it does seem to be taking extra long even under the pandemic circumstances. So they're only doing one day of hearing, like a brief four hours or so of hearing every Monday, and then the judge in the case decided to sort of

increase the number of days she sees them. But because of COVID, there have to take breaks, and there has to be social distancing, and so everything seems to take extra long under the circumstances. I imagine that these are huge properties. Explain how the houses are situated. These aren't like Greenwich, Connecticut or someplace on the Gold Coast in um Long Island where you have massive property. These are adjoining giant beachfront houses, and um they're not a beach shack.

These are very large. They're like thousands of square feet. They're built on a bluff overlooking and a cliff side overlooking Laguna Beach, which used to be an artist colony for you know, basically hippies and artists when I was growing up, and it has transformed into this extremely desirable space. So it's beautiful with lots of cliffs and beach front down. So lots of wealthy, wealthy people have migrated there and built their wonderful homes. But they're kind of cheek to jowel.

It's not as probably as tight as Malibu. If people have ever seen those Malibu homes, but um, they're very massive houses adjacent to each other. It seems that at one point they were friendly. So tell us about the

Kenny Loggins private concert. Yeah, that was quite extraordinary. Having grown up with Kenny Loggins, it was quite something to hear that Phil Gross is so rich and they are different from you and me, that he had a private concert in his backyard, catered and everything with Kenny Loggins for his girlfriend's fiftieth birthday party. So this isn't just like honey, I'm taking you to Acapulco. This is like, honey, I'm getting Kenny lock And to play in my backyard

for us. And apparently what also started with this was a for her birthday, he installed a million dollar Dale Chululi glass sculpture that is about twenty ft long and fourteen ft deep, So it's it might be the size of some studio apartment for New York, or let's just say, and it's tall, and its glass, it's blown glass. And they looked like lots of little like organ pipes made out of glass with colors. And they were apparently very

good friends. There's two different, diametrically opposing stories. Of this relationship and how it's soured. According to Mark Talfok, he's a tech entrepreneur who built his multimillion dollar mansion first on this cove. He built a beautiful dream house and

work from home. And he says that Bill Gross later bought the place next door and started renovating and had the sculpture and then had the Kenny Loggin's concert and everything was great, and he let Kenny Loggin's crew run their gigantic cables, passed his through his property to their trucks, the generating trucks, and let them trample his plants, and he never complained, but even thanks Bill Gross's girlfriend, and they had a text he read saying, you know, thank

you for this, and she said you're very welcome smiley face emoji. But Gross says the bad blood between them started when to Fick had a TV show HBO program called Ballers, which is about former NBA players, and they used to fix house as the scene and they filmed there for an entire week and jammed up the Coast Highway with the film crew trucks and disrupted their laws.

The MINTO filed dueling Harassment Plan Games, which is what the judge has been hearing of who harassed who, and there's also they were speaking temporary restraining orders against each other. Stay away from me, No, you stay away from me. Bill Gross says that he has been stalked by to Pick, who is tech obsessed, as a basic implications through the testimony and the allegations of all these cameras everywhere, including a camera that spied on him that was posted on

a palm tree, a real live palm tree. Here's a camera on the palm tree which Bill Gross says death Tosik isn't ogling him and his girlfriend when they dressed antily in the pool. So to Fick actually complains to the city about that million dollar glass sculpture, and then he says that Bill Gross engaged in hours of sonic abuse with music blaring from Gross's home, including the theme

songs from shows like Gilligan's Island and Matt Yeah. So Tofick called the police, and Laguna Beach police officers have come to stay testified that yes, I did respond to the scene. I was at the address of Tefick's home. I arrived at eleven thirty. Yes, I did hear Gilligan's

Islands playing. So to Fix says he was told or instructed or advised by the police to record these so that we have heard over and over again multiple tapes, and we have heard the sitcom introduction tunes, to theme songs, to mash Green Acres, Gilligan's Island, and all kinds of stuff. And then you also didn't heard hip hop, and we heard Carlie Jepson's Call Me. So he made he made these tapes and he recorded them including he says in the background you could see Bill Gross and his girlfriend

Sash Shane and dancing on their balcony nearby. In said he saw them giving him the finger. The officers had a couple of times that the men music has been very, very loud, and he said it was ear splitting. And he says he has ultra sick windows because he wanted to necessarily not have to hear the noise of the

Pacific Coast Highway, which is adjacent to the house. You at the front of the house, and he has a six cement walls, and yet the music was coming from next door with the speakers from outdoors were pointed at his house. So um to Fix says it all started when he complained to the city of Laguna Beach about suddenly, out of the blue, it looked like a giant soccer net was put over the sculpture that's lit up at night.

