STN
STRAIGHT TALK NEWS
Please send your case information to us to consider posting. Case information is very helpful to other cases working to rectify the County's violations of the Constitutions and property rights in Santa Cruz County. Cases from any State can support your case in Santa Cruz County. Cases are public filings. Thank you. Email: Publisher
YOU MAY USE SMALL CLAIMS COURT
Please note that you may bring a small claims action against your code compliance or planning staffer for $7,500, if your situation is simple. The planning examiner staff and code compliance staff have been found operating without certification by the State that is mandated. The Judge will hear your case and the government staffer can be sued personally in their name only. This has worked quite well for people. Please contact our paralegal, Harold Griffith, for the laws to assist you, at no charge.
For additional court cases, please go to:
California property Rights
Freedom Advocates
Private Property Rights Cases
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY per Board of Supervisors, lead by Ellen Pirie and Neil Coonerty, are in violation of major Supreme Court Rulings. One in particular, Haas v County of San Bernardino, the Supreme Court ruled that hearing officers cannot be biased and do not provide due process in their administrative hearings that avoid independent appeals boards granted by the State Building Code, Health and Safety Code, and due process protections in State and Federal Constitutions on behalf of property owners.
Important case to review in full:
Haas v County of San Bernardino, 27 Cal. 4th 1017, 119 Cal.Rptr. 2d 341.
Summary:
When a county agency is a party to an administrative dispute, the county violates due process guarantees when it selects and pays for temporary hearing officers, the California Supreme Court has held. The Court concluded that the "requirements of due process are flexible...but they are strict in condemning the risk of bias that arises when an adjudicator's future income from judging depends on the good will of frequent litigants who pay the adjudicator's fee."
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHARGED WITH ALLEGED EXTORTION AND FRAUD SCHEME RUNNING SINCE 1960's. Read the cases below.
NEW APPEAL COURT FILINGS AGAINST UNLAWFUL ACTS AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO HIGHER LAWS BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING DEPT.
July 28, 2010: We have been following the Paul Carrick lawsuit (more below) and Cove Britton (see below) lawsuit against Santa Cruz County, Board of Supervisors in collusion with the Planning Department. Here are their updated filings to the appeals court for justice as the local Superior Court did not understand the laws that would have protected the rights of these and every property owner as shown in appellate cases across the nation.
Sharing of legal documents is presented here to assist citizens preparing new lawsuits against the alleged illegal scheme permeated against them since 1961. If you would like to join in the impact action case against the County, please email your information to Publisher .
Planning department excessive fees are not allowed by law.
BRYNE
SUES ELLEN PIRIE AND TONY CAMPOS FOR CORRUPTION AND EXTORTION REGARDING
FALSE VIOLATION IMPOSED BY UN-CREDENTIALED KEVIN FITZPATRICK AND
KATHLEEN SALAZAR. Another example of abuse towards citizens and
unlawful behavior ignoring constitutional rights and State and Federal
preemptive laws. Un-credentialed manager, Ken Hart, is guilty also for running this sham to obtain illegal fees harassing and intimidating property owners.
June
23, 2010 - Antoinnette Byrne has filed legal action against the Board
of Supervisors and Planning Dept., headed by Ellen Pirie and Tony
Campos, as one of many thousands of property owners caught in the net
of the Supervisors illegal scheme that has been extorting from property
owners for decades. Her building built in 1900 is exempt from county jurisdiction as it is grandfathered in, however, the county is notorius for chasing after structures before their time knowing it is illegal to do so. It is court case number CV-09-03729JF. Read this new lawsuit filed now in Federal Court.
LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST COUNTY TO INJUNCT BAFCAB AND HALT GATEKEEPING OF PERMIT, NOV OR RED TAG APPEALS
July 28, 2010: Read the new appeal court filing by Cove Britton to uphold higher law for property appeal rights. Read the filing.
May 10, 2010 update: The Judge was not educated in due process rights that are mandatory for the people by the State and denied the case. Cove Britton will advise his next move to provide due process as provided by law to the county property owners being disadvantaged by this renegade government that has no right to hear appeals and has not provided an independent appeals board since inception in 1976. The Supervisors cannot by law hear any appeals even if they can get away with appointing themselves to be the appeals board. Numerous appellate cases show bias for income does not grant fair due process.
March 23, 2010 Update: This case will be heard May 10, 2010, at 8:30AM, Superior Court Santa Cruz, under Judge Volkman, a constitutionalist.
