Showing posts with label grandfather. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grandfather. Show all posts

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Trash v. Garbage

.
Listen, male sex object, no f'n TLC from us!
We want weed... and we want it NOW!

My attorney tells me the BDG's are howling and barking again, refusing to produce discovery items in the civil lawsuit and, in general, just being their normal horrible, bitchy selves. (Maybe they should smoke more of their head case "medicine"... oops, maybe that's the problem?!)

Before the hearing on April 20th, I'm putting some housecleaning items back on the record to show that the central question in the Motion for Summary Judgment is most definitely ripe for decision.

Here is the letter going out today to the City of Manteca. The letter gathers together an assortment of lies, errors, and ignorances on the parts of Lyin' Lynda Allen, Big Brassey Boobs, and several Catatonic City departments.

(Happy St. Patrick's Day!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

City of Manteca
Mr. Pinkerton, City Manager
1001 W. Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

March 17, 2011

Re: Deficiencies at 810 Fishback Street

Dear Mr. Pinkerton,

In February 2010 my neighbors gave up the illegal business use of their property, prompted no doubt by my civil lawsuit against them. The use was abandoned and their claim of legal designation was rescinded by the City of Manteca. (See attachment A, letter of December 15, 2010.) There remain four unresolved points with the owners and the property, three of which are directly tied to this rescinded use, and all of which are under City of Manteca jurisdiction.

1. Restore solid waste collection (Solid Waste & Finance Departments)

Some years prior to June 21, 1996, the owners of 810 Fishback Street ceased paying for refuse pickup, subsequently claimed grandfathered business use, and in 2000 were exempted from the municipal service. The City has lost thousands of dollars. Now that the business use has ceased, as noted above, the property must be restored to the municipal solid waste collection program, as are all other residences in this city. (See attachment B, Case Sheet for MS-34246, filed June 21, 1996.)

I request a copy of the Court’s orders for the exemption from the City’s files, or from the exempted owners. If such orders cannot be produced, then restoration of service is required.

2. Too many animals/dogs/cats (Animal Control & Code Enforcement Departments)

Among my neighbors’ first assertions in 2007 was their claim that their many dogs served to protect their business assets from thieves; specifically, food stored in their several outdoor refrigeration appliances. Even if their business use claim was valid, the Municipal Code still only allows for three dogs/cats on a residential lot.

For eighteen months I have tried to get Animal Control to reduce the dog count on the parcel, from six, to three or less. Animal Control now claims they have referred the complaint to Code Enforcement. (See attachment C, cover letter only, March 3, 2011 to Code Enforcement Department.)

3. Illegal construction still houses former business assets (Building Inspection & Code Enforcement Departments)

In December 2009 I notified the City of Manteca of certain noncompliant structures used in the business on the neighboring property. Deficiencies noted were/are: no permits for the poured concrete foundations; zero setback from the wooden property line fence; wood-destroying water drainage from both the noncompliant structures and the business appliances housed within. Some of the business appliances are now gone, but the noncompliant structures remain. (See attachment D, Request # 329034, December 29, 2009.)

Code Enforcement’s response started with: “Structure was in place at the time the city annexed the property.” That is untrue. The neighbors poured the concrete pads specifically to physically support the weight and vibrations of the various commercial appliances they installed during their “official” - and illegal - business expansion in 1993-94, well after the 1986 annexation. Further enclosure work took place after 2007.

4. Highly irregular building permit for solar electric system (Building Department)

The reputed owners of the photovoltaic system erected under permit 04-143, issued 4/28/04, were Roger and Flora Stewart of 786 Fishback Street. (See attachment E, Application and Inspection Record.) Unfortunately, Roger had died a year earlier, on 4/10/2003, age 87; his wife, Flora, died 10/29/2005, a year after the system’s installation, at age 83.

I am the current owner of 786 Fishback Street. My three questions are:

Why was the project built on a non-owner parcel (222-11-003 instead of 222-11-002)?

How did this 82-year-old woman get suckered into lending her name to her neighbor’s project?

How did the City of Manteca excuse such a lapse, or condone such a fraud, in the permitting process?


I am committed to seeing this property rehabilitation completed, for reasons I have repeatedly relayed to you since my first letter on March 5, 2008 (not attached.) Those reasons are grounded on the rationale stated in this 1954 court opinion, which should be the first commandment of all zoning and enforcement officials:
“Footnotes, note 2. ‘It has always been assumed that non-conforming uses would gradually eliminate themselves from the district in which they exist if they were not permitted to expand. Such has not proven to be the case. They not merely continue to exist, but to send down deeper roots. They become clear monopolies and special privileges. Their existence is a continual threat to the conservation of property values in the districts where they exist. The time has come when cognizance should be taken of this situation and provision made, probably in the state law, whereby non-conforming uses may be gradually eliminated under some equitable method of procedure.’ [Citation]” (emphasis added) [Los Angeles v. Gage, 127 Cal. App. 2d 442 (Cal. App. 1954)]
The above is for legal land uses. Reason dictates that there is need for action, not discussion, because the subject land use is/was noncompliant (illegal) from the outset and, unchecked for twenty-three years, sank several “deeper roots” that need killing.

Sincerely yours,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Neither the BDG's nor their business, TLC Catering, were ever grandfathered,
so why are they still exempt from city garbage pickup?


.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

WTF Kind of Marijuana Caregivers Are You?!!!

.
Don't bother to answer the question... I already know.
or TOKE AND DRIVE
Of all the stupid, irresponsible actions of Lyin' Lynda Allen, Theresa "Brassy Boobs" Brassey and Corkscrewed Cornelia Green, yesterday's was the most egregious yet. They let Brassey drive! alone and stoned! (Of course, all three of them are always stoned nowadays.)

At 10:18 a.m., Brassey poked her head out the back door, emerged, and waddled unsteadily toward the cars, checking about to see if anyone was watching her. The hired handyman appeared to take no notice... at least until Theresa climbed into the Big-Ass Black Pickup Truck, turned it on, and began at 10:21 to execute a T-turn in the constricted, overcrowded yard.

Yesterday's configuration of tents and sheds
on Allen's & Brassey's property
(new additions and re-locations daily)
At that point, the handyman made a beeline to the screened porch and relayed a warning message. Within seconds, Corkscrewed Green popped out the back door and quickly jogged to the truck as Brassey pulled up to the driveway gate. Green quickly returned to inside the house, passing Lyin' Lynda emerging out the back. Green intercepted Brassey out front and held a confab with her on the street. At 10:25, Brassey hesitantly piloted the Big-Ass Pickup Truck away to the south.


There was way too much urgency displayed during this episode to be merely a case of Brassey forgetting a list of building materials or groceries. No, I've had the unfortunate experience of living next to the unstable pair, Allen and Brassey, for almost four years and Brassey was clearly acting erratically (and, more seriously, without the Alpha Bitch's express permission.)

When asked to vote on the 2010 Proposition 19 - Legalize Marijuana in CA, Regulate and Tax, voters in San Joaquin County rejected giving dopers unrestricted access by 61% to 39%. (Even all the Left Coast potheads and other useful idiots could not overcome a statewide rejection of 54%.)

Statewide:

Yes Votes - 3,897,789 46.0%
No Votes - 4,574,463 54.0%

San Joaquin County:

Yes Votes - 45,263 38.83%
No Votes - 71,295 61.17%

But (and this is a Big-Ass Truck-sized But), residents of the state are saddled with that partial birth abortion known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA), HSC 11362.5. In subsection (b)(2) is this verbiage:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes."
"Conduct that endangers others" explicitly applies to DUI operations of motor vehicles.