So imagine that something looks like a Christmas display, or you know, like a church organ made of glass that's illuminated at night, and it's you know, blue and white and all different colors, and then it's got a big giant white net over it. Now to Fick complain, he says about the lightly, not the sculpture per se. He loves art, but that he complained about the unsightly netting. Gross complained that the netting was fine. But what ends

up happening is to pick winds a city ordinance. He has the city come out looks at the Grosses sculpture and then find gross In failed to comply the zoning regulations. When he has that installed. You can imagine someone might be annoyed that if you sent a million dollars installing art and then somehow it got broken and then you put net over it. But suddenly the city says that's not okay. And that's when Topi says the abuse started.

At one point, a police officer says she arrived one morning and she heard very loud Spanish music and then they asked her to be more clear, explaining what kind of music, and she said she could hear very loud Mariachi music plane instead of Gilligan's Island, and she said it was louder than the Pacific Coast Highway traffic on a Saturday. If you can imagine, you know, it's very loud highway traffic as well. It was louder than the ocean roar. So now is that the testimony is coming

on too. This week we're hearing more from the property manager, who's a Latino. He is testified that he liked to play what has been called Spanish music when he was working, and that he was given a decibel meter reader by the by Gross and Shorts to use it and to test whether his music was playing was too loud for anyone task to hear. And this would happen when Gross and his girlfriend weren't at the property. So Gross has

been fined. Is he supposed to remove that? Well, it seems like everything is kind of been hold, it sounded from the testimony of the zoning guard it came to testify the sculpture wasn't necessary. Really the problem, what was a problem may have been that the netting was not in compliance with local ordinances its height, instance in distance, you know, it's a size and its height and its location.

So he was supposed to remove it. Now, Bill Gross's people have testified that it was only put up on windy days to keep palm fronds from falling down and possibly breaking the sculpture. So what this has been is a judge has been asked to kind of she's kind of trying to be um disciplinarian of two middle school boys who can't get along, and she's been asked to basically decide to dueling harassment allegations against each other. So

we've heard from to Fick. He spent multiple days on the stand, and of course this is going in an excruciatingly slow paced because of the breaks they've been taking and they can only have a hearing one day a week. And we expect to also here from Amy Schwartz, Bill Gross's girlfriend, who's a former model and professional tennis player, and then we're going to also hear from Bill Gross. You right, that you can sense the animosity between these two now, and that that has even been demonstrated in

the courtroom. Yeah, the first day, to Fick was supposed to take the stand. You can imagine that they have plastic shields around the witness, the judge, and the witness box, and the courtroom seating is limited to the parties only, and a film crew and one I guess, one media representative. And I note the first day as as a trial inside edition got the price seat of being the pool or the only camera allowed in the courtroom. And so

to Fick takes the stand to testify. It the dueling harassment, hearing, and suddenly you heard uh. And then someone said mr Mr Gross, where are you going? And then Gross said I can't hear him, and someone said it must be because he's mumbling. And so they were arguing immediately, bickering, and um, the judge was asking him not to speak to each other. And then so Gross planted himself as you can imagine, they're supposed to be socially distanced, and he sat in the jury box. He said he was

hard of hearing and he couldn't hear. So he sat in the seat number two, second seat next to the witness box. In the jury box, there's no jury, of course, and then Tofi complained that he didn't like Gross sitting so close to him, so he that he should move. And then there was the discussion back and forth where could he sit? And then the Gross said he couldn't sit,

so maybe he would stand throughout the entire hearing. And then he said his hearing aid was breaking because he couldn't hear, and then should the judge asked him to raise the volume in his hearing aid and suddenly hear that, you know that very painful screeching noise when someone's hearing aid has back play on a speaker. And then the judge said, that was painful for all of us. We've

turned that down. Change seats, Mr Gross. So this has been quite interesting to Mr Gross, of course, is a very wealthy man, and he promises to bring basically his side of the story includes to fix former neighbor, the guy he bought the house from, and you know, all kinds of experts to say that that anything that to Fick recorded on his iPhone has been distorted because iPhones are not giving an actual audio volume. It's kind of crazy. Well, the amount of money that he must be spending on

legal fees and experts and investigators. It's probably off the charts. But what is Gross's current complaint against to keep saying that Mark to Fick has a stalker Essentially, as his lawyer said, he's essentially a stalker uh and essentially engaging in stalking practices that he has been following uh growth and his girlfriend with his camera, that he's surreptitiously filming him. Uh.