Cove Britton, Supervisor candidate running against corrupt supervisor Neil Coonerty who should step down, has filed a lawsuit to uphold State law in the county. The State law does not allow the existing supervisors to elect themselves to the building or housing appeal boards that have been concealed from the public for 48 years - denying due process to property owners. The Appendix of the California Building Code section 112.3 states:
" Qualifications. The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction. "
The court cases on this webpage are all supported by this State law that is being ignored by Santa Cruz County and its Board of Supervisors chaired this year by Neil Coonerty and last year by Ellen Pirie.
November
13, 2009 - Prominent architect and government watch dog, Cove Britton,
has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive
Relief and Damages against defendants: County of Santa Cruz, the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz, County of Santa Cruz
Planning Department, County of Santa Cruz Director of Planning Tom
Burns, County and Does 1 through 50. The Board of Supervisors in
2008, chaired by Ellen Pirie, had been exposed for concealing citizens'
rights to appeal to an independent appeals board for permit
application, notice of alleged violations and red tags that 99.9% of
the time concern building issues that the State preempts with state
building codes. Denial of the appeals were knowingly gatekept by Tom
Burns, Planning Director, using a scheme of ordinances to prevent the
pubic from fair due process and protections provided by the state.
Gerald V. Barron, Carmel, CA attorney, well known for winning cases regarding extreme issues of corruption is spearheading this lawsuit to reinstate property and appeal rights to the citizens of Santa Cruz County that have been obstructed and hidden for over 48 years. Britton has had numerous appeals rejected by the Planning Department or ignored by the Board of Supervisors who allegedly, illegally disbanded the local appeals board in June 2009, a newly functioning Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals which had just been established early 2009. The establishment took place after dozens of citizens protested at Board of Supervisors meetings starting summer 2008.
Government Code 815.6 states clearly that lack of mandatory duty by Defendants is unlawful and disadvantages citizens. The Writ is on-line now. Click here to read Cove Britton v County of Santa Cruz et al.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEADED BY NEIL COONERTY AND ELLEN PIRIE CANNOT OCCUPY BUILDING APPEALS BOARD SEATS DUE TO SEVERE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
September 3, 2009- Per Gov Code 1099 and 815.6 regarding lack of mandatory duties, and precedent setting court cases, the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors violated citizens property and constitutional rights by appointing themselves June 9, 2009, to be the local appeals board for planning dept. errors, omissions, excessive fees, not following State building and housing codes, arbitrary and capricious treatment or any adverse decision, determination or order against property owners. A new lawsuit invoking Government Code 1099 is being written to file this winter. A new impact action suit is also being prepared on behalf of the citizens of Santa Cruz County to Federally force the County Board of Supervisors, Planning Department, County Administrator and County Counsel to follow the laws they should have been following since 1961.
County adopts 1997 State codes in 2002 and does not implement them or train staff as required since 1961. See document that the Board of Supervisors approved and due to lack of mandatory duty did not protect citizen interests that they were required to protect. Agenda Item #73 minutes of September 24, 2002.
PADGETTS PREVAIL OVER COURT FENCE FEUD. AWARDED ATTORNEYS FEES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
Read Sentinel article about Darla and Joe Padgett, Plaintiffs, winning over corrupt, arbitrary and capricious government. The Padgetts were actually awarded punitive damages and attorneys fees of approximately $3.2 million.
CITIZENS PREVAIL OVER EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT FEES
April 20, 2009 - Read these court cases winning for the people!
COUNTY SUPERVISORS AND STAFF CAN BE SUED AND HELD LIABLE.
March 16, 2009 - READ SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL COURT OPINIONS.
PRECEDENT COURT CASES PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM THE ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, MALICIOUS AND EXTORTIVE ACTIONS OF THE WELL KNOWN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY GOVERNMENT CRIME RINGS.
May 15, 2009 - Read the powerful speeches of Dan Bronson, Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals Commission acting Chair and leading architect, Cove Britton. Transcript of speeches to Supervisors May 12, 2009.
February 11, 2009 - Read these important cases to protect yourself.
Leslie v. Superior Court Ventura County (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 1042 at page 1046 the Court states, "A conflict exists if an ordinance contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law . . ." The court ruled Ventura County was not following State law. Read Briseno v City of Santa Ana also. Santa Cruz County is not following State law.
APTOS COUPLE SUES COUNTY SUPERVISORS AND TOM BURNS FOR ALLEGED EXTORTION, COLLUSION, VIOLATION OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, OBSTRUCTING DUE PROCESS AND ILLEGAL SCHEMING AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS DENYING ACCESS TO DUE PROCESS.
Santa Cruz, CA -
August 9, 2010: Here is the newly filed Reconsideration Document to correctly address the abitrary and capricious treatment by the county created adverse condemnation and deliberate indifference causing loss of due process, prejudice and incredible damages by ignoring state, federal laws and constitutional protections. The county also did not follow its own procedures and ordinances. Ellen Pirie did not assist the Plaintiffs and violated her oath of office, mandatory and ministerial duties. She does this with other constituents to gain illegal fees through her intimidation are - the planning department operating within her illegal schemes.