Of course, police can't test and won't enforce; D.A.'s can't win and won't prosecute; courts are already... well, you know... too screwed up to interpret laws correctly any more; the past governor reduced "minor amount" possession to no more than a traffic ticket; and the current governor will... will encourage the pothead lawyer legislature to completely legalize grass.

I'm guessing Brassey would have to kill herself (like) - and likely someone else (dislike) - before a successful DUI prosecution would stick in SJCo. (Except, live people say only nice things about dead BDG's...)

To top it all off, the San Joaquin County D.A.'s office failed in their CUA responsibility to construct and maintain files of registered sex offenders medical marijuana users and their caregivers. No one knows WTF is going on! The whole damn house of cards is built on the intrinsic integrity of law-abiding pot smokers and the thorough-going professionalism of certified so-called doctors who write the Marijuana Recommendations. (Which is to say, we're screwed.)

Is anyone willing to tell us how well the CUA - that bad law imposed by duped doped well-meaning idiots in a direct democracy and left to citizen self-enforcement by incompetent (we say) and underpaid (they say) officialdom - just how well is that bad law working out for us? The answer is not to completely legalize weed, but to put it back under competent medical authority - if such can be found. (We may just be screwed, after all.)

And the Barefoot Dirty Girls of Manteca grow the best damn Sierra High(c) brand of shit, smoke it by the potful, and happily! euphorically! hungrily! hit the roads and highways of our locale in their Big-Ass Black Pickup Truck.



The BDG's mud flap motto?

UP YOURS
ASSHOLES AND SOCCER MOMS!
WE'RE GRANDFATHERED
CERTIFIED CAREGIVERS!

.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Allen's & Brassey's Ghastly Grandfather Dies!

.

A message came to me a short while ago that Lyin' Lynda was adamantly asserting that she had the RIGHT to start up her business again if SHE wanted to - after all, it's HER property and she's got a "legally grandfathered business" on it.

*Pish!* When I received that message, I did not respond to it, but rather waited for the City of Manteca to respond to my December 1st request for a re-determination of Lyin' Lynda's legality.

The city's response was dated December 15, 2010 and is posted here:


The key phrases are, "the nonconforming status is lost and the nonconforming use may not be resumed."

As you can see, Lyin' Lynda's assertion is nought but babbling and raving. She has lied since November 1987 - from the very beginning of her residency on the property - about the "grandfathered" status of TLC Catering and Commissary. Besides the fact that it NEVER WAS grandfathered, it is now determined that the status is detached from the property and extinguished. This widely known, respected pillar self-deceived lunatic of Fishback Street and Resectioned Red, her lover and partner, breathe out only hot air and secondhand marijuana combustion compounds.

Good-bye, Grandfather!

Good Riddance.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Extinguish v. Exterminate...

.

Yellow and Red have their permanent pariah protégé and
personal protector do pest control act as their good will ambassador

(Ever notice how everything the BDGs do
has to make loud noise? ...or smoke?)

- - - - - - - - -

Today I posted the following letter to the City of Manteca's Director of Community Development:

City of Manteca
Attn: Frederick Clark
1001 W Center Street
Manteca, CA 95336

12/01/2010

Re: Determination of extinguishment of nonconforming use status at 810 Fishback Street, Manteca, CA

Dear Mr. Clark,

I am requesting a letter of determination from you memorializing the extinguishment of the nonconforming use status accorded to the property neighboring mine, at 810 Fishback Street, Manteca, CA 95337, on June 29, 1993. Attached is the City of Manteca letter of that date.

The nonconforming use, a business known as TLC Catering and its associated private commissary, ceased operation “on or about February 15, 2010.” Attached is the owner’s verification of that date, declared by her “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.” From that date to this, the business operation has not resumed; indeed, key elements of physical plant have been removed, though much remains.

Because a nonconforming use “runs with the land” and was granted by letter in this case, this official determination is necessary to extinguish the nonconforming use designation. A copy of Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.55.020, is included for your reference to the necessary elapsed time periods fulfilling the extinguishment requirements.

I remain committed to seeing this rehabilitation project through and greatly desire your willing cooperation in this matter. I stand ready to talk with you, meet with you, or make any other needed information or documented evidence available to you in closing this matter.

Please mail your current determination of the zoning and land use designation to me...

Please mail a copy to my attorney...

Sincerely yours,


Attachments: City of Manteca letter of June 29, 1993; Requests for Admissions; MMC 17.55.020.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -



Attachment #1: Original grant of nonconforming use status (obtained by deceit)


Attachment #2: Admission of discontinuance of nonconforming use (found in this post.)

Attachment #3: Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.55.020, Nonconforming buildings and uses

.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Draft Mediation Letter

.
{Pssst! Someone buy "A is for Asshole" on Amazon and read it to Lynda.}


My attorney asked me for a *short* draft mediation letter outlining the case and my expected outcomes from next week's mediation session. The letter, he said, will be forwarded to the mediator and to the defendants in advance of the session.

For the loyal supporters following the lawsuit, you will find nothing new here. For the rest of you, the points are focused versions of the three aims I spelled out two and one-half years ago, on April 4, 2008, in a letter to the City of Manteca:

My aims are threefold. (1) The immediate need is nighttime noise cessation. (2) The next goal, in the short term, is to have the City of Manteca spell out for me and my neighbors the legal responsibilities (and necessary formal variances!) this business has in a residential neighborhood. (3) My long term goal (and the Planning Department’s goal?) is to have the business assets and operations removed from the property (perhaps to a commercial zone?)



You will see below only slight wording changes in those aims, even though in April 2008 everyone was still suckered by Lyin' Lynda's big lie... you know, the one about how she was running a "legally grandfathered business." {Pish!} A fourth aim of mine, since the necessity of a lawsuit was forced on me, is to lay the costs of exterminating these roaches this sordid affair on the guilty parties.

BEHLING v. ALLEN, et al.
Case # 39-2009-00212085-CU-OR-STK
Mediation letter
November 29, 2010


Plaintiff charges the defendants with noise nuisance caused by reason of their illegal land use of operating the business known as TLC Catering and commissary from their residential property zoned R-1. Prior to the lawsuit, all municipal administrative remedies were denied to plaintiff. Upon filing this suit, the defendants immediately engaged in retaliatory noise increases, which were made part of the first amended pleadings. Soon after the first amendment, unwarranted and harassing closed circuit digital (CCD) camera surveillance of plaintiff on his property commenced.


Plaintiff’s aim is to live in peaceful and quiet enjoyment of his adjoining residential property by:


A) stopping the incessant noise nuisances and retaliatory intrusions emanating from 810 Fishback Street, including business uses and noises, all-day/every-day harassment playing of the yard radio since June 4, 2009, and intrusive, overreaching use of CCD infrared surveillance cameras since October 11, 2010;


B) obtaining a complete recision and extinguishment of the deceitfully gained June 1993 “legal, nonconforming” use designation for 810 Fishback Street either by defendants’ sworn statement of confession, or by City of Manteca’s written determination, or by Superior Court order;


C) effecting the cleanup and rehabilitation of 810 Fishback Street to residential only use by complete removal or demolition from the property of all assets - buildings, structures, vehicles, equipment, appliances, fixtures, inventories, etc. - used in conducting the business from 1987 to 2010 (preliminary asset list is attached); and


D) recovering plaintiff’s costs, damages, and legal fees incurred to obtain obstinate defendants’ compliance with state laws, municipal ordinances, and common courtesies.