That this is that he also alleges. So, you know, we have the Laguna Beach Police come in and testify about the noise complaints they constantly had to respond to, and they basically affirm or confirm elements of topick story. There's music, plane, it's late, it's late at night, and

their position it is very loud. He's complaining that Topick is obsessed and has weaponized If he got the police to testify to confirm his version of the story, it's because he's weaponized the Laguna Beach Police Department for in his favor. And I guess that one thing is that we're all sitting and weathering under very bad, terrible news about you know, tragic news about the pandemic. A lot of people are kind of asking what's going on and

why are we in court? So, so the decision here is up to the judge, no jury, it's a judicial hearing, and and it's uh superior court, Orange County Superior Court. She said she wants to finish this hearing by December fifteen, and she's going to issue her own finding. Uh. So she's being asked to consider dueling harassment claims. And then there's also a slew of other lawsuits that have been

our corollary suits and complaints. They filed on a variety of different method measures, you know, So she seems to be dealing specifically with the harassment claims. It's unclear. You know, everybody's got deep pockets in this story. So this litigation and all its corollary allegation, you know, allegations and complaints will probably proceed into Thanks for being on the Bloomberg

Law Show. Pat. That's Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg Legal reporter. President Trump canceled the dot A program soon after he took office, and data has been caught in legal battles ever since, battles that went up to the Supreme Court. Now, a Brooklyn federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration must fully restore the so called Dreamer's program that protects undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children. My guest is

Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. To set this up, go back to June when the Supreme Court blocked Trump from ending data. In June, what the Supreme Court did was they issued a decision about the legality of the process chosen by the Trump administration to refend the docup program.

And what they said was that the process that the Trump administration used to resend the doctor program was unlawful because it did not sufficiently explain the rationale for revoking the program and did not sufficiently take into account different interests were in place in terms of reliance interests and in terms of winding down the program and the relevant time friend for doing so, and so because the Trump administration had failed to do that, the revocation of the

doctor program was arbitrary and capricia. So then the question became what could the administration do next about the doctor program? And that is when the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Judd Wolf, issued a memorandum saying that what he would do while he was weighing the future of the doctor program was to allow people to extend their doctor sabus by one year increment and not allow any new people

to apply for DOCTA. And so that was the current state of affairs before this weekend when a judge ruled that that memorandum was no longer valid. Tell us why the judge ruled that the memorandum wasn't valid. Know what the judge in the New York case, which is a case called the tie of the Dial versus Chad wolf held was that Chad wolf who was the acting Secretary of Homeland Security, isn't actually a validly appointed acting Secretary

of Homeland Security. Chad Wolfe was confirmed to be an Assistant Secretary for Policy and was appointed via a series of memoranda to be the acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

But what the judge ruled was that that series of memoranda was clawed not just for Chad wolf but also even for Kevin McAleenan who was the acting Secretary of Homeland Security before Chad wolf And that the last actual valid person who the Secretary of Homeland Security was Kirstin Nielsen, who was confirmed by the Senate, and that she drafted a memo about who goes back in the succession plan.

That memo was never followed, such that there is currently no legitimate person that can be appointed as acting Secretary of Homeland Security because there's no one who can actually do that anymore because the process was fractured, but that the only way to remedy this is for the Senate to confirm a new Secretary of Homeland Security. The judge also told the Department to put out a notice so

that new DOCTA applicants could start applying. Correct. So, one of the main features of the decision of this District Court judge was not only that the District Court judge restored the doctor program to what it was in its entirety under the Obama administration, but basically said, I don't want any delay whatsoever in the implementation of this, because his concern was that the administration would slow walk this this and not a really implements the decision, and so

he wanted immediate reporting on the fact that applications would be immediately accepted the beginning of December seven, and he wanted statistics up without about how many people were applying, how many people were being approved, how many people are being rejected. D Jess says it's going to appeal the decision. How long might that appeal take? Is there any way the appeal could be finished before Trump leaves office. So

there's two issues, and both are important. The first issue is whether they will be able to get us say on the decision requiring the DOCCA applications to move forward. If they don't, then they're gonna have to be accepting these applications immediately or they will be subjects to consents

of court. But the larger issue is they need to appeal this decision about whether Chad Wolfe is a legitimate Secretary of Homeland Security because if he isn't, that doesn't just affect Dacca, that affects everything he's done as Secretary of Homeland Security and potentially everything that Kevin McAleenan has done as Secretary of Homeland Security. And so because of that, they need to appeal this. And it's an interesting question as to whether they will get a decision in time

before the end of the Trump administration. And if they don't get such a decision in time from the Supreme Court or at least from the Second Circuit, that tells them, hey,

it's okay, there was a legitimate appointment here. If they don't fix that part, it will be very interesting to see what a Biden administration does as to whether it continues to try to defend other actions reached by Tad Wolf or whether it's basically jettisons every single thing that Chad Wolf did as Secretary of Homeland Security and maybe even that Kevin McAleenan did as Secretary of Homeland Security and basically says the last two years were a wat

and nothing happened, and any policy that was there is invalid, and we only returned to whatever the policies were at the end of the first and Nielsen's security tenure. This is just one case. There are also challenges to data in other states. Texas is challenging doc and a judge there could rule that it's illegal. What happens then if if a judge in Texas says DOCA is illegal, and

you have this decision by a Brooklyn judge. So that is a separate and completely distinct, but equally important challenge, which is there has been this bucket of lawsuits, which are the ones that reached the Supreme Court on the manner in which DOCTA was revoked, and all of those have failed to reach the fundamental issue of whether DOCTA was lawful to begin with or should be ended just

because it's an unlawful program. We have not had that adjudication, and that's the litigation that happening in Texas right now.

