COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 701 OCEAN STREET, SUITE 505, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4068

(831) 454-2040 FAX: (831) 454-2115

Chief Assistant Rahn Garcia Marie Costa

Jane M. Scott Tamyra Rice Julia Hill

DANA McRAE, COUNTY COUNSEL Assistants Special Counsel Shannon M. Sullivan Betsy L. Allen Dwight Herr Miriam L. Stombler David Brick Deborah Steen Jason M. Heath Jessica C. Espinoza Christopher R. Cheleden Samuel Torres, Jr.

GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Agenda : 3/27/07

To:

Re:

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Joe Ritchey, Claim No. 607-078A

Original document and associated materials are on file at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

In regard to the above-referenced claim, this is to recommend that the Board take the following action:

1. X Reject the claim Joe Ritchey, Claim No. 607-078A and refer to County Counsel.

2- - Deny the application to file a late claim on behalf of and refer to County Counsel.

3. - Grant the application to file a late claim on behalf of and refer to County Counsel.

4. - Approve the claim of in the amount of and reject the balance, if any, and and refer to County Counsel

5- - Reject the claim of as insufficiently filed and refer to County Counsel.

cc: Tom Burns, Planning Department w

S anta Cruz,Ca,--95060

-

Februa7-y 25,2007

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Concerns Multiple Parcels

Collectively Known as 6 12 Nelson Road ~

,4 Six Parcel Subdivision County Approved and Recorded in the 1970’s

Wit11 Imputed or Actual Kxwledge of the Bllegarit~r of its Conduct , County of

Sarita Cr-uz Has for M’rongful Purposes and Improper Financial Gain Pursued a Punitiye

Process and Course of k t i o n ,4gainst Landowner Which Has Included the f i owing

Violation of County Ordinances, State Civil Statues, Criminal Statutes, and General Case

L a ~ 7 Holdjngs.

The. Wrongful Conduct has Included :

E) The hdisuse of the Legal and Planning Process for Punitive Purposes ( see letter and Declaration of Iflarid Engineers describing Conduct of County i2s Punitive and without Envil-ormen~ai or Scienrific Basis ) ;

21 Wrongful and Knowing Attempts to Enforce Inwlid aiid Improper Local Codes ;

31 the Wrongful Pursuit ofFinancia1 Gain and Litigatiorl Advantages by Means Including Preparation and Use of False Papers and Misleading Documents;

I ] The Gio~7ing Making of False Statements, Including Statements Given under Penalty of Perjury Without Any Reasonable Basis to Believe Them to Be True;

51 Back Dating aiid Misdating of County Documents, including Proofs of Service offered under penalty of perjury ; ,.

Page 1 of 19

. __.-

61 Reckless and/or Intentional Misrepresentations. AEter Advising Landowner There Were No Sensitive Riparian Features of the Land at the drainage ditch and to just go ahead and do tlie work to re-establish drainage; and in a County “Incomplete Letter” dated June 22, 2006, advising landowner of all the concerns County had about landowners restoration plan, County coimienced and carried out a Wrongful and Bad -faith Claim that the Area was a sensitive Riparian Area, for the purposes of a litigation advantage arid financial gain. This claim was in spite of the area being at all times Shown on Official County Maps and Inforniatjon Sites as a site with : A] a Significant Absence of Riparian Characteristic Soils or Subsurface Sedinieiits Features, B] a Significant Absence of Riparian Sensitive yaterslied Features, C] a Significant Absence of Riparian Shrub, D] a Significant Absence of Riparian Timberland Features, E ] a Significant Absence of Riparian Flora Features, F] a Sjgnificant Absence of Sensitive or Protected Biotic Features , GI a Significant Atmiice of Ground \‘&I Rccharge Features: 2nd

despite Careful Scientific Site Exaniiiiatjon Showing : ] a Significant Absence of Presently Existing Verifiable Riparian Dependent And/or Exclusive Flora ; I ] a

S i g ni fi cant -4 b s e 11 c e of P r e sent 1 y EX i s t in g, V e r i fi ab 1 e Rip ari an De p en de 11 t 2nd o r Exclusive Fauna , J 3 a Significant Absence of Presently Existing Verifiable Rare, Endangered. and/or Tlireatened Riparian Endemic Plant And/or Animal Species; K 3 a Significant Absence of Presently Existing Verifiable County Listed Flora Indicative of a Riparian Area; L] a Significaxit Absence of Presently Existing Verifiable Riparian Anaerobic Indicati\ie Soils Conditions at the Referenced Site; and h4] There Are Easily Available h4aps Whicli Show the Land-area Catch-basin of Ground Q’ater Sources at the Drainage Ditch -Area at Issue Is GeoIogically and I-Iydl-o-logically Insignificant and liisirbstaiitial and Expci-ts have concluded that the Drainage There can be Easily Controlled b>7 Commonly Airailable Means Well Iir.lou.n to Civil Engineers and/or Erosion Control Experts . In Light of the Forgoing the County’s Claim That tlie

Drainage Ditch Is a Significant and/or Sensitive Riparian Natural Corridor Is

Inappropriate and Insupportable by Presently ITnown Scientific Facts . ( See Resumes of Consulting Experts [Dr. .Terry Weber; Dr. Larry Ford ] Attached Hereto )

Despite an absence of pre-litigation county documentation of the areas being in a riparian zone and/or having riparian characteristics, and despite in fact County

documentation being that this site was and is not in a riparian zone and County records disclosed no riparian features at the site, County ernployees and agents in association with the County, with no report of Scientific investigation and analysis for Purposes of Gaining a Litigation and Financial Advantage in this case, have Claimed under Oath the *

Page2af 19

a

Area Was and Is a Sensitive Riparian Area. Despite the overwhelming paucity of Riparian features as here stated and all Couiity'records classifying the specific area as not a riparian zone nor within nor contiguous to a riparian area, in order to harass, annoy, coerce and overcome Landowner and gain a litigation and financial advantage, County and agents and others in coiicert have vYrongfully asserted what they knew and/or had reason to believe, was not true.

The Classification was in bad faith and rendered upon unscientific personal opinions of County Employees, lacking objective criteria and supportive references . Even if the above absence of Riparian features had not been established by Scientific Investigation and even if all County records had not excluded the site from all County Riparian Designated areas, County has Ernown the County Riparian ordinances, rules and regulations haye bee11 pre-empted by state l a w arid rendered of no force or legal

consequence. L4s kriow~i to the County, case law 1101ds that The County riparian

standards , regulations and ordinance conflict wit11 the State Forest Practice Act and invade an area occupied by the State Forest Practice Act and State Timber ProductiTity &4ct . By the time the County of Santa Cruz sought to apply their local l a ~ s to this Claimant, Et was known to the County that the issue had already been decided adverse to

County in a Ruling issued by the Honorable Judge Robert Yonts of the Santz Cruz Superior C0u1-t.

Solely considering the FPA, it supercedes the authority of local government in the regulatioll of the "protection of stream character and water quality . . . .I' (Pub.

Resources Code, 5 45 16.5, subd. (a).) The County riparian contentions are in conflict with and compete with state control and regulations pro~nul gated under the Forest Practice Act. Autlnority for water c o m e protectioi; is reposed in the State Forestry Board. (Pub. Resources Code, $ 4551.) State la1x7 requires state agencies "adopt .... rules and regulations . . . to .... to protect the soil, air. fisk. and wildlife, and water resources, including, but not limited to: streams, fakes. and estuaries." (Ibid.) . They is no grant to local jurisdictions to exercise complementan/-/ parallel regulation.

Pursuant to that Legi dative dkective: the State has promulgated regulatj ons for watercourse and lake protection. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 8 916 et seq.) Among other things. those regulations address riparian buffers by defining and establishing watercourse, wetland and lake protection zones (WLPZs). (Id., $5 916.4, 91 6.5.) The County's riparian ordinance seeks to establish standards different from the state I aw regulations .

.

Page3of 19

- -

The local and state riparian protection regulations attempt to regulate and control the same field. Under well established law, they cannot operate concurrently. The local riparian ordinance therefore contradicts the general law and is expressly preempted. ( Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of LOS Angeles (1993) 4 Cul. 4th 893, 897; Leslie v

Superior Court of Ventur~a County (1999) 73 C.A. 4*" 1042, 1046-1048. ) The County riparian standards , regulations and ordinance are preempted in their entirety under the Forest Practice Act.

Because preemption is found as a matter of law in the terms of the Forest Practice Act, it is not necessary to find preemption exists also under the teims of the State Timber P 1-0 d uc t i I 7 it y A c t .

71 Violation of Court Rules, State Statutes aiid Professional Rules of Conduct for the Purposes of Gaining Litj gation Advantages with Intent to Mislead the Court and I-larni

Landowner

County has acted in a continuing scheme and conspiracy to Abuse the Legal System

and deny Justice through the I(ll014~ing Violation of the Rights of Landorviler Granted

under State and Local Law arid Other Serious Misconduct . The illegal and wrongful

Scheme and improper conduct is ongoing and continues to cause harm to landowner.

Couiity has continued to file illegal , uiiauthorized and improper notices aiid levies against

Landowner fer the purpose of harasslimit, financial gain and punitive purposes unsupported

by ~alic?. local enviromneiital protection l a ~ s and contrary to the proper administration of

land use controls. As a basis for a Claim landowner- now states with more particularity but

without limitation and resenting the right to state further acts :

1: County was at all times aware it was required by law, including their own County

Code, to prior to commeiicement of legal proceedings against a landowner to, if requested

by a landowner provide an administrative hearing to determine if the violation exists and

whether or not if a person is required to undertake the action detailed in the he correction

Page 4 of 19

notice. Despite a timely request by landowner, County, knowing it was required by its own

Code to provide not less than 10 days notice of the hearing, failed to give such notice and

upon additional request of landowner refused to reschedule said hearing. Said failure was

for the purposes of through false representations wrong-hlly coercing from the landowner

payment of illegal fees, assessments and charges.

2. Knowing their own County Code stated the person responsible for creating a

condition likely to cause accelerated erosion was the person creating the condition and only

if the identity of that person was unknown was it to be tlie landowner, County ~~rongfu l ly

filed a civil action against the lai~dou~ner and , despite requests. refused to file againsl the

person the county knew beyond doubt to halye been the pa r9 who had created the condition.

Said miscanduct was €or the purposes of tlvough false representations illegally and through

the use of corrupt means coercing from tlie 1 andownei- payment of illegal fees, assessments

and charges.

3. State and County laws require that before an action is prosecuted against a

party claimed to have violated an ordinance such as the one herein at issue, the local

jurisdiction must serve notice of the violation and disclose the reponse necessar~~ for

correction before an actio11 for relief is prosecute,d against the landowner. 111 their scheme

to bypass the regular requirenient of la^. and despite hiowledge of the coi-rect procedures

set forth in their o ~ q i Code, in their rush to collect fines, penalties and fees and

assessmeiits , County violated state law and its own Code and failed to give notice to

landowner. Said

fully obtaining a

-1Pssessments and 2 w * . 1 6

misconduct was for the purposes of through false representations wrong-

court order for use in coercing from the landowner payment of illegal fees,

charges.

Page5of 19

0053

4. Knowing the requirements of its own code and state law, as stated above in 7 2,

County stated under penalty of perjury that such notice had been given when County knew

it had not. The niis-information by County was an act of deliberate, willful giving of false,

misleading, or incomplete information under oath. Said misrepresentation was for the

purposes of through false representations wrongfully obtaining a court order for use in

coercing fioin the landowner payment of illegal fees, assessments and charges.

5. Knowing the requirements of its own code and state law stated above in 7 2 ,

County, under penalty of perjury, filed a back dated POS of said notice and declared it had

been served upon I ;11ido\vm- when sue% statement was false arid lmm~ by cJourlty to be fa1 se.

Said backdating was for tlie purposes of wrong-fully obtaining a court order for use in

coercing from the landovmer payment of illegal fees, assessinenis and charges and cxxtiruted

a deliberate and willful act of giving of false, misleading, 01- incomplete iizf'orniatioiz under

oath.

6. Knowing tlie requirements of its own code and state law, as stated above in 1 2,

County stated under penalty of pey)xy. knowing it was false, that a reasonable tiine had

been provided for landow~ier to cor-rect the alleged violation. The mis-information by

County constituted a deliberate and willful act of Siving of false, misleading, or incomplete

information under oath. Said false statement was for tlie purposes of wrong-fully obtaining

a coui-t order for use in coercing from the I andowner payment of illegal fees, assessiiients and

charges .

7. Knowing the requirements of its own code and state law, as stated above in 7 2,

County, knowing its' allegatioii was false, asserted under penalty of perjury that a 3 week

Page 6 of 19 4

period was sufficient time for the alleged violations to be corrected. Landowner requested

County cease its illegal conduct. The mis-information by County was an act of deliberate,

willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete information under oath. County refused

to cease its misconduct. In order to prevent further harm to the land, Landowner commenced

the task of correcting the harm done to the land by licensed and insured contractors

landowner had einplojred to improve the drainage swale and remove the tree and soil from

the road. Landowner hired Ifland Engineers, Rogers Johnson, Haro Kusunich and others

to assist in the preparation of plans to correct the harm done by the licensed and irzsured

contr-actors .

Landowner has submitted 5 plans for coil-ection of the alleged violations.

Preparation of the Last set of plans took 73 days and upon submission of the plans and

application for a permit allowing re-mediation , the only plan and application the county

approved is the least complicated plan with its application and approval of that one item

came oiily after 7 riioiiths of County processing, and review and then u7a.s only

conditjmdly appmved upon the submission of fu rhe r studies and future County apprsml

of additional plans and has failed to reply to Letters requesting action sent by Landowners

Corisultants ( See Ifland’s letters to the County ).

County‘s own Counter-intake staff, in Noveixber of 3007, upon ‘at the counter intake

review’ of the plans submitted for just one part of the m7ork the county stated was required,

candidly remarked in the presence Landowner and Ifland Engineers that the minimum time

for just County review would exceed 4 months. The false statements made in open court

and in pleadings and declarations, known by County when made to be false a representation, -%

Page 7 of 19

-

that 3 weeks was a sufficient time for both problem areas to be corrected, when County has

not approved even the most simple of tlie plans after more than 8 months , was for the

purposes of wrongfully obtaining a court order for use in coercing from the landowner

payment of illegal fees, assessments and charges. The mis-information given to the courts

by County constituted a deliberate and willful act of giving of false, misleading, or

incomplete inforination under oath for the purpose for misleading tlie court.

8. County, conspiring with agents to subvert justice and for punitive purposes:

has , with knowledge of its falsity, asscrted landowner u7as in \%dation of an alleged Court

order that County , conspiring with others liai4iig a financial interest in the illegal conduct

had, for the purposes of corruptly effecting the integrity ofjudicial proceedings,falsified and

misrepresented to the courts in lliolation of Penal Code sections 132, 133. 134, 136.1

(3), 14 1, 470, 47 I , and 474, that an aIleged copy of the intended earlier order of the court

acting through Y a different judge, was the intended true and correct order of the court,

Iu70147ing it to be a false representation and/or having 110 reasonable basis to believe County’s

claim 147as true, and by use of the false assei-tions, sought an order ef significant financial

benefit to County and c,onspirators be entered against landowner and that landowner be

ordered to jail and that sewre and significant illegal coercion would result and pain and

suffering of landowner would iiiake landowner compliant and more likely to offer financial

incentives to Coui197 to not be separated

be subjected to additional distress, all

Conspirators .

froni his family, to not be

to the ultimate financial

put in jail, and to not

gain to County and

Page 8 of 19

County knew the representations were not true but to coerce money from

landowner, County, in open court, falsely asserted the previous order was in the

handwriting of a judge, having knowledge the evidence offered was not true and that the

entry represented as having been that of a judge was in fact the work of County agents who

had joined in a conspiracy with other agents to wrongly and falsify prepare , foi-nwlate and

complete proposed orders of the court, so to be able to in subsequent proceeding gain a

litigation and financial admntage through duress, menace ai7d coercion. (CC 5 1569 et seq.)

misleading. 01" incomplete inf'oriiiatio~i under oath. Said false staten~ents were for the

purposes of wrong-fully obtaining a court order for use in coercing from the laiidowier

payment of illegal fees, assessments and charges. The actions of County are declared illegal

and serious inisconduct under various proirisions of the California Penal Code, including ,

In carrying out its wrongful scheme, County 11 made a false representation and/or

coiicealed material facts relating to the matters at issue herein: 21 did so with knowledge of

the falsity of the matters asserted or without sufficient hiowledge of the matters asserted to

warrant the representations; 33 undei-took the c,onduct with the inteiit to induce the persons

involved, including the court and l ando~~ne r to act upon . and/or in reliance upon, the

representations; 41 the misrepresentations andior incomplete misleading incomplete

disclosures were a significant factor in or sole cause o f , the acts undertaken by the courts

and landowner and 51 County's conduct resulted in or was a substantial factor in, damages

suffered by landowner .

Page 9 of 19

- -

9. County, knowing the assessments and fees herein at issue are supposed to be

restitutionary in nature to compensate County for time and money spent in the process of

obtaining correction of the alleged code violation, falsely claimed time spent in prosecuting

the proceeding at issue by scheduling multiple cases on the same calendar and billing each

different alleged ‘code violator’ the entire time spent in court or in proceedings, multiple

parties for the same units of time. Said wrongful entries were for the purposes of wrong-

fully coercing from the landowner payment of illegal fees, assessments and charges and

constituted a deliberate and willful act of gking of false, iiiisleading, or incomplete

iiiforn~a~ion in a judicial proceeding.

10. County: knowing that state law did not authorize, and in fact had declared

recovery of legal fees for actions to abate nuisances could not be obtained in such

proceedings, sought recovery of and obtained void and wrongfully obtained orders. Knowing

their requests to be improper, County used a fraudulently obtained court order of contempt

and threats of jail and penalty assessiilel1ts to coerce payiiient of legal fees. One purpose

of said misconduct was for the purposes of violating the prohibition against recoveiy of

legal fees and limitations upon other fees, assessments and charges for which the landowner

could be found liable.

1 1. County hie\?; it had not proceeded according to law and furtlxr krzew that it had

not availed itself of the remedies under administratiTIe code enforcement procedures created

pursuant to section Government Code Section 53069.4. In February 2006 County disclosed

in open court that the legal requirements for the County of Saiita Cruz Public Nuisance to

abate a nuisance were cumbersome and that the County had decided to not follow the law

Page 10 of 19

t

. ..

of abatement of nuisances ( including local ordinances 5 202,s 403,s 50 1.1 and 5 504 ) and

remarked the expense of following the correct pi-ocedures and that the requirements of the

proper legal process were too burdeiisome , the legal process too complicated, too time

consuming and not effective enough.

County admitted that in abatement procedures the county had decided to seek

incarceration without a trial of the merits of their charges in order to coerce and threaten the

landowner 1vitl-i being placed in jail , prior to trial. if landowner did not do what the county

demanded, ir-icludiiig paying to County improper and illegal assessments , Countydeclared

it had decided the Iai4ful and con-ect process was loo burdensome 01-1 the county in that it

required the county first use its own monetary resources to execute the abatement; then

place a tax lien on the subject property and suffer the time delay and uncertainty of recovery

through payment of the tax bill is paid, or that the property, upon foreclosure , would be

worth as much as the costs of abatement. County, knowing it was failing to follow its own

laws and the general laws of the state of California, intentionally proceeded against this

landowner and ot1w-s for iiialicjous .~vrongful and punitke puz-poses. Said rniscoxiduct vias

for the pui-poses of wrong-fully coercing from the landowner payment of illegal fees,

assessments and charges. despite l;llowiiig its c,onduct was illegal. unpro€essional arid

ethically deficient .

12. Knowing it had not received proper approvals for its local Ordinances , codes

and law, County prosecuted this landowner for malicious and wrongful purposes , to

coerce financial fees, assessments and fines against landowner and to punish and harass

landowner. In Oct of 2002 County had attempted to gain approval for its local

i

Page 11 of 19

- .

ordinances when County sent a request asking for state approval to modify its local code as

"further specified and supported in County Resolution 2642." The State Agency refused

to certify the request but only attested "to the filing or Ordinance No 2642 ... :. Ordinance

2642 modifications would be become "effective in November 1,2002", only if otherwise in

accordance with state law. Despite knowledge of its failure to have its code modifications

certified , County, even after notice from landowner continued to prosecute its action

against landowner , This judicial misconduct was for the purposes of wrong-fully coercing

€rom the landowner payiiient of illegal fees, assessiiierits and charges.

Or-dinance No 2642 predates October 2002 by iiiore than 10 years and refers to an

cntirel y irreleyant governmental action having nothing to do with local modifications of

codes or ordinances and nothing to do with Building and Land Development standards.

County had no autliority to administer any local ordinances and lacked any valid procedure

for enforcement of the non-existent local modifications of the building ordinances. There

are no local land use ordinances for the County to enforce and County's attempts to do so

wei-e void arid wro:agful, 2s known by C~ur, ty - The comp1aii;t specifically alleges only

violation of local standards and the County failed to have them approved. Since Koveniber

2002, the County Has 'Been Enforcing "Void" Laws, Iiiwlid Local Modifications, under

specific stale statutes Not "Effective or Operathe for Any Purpose ''. Said ~ ~ o n g f u l

prosecution and misconduct was for the purposes of coercing from the landowner payment

of illegal fees, assessments and charges.

Since at least November 2002, the County has been enforcing ''void" laws, invalid

local modifications not "effective or operative for any purpose ". County of Santa Cruz, has

-f! 5.:

r-a Page 12of 19

not just had no valid local grading nor excavation codes nor enforcement rights , it has not

had any local building sta,ndards or ordinances for more than 4 years. Entire sections of

the County Ordinance are Void as a matter of law. County, according to one source at the

Building Standards Commission has huge exposure . Not just in this case, but all building,

grading and excavation enforcement actions taken since at least November 1, 2002 have

been void, not just voidable. County has been wrongfully assessing more than 250,000 in

illegal fines , penalties and fees per year and placing persons in jail, knowing or having

reason to know their coilduct m7as improper arid that reliarice upon Ordinance No 2642

unfounded and improper. Despite having such 1in0~;I edge 01- lacking a ~-easonable belief in

the legality of their conduct, County, for the purposes of collecting fees, fines and penalties

proceeded with their illegal conduct, even after notice from laiidowizer of the Couiiiy’s failure

to follow the requirements of state law in having local codes approved, certified and/or

Jralidated .

13. For the purpose of harassing and annoying landowner and coercing additional

money from landowner ~ Chunty despite a settlement of all claims existing prior to August

29. 2006, filed notices of violation against Ritchey land titles h01ving the filings would

create clouds on landowner ’s titles and that such issues had been a part of the settlement and

Itnew that some of the claims had even been discharged by dismissals with prejudice prepared

and signed by County Counsel , Landowner has expended more than 30,000$ in costs and

fees to clear the titles of the wrongfully recorded notices served upon claimant after the

settlement by the County of the same and as to some of the parcels all claims released in

dismissals with prejudice of all claims and rights . Landowner has suffered anguish and

% Page 13 of 19

0 0 6 1

- __ . .

distress as a result of the wrongful filings by County, said filings being in violation of a

setllenient as well as in violation of a dismissal with prejudice filed on August 28, 2006.

Said misconduct was for the purposes of coercing from the Iandowner payment of illegal

fees, assessments and charges. The recording of such documents by County constituted

multiple acts of deliberat.e, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete information

under oath.

County linew the taking or threatening of legal action or continued processing of legal

m j o n after. 1;nowledge the claim is false? iniproper, withoilt a legal basis and/or based upon

claiiiis that are void, forged, altered or otherwise false, and that their conduct constituted

duress and menace and was fraud upon the parties opposing the action and was fraud upon

the court. County also knew the wrongful clouding of title or threat thereof is wrongful

and constitutes duress, menace and coercion. All acts oFCounty were a bad faith use of a

position of authority and public trust, improper manipulation of the legal process and

harmful to the administration of justice. County’s threats to put Landowner into jail were

authority and the judicial process.’

14. Despite the fact that a settlement had been entered onto the r&ord, County ,

hiowing it was comxitting an illegal cloud up011 title , was acting in an illegal manner and

undertaking conduct likely to harass . annoy and and cause mental anguish to someone with

reasonable sensitivities , were designed to and did threaten to declare a tax default would be

recorded against a Landowner ’s property sufficient to sell it in a tax foreclosure sale if

landowner did not pay yet anotlxr improper, illegal and coercive demand .

Page 14 of 19

- -

County’s scheme was to bypass the court and to violate the settlement entered onto

the court’s record on August 29,2006, by retroactively amending landowner ’s property tax

bill to add 1,800$ additional fees, penalties and costs, knowing it was a false and

groundless claim that had been compromised and settled on August 29, 2006. In hrther

knowing and/or reckless violation of the settlement, County recorded a general lien against’

all claimant properties on January 11, 2007, knowing the claim was based on a fraudulently

obtained order and hiowing the order was obtained by a yiolation of the rules of Court and

i ii t en t: i o n a1 mi si-e pr e s eri t ai i o 11 s o f the j u d i c i a1 r ec o T d.

15. Despite agreeing to act in good faith and fairly? County under oath, knowing it

was false, intentionally misled the court in an attempt to have the judge believe that the

expert employed by Ifland Engineering was not qualified to investigate and report on the

slope stability arid render a determination on the factor of safety and that landowner had thus

not complied with the stipulated settlement , falsely suggesting that the State of California

had for illore than 20 years had a license category entitled “Soils Engineer” and limited the

right and competzncy of ficemed Civil Er?ginecrs to perfmx a soils stability andysis and

render a stability report only to persons licensed as Soils Engineers , when in fact as relevant

to this case . the State of California has 11 since 1952 held that a licensed arid experienced

civil engineer is authorized and properly licensed to perform soils engineering and geo-

technical services , including those services necessary to investigate , examine and analJTze

the stability of a slope and render an opinion on the stability and safety thereof. ( October

22, 2004 , Legal Opinion of General Counsel for the Board of Professional Engineers and

Page 15 of 19

0 0 6 3

Board

“Soils

- --.-I._ . - - . _. . .

for Geologists and Geophysicists) and 21 has never had any license category entitled

Engineer” or ‘‘soils Engineering” or “Soils Engineers”.

The County did not require or even request the consultant be licensed as a Geo-

Technical Engineer. County delayed processing landowner’s plans and denied landomers

applications on a basis County knew was misleading and contrary to its own policies and

not supported by law nor the State Licensing Board and further knew that according to

State of California Licensing Baord the Expert employed by ffland was qualified to

practke in the field of Soils Engineering or Geo-teclmical Engineering and Soils

Mecl-mics as here required . The mis-informatioii by County was an act of deliberate,

willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete information under oath, expecting and

requesting the court rely upon County to fully and fairly disclose the licensing procedures

and conditions required to be legally employed in the State of California and to lawfully

perform Geo-technical and Soils Engineering services.

I

16. Despite agreeing to act fairly and in good faith, Count17 under oath, knowing it

MYIS false. for the purposes of a litigctioi? advantage and for punitive purposes , undertook

to mislead the court by testifying and presenting in open court that the lands at 6 12 Nelson

were a sensitive Riparian Area. In this matter county staff and counsel Undertook Re-

classification of Land Condition Status after Litigation Commenced even though Official

County and State Maps and Customer Infomiational Sites represent the area as a site with :

A] a Significant Absence of Riparian Characteristic Soils or Subsurface Sediments Features,

B] a Significant Absence of Riparian Sensitive Watershed Features, C] a Significant Absence

of hparian Shrub , D] a Significant Absence of Riparian Timberland Features, E 3 a

Page 16 of 19

Significant Absence of Riparian Flora Features, F] a Significant Absence of Sensitive or

Protected Biotic Features , GI a Significant Absence of Ground Water Recharge Features,

and despite Careful Scientific Site Examination Showing : H ] a Significant Absence of

Presently Existing Verifiable Riparian Dependent And/or Exclusive Flora ; I 3 a Significant

Absence of Presently Existing Verifiable Riparian Dependent and/or Exclusive Fauna , J 3

a Significant Absence of Presently Existing Verifiable Rare, Endangered, and/or Threatened

Riparian Endemic Plant ,4nd,'or ,411imal Species; K 3 a Significant Absence of Presently

Existing Verifiable County Listed Flora Indicative of a Riparian Area; L] a Significant

Absence of Presently Existing Verifiable Riparian Anaerobic Indicative Soils Conditions at

the Referenced Site; and h/I] There Are Easily Available Maps Which Show the Land-area

Catch-basin of Ground Water Sources at the Drainage Ditch Area at Issue Is Geologically

and I-Illdro-logically Insignificant and Insubstantial and Experts have concluded that the

Drainage There can be Easily Controlled by Commonly ,4vailable Means Well Known to

Civil Engineers and/or Erosion Control Experts . In Light o€ the Preceding the County's

Claim That the DraimEe e Ditch Is Presently a Significant And/or Sexisitiw Riparian Natural

Con-idor Is Inappropriate and Insupportable by Prevailing Presently Existing Scientific

Facts. It has been concluded by experts consulted by clairiiaiit that surface water flc)\vs can

be readily contained in an easily designed small culvert and stoi-ni water run -off artificial

channel similar to the one existing from approximately 1900-1988. ( See Resumes of

Consulting Experts )

As fully explained in 6 above, even if the above absence of Riparian features had

not been established by Scientific Investigation and even if all County records did not

Page 17 of 19

__ -

exclude the site from all County Riparian Designated areas, County has known the County

Riparian Laws have been pre-empted. Case law holds that The County riparian standards ,

regulations and ordinance conflict with the State Forest Practice Act and invades an area

fully controlled and occupied by the state through the enactment of the State Forest Practice

Act and State Timber Productivity Act .

As a result of the misconduct stated above, the false evidence presented to the court

and administrative misconduct of County of agents who had a financial interest therein

and of nianagenient l e x l co-conspirators i v h ~ had ratified the illegal acts of county and

employees knowingly participating in using planning and zoning enforcenient processes

as an instrument to obtain litigation advantages and to coerce landowners to pay fees: costs

and assessments beyond what is appropriate and legal , Claimant landowner has suffered

special damages in excess of 125,000$ ( increasing by the week ) and $1 ,000,000$

General Damages ( increasing by the week 1.

Landowner’s damages have been the result of intentional and knowing acts of

I~iisrepresent3tio!a~~ese~i~~tic~~~ and misconduct induding viol 3tjuns of the Califcrnia keiial Code and

conspiracies and misconduct the fair and proper

adiiiinistration of justice with intent to punish, injure, harass and vex this landowner and

intended to corrupt and subvert

others through the misuse of authority and position of trust, including the seeking of an

order that this landowner and other landowners be ordered to jail without trial, knowing in

this case that the application for an order of confinement was based upon a false, misletading

and altered documents , false testimony, statements and declarations of County agents and

the application of void and un-approved local codes, ordinances and standards.

Page 180f 19

. -

In this case and others the misconduct involved the knowing and intentional misuse

of positions of public authority. Similar wrongful acts have been committed in matters filed,

prosecuted and/or charged against other landowners , some of whom have been jailed until

yielding to the County’s misuse of authority, improper enforcement of land use regulations,

and wrongful

standards not

manipulations of the legal system, including prosecutions based upon local

approved as required by state law.

February 25, 2007

Page 19 of 19