- - - - - - - - - - - - -


Preliminary asset list of TLC Catering and commissary


(This is plaintiff’s list because attempts to verify these assets, first by interrogatory, then by demand for production of acquisition documents, again by request for admissions, and finally by request for on-site inspection, have in all cases produced only non-response or evasions by the defendants.)


Mobile home, license # FQ1259


Covered dirt floor structure behind mobile home (eastward) and all equipment in it


Trailmobile refrigerated shipping container behind the mobile home (eastward)


Grease barrel storage corral and grease barrels


Two (2) Mobile Food Preparation Units (MFPUs, or catering trucks)


One Vending truck


One trash truck


Covered concrete floor structure on the north property line


Equipment and appliances on the north property line:
  • Scotsman icemaker and condenser
  • Follett ice storage/dispensing bin
  • Admiral freezer/refrigerator combo
  • Kenmore upright freezer
  • Bally walk-in freezer
Chest freezer on covered porch attached to east side of main dwelling


Outdoor radio mounted on outbuilding


Surveillance cameras


All other unverified buildings, structures, vehicles, equipment, appliances, fixtures, parts stocks, inventories, and detritus currently or formerly used in the nonconforming uses

- - - - - - - - -


.

Friday, October 1, 2010

An Icemaker, the Bible, NsFH, and The Art of War

.
"One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements."
. . .
"Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence. Thus the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities. This tactic of attacking fortified cicties is adopted only when unavoidable."
(The Art of War, by Sun-tzu, Part 3, Planning Offensives; new translation by Ralph D. Sawyer, Fall River Press, 1994)
. . .

(September 22, 2010)

My first approach to the Barefoot Dirty Girls in early 2008 was almost a suicide mission, as I was blinded-sided by their strategic misinformation ("grandfathered" lie), tactical orders (Cantu letter), and physical barricades (fences, dogs, lights, illegal structures, etc.) In asking nicely for moving the icemaker, or moderating its hours of operation, I was merely trying to follow the scriptural directive found in the Bible for conflict resolution.
Matthew 18: 21-22 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Forgiving seventy times seven sleepless nights finally exceeded my patience.
Matthew 18:15: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
I tried that and Lynda S Allen flat-out refused to accommodate. Looking back in the light of the quote from The Art of War, my requests were viewed by the BDGs as an attack on their fortified compound and, in my unprepared state, I was easily repulsed and very nearly extinguished on this initial engagement. In their view, the biblical soft approach (also known as diplomacy*, as described in the NsFH book, Neighbors From Hell) was a sign of indecisive weakness.

At the time and looking back in the light of Matthew 18:15, my duty to my neighbors was fulfilled and their responses - and the attendant consequences - were now entirely on their account, not mine.

And, if Lynda hears thee not? Am I S.O.L. and must leave vengeance to God? Hardly! I sued for relief before the city council - and was summarily denied.

I then sued her ass in Superior Court! Only then did Lynda come over and offer to "move the icemaker."

My response: Sorry... you're waaaay too late, sistah. You and the City of Manteca put me through hell and forced me to do the research. I've now got the proof of your "legally grandfathered" LIE. You had your chance. Merely moving the icemaker is no longer a sufficient action. The required action now consists of entirely removing the illegal business operation from the property, either through relocation or business closure. See you in court.

Thereafter, my campaign became more careful and considered. I now attacked Lynda's "armies," her "alliances," and especially her "plans." While moving the lawsuit forward through discovery, her illegal business operation was scrutinized and the grandfather claim exposed as fraud by affidavit. Her documentation of legality - nonexistent. Her juvenile retaliation against the lawsuit with the yard radio nuisance was documented and charged as criminal. Her entrenched pattern of city ordinance lawbreaking, spanning decades, surfaced in regards to the illegal mobile home, a travel trailer, unpermitted construction, abandoned vehicles, excess animals, exemption from city refuse pickup program, yard sales, and even daily lawn watering within an alternate day schedule.

Her ties to some of her "allies" at city hall - Willie Weatherford, Rex Osborn, and Mary Bingham - were observed and noted.

Her plans to continue business from her property were publicized, harried and interrupted as much as possible. Those actions, combined with a faltering economy and her own public announcement of failing health, impelled her to close down the business rather than relocate it.

(September 25, 2010; icemaker removed September 24, 2010)

The picture shows the footprint of the removed roof-mounted Scotsman condenser unit. Since the plywood door to the illegally expanded shed has been nailed shut, and the siding used as a shed wall now swings as the door, I surmise that the Scotsman compressor unit and the Follett ice storage bin have been removed from the illegal shed.

Next, the shed comes down.

From my own as-yet-unpublished legal writings:
The effects of this illegal use, abetted by the determination letter-in-error, have snowballed through the years. This section recounts certain violations of state law and municipal code that occurred after Defendants took possession of the subject property. A summary judgment, finding for the Plaintiff, would affect these items. These documents are dated after November 10, 1987 and are presented to properly illuminate the absurdly wide scope of the resulting nuisance caused by the Defendants’ false claim of being legally grandfathered on the property. They have built an entire house of cards on a fabricated foundation.
Caught in her own spiraling down-the-drain suction, Lynda's selfish and singularly myopic interests caused her to plant an outdoor marijuana garden on her property, which adjoins Sierra High School, without consulting any code requirements. Again, no compliance - never is. Now there is another misdemeanor charge against her.

It has been awesome watching - and often hearing - Lynda's shrill, self-righteous, self-destruction and her descent back to hell. I'm sure Roger and Flora Stewart and Irvin and Margaret Biggs would approve. I know I do.

Maybe God loves her; I tried and failed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Diplomacy: An initial personal visit with a neighbor may accomplish a couple things. It sorts out the ignorant, who can be educated. It sorts out the oblivious, who can be reminded. Next are the stupid, who deliberately remain ignorantly oblivious. Lastly are the mentally impaired, who suffer from (or, more correctly, cause others to suffer) either sociopathy or psychopathy.

. . . . .

"Thus there are five factors from which victory can be known:

  • One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious.

  • One who recognizes how to employ large and small numbers will be victorious.

  • One whose upper and lower ranks have the same desires will be victorious.

  • One who, fully prepared, awaits the unprepared will be victorious.

  • One whose general is capable and not interfered with by the ruler will be victorious.
"These five are the Way (Tao) to know victory."

(The Art of War, ibid.)
. . . . .

.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Motion to Amend Complaint is Filed

.
My attorney and I met this morning to finish up the Amended Complaint (or Pleading) and it has now been filed with the Superior Court in Stockton. The other documents, Points and Authorities in Support and Notice of Motion to Amend, etc., were included in the court filing. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 1st.

A proposal to stipulate (agree and end this litigation) accompanied the required service of these filings on the Defendants.

The initial complaint, filed fourteen months ago, has been amended or "tightened up" to focus on the longstanding illegality of operating TLC Catering and Commissary at 810 and 812 Fishback Street, Manteca, CA 95337, and the incessant noise nuisance the operation produced 24/7 for many years, but especially the last three and one-half years. The Amended Complaint has two attachments: 1) the June 1993 letter from the City of Manteca granting legal nonconforming status to the illegal business use, and 2) the June 2010 affidavit from Ben Cantu recanting his 1993 determination, based on good, solid research refuting the Defendants' deceit and misrepresentations (legalese for lies.)

The prayer is for a declaration on the matter of law (the use was never grandfathered) and two injunctions, one regarding the business operations and assets (cessation and removal from property) and another for the bad faith retaliation of the outdoor radio (removal.)

I already have my bets placed on the expected response from the Defendants, Mellow Yellow and Ravaged Red. Here's how I see their entire defense going:
"But, Yer 'Oner, lookit alla For Sale signs we have on eve'thin'! We's so poor it's hard ta get BBQ and sodas onna table ever' night. (Never mind that house remodel thing...) 'Sides, lookit, we tore down the mobile home, what musta been legal 'cause it was on the place when we bought it... uh, when it was cuntry. Ya know, we's from the Bay Area and we gave good service in Tracy for 25 years. Ever'body says so. We all'ays had Health permits... musta just 'overlooked' licensing the business thing for 23 years. {shrug} Just sayin'... Oh, an' anuther thing - the icemaker - it DOESN'T run all night! It had some kinda timer on it, or sumpthin'. Fact is, we turned it off last January or February... tried to sell it, too, but it wouldn't run. Go, Raiders! Sorry, jus' gettin' wound up... {Lynda abruptly wanders away from the witness box as she trails off the last sentence.}"

See? They ain't got nuthin' else, 'ceptn' s.o.s.* from city council meetin'.

- - - - - - -
* same old s**t
.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

A Question of Color

.
A catechism (pronounced /ˈkætəkɪzəm/; Ancient Greek: κατηχισμός from kata = "down" + echein = "to sound", literally "to sound down" (into the ears), i.e. to indoctrinate) is a summary or exposition of doctrine. The form has, historically and typically, followed a dialogue or question-and-answer format. This format calls upon two parties to participate, a master and a student (traditionally termed a "scholar"), a parent and a child, or, as in the example below, a secular catechism between a dominant and submissive.

The following catechism took place yesterday morning at 07:15 hours, while everything was still and peaceful.
Lynda Allen: Kinda quiet out here, i'n't it? (The radio's not on yet? What'n hell ya been doin'?)
Theresa Brassey: Sure is. (Go ahead - turn it on yerself!)
Lynda Allen: They turned it on to soccer. (The foreign language speaking workers were listening to World Cup FIFA fútbol the day before.)
Theresa Brassey: {mutter...} I don't know. (Whatever...)
From the exchange's manifold purposes, these three are clearly drawn:
  1. Daily affirmation of Lynda's dominance.
  2. Daily submission of Theresa to Lynda.
  3. Daily announcement to their hated neighbor that he is about to be forced to think of Lynda when she turns on her outdoor radio... and if he don't like it, he can go f*** himself.
And, of course, she turned the radio on moments later.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


I am able to detect color in Brassey (the red of apoplexy, or the heatstroke of cooking chorizo and eggs over a catering truck stove for twenty-odd years) and in Greene (gray, with a little pink). But Allen...?

Hate and insanity appear to be colorless. Yup, every morning around 07:00 hrs, when Allen shuffles out of her house to turn on the yard radio, she appears devoid of color, zombie-like and lifeless - on the outside:
  • deeply lined, unsmiling face (OMG! Can't allow another minute of silence!) 
  • straight, stringy hair of indistinguisable hue
  • nails-on-chalkboard voice and horror-show laugh
  • frumpy bathrobe with fuzz-less slippers
and on the inside:
  • slavish devotion to breaking the law (mobile home, business, noise, dogs, construction, etc.)
  • insulting haughtiness in breaking the law (I gotta right! I'm legally grandfathered!)
  • distrust of authority and paranoia about neighbors
  • attempts at ingratiation of police turning to hostility
  • knack for alienating people with her demands
  • keeping "vicious" junkyard dogs (who crap all over and mirror their mistresses' personalities)
She simply cannot endure silence. So why does she deliberately turn on the radio outside and shuffles back inside the house for an hour? (I'm curious if there are any mirrors in there?) What drives her and keeps her going on this hopeless course of self-destruction? Is she getting everything she wants out of life? Is she, perhaps, reaping what she has so deceitfully sown for all these years "in the country" in the City of Manteca?

Not a colorful picture, this insanity of Allen's.

.

Then... a glimmer...

Today, she accosts a 90-year-old man, known by her to be an acquaintance of mine, and engages in the classic gossip game of "See What Route Your Bogus Story Takes Before Coming Back To You" (also known as, Who Told Who.) She pitches him a line about fixing up her house to rent it out and moving to Oregon.

The briefest flash of color...
.

Lynda is fond of saying and practicing, "We don't talk," so that leaves me free to speculate on what's really going on - which is OK because true insanity is to believe anything she says and virtually everything she does - as in (grandfathering) (icemaker) (compromise). Some possible scenarios are these:

(1) She is full of shit  lying - again - and isn't going anywhere. (Remember, it's just a gossip game of misinformation.) She is really playing a waiting game to see if I give up or lose the civil lawsuit.
(2) She is intending to rent out the place to one of her clone-of-Lynda friends (But where will she go? Oregon is far away. I'll miss her - about as much as I miss the ice machine!)
(3) She is not renting it out, merely trading houses temporarily with a clone-of-Lynda. (She would miss me too much to stay away long.)

.
The dusky, dirty hue brightens somewhat... and... wouldn't you know it? Lynda's color is YELLOW! Like a yellow-bellied lizard!

No matter what this "brilliant" tactician says or does (or doesn't), all options point to retension of the property. That's good because then there will be something with intrinsic value - not all that business junk - against which to file a judgment lien.
.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Make New Friends... And Keep The Old...

In keeping with the spirit of the Girl Scout campfire song in the title, it was time to open or renew communications with a couple of governmental agencies charged with overseeing certain aspects of the seamy, steamy industry politely called catering.

Tax revenues are important for some reason to the State of California, and sales taxes from retail businesses are tracked pretty carefully. So I wrote to my new friends at the Board of Equalization.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Board of Equalization
Disclosure Officer, MIC: 54
P.O. Box 942879
Sacramento, CA 94279

May 26, 2010

Re: Cancellation of Seller’s Permit

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am seeking to ascertain the date of discontinuance for the following business:

TLC Catering
810 Fishback Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Owners: Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey.
No Fictitious Business Name statement filed in San Joaquin County since 1989.

Sometime in the middle of February, 2010, daily departures of catering trucks ceased and For Sale signs went up on the vehicles. Other business operations ceased on the property. Regulation 1699, section (f), requires surrender of the Seller’s Permit upon discontinuance of the business or transfer of the active business to another person.

Please respond with some sort of Board of Equalization documentation regarding the date of surrender of their Seller’s Permit.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


 
And renewing communications with the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD)...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Attn: Jeff Carruesco, Program Coordinator
600 E. Main Street
Stockton, CA 95202

May 26, 2010

Re: Superior Court Case # 3-2009-00212085-CU-OR-STK,
Behling v. Allen, Brassey, TLC Catering and Commissary

Dear Mr. Carruesco,

On March 18, 2010, I requested copies of the health permit cancellations for TLC Catering and other related correspondence between your office and the business owners.

The owners and operators, Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey, have elected to cease business operations at 810 Fishback Street in Manteca, to include their last MFPU and the private commissary.

Please send my copies to the address on the letterhead.

Please send copies of these documents to my attorney...


Sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 


It was brought to my attention by someone more well-versed than I in the Manteca Municipal Code, that the city has fairly stringent provisions for the time-amortization, discontinuance, and removal of (legal) nonconforming buildings and uses. Title 17, Section 55 deals with these particulars. The Planning Commission only gets involved if an extension of the time-amortization period is requested. For everything else, administrative authority is vested in the Community Development Director to execute the section's provisions, which includes notifying violators to immediately discontinue and remove illegal nonconforming uses.

 
I won't bore the reader with more details - except to say, it feels as if I'm at the beginning of 2008 again! I may have to fight every single battle again with the city.

What is wrong with this $%&&* city?! Isn't there a single  #%%@&  oxymoronic  public servant who understands the zoning ordinance? Isn't there a single paid professional planner who can explain the ordinance clearly to a mere citizen upon his first question or complaint? Isn't there a single department director who can truly take proper action as authorized by the publicly adopted ordinance? Are all these city minions so oblivious to the law, lazy in its application, or fearful of taking 'uncomfortable' action that the abomination-upon-the-land, known as TLC Catering (even if it was legal, which it never was), wasn't  sent to hell  amortized within very few years of this code's adoption in 1992, rather than entrenching itself for over two decades from its spawning.

A precedent-setting court case for the elimination of nonconforming uses is Los Angeles v. Gage (1954) The second footnote quotes a legal authority:
"It has always been assumed that non-conforming uses would gradually eliminate themselves from the district in which they exist if they were not permitted to expand. Such has not proven to be the case. They not merely continue to exist, but to send down deeper roots. They become clear monopolies and special privileges. Their existence is a continual threat to the conservation of property values in the districts where they exist. The time has come when cognizance should be taken of this situation and provision made, probably in the state law, whereby nonconforming uses may be gradually eliminated under some equitable method of procedure." Bartholomew, The Zoning of Illinois Municipalities, 17 Ill.Munic.Rev. 221, 232. (emphasis added)
The court stated in its opinion:
"In essence there is no distinction between requiring the discontinuance of a nonconforming use within a reasonable period and {1} provisions which deny the right to add to or extend buildings devoted to an existing nonconforming use, {2} which deny the right to resume a nonconforming use after a period of nonuse, {3} which deny the right to extend or enlarge an existing nonconforming use, {4} which deny the right to substitute new buildings for those devoted to an existing nonconforming use — all of which {the latter 4} have been held to be valid exercises of the police power. (See County of Orange v. Goldring, 121 Cal. App.2d 442 [263 P.2d 321]; 58 Am.Jur. 1026, 1029, §§ 156, 158, 162; anno. 147 460*460 A.L.R. 167; 1 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, 2d ed., §§ 151-157.) (italic numbering added)
I wonder if all of our zoning, planning, and code enforcement employees slept through their "Law of Zoning" college class? Or, have not kept up their continuing education requirements?

It is pretty clear that our officials should have been able to do one of the following:
  • 1. Immediately abate TLC Catering's illegal use of property in 1987 when the warts first appeared;
  • 2. Immediately abate TLC Catering's illegal use of property in 1992 after new ordinance adoption; or,
  • 3. Put TLC Catering on amortization for abatement (incorrectly presuming legal nonconforming status) after the 1993 complaint.
 The #$%#%$ owners of this illegal business operation should not have had even one day of their nuisance operation on the property, and certainly no more than seven years after being turned in in 1993.

But no! Manteca officials let them go on and on and on... for twenty-three years! Tell me again, why does Manteca even have a municipal code?

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The Travel Trailer Shim Sham Shimmy

Well, I must admit, Manteca's code enforcement response time is certainly improving. Someone was out a mere 25 hours after I hit the enter key on the City's Government-Reach-Out-And-Touch/Love/Cuddle-Your-Neighbor online reporting system. That response time is warp speed 9 quicker than my first tooth-and-nail attempts to get ANY feedback from the city in March and April of 2008 (I was Sooo naive then.) Even so, Animal Control has them beat at only one hour turnaround last September 8th (2009), after I delivered my complaint in person. (Of course, the Animal Control officer still managed to screw up that investigation...)

Anyway, the white pickup truck with "Manteca Police Department" stenciled on the door, and "Code Enforcement" stenciled under that, pulled up to the curb on the east side of the street and took pictures of the travel trailer parked across the street. He pulled up the street a few rods, and down the street a chain or two, probably to photograph the various perspectives and to write observation notes. All told, approximately ten to fifteen minutes were spent on this endeavor.




Here is the online report that prompted the visit:

Thank you for contacting the City of Manteca. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you and assure you a positive experience with us.

The Complaint you submitted was:
- - - - - - - - -
Request type: Boats, Trailers, RVs on Private Property

Description: Travel trailer at 785 Fishback Street is not in compliance with MMC 17.15.105 Parking and storage of mobile vehicles and accessories on pre July 19, 1978 parcels.

A Wilderness Advantage travel trailer by Fleetwood is parked in the home's side yard, open to view from the front (east) and unscreened on the side (south). In spite of it being there for over two years, no DMV licensing is displayed anywhere on it, only the dealer promo info. The trailer's pop-out extension has been deployed the entire time, the trailer is plugged into an outside electrical outlet, and there are indications someone is using it regularly or living in it.

The January 2009 ordinance's six-month enforcement "grace period" has long since expired.
- - - - - - - - -
Your request has been assigned to a [ed., an anonymous] city employee. You will receive a response within 5 days for this request. If it does take longer than this, please contact us by replying to this email.

The current expected due date is 12/10/09.


[Note: The 5-day response time means five "open for business" days. The tally has already included one every-other-Friday closure, three unpaid furlough days, two days for Thanksgiving, and four standard weekend days. So, add ten lost days to any 5+ days response.]

Yes, that RV has been parked there, unmoving, for a long, long time. And this complaint is regarding the property across the street from me - not the Neighbors From Hell (NsFH) property next door.

(Shhh... I'm not supposed to complain about them... Remember, I was quarantined by the Chief of Police from complaining to the City of Manteca about Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey illegally operating their TLC Catering business, with the help of Corky Greene, from 810 Fishback Street, the residential property zoned R-1 since annexation where the three of them live, work, play, collect animals and other friends, jabber, eat, make ice, make love, make noise at all hours, take commercial deliveries, restock their illegal commissary building, build all sorts of unpermitted noncompliant structures, etc.)

The new ordinance regarding mobile accessory vehicles went into effect January of this year, so one might ask, "What about grandfathering?"

The answer is: "No grandfathering allowed." These are mobile vehicles and can be moved around while screening and parking surfaces can be retrofitted. If the vehicle is too big or the necessary improvements cannot or will not be made, then the arrangement is not permitted and the vehicle must be hauled off to an appropriate rental space somewhere else.

The BIG question on the readers' minds right now is, "Why is this guy picking on the poor unfortunates who live across the street?" The answer is, "I have (almost) nothing against the owners of the property across the street. I have never met them."

Yet this entire campaign is deadly serious and the traps are baited for more than one prey.

Monday, August 17, 2009

What She SAYS - -vs- - What She DOES


Quote from Lynda Allen to City Council: "I have my refrigeration man [here] that can tell you about the ice machine... that's not really a problem... because it doesn't run all night."

- versus -

Recorded incidents of all-night icemaker operation:
Apr 08 - 7 nights
May 08 - 7 nights
Jun 08 - 9 nights
Jul 08 - 13 nights
Aug 08 - 2 nights
Sep 08 - 0
Oct 08 - 1 nights
Nov 08 - 0
Dec 08 - 1 nights
Jan 09 - 2 nights
Feb 09 - 1 nights
Mar 09 - 0 (City Council Meeting)
Apr 09 - 1 nights
May 09 - 1 nights
Jun 09 - 0
Jul 09 - 9 nights
Aug 09 - 15 nights (edited 8/31/09)

- - - - - - -
Actually, the ice machine does run all night much more often than she cares to remember or admit when not under oath. (Oh, by the way, congratulations to TLC Catering on setting a new record last month - almost 50% of all nights - 15 out of 31).
And don't forget the Ice Bucket Brigade - an integral part of the icemaker's operation. Every weekday morning from 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. my air is polluted with banging of empty 5-gallon plastic pails, the repetitive, clattering noise of shoveling ice into those pails, latching and slamming ice bin lids and doors, and other disturbances related to the illegal operation of TLC Catering.
And one of Snow White's dwarves whistles while she works... (Hi Ho, Hi Ho, We get to play with Snow...)
I truly DO understand that a business such as this requires preparations during early morning hours. That is EXACTLY why such businesses should not be located in residential zones.
Allen & Brassey's claim of grandfathered land use is FALSE - and TLC Catering should be MOVED elsewhere (... or shut down, if that is T, L, and C's choice.)

Monday, July 6, 2009

Three Days and Three Nights of Noise

In June of last year (2008) the icemaker was broken for a blissfully quiet week. After it was fixed, it ran continuously for days. That same thing happened again this year, this weekend.


I went riding on Friday, July 3rd, because most of the USA had the day off as a holiday. When I returned in the afternoon, the neighbors' Icemaker From Hell had been repaired - and it hasn't been quiet for the last three nights and days. Of course, that is entirely contrary to Ms. Allen's statement in front of the Manteca City Council on March 3rd, when she said:


"I have my refrigeration man [here] that can tell you about the ice machine that's not really a problem because it doesn't run all night. I go to bed at seven, shut it off. I leave at four in the morning."


The machine absolutely DID run all night for many, many nights during the hellish summer of 2007 (for which I have no notes) and also during the summer of 2008 (for which I do have notes.) She may have left at four a.m. (now 4:30 a.m.), but notably omitted mentioning the 6:15 a.m. startup of the machine by the property's third occupant. Shortly after that meeting, "Sleepy Head" Allen moved her bedtime to 8:00 o'clock, along with the corresponding shutoff of the icemaker.


These "public statements vs. private actions" clearly illustrate her lack of truthfulness. Nothing she says can be taken as the truth - or as any part of the truth. To her, truth is very similar to situational ethics: something to be decided at the moment and, depending on the audience, give as little information as possible to buy off the listener.



. . . two days remaining on the revised Response deadline . . .

Friday, February 27, 2009

Sun Post Story and Council Meeting Agenda Item

Wow! This is the third media exposure this week regarding my case. Cheryl Winkelman did a wonderful job putting the dry facts of my report together with the personal impacts of such a horrible nuisance continuously inflicted by my insensate neighbors.

Page 7

Page 8





I took a few minutes to carefully read Cheryl's article after I picked up several copies of the paper from the Sun Post office downtown. Then I stopped by City Hall to drop one copy off and to review the meeting binder made available to the public in the City Clerk's office.

My request at the February 17th meeting asked that my - intact - report be part of the next meeting's binders. Ms. Tilton did ask the council members to bring back their copies of the report for that purpose, but the public binder in her office did not have my report. My intent is to have the research report become part of the public record.


The Council meeting agenda item reads, "Receive report on complaints filed by Richard Behling regarding property at 810 Fishback Road, review the actions taken by various City departments and consider providing direction to staff as appropriate." Nowhere is my report mentioned. The only "report" backing up the agenda item is Police Chief Bricker's rehash of his December 3rd "closure" letter, with a few additions. I guess that's OK, because it demonstrates publicly to the Council just how little City Staff accomplished over the year - hampered as they were by the unverified misconception they were dealing with an allegedly GRANDFATHERED business.

My best approach is merely to say, "Where the Chief's report leaves off (Dec 3), my report begins (researched in Dec and Jan.)" That cuts off the contentious piecemealing and unproductive wheelspinning of the past. That refocuses everyone's attention back on the proofs of the fraudulent grandfathering claim made by Allen & Brassey. No emotional rancor - just calm logic as I lead them, step by step, through their re-education of common law and municipal code.

Despite the City's Spin Doctor's posturing and meally-mouthing, I believe everything is now in place for the "showdown" at City Hall predicted by the press.

.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Grandfather of All Reports

Here we go... Settle in for a nice story.



Allen & Brassey: TLC on Fishback Street


Documented Narrative

In 1969, Dale & Georgia Mae Grubb purchased 8.78 acres at 18590 S. Fishback Road, two blocks south of Manteca city limits, from the Marshall’s and the Montgomery’s.[A] As is sometimes the case, seven years later one set of older parents (dad, 81; mom, 76) came to live with them, so they put a mobile home on the property.[B] The County's Planning Department issued Dale Grubb a mobile home permit in April 1976,[C] and the dwelling was numbered as 18594 S. Fishback[D]. This temporary permit required two annual signoffs: a declaration of continued necessity and current California DMV registration. The last entries on the permit were in 1981. The Grubbs sold their 8.41 acres in 1983 (they earlier deeded .37 acre to Sandra Daniel in August 1976.) It is obvious the permitted use of the mobile home was discontinued, but it was never removed from the property as the permit required.

Elsewhere in San Joaquin County, somewhere between Manteca and Tracy, Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey ran some kind of catering truck or vending machine business. One man remembers these two women selling foodstuffs from a small vending truck at his employer’s place in Tracy (West Star, a sheet metal shop) and also servicing stationary vending machines. A second man guesses that one of their customers was the Tracy Defense Depot, based on a later Fictitious Business Name filing. A third man remembers these women parking their trucks, with the TLC Catering “brand,” on a property on Airport Way in unincorporated Manteca and he did mechanical work on the trucks at his shop on Wetmore Street. His memory of them is clear because they always paid his bills late.

Lewis & Anne Mego were employed at the Livermore National Laboratory, he as a nuclear physicist, she as an administrative assistant. Moving from the Bay Area, they purchased the Fishback property from Dale & Georgia Grubb, recording the deed in November 1983.[E] What they did with Grubb’s abandoned mobile home is certain in two respects: 1) they did not remove it from the property, and 2) they did not operate a catering truck business from it. The couple lived quietly on Fishback Road while governmental agencies went about the task of helping Brocchini annex his land - and many other people's property - into Manteca city limits. Property holders were assessed a per-acre fee to pay the costs for the privilege of annexation.[F]

The Manteca City Council adopted a resolution during their October 27, 1986 meeting in order to apply for the annexation of the Pacific Road-Brocchini area, including the east side of Fishback Road.[G] San Joaquin County's Local Agency Formation Commission gave final approval to the project on December 17, 1986,[H] which date grants “grandfather” protection to previously lawfully established land uses.

An elementary school was scheduled to be built right behind the Mego's property (later the plan changed to Sierra High School) and in March 1987 the Mego's deeded all but one-half acre to Manteca Unified School District.[I] Grubb’s abandoned mobile home had to be moved about 100 feet west to remain within the Mego's new rear property line. Since one of the couple had reached that magic age where they could move into a gated retirement community, in April 1987 Lewis & Anne Mego purchased a new home from Homes by Pann,[J] moved onto Tiffany Walk in Manteca, and put the Fishback property on the market. The Mego’s had no business use of the property that could grandfather.[K] The noncompliant mobile home could not be grandfathered - only ignored by unaware owners and dismissed by irresponsible County Planning and County Building employees.[L]

This abandoned mobile home became a textbook case of an “attractive nuisance,” utterly irresistible to the pair of Allen & Brassey. They were drawn to the Mego’s Fishback property because of the affordable size and private location of the parcel and, undoubtedly, because Dale Grubb’s mobile home was still illegally on the property. (Hmmm, a quiet, backwater lot with an existing trailer to store our catering supplies and inventory - what a great place to set up shop! But the price the sellers want… hmmm... how can we swing that?)

On November 10, 1987 - eleven months after the annexation to Manteca was finalized - the property was purchased by Allen & Brassey. The deed was recorded along with a deed of trust for the promissory note payable to the Mego’s.[M], [N] With the recording of the deed, unsuspecting Manteca and unfortunate neighbors became hosts to a couple of parasitic entrepreneurs. Allen & Brassey immediately moved their business assets and operations onto the property from wherever they were previously based, surely ecstatic they no longer had to pay a business expense (rent) to house the trucks. These women played fast and loose with the rules, evaded regulations of any kind (they still do), and proceeded to operate their existing, unregistered business at their new location for the next sixteen months without obtaining a Home Occupation permit or its earlier counterpart. (See the TLC Catering Chart.)

Manteca renumbered the old county addresses to new city addresses. The main house that was 18590 became 810 Fishback,[O] and the unlawful mobile home at 18954 became 812 Fishback.[P]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Please PAUSE reading here.

The case of unlawful use of residential property has been made. Let Allen & Brassey choose - relocate their business to a commercial zone, or, go out of business. Either way, they must remove all current and abandoned business assets and cease all business operations.

If you proceed, please understand that what follows does not alter the facts outlined above. The remainder of this narrative is a tragically comic documentary of the confused nonsense displayed by city and county personnel in dealing with the situation. Despite its entertainment value, the purpose of the following is to ensure the complete rehabilitation of 810 Fishback Street to its residential-only status by detailing all the "arms and legs" of this cancerous catering company that is to be removed from the property.

RESUME reading . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Theresa Brassey, Lynda Allen (and a woman called Corky) finally recorded TLC Catering as a fictitious business name on March 15, 1989, the only such filing by them in the County Recorder’s Grantor/Grantee Index.[Q] The first publication of the notice appeared in the Manteca Bulletin on March 18, 1989[R], and has two other fictitious items besides the name: the business start date was listed as March 1, 1989, and the business address was listed as 27500 Chrisman Rd in Tracy. This would place their business in unincorporated County of San Joaquin, but that address does not exist in the County's current Graphical Information System, District Viewer.[S] All other similar addresses along the east side of that stretch of county road belong to the Tracy Defense Depot - likely a customer, maybe their best customer - but not TLC Catering’s business address. The most important reason the two scofflaws listed a county address was to evade Manteca’s requirements for a business license and a land use permit (precursor to a Home Occupation permit.)

Then the mobile gourmets really got busy. San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department (EHD) records show TLC Catering swapping trucks and trading license plate numbers on existing Health Permits re-issued in 1989. With money obtained from who-knows-where, they purchased three large Mobile Food Preparation Units (MFPU’s), including at least one new 1989 Chevy.[T] These monstrosities are kitchens on wheels, each as large as a sizable motor home. Unfortunately, the perishable foods are ice-cooled rather than refrigerated.

Allen & Brassey did not have a Commissary Permit from EHD. This is shown in a March 7, 1991 letter from TLC Catering to EHD, which listed the four external commissaries utilized by the business at that time.[U] All of the commissaries listed were away from the property, the main one being a Save Mart supermarket in Tracy. Brassey failed to mention any utilization of their residential property as a commissary. Current correspondence from EHD indicates these “law-abiding citizens” did not move their trucks onto the property prior to acquiring the private commissary.[V] (That, however, only strengthens the case of illegal enlargement after warning.)

Both the County of San Joaquin and the City of Manteca adopted ordinances in 1992 establishing a special class of land use permits, known as Home Occupation Permits. It is for people who operate all, or part, of their approved business from their homes in residential zones. The wording of Manteca’s Code, Section 17.61.030, defines the concept of “grandfathering” for preexisting nonresidential uses:

“Nonconforming use” means any use of land or property that was lawfully established and in compliance with all applicable ordinances and laws at the time the ordinance… became effective, but which… is a use not listed as permitted,… or [is] subject to permit in the zone in which it is located. (emphasis added.)

An element common to all grandfathering provisions is a restriction on enlarging or expanding the protected use. Allen & Brassey added a fourth truck to the TLC Catering fleet on August 5, 1992.[W] It was a smaller Limited Food Prep truck, also a 1989 Chevy. The application listed Bonnie Jean Carson of Lathrop as the driver and California Commissary at 2440 Airport Way in Stockton as the commissary.

Why bring up grandfathering in relation to the 1992 Home Occupation ordinance when it has already been proved that operating and expanding TLC Catering on the property was an unlawful land use from the moment Allen & Brassey moved in five years earlier? The top four reasons are: #4) The recently added fourth truck was crowding the half-acre lot; #3) The new ordinance prohibited the business from having non-resident, non-family employees; #2) These employees were parking their cars on the street in front of neighbors’ houses, and the neighbors complained; and, the most important reason, #1) Without properly verifying the property purchase date and any County Planning permits, code enforcement investigators believed Allen & Brassey’s fraudulent claim that the property’s use was lawfully established. After evading City regulation for five years by falsely listing a county address in their public filing of fictitious business name, these two shysters dodged another bullet by constant repetition of their lie about the business being grandfathered. Their constant chant, “We have operated our business on the property ever since we moved in,” is entirely true – except they moved in after annexation. The public documents show that Allen & Brassey were never on the property before December 1986 and never had a Manteca permit to use this property for business purposes before the 1992 ordinance - but that never stopped them from promoting this falsehood.

These women were not asked the question, When did you move onto the property? Any observant code enforcement officer who bothered to verify their story could have ended this travesty many years ago. (Lest any current pots start calling the former kettles black, the identical “softball Q&A” took place just last April with the present code enforcement officers.[X] ) In the absence of any proactive code enforcement, Manteca badly bungled its first citizen-complaint-driven opportunity to enforce zoning law compliance by these two charlatans. Even worse, in an error of mind-boggling proportions, Manteca handed these women the KEYS TO THE CITY in a June 1993 letter saying they had “legal, nonconforming” status.[Y] They must have been euphoric! Untouchable goddesses! They had successfully snuffed their nosy neighbors and hornswoggled those pestilent Manteca regulators! "Life is good!" Allen was heard cackling.

(Note: The letter is not a permit and only legally established uses can be grandfathered.)

Yet the TLC Life just kept getting better! Emboldened by Manteca's emasculation, three months later Allen & Brassey assumed home occupation (land use) permission from Health Department (food sanitation) permits and made an application payment to EHD to establish and operate a private commissary, naming their property at 810 Fishback Street as the location for inspections.[Z] (The current Manteca code enforcement officer opined that Allen & Brassey were merely attempting to “legalize” what they had been doing “since they moved in.” When did they move in? Sorry, but they still need a land use permit.) The nine months following September 1993, was likely the period when a walk-in freezer and a refrigerated shipping container were hauled onto the property, refrigerators and freezers were plugged in everywhere, lights and floodlights strung up, and an ancient, noisy icemaker was improperly installed. The illegal mobile home, that longstanding error, was swallowed up in the larger commissary operation, pieces of which were scattered all around the property. The following June, the Health Department plan checks were done and in July 1994, EHD issued a Commissary Permit to the owners of TLC Catering. Again assuming nonexistent permissions, Allen & Brassey began taking commercial deliveries to their property, something expressly prohibited for home occupations. They were now set with four catering trucks, a fully equipped private commissary, and commercial vendors whose big trucks delivered supplies and services to their doorstep... they were unstoppable.