July 28, 2010: A legally valid Reconsideration Filing will be made very soon to uphold current law and to allow the Federal court to catch up on this matter which has unveiled a huge illegal crime ring operated by the Board of Supervisors in Santa Cruz County.
May 14, 2010: The Aptos Couple has won that their due process rights have been violated and this has been upheld by the Federal court to go to trial this Fall. Note the following case law that provides damages for loss of value to property by government officials and staff who unlawfully, with arbitrary deliberate indifference, disadvantage property owners:
"It is established under California law that all that needs to be shown to establish cognizable damages is a reduction in market value. When a wrongful cloud on title impedes marketability during a period of falling values, the defendants will be liable for the loss. Gudger v. Manton, 21 Cal.2d 537, 552-553 (1943) (plaintiff could recover the difference in value where property value decreased by 50% during period of wrongful cloud on title), disapproved on other grounds in Alberston v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 381. When title is affected “The elements of damages are: (1) the loss or impairment of ability to sell, the measure being the difference between the normal price and the salable value or depressed sale price afterwards… It is not necessary to show that a particular pending deal was hampered or prevented; recovery may be had for the depreciation in market value of the property.” 6 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts § 1703. These authorities are familiar to the County as they were cited in our settlement conference brief, where damages were in issue. These authorities apply to the § 1983 claims traditional tort principals such as those expounded in these authorities are applicable to § 1983 damages actions. See, e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (common law and state law applicable is to Civil Rights Acts cases where federal remedies are spelled out in federal law); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park Inc.(1969) 396 U.S. 229, 239-240 (same); Robertson v. Wegmann (1978) 436 U.S. 584, 589-590. (same)"
In addition, the Board of Supervisors and Tom Burns et al Defendents, Susan Mauriello to be a named defendent shortly and Dana McRae, County Counsel, are all ignorant (proven by their documented unlawful actions against thousands of property owners for decades) of proper mandatory duty and management of building and housing permits and zoning per the Federal Zoning Act. Federal Standard State Zoning Enabling Act of 1926.
April 8, 2010 Update: Dana McRae, County Counsel, and her assisting counsel, Jason Heath, who have co-designed the illegal extortion and fraud scheme against property owners in Santa Cruz County will be asked to resign shortly. The thousands of illegally recorded red tags containing false violations will cost the county hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in the courts. Read the important case law contained in this document that supports citizens victimized by the county board of supervisors (headed by Ellen Pirie and Neil Coonerty), the county administrator - Susan Mauriello, planning department ex uncertified Tom Burns and county counsel. Citizens are protected from property value losses - defendants will have to pay damages for property losses and suffering. The county defendants will have to reimburse property lost values. Read the law.
March 12, 2010 Update: Aptos Couple, Plaintiffs) have filed an Opposition to County Motion for a Summary Judgment without standing. Over four years of evidence has been established exposing a cross department crime syndicate ring headed by the Board of Supervisors, Ellen Pirie, Neil Coonerty, Tony Campos, Mark Stone, Jan Beutz, John Leopold and ex Planning Director, Tom Burns et al. The illegal scheme was and is still being used to defraud and extort from property owners through negligent hiring, lack of training, non certification of staff, operating without a certified building official, ignoring state building codes, breaching constitutional rights and violated federal law and oaths of office. Read the newest filing of this major case to resurrect an honest and smaller government. Read Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication.
December 21, 2009 Update: Ellen Pirie, Supervisor who is probably in her last term, may have committed a felony perjuring herself in her deposition on this case. Other staff have confirmed meetings with her that she denies took place, to go after these property owners allegedly to defraud and extort and violate their property and due process rights, per our investigation and reading legal documents. Also, Pirie continued with new staff. County lawyer, Jason Heath, admits uncertified Ken Hart, Manager of Code Compliance section, ordered the Notice of (alleged) Violation and ordered uncertified Kevin Fitzpatrick and uncertified Laura Madrigal to serve it February 2, 2007 to this Aptos couple. The document is unlawful and not allowed by State law. The property is in an agricultural zoning district and county lawyers are unable to recognize their own zoning district tables and interpretations that support such and therefore the county has no jurisdiction. What a waste of tax dollars and violation of higher laws run by a Board of Supervisors, Planning Dept. group in collusion to abuse the citizens they are supposed to be servicing, in our opinion.
November 16, 2009 Update: Defendant Tom Burns, unqualified and uncertified Planning Director for Santa Cruz County, is being deposed today by Andrew Pierce of Pierce & Shearer, Palo Alto, CA.
October 29, 2009 Update: In depositions taken, Mark Deming, Assistant Director, along with Ken Hart, Code Enforcement Manager and Kevin Fitzpatrick, Code Enforcement employee, have all confessed to lack of training and non-certification of themselves and ongoing education credit of: planning department planners, code enforcement department staff and especially Director, Tom Burns (required to be a certified building official), and Jennifer Hutchinson, imposter Building Official until October 2008. Also, confessions of lack of knowledge of state building codes required for their jobs was produced. Additional lack of managment systems to track files leading to insufficient ability to supply facts and dates for court is apparent comparing the multiple depositions. The county employees also admit to lack of knowledge of legal due process with BAFCAB appeals board mandated by the State since 1961. Seems the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator depositions will result in the same answers and more evidence of ignorance of law and deliberate indifference to the tax paying citizens? Mark Deming, Assistant Director, knew of the ten foot fence exemption ordinance 12.10.315 (a)(2) and did not share this information with Rev. Oracle and Mr. Elan until his October 28, 2009, deposition taken by renowned attorney, Andrew Pierce.
September 11, 2009 Update - Aptos couple finally sells house at $1 million loss after being falsely redtagged in February 2007, by Supervisor Ellen Pirie, Tom Burns, Ken Hart and Kevin Fitzpatrick. On September 24, 2002, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed agenda item #73 adopting the 1997 state building codes which exempt fences under ten feet from permit requirements. The County has unlawfully red tagged this property and continues to demand a permit for which agricultural rural property and roads are exempt from for fencing and vegetation is not under their jurisdiction. Read the historic landmark case in Federal Court below to uphold property rights and expose government abusive practices.
August 14, 2009 - Update: Federal Judge sets pretrial conference for March 26, 2010, and trial for April 19, 2010. Federal Judge stated he has never seen a case like this before and it is "the height of arbitrary and capricious decision making". (The longer this case takes the higher the damages- the Padgetts in Monte Sereno received $3.2 million in punitive damages and didn't even know about concealment in their area of BAFCAB.) The longer this case takes the more it will impact the upcoming 2010 elections for Neil Coonerty and Tony Campos Supervisor seats as major funding has been secured to publicize the alleged illegal activities of these Supervisors and the cross department collusion.
Another big lawsuit will be filed. It is a new impact class action suit on behalf of the People of Santa Cruz County v. County of Santa Cruz et al. The impact class action suit will be addressing the same fraud, extortion and corruption scheme issues and will be landing right in the middle of the 2010 election campaign period to injunct the Supervisors to recognize and follow higher laws. All Supervisors will be named - Ellen Pirie, Neil Coonerty, Tony Campos', Mark Stone, John Leopold and former Jan Beautz, along with Tom Burns and staff. In addition, another lawsuit is in the works to invoke Government Code 1099 and unseat the Board of Supervisors from any other commission and committee.
July 17, 2009 - Update: Santa Cruz County Counsel Jason Heath, Assistant Director, David Lee, and Assistant County Administrator, Ms. Kelly, did not meet the court's mandatory requirements today, demonstrated by their insufficient responses at the Federal court meeting. Plaintiffs remain in control and will continue to vigorously pursue a fair trial that will most likely end up costing the county twice as much, as the current demand requests, in awarded damages as more time, emotional stress, continued violations of rights and loss of property value keep adding up to higher numbers. The County has stubbornly refused to admit that no permit is required for a fence or hedge even though State and local ordinances declare none is required and the property's agricultural zoning does not allow the county to dictate vegetation standards for any reason. Only false accusations have been made by the county and no standards or findings have been provided since December 6, 2005. In addition, the county asked for alternative fencing materials when three Building and Fire Code Appeals Board appointees were still active and did not disclose that an appeal could be made. Plaintiffs have unrefuted engineering reports of safety at their private road and never have any accidents occurred along their roadside. The County's relentless abuse over this fence feud continues and their resistance to cooperate today has now spurred on a full "class action" suit to be taken by another group of disgruntled citizens and the People of Santa Cruz County for the benefit of all Santa Cruz County citizens and property owners. The citizens have had enough of this Board of Supervisors illegal activities and past Board of Supervisors, County Administrator, County Counsel and the Planning Department.
June 15, 2009, the Aptos Couple's landmark case second amended complaint, allowed by the Federal Judge per his Order of May 15, 2009, is now posted. Extensive Board of Supervisors and County staff breach of mandatory duties and the concealment of the state mandated appeals boards since 1976 - "Appealgate"- is well documented. The Board of Supervisors did not hear any appeals as a default governing body either. Government codes, Health & Safety Codes, Uniform Building Codes, Codes of Civil Procedure and Constitutional law support the Plaintiff couple in this 3.5 year long fence v government feud. This is a much bigger case than at the Padgett case above that prevailed against arbitrary and capricious government treatment.
May 11, 2009 - The Federal Court upheld the Plaintiff's Opposition to the County's Motion to Dismiss the Supervisors as Defendants. See Federal Order. The Board of Supervisors will remain as defendants who are alleged to have committed unlawful activities, overreached into the planning department and usurped State, Federal and Constitutional laws. The Federal Judge stated that their behavior "was the height of arbitrary and capricious decision making." Read more.
Amended Petition and Complaint (this file takes a few minutes to download)
Points and Authorities for Motion
Previous Opposition to County's Demurrer - Aptos Couple Prevails (this file takes a minute to download)
Grand Jury Report States Code Compliance Does Not Enforce Fences
Opposition to the County's unfounded Motion to Dismiss naming Supervisors was filed electronically on March 6, 2009. County replies March 9, 2009 with untruthful and misleading statements.
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss March 6, 2009
County's reply to Opposition to Motion of Dismiss March 9, 2009
Federal Order Granting Plaintiff's Opposition May 15, 2009
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Per Federal Order June 15, 2009
PAUL CARRICK FILES STRONG APPEAL CASE IN FEDERAL COURT.
July 28, 2010: Read the extensive court case appeal filing by Paul Carrick to break the illegal scheme that continues on by the Board of Supervisors. This citizen deserves a medal for standing up to the corrupt public servants who will eventually resign in shame. Read filing.
CARRICK COUNTER SUES SANTA CRUZ COUNTY. REVIEW ALLEGED ILLEGAL COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. PRACTICES. "AS BUILT" STRUCTURES CODE COMPLIANCE PURSUIT UNLAWFUL. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS DUE PROCESS BY COUNTY HIDING APPEALS BOARDS.
CARRICK FILES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ FOR FALSE RED TAG NOTICES OF VIOLATION. STATE DOES NOT HAVE CODES FOR ALREADY BUILT STRUCTURES AND COUNT HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE APPROVALS.
September 9, 2009 - Update: Read Carrick Deposition Subpoena and Request for Admissions documents just filed.
September 3, 2009 - Update: A Summary Judgment hearing will be held on October 15, 2009, in Dept. 4 with Judge Burdick at 8:30AM. If a trial takes place it has been scheduled for November 9, 2009, in Department 4 with Judge Burdick. The Summary Judgment clearly exposes the County's alleged illegal activities and Paul Carrick should be thanked for his hard work on behalf of all citizens of Santa Cruz County.
July 27, 2009 - Read the Motion for Summary Judgment Points and Authorities Supporting Carrick's Property Rights.
County Answers Carrick Cross-Complaint of Violation of Civil Rights and Misuse of Codes
June 5, 2009 - Read the County's answer to this major lawsuit contesting redtags are unlawful to record to title. Government Code section 815.6 in defense of Carrick states, "the county has failed to perform their mandatory duty in violation" of higher statutes and the State and US Constitutions. Answer to Cross-Complaint.
Judge Burdick Calls Tom Burns' Planning Dept. Protest Hearings Not Due Process.
Carrick court hearing with Judge Burdick was held November 18, 2008, Santa Cruz Superior Court, Dept.
November 18, 2008 - Paul Carrick III prevailed today with Judge Burdick stating that Tom Burns' Planning Dept. and Code Compliance internal protest hearings are unlawful. County Counsel, Tamyra Rice, finally admitted to Judge Burdick that the protest hearings are not due process and the transcript confirms it. Glenda Hill who has been in charge of these illegal hearings is also not a licensed attorney, which the Protest Hearing position requires, per County ordinance 1.20.070. Her position is now questionable to survive.
This is a major win for citizens and their property rights which have been obstructed and violated without access to an independent board, committee or commission to resolve Planning Dept. wrong doings and misinterpretations of codes and laws. Since 1976 the public has been obstructed from access to and without relief from appeals boards or due process.
Judge Burdick also stated that County Ordinance 1.05.050, time limitation of 90 days for legal action is unlawful and is being used to entrap innocent property owners. They proceed to entrap by withholding their letter of determination for 90 days to convict and intimidate the uninformed public.
September 17, 2008 - Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Paul Carrick III seeks to compel the County of Santa Cruz, Planning Department, Code Compliance and Board of Supervisors, to rescind an illegally placed and recorded red tag through expungement and for the court to make a judicial determination regarding whether landowners are required to obtain "as-built" permits. As built requires property owners to bring existing structures up to current code standards are arbitrary, capricious and preempted by State law. Code Compliance employee Jacob Rodriquez, Glenda Hill, County Counsel and Tom Burns again have operated outside the law ignoring the grandfathering protections and other points in support of Carrick. In addition, another determination is requested as to whether the County can collect fees and penalties in excess. A new amended Cross Action and Writ have been filed - read here. The management hearing is set with Judge Burdick for November 18, 2008, also. A jury trial is planned for March 2009. Note that this case and others have involved county employees that can/will be be held liable and even their salaries and pensions are subject to repay damages awarded.
CAROTA SUES COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ FOR LOSS OF HOME
April 21, 2009 - update: County answers with denials to all causes of Carota lawsuit. Read County Answer to First Amended Complaint . See below how this couple has suffered from County improper treatment, abusive decision making, loss of home and violation of their due process rights.
February 26, 2009 - County engineering and lack of proper repairs causes severe flood damage and Paul and Susan Carota lose their home and land. The County makes misleading and false claims to get FEMA or RCD funding help in order to delay solutions and reparations for property owners. County files yellow tag claiming home unliveable and causing foreclosure. County claims innocense as usual. Carota's need to recover damages and also were not advised of any appeals board for help against County abuses to property owners.
May 6, 2009 - Claire Machado, former code compliance officer for the county turned land use and property owner consultant, will be a witness in favor of the Carota's to expose the corruption of the county planning dept. and the board of supervisors rigged system violating constitutional, state and federal rights of citizens. Supervisor intimidation practices will be exposed.
Read more.
SHAW v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ - TOM BURNS, PLANNING DEPT. DIRECTOR BLOCKS PERMIT.
Oral arguments were heard November 13, 2008 at 1:30PM, California Court of Appeal. Sixth Appellate District, 333 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 1060, San Jose, CA 95513-1717 in the Commerica Bank building. We are awaiting the panel of Judges ruling. County Counsel did not supply substance in their arguments.
Landowner sues County and its officers in connection with property right violations.
For over 20 years the owners of Liberty Garden, the Shaw’s, have been unable to construct buildings. This is because permission by the local government has been withheld even though the Shaw's have residential agricultural zoning and zoning for thirty homes. On September 12, 2001, the Shaw’s filed suit in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against the County government and four county government employees for: Read more.
TRAVIS v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ COURT FINDS COUNTY 90 DAY TIME LIMITATION TO SUE UNLAWFUL. ALSO FINDS COUNTY 6 - 12 MONTH CLAIM PERIOD UNLAWFUL.
The statute of limitation for filing a complaint (lawsuit) for civil rights violations is two years from the first day of accrual of the cause of action. Your civil rights were violated being denied notification and information on the Building and Housing Appeal Boards. Steven Travis v. County of Santa Cruz was won by Travis and ruled that California Code of Civil Procedure 338 allows three years. This gives citizens three years for legal action recourse if the County ignores preemptive general state statutes. The State Statute of Limitations allows four years for contracts and the Code of Civil Procedure section 343 gives a four year time period for an action in mandamus. See Woods v. Hyde (1923) 64 Cal. App. 433, 439 - holding section 343 applies to traditional mandamus. The current county Ordinances 1.04.080 E. 1 and 1.05.050 time limits to sue or make claims are invalid and need to be amended.
Christian Weaver TwoRivers v. Samuel A. Lewis et al. a Federal Appellate court case, which states that the federal statute of limitations is the one that determines when the cause of action accrues. Under federal law a cause of action for civil rights actions, "a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action." This case is the 9th District case April 6, 1999, No. 97-15844 will be posted shortly. Citizens are allowed two years to commence legal action once aware that their civil rights have been violated.
COUNTIES CANNOT CHARGE OR RECOVER ENFORCEMENT COSTS. THEY CANNOT IGNORE STATE GENERAL PREEMPTIVE LAW AND MUST ABIDE BY THEM IN UNIFORM OPERATION - LOCAL ORDINANCES ARE INVALID WHEN IN CONFLICT. ANY COUNTY EMPLOYEE CAN BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES. THIS INCLUDES TOP TO BOTTOM.
Leslie v. Superior Court Ventura County (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 1042 at page 1046 the Court states, "A conflict exists if an ordinance contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law . . ." Same can be found in landmark case, Briseno v City of Santa Ana.
The People v. William Thomas Minor, Sr. a Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, State of California, No. E030458 (Super.Ct.No. CR.A.3668) ruled that a County cannot charge or recover from a citizen the costs of criminal law enforcement for code infractions. The California Constitution is cited on page 11 and 14. On page 8 note that Government Code section 53069.4 subdivision (a)(1) does not require the creation of a system of fines and penalties for code violations. Read more.
Long v. County of Los Angeles (2006) 442 F3d 1178 U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the court ruled county employees can be held liable for: negligence, negligent hiring, deliberate indifference, deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States for citizens, policies of action or inaction, failure to train employees and inadequate or deficient training, failure to develop and implement policies as the moving force behind deprivation of constitutional rights. Read more.
County and City Cannot Ignore Uniform Building and Housing Code State Laws
In Briseno v. City of Santa Ana, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1378: 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 (May 1992) the Court of Appeal reversed. Counties and cities which have preempted most State regulation by prescribing the manner in which local authorities can adopt ordinances which vary from the uniform codes cannot do so. The court held that. "It would make little sense to prescribe a narrow set of circumstances in which local entities can override state law, if those entities were already free to override state law with impunity." This means that the County of Deception headed by Mauriello, Pirie, Burns and McCrae cannot narrow the appeals board powers prescribed by State laws. The Alliance for Change is correct.
APTOS COUPLE INCREASES CLAIM AGAINST SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
October 26, 2008 - The couple's claim for the story below is being increased to multi-millions as the County for almost three years has seriously violated their civil rights regarding the 5th, 9th and 14th amendments, State statutes and their own ordinances. The couple was unaware and the County did not disclose to them their rights to due process with an appeals board or that their protest hearing and contained appeal hearing are in violation of many laws and precedent court cases. The County has also not supplied citizens with appeal hearings to the Board of Supervisors which Ellen Pirie chairs. The County Planning Dept. managed by Tom Burns, charged excessive fees that were unreasonable, misled the couple about their authority and combined extortion practices with false violations and slander of title. An Amended Complaint and increased claim are being filed shortly with Superior Court. Read their letter to inform their neighbors.
APTOS COUPLE CLAIMS $1.1 MILLION AGAINST SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
September 9, 2008 - The Board of Supervisors passed on a claim to County Counsel today. A $1.1 million claim was filed August 12, 2008, for damages arising from a false red tag recordation on a property. Petition for Administrative Mandamus and Petition for Writ of Mandate Complaint for Cancellation of Instrument and Declaratory Relief was filed against Santa Cruz County on May 6, 2008. The Petition against the County, naming Tom Burns, is for an illegal and unsubstantiated Notice of Violation recorded on an agricultural zoned property for an existing fence. The fence is recessed from a private rural dead end road that is extremely wide with a double yellow line and 10MPH signage. Agricultural property zoning allows fencing in all yards without a permit. The California Building Code allows fences under 6 feet without a permit. The County Planning Director, Tom Burns and staffers Mark Deming, Alice Daly, Ken Hart, Kevin Fitzpatrick and original planner, Dave Keyon, will not provide a permit for a replacement chain link fence or acknowledge that a permit is not required. They did not advise of an appeals board for due process so further violated civil rights. The couple filed an application for a fence permit December 6, 2005 and to date have no permit and have been charged approximately $10,000 in fees when there is a flat rate permit fee of $672 for fencing for properties that require permits. They were never advised of their right to seek relief from a Building Board of Appeals Commission or that they do not require a permit at all. Multiple cases are now preparing to prove that Tom Burns and the Planning Dept. Code Compliance section he oversees, do not have the legal standing to serve Notices of Violations or to record Red Tags. They can be held personally liable for damages. In addition, County Ordinance 1.04.080 Section E. 1. has been proven to be invalid as the "within ninety days" time limit to commence legal action in it is illegal as it conflicts with preemptive State laws for Statutes of Limitations (four+ years) and the California Code of Civil Procedure 338 (three years). This courageous couple prevailed on August 20, 2008, with Judge Atack rightfully approving their Opposition to the County's Demurrer.
COUNTY SUED TO REFUND TAXES PAID
September 4, 2008 -Today, Harold Griffith, taxpayer advocate, filed a complaint in Superior Court against Santa Cruz County for a refund of taxes paid on his property tax bill listed as other charges for County Service Areas. Mr. Griffith alleges that the flat-rate fees or charges cannot be assessments under Proposition 218 which requires assessments to be proportional the property served. A recent case in the California Supreme Court published on July 14, 2008, that concerned the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, stated that the $20 flat-rate levy is an nvalid assessment because it fails to satisfy several provisions of Article XIII D, section 4 and that the levy is in essence a "special tax".
Mr. Griffith is using that Open Space Authority case as support for his
allegations against the Santa Cruz County Service Areas which also levy
flat-rate levies for many, many "other charges" listed on the property
tax bills as CSA. Read Complaint.
COUNTY HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER STREAM RIPARIAN ISSUES AND
US SUPREME COURT ATTACKS EXTENSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS OVER EPHEMERAL STREAMS.
Judge Atack has just ruled in favor of citizens. Santa Cruz County has NO authority over streams and riparian issues. The Fish and Game department has jurisdiction.
Ninth Circuit Court Resurrects Due Process Protections for Property Owners.
Read this important published article by Ronald Zumbrun.
Santa Cruz County and California Coastal Commission Exceed Authority
Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356 (Cal. App. 2004).Stephanie Showalter, J.D., M.S.E.L.
In February, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District ruled that the California Coastal Commission did not have the authority to require Santa Cruz County to impose additional zoning criteria for timber production within the coastal zone. Additionally the court held that the County’s zoning regulations were expressly preempted by the Forest Practice Act of 1973 (FPA). Read more.
State Supreme Court Tells Santa Cruz County It’s Not Above the Law
In a major victory for property rights, the California Supreme Court [on July 29, 2004] rejected Santa Cruz County's attempt to deny local property owners the opportunity to challenge the county's legally dubious rent control on "granny flats."
The Costa-Hawkins Act, a state law that took effect in 1996, prohibits rent control on new housing units. But Santa Cruz County has proceeded as if Costa-Hawkins was never put on the books, by continuing to impose rent-control on new second units ("granny flats," as they are widely called.) Read more.
Pacific Legal Foundation
Private Property Rights Cases
Recent ground-breaking win enables public to hold government employees personally liable:
CROWN POINT DEVELOP-MENT, INC. v. City of Sun Valley, et al. OPINION by Judge Ryman, November 1, 2007.
Claim for relief based on allegedly arbitrary and irrational denial of a permit application. Judge's Opinion defines due process violations cannot be capricious, upholds land taking protections and permanent physical invasion by government can be overreaching. Read more.
VANNERUS v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . . . JANET K. BEAUTZ, TONY CAMPOS, ELLEN PIRIE . . . MARK STONE, COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR - TOM BURNS, DAVE LAUGHLIN ET AL.
The Vannerus' mobile home park was unlawful abused by the County. Thousands of innocent citizens have been served unfounded red tags and to date the defendants act as if nothing is going on . . . Learn from this Petition For Alternative Writs of Mandate how the County does not have the right to serve red tags and does not have the right to record red tags. They are using them for major revenue generation even though they are violating your civil rights and obstructing access to the appeals boards. These violations are punishable by fines or imprisonment. Read more. For the Points and Authorities in Support of the Writ - Read more.
GOLDSTONE TRUST v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ as COUNTY OBSTRUCTS MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP IN VIOLATION OF HIGHER STATE LAWS ALLOWING FOR CONVERSIONS
Read Claim. Read Complaint filed July 27, 2007.
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SUBJECTS WIDOW TO 72 RED TAGS
This is an example of government going too far for too long.
Jan Beautz, Supervisor, overreach into the planning department is alleged, as well. Beautz postures herself at Board of Supervisors meetings as if she doesn't know what is going on with the Planning Dept. - Who does she think she is still fooling?
Read more.
COVE BRITTON v. County of Santa Cruz
Seeking Writ of Mandate to Set Aside Limiting Design Brochure Guidelines
"The Court's tentative ruling is to grant the petition and set aside these guidelines based on the failure to follow the provisions as set forth in Section 13.11.076. So that's the tentative ruling." Read More.
Public comment:
"Laws cannot be arbitrary or capricious or they are void. Laws must be
clear enough to convey to the ordinary person what is allowed and what
is forbidden.
The adoption of an educational brochure that is not binding, when the
County Code requires a manuel to guide people through
the design review process is simply illegal." - Harold W. Griffith, Paralegal
Public Comment:
"I think the County Planning Department already has too much restrictive power. There are arguments that demonstrate that Design Brochure No. 2 does not abide by County Ordinances and State Uniform Building and Housing Codes. My concern is even if they did, the discretionary power of interpretation of those ordinances by the Santa Cruz County Planning Department has become abusive, capricious and tyrannical, in my opinion. The Planning Department does not legally have any discretionary power anyway. I don’t think the Planning Department should be given more power, when they can’t even manage the lust for power and control that they already have. From my experience and in my opinion, this starts right at the top with Supervisor Ellen Pirie and Director Tom Burns, and then filters into the culture of the entire Planning Department."- Local Resident
JPMorgan, 11 Others Sued Over Jefferson County Crisis (Update1)
By William Selway and Martin Z. Braun
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Keegan & Co. and 10 other banks, advisers and insurers were sued by a Jefferson County, Alabama, man who claims their work on county bond transactions saddled residents with soaring sewer bills. Read more.
Disclaimer Please check with your advisor or legal professional for your circumstances. Our Help Resources contacts may be able to assist you.