And the thought process is because the composition of the Supreme Court has changed since the last DOCTA decision, where Justice Ginberg has been replaced by Justice Cody Barrett, there is a significant possibility that if that case gets to the Supreme Court, the entire doctor program would be invalidated for the same reason that with President Obama tried a larger program called DAFA, which was for undocumented parents of

US citizens. That program was invalidated because it was viewed as a procedurally incorrect because it did not use notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, but be it also violated the Immigration and Nationality Act because there are provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act which require the Secretary of Homeland Security to place undocumented individuals in removal proceedings when they come across undocumented individuals, not to

give them work permits, and so the idea is you could do that on an individual basis, but once you do it on a programmatic basis, you're violating the law. And so that's the two theories that are going to be litigated as the Biden administration seeks to restore doctors. That's right, Joe Biden has pledged to restore data within one hundred days of his taking office. But his restoration

that would just mean an executive order. Correct, he would simply say that the Obama administration policy is restored in its entirety and applications begin in earnest. Again. Now, the only question is President Biden is getting a lot of pressure to change the date of eligibility because under the current DOCTA program, you had to be eligible because you arrived before two thousand and seventh. That's a long time ago. It's south thirteen years ago. He may get some pressure

to move up that date. Uh. And if he does do that, that makes it easier to challenge in court because now there will be people who did not have quote unquote the reliance interests on DOCCA that the current people in the program has. It seems like data recipients have never really been able to feel safe because ever since the beginning, there have been legal problems with data that is absolutely correct. Since the beginning of DOCCA, there

have been legal challenges. There was an illegal There was a legal challenge originally in the Fifth Circuit by ICE agents, and they're the legality of the program was not ruled upon because at that time, the Fifth Circuit held that the ICE agents did not have standing to challenge the

DOCTA programs. There was never a ruling on that. But what happened after the Obama administration expanded the doctor program to become DAFA to include parents of U. S citizens, then the state attorney general's food as opposed to ICE agents, And because the state attorney generals food, then the courts ruled that those state attorney generals did have standings because the issue was that DOCCA recipients were able to get driver licenses in those states and that that gave the

state standings, whereas the ICE agent never had standing. So we've never been able to confront once and for all the legality of SOCCA, meaning to twelve. People in the program have always been worried that it would be held to be illegal, and as such, they could have their saddest strips away. And so that's why it's ultimately important either a Congress the past lasting relief or for the Biden administration to use a different form of relief to

help the doctor students. And that's why I've been one of the people advocating for something called temporary protective status for not to SOCCA Hope, but for everyone under the COVID rubric and saying that at least for the next eighteen bunds don't deport any non criminals anywhere until we vaccinate everybody and get everything under control with COVID such that we can actually have a functioning immigration system again where people can go to courts and actually have real

hearings and not buy in detention facilities, etcetera, etcetera. And so I don't know if that idea is going to get traction, but that's one of the ideas that they're

considering in the Biden's administration. So, I mean, theoretically, what could happen is if that Texas case goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could say that DACA is illegal, and then the Biden administration would have to come up with some other kind of rubric to correct if the Supreme Court hold that the DOTA program is illegal for the same reasons that it it held that the DA program was illegal. Now it didn't write a decision,

it's just a firm the Texas decision. Back then there was a four four slip that just affirmed the Texas decision without a written opinion. But if it holds that it's illegal for the same reason, then the bid administration will actually have to come up with a new administrative way to try to protect data recipient, and I think

that way would be temporary protective SIBUS. They can potentially also just tell people apply for something called the humanitarian parole and we're not gonna put any criteria in it. And that way because the the insertion of criteria that makes the program the legal. But if it's a one by one decision, it's legal. And so they could just tell people, we can't give you any guarantee that it will be granted, and we can't lay out any criteria for how it will be granted, but if you apply,

maybe you'll get this humanitarian parole. And that would be another way to try to take care of this population. Thanks Leon that's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Night. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grass. Thanks so much for listening, and remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Thanks so much

for listening. Please tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week and now at ten pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio