In 2012, while her investigation was ongoing, Hoeper's claim alleges that Herrera demoted her, closed the investigation and then fired her earlier that year. She claims that her demotion and firing were in retaliation for her own efforts to expose financial improprieties in the prosecutor's office – including her suspicions that someone was receiving kickbacks.

Herrera is out of town and cannot be reached for comment. In an email, his spokesman Matt Dorsey said the claim reflected “baseless allegations of misconduct by a disgruntled former employee.”

“Although we generally cannot discuss personnel matters, the circumstances of Ms. Hoeper's separation were thoroughly reviewed by outside counsel,” he continued, “and we are confident that the San Francisco District Attorney's Office will prevail over the case will be decided.”

Haase declined to comment and Rothschild did not respond to a request for comment.

Tree roots and sewer pipes

Hoeper's allegations involve several small plumbing companies whose activities have led to a flood of complaints from homeowners to police, city officials and even the FBI, according to documents and interviews. For years, salespeople from the companies went door-to-door in neighborhoods, claiming that the roots of city street trees were damaging homeowners' sewer lines and offering to replace them for free.

To get the job done, homeowners were asked to file legal claims with the state attorney general's office for up to $10,000. After the claims were settled, the homeowners were supposed to pay the money to the plumbing companies that replaced the sewer lines.

Some people who encountered the sellers suspected a scam.

Michael Zack and Odilon Vasconcelos, former operators of a hair salon on Guerrero Street, said in interviews that in 2011, a salesman for a plumbing company called Drainbusters Plumbing obtained their signatures under false pretenses, creating a $10,000 claim for one New hair salon submitted sewer line for her salon.

The claim was “ridiculous,” Zack said, because there was nothing wrong with the salon's plumbing and the nearest street tree was a sapling so far down the block that its roots couldn't possibly have reached the salon. Additionally, the men do not own the building and therefore cannot legally claim the repairs, he said. Still, prosecutors approved the lawsuit, court records show.

Zack was suspicious, emailed Mayor Ed Lee and other officials and eventually called Haase at the DA's claims office. Zack said the officer told him that the salesman's behavior was “unethical, but not illegal” and he asked Zack to turn over the $10,000 damages settlement that the city had paid him and Vasconcelos to the plumbing salesman .

A review of public records shows that from 2009 to 2011, San Francisco paid $8.9 million on about 1,100 claims in these cases.

At first, Zack and Vasconcelos were reluctant, but they ultimately paid the plumbing company the damage money after a small claims court judge ordered them to do so, records show.

In another case, the owner of a Mission District restaurant called police on a Drainbusters vendor in 2012 after he allegedly trespassed on a sewer cleanout, according to a police report. Apparently the seller wanted to convince the property owners that tree roots were damaging their sewers.

Riad Khano, owner of Drainbusters, said his company only performed necessary, city-approved repairs to sewer lines. The city saved significant costs by paying private sanitation companies to do the work, he claimed, calling Department of Public Works crews notoriously inefficient. The city has stopped paying for repairs to private sewer lines because of budget problems, he said.

A few people have complained about his vendors, Khano said, but the complaints are unfounded.

Claim the FBI tipped her off

In her lawsuit, Hoeper says the FBI alerted her to the alleged billing fraud in 2011 after agents received a series of complaints from homeowners. Hoeper hired two investigators to investigate.

She concluded that the city had no legal obligation to pay the claims. No city in California routinely pays for tree root damage to private sewer lines, she said in her lawsuit, and neither has San Francisco for most of its history. But beginning in 2002, prosecutors began approving these claims, sometimes within days of their filing.

She claimed that her investigation found case after case where sewer lines were replaced even though there was no sign of damage or the bills were clearly padded.

In 2012, six months after it began, Hoeper said she told Herrera about her investigation. Herrera asked her for a written report, she said. Shortly after reviewing the matter, he dismissed her as the main trial representative and transferred her to the public prosecutor's office, according to her statements. She said she was fired last January, the day Herrera was sworn in for his fourth term.

A review of public records shows that from 2009 to 2011, San Francisco paid $8.9 million on about 1,100 claims for damage to sewer property or tree care problems that the city described as sewer line damage, which included root damage to private sewer lines could belong. The average payout was about $8,000. Around 140 applications were rejected. In a few cases, the payments went to plumbing companies. Normally the payment went to the property owners.

Public records also show the city stopped paying for private sewer repairs shortly after Hoeper said she reported to Herrera.

City records show that on June 20, 2012, Edward Harrington, then general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, issued a memo stating that no “tree root intrusion” claims should be paid, it said unless he or the city's construction manager personally approved them in advance.

Since then, court records show prosecutors have successfully defeated several small claims lawsuits from homeowners seeking damages for tree root damage to their sewer lines. In court, the city's lawyers contend that the city was never responsible for the cost of such repairs.

Herrera, the city's top law official since 2001, has built an image as a champion of good government and consumer protection. Hoeper was one of Herrera's closest collaborators for years.

In 2003, when a legal newspaper named Hoeper one of the “Top 50 Women Trial Lawyers” in California, Herrera issued a press release praising Hoeper for her efforts to combat public corruption.

Hoeper's claim states that Rothschild, the head of the claims office, was outraged by her investigation into his unit.

According to her account, Rothschild confronted her and angrily declared, “I will not tolerate this.” In another encounter before her demotion, Hoeper claimed that Rothschild accused her of “picking up” his assistant and threatened a “hunger strike, if she continues with the investigation.”

In her lawsuit, Hoeper is demanding reinstatement and back pay and other damages.

This story was edited by Amy Pyle and copied by Christine Lee and Nikki Frick.

The post S.F. Lawyer Claims She Was Fired for Investigating Suspected Cost Rip-off appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

In 2012, while her probe was underway, Hoeper says in her claim that Herrera demoted her and shut down the investigation, and then fired her earlier this year. She contends that her demotion and firing were in retaliation for what she said were her efforts to expose financial improprieties — including her suspicion that someone was receiving kickbacks — in the city attorney’s office.

Herrera is out of town and unavailable for comment. In an email, his spokesman, Matt Dorsey, said the claim reflected “baseless allegations of wrongdoing from a disgruntled former employee.”

“While we generally cannot discuss personnel issues, the circumstances of Ms. Hoeper’s separation were thoroughly reviewed by outside counsel,” he continued, “and we’re confident that the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office will be vindicated when the case is adjudicated.”

Haase declined to comment, and Rothschild didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Tree Roots and Sewer Lines

Hoeper’s allegations concern several small plumbing companies whose activities have prompted a flurry of homeowners’ complaints to police, city officials and even the FBI, according to documents and interviews. For years, salesmen for the companies went door to door in residential districts, claiming the roots of city street trees were damaging homeowners’ sewer lines and offering to replace them for free.

To get the work done, homeowners were told to file legal claims for as much as $10,000 with the city attorney’s office. After the claims were paid, the homeowners were supposed to pay the money to the plumbing contractors, who replaced the sewer lines.

Some people who encountered the salesmen suspected a scam.

Michael Zack and Odilon Vasconcelos, former operators of a hair salon on Guerrero Street, said in interviews that in 2011, a salesman for a plumbing company called Drainbusters Plumbing had obtained their signatures under false pretenses and used them to file a $10,000 claim for a new sewer line for their salon.

The claim was “ridiculous,” Zack said, because nothing was wrong with the salon’s plumbing, and the nearest street tree was a sapling so far down the block that its roots couldn’t possibly have extended to the salon. Besides, the men didn’t own the building and thus legally couldn’t file a claim for the repair, he said. Nevertheless, the city attorney’s office approved the claim, court records show.

Suspicious, Zack emailed Mayor Ed Lee and other officials and ultimately called Haase in the city attorney’s claims bureau. Zack said the official told him that the salesman’s conduct was “unethical but not illegal” and told Zack to turn over to the plumbing salesman the $10,000 claim settlement the city had issued to him and Vasconcelos.

A review of public records shows that from 2009 to 2011, San Francisco paid $8.9 million on about 1,100 claims in these cases.

At first, Zack and Vasconcelos balked, but ultimately they paid the claim money to the plumbing company after being ordered to do so by a judge in small claims court, records show.

In another case, the owner of a Mission District restaurant called police on a Drainbusters salesman in 2012, after he allegedly pried open a sewer cleanout without permission, according to a police report. The salesman apparently was hoping to convince property owners that tree roots were damaging their sewers.

Riad Khano, owner of Drainbusters, said his company did only necessary, city-authorized sewer line repairs. The city saved significant money by paying private plumbing companies for the work, he claimed, calling Department of Public Works crews notoriously inefficient. The city stopped paying for repairs to private sewer lines because of budget problems, he said.

A few people had complained about his salesmen, Khano said, but the complaints were unfounded.

Claim That FBI Tipped Her Off

In her claim, Hoeper says the FBI tipped her to the suspected billing scam in 2011, after agents received a series of complaints from homeowners. Hoeper assigned two investigators to the probe.

She concluded that the city had no legal responsibility to pay any of the claims. No city in California routinely pays for tree root damage to private sewer lines, she said in her claim, and for most of its history, San Francisco didn’t either. But starting in 2002, the city attorney’s office began approving those claims, sometimes within days after they were submitted.

She contended that her probe found case after case in which sewer lines were being replaced, even though there was no evidence of damage or bills obviously were padded.

In 2012, six months after it began, Hoeper said she told Herrera of her investigation. Herrera asked her for a written report, she said. Soon after reviewing it, by her account, he removed her as chief trial deputy and transferred her to the district attorney’s office. She said she was fired last January, on the day Herrera was sworn in for his fourth term.

A review of public records shows that from 2009 to 2011, San Francisco paid $8.9 million on about 1,100 claims for what the city described as sewer property damage or tree maintenance issues, categories that could include root damage to private sewer lines. The average payout was about $8,000. About 140 claims were rejected. In a handful of cases, payments went to plumbing companies. Usually, payment went to property owners.

Public records also show the city stopped paying for private sewer repairs soon after Hoeper says she made her report to Herrera.

On June 20, 2012, city records show that Edward Harrington, then the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, issued a memo saying no claims for “tree root intrusion” should be paid unless he or the city’s public works director personally approved them in advance.

Since then, court records show the city attorney’s office has successfully defended several small claims lawsuits brought by homeowners seeking compensation for tree root damage to their sewer lines. In court, the city’s lawyers contend that the city never has been responsible for paying for such repairs.

Herrera, the city’s top legal officer since 2001, has cultivated an image as a champion of good government and consumer protection. For years, Hoeper was one of Herrera’s closest aides.

In 2003, when a legal newspaper named Hoeper one of the “top 50 women litigators”in California, Herrera issued a news release praising Hoeper for her efforts to stamp out public corruption.

Hoeper’s claim says Rothschild, the claims bureau chief, was outraged by her investigation of his unit.

By her account, Rothschild confronted her, angrily declaring, “I will not stand for this.” In another encounter before she was demoted, Hoeper asserted that Rothschild accused her of “picking on” his assistant and threatened a “hunger strike if she persisted with the investigation.”

In her claim, Hoeper asks to be reinstated and awarded back pay and other damages.

This story was edited by Amy Pyle and copy edited by Christine Lee and Nikki Frick.

The post S.F. Lawyer Claims She Was Fired for Investigating Suspected Cost Rip-off appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

San Francisco— FBI San Francisco is warning the public of a new scam dubbed “The Phantom Hacker.” Scammers are impersonating technology, banking, and government officials in a complex ruse to convince a typically older victim that foreign hackers have infiltrated their financial account. The scammers then instruct the victim to immediately move their money to an alleged U.S. Government account to “protect” their assets. In reality, there was never any foreign hacker, and the money is now fully controlled by the scammers. Some victims are losing their entire life savings.

“These scammers are cold and calculated. They are targeting older members of our community who are particularly mindful of potential risks to their nest eggs. The criminals are using the victims’ own attentiveness against them,” said Special Agent in Charge John S. Morales. “By educating the public about this alarming new scam, we hope to get ahead of these scammers and prevent any further victimization.”

“The Phantom Hacker” Scam: How It Works

The FBI has observed repeated behavior by criminals involved in “The Phantom Hacker” scam. The ruse is often perpetrated in three major steps:

Step 1 – Tech Support Imposter

In the first step, a scammer posing as a customer support representative from a legitimate technology company initiates contact with the victim through a phone call, text, email, or a pop-up window on their computer and instructs the victim to call a number for “assistance.”

Once the victim calls the phone number, a scammer directs the victim to download a software program allowing the scammer remote access to the victim’s computer. The scammer pretends to run a virus scan on the victim’s computer and falsely claims the victim’s computer either has been or is at risk of being hacked.

Next, the scammer requests the victim open their financial accounts to determine whether there have been any unauthorized charges – a tactic to allow the scammer to determine which financial account is most lucrative for targeting. The scammer informs the victim they will receive a call from that financial institution’s fraud department with further instructions.

Step 2 – Financial Institution Imposter

In the second step, a scammer, posing as a representative of the financial institution mentioned above, such as a bank or a brokerage firm, contacts the victim. The scammer falsely informs the victim their computer and financial accounts have been accessed by a foreign hacker and the victim must move their money to a “safe” third-party account, such as an account with the Federal Reserve or another U.S. Government agency.

The victim is directed to transfer money via a wire transfer, cash, or wire conversion to cryptocurrency, often directly to overseas recipients. The victim is also told not to inform anyone of the real reason they are moving their money. The scammer may instruct the victim to send multiple transactions over a span of days or months.

Step 3 – U.S. Government Imposter

In the third step, the victim may be contacted by a scammer posing as the Federal Reserve or another U.S. Government agency. If the victim becomes suspicious, the scammer may send an email or a letter on what appears to be official U.S. Government letterhead to legitimize the scam. The scammer will continue to emphasize the victim’s funds are “unsafe” and they must be moved to a new “alias” account for protection until the victim concedes.

Victims often suffer the loss of entire banking, savings, retirement, and investment accounts under the guise of “protecting” their assets.

Tips to Protect Yourself

The FBI recommends that the public take the following steps to protect themselves from “The Phantom Hacker” scam:

• Do not click on unsolicited pop-ups, links sent via text messages, email links, or attachments.
• Do not contact the telephone number provided in a pop-up, text, or email.
• Do not download software at the request of an unknown individual who contacted you.
• Do not allow an unknown individual who contacted you to have control of your computer.
• The U.S. Government will never request you send money to them via wire transfer, cryptocurrency, or gift/prepaid cards.

Reporting Suspected Fraud

The FBI requests victims report these fraudulent or suspicious activities to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at www.ic3.gov. Be sure to include as much information as possible, such as:

• The name of the person or company that contacted you.
• Methods of communication used, to include websites, emails, and telephone numbers.
• The bank account number where the funds were wired to and the recipient’s name(s).

The post FBI San Francisco Warns Public of New Monetary Rip-off — FBI appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Police in South San Francisco are investigating an incident in which two men cheated out of money on an elderly victim.

On October 14, a man approached the elderly South San Francisco resident and persuaded the victim to meet with another man, according to the South San Francisco Police Department.

The suspects then told the victim they would give him money that one of the men had just inherited from a relative in South Africa.

The suspects said they needed to find people they could trust and they convinced the victim to withdraw money from his bank account and give it to them.

After the victim gave the money to the men, they fled the scene.

When the victim realized what had happened, he reported the incident to the police.

Police described the first suspect as approximately 60 years old, 5 feet 8 inches tall, and weighed 150 pounds.

Police described the second suspect as approximately 50 years old, 5 feet 4 inches tall, and 150 pounds.

The post Rip-off concentrating on aged in South San Francisco | Native Information appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.