===== Current note regarding commercial deliveries =====

Despite poor, little Lynda Allen telling code enforcement on 11/17/08 that she "now buys supplies on a nearly daily basis from Costco,"[AA] she failed to mention that TLC Catering is still on the weekly delivery routes of three large food vendors. For twelve years these delivery trucks made stops at 812 Fishback to sell products to the commissary for the four catering trucks in use; then three more years for just two catering trucks; now only one. To service the trucks and commissary:

· The Crystal Dairy[BB] (now owned by Foster Farms) refrigerated truck arrives - brakes squealing - every Monday morning at 3:00 a.m.

· The Hostess Cakes[CC] (Interstate Bakeries Corp.) truck delivers weekly, usually on a Friday, arriving between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m.

· Oroweat[DD] (Bimbo Bakeries USA) makes an unattended delivery around 12:00 noon each Monday, where the Oroweat driver opens the security gate and drives onto the property.

· A very special vendor, Darling International Inc.,[EE] the nation's largest recycler of inedible animal by‑products, makes time in its Manteca route schedule for an as-needed pickup of TLC Catering’s waste cooking grease, which is stored in barrels on-site until pickup. (Dairy operators also use this vendor for the hauling away of "downer" cows.) A very large pumper truck has been observed twice, months ago at 10:45 p.m. and more recently at 3:00 a.m., for a very noisy forty-five minute vacuum collection process.

===== End current note =====

So impervious were they to lawful regulation that Allen & Brassey failed to re-file Fictitious Business Name (FBN) statements as required every five years. By law they should have re-filed in 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009. Whether TLC Catering is a legal business or not; whether they hold a valid Home Occupation Permit or not; the State of California requires every person doing business for profit, under a name other than his or her own, to file a Fictitious Business Name statement and re-file every five years thereafter.[FF] If any of the information changes (such as the business' principal address), then re-publishing the notice in a newspaper must also occur. One legal consequence of failure to file current FBN statements is that any legal action, as plaintiff or defendant, cannot be maintained under that business name in court.


The City of Manteca took Allen & Brassey (or was it TLC Catering?) to Small Claims court in June 1996 over unpaid garbage bills for both 810 & 812 Fishback.[GG] No FBN was entered on the initial court filing. Four years later, in August 2000, the judge ordered the debt erased and ordered the City to exempt (the owners? the business? the address?) from the city’s garbage collection program. What defense was offered? What was the basis for the exemption? The answers are most likely buried in papers somewhere in Manteca's City Attorney's office. One guess is that Allen & Brassey put up their well-worn “legally grandfathered business” defense against the City for past and future fees. (Oh, the irony! Manteca must have forgotten the KEYS TO THE CITY letter they gave to these fighting hens. On the other hand, Allen & Brassey should have been barred from a TLC Catering defense in the absence of a current Fictitious Business Name statement.)

One costly bottleneck still existed for TLC Catering / Allen & Brassey. Their PG&E bill must have been astronomical because, on top of their household and water well pump usage, they were also running all the business appliances: standard refrigerators and freezers, industrial walk-in refrigerators and freezers, an inefficient outdoor icemaker, floodlights and strings of yard lights, besides the hot water heater for the mobile home/commissary and plugging in the parked MFPU's. In April 2004, they had their next door neighbors, Roger & Flora Stewart of 786 Fishback, obtain a Manteca building permit for Power Independence of Stockton to put up seven massive solar panel arrays and install the wiring and 10,000-watt control system to handle all these electrical needs.[HH] Of course, the installation was on 810 Fishback - not as permitted for 786 Fishback - so just how the City and the Stewarts were conned by these con artists is a mystery. Final inspection took place in September 2004.

TLC Catering gave up two EHD catering truck permits after 2003 and another permit after 2006. One truck and some commissary equipment (the illegal mobile home, standard refrigerators and freezers, and, most regrettably, the noisy icemaker) continue in operation. Unused business vehicles, large walk-ins, and other equipment encumber the property[II], like so much flotsam and jetsam, mixed in with other vehicles and a restaurant business-specific enclosure or “corral” for waste grease barrels. Unpermitted and otherwise shoddily built covered patios are attached to the illegal mobile home and the legal outbuilding. (Falling into that last category is the “sound-enhancing” plywood box around the icemaker, designed by an unemployed truck driver and constructed by him as a paid but undeclared employee.) Because Allen & Brassey evaded city refuse pickup for yet unknown reasons, commingled household and business trash piles high in an open pickup until hauled off to the county transfer station.[JJ]

[A] Grantor/Grantee Index, Deed to Grubb, Recorder’s Document # BK3321PG143, dated July 22, 1969.

[B] Mobile home, DMV license plate # FQ1259.

[C] San Joaquin County, Mobile Home Permit, April 1, 1976. Two pages.

[D] City of Manteca, Engineering Department, Engineering Grid # 24 D.

[E] Deed to Mego, Recorder’s Document # 83084852, dated November 25, 1983. Three pages.

[F] Revised Annexation Proposal, Memorandum of January 16, 1985. Four pages.

[G] City Council Minutes, 10/27/1986, Resolution R7838 adopted. Three pages.

[H] LAFCO Certificate of Completion, Recorder’s Document # 86105713, dated December 17, 1986. Seven pages, including other material.

[I] Grantor/Grantee Index, Deed to Manteca Unified School District, Recorder’s Document # 87025020, dated March 23, 1987. Two pages.

[J] Deed to Mego, Recorder’s Document # 87028587, dated April 2, 1987. Two pages.

[K] Email from Crosby, County Planning Department, dated August 14, 2008.

[L] Code enforcement case notes, CE-08-753, 11/20/2008, 9:01 a.m., with Rick Matuska.

[M] Deed to Allen & Brassey, Recorder’s Document # 87103627, dated November 10, 1987. Three pages.

[N] Deed of Trust to Mego, Recorder’s Document # 87103628, dated November 10, 1987. Three pages.

[O] Letter from Hulsey, City Engineering, dated December 30, 1986
.
[P] Letter from Hulsey, City Engineering, dated January 7, 1987. Two pages, incl. picture.

[Q] Grantor/Grantee Index, Fictitious Business Name, Recorder’s Document # 98000597, dated March 15, 1989.

[R] Manteca Bulletin, March 18, 1989, Page B-4, Public Notice.

[S] Screen prints from San Joaquin County District Viewer for Chrisman Road in Tracy, California. Two pages.

[T] Code enforcement case notes, CE-08-752, Vehicle Information, License # 4A09350.

[U] Letter from TLC Catering (Theresa Brassey), dated March 7, 1991, to EHD.

[V] Email from Jeff Carruesco, EHD Program Director, dated 1/27/09.

[W] EHD Application for a new food vending truck, dated 8/5/92.

[X] Code enforcement case notes # CE-08-182, 4/17/08.

[Y] Letter from Cantu, Manteca Planning Department, dated June 29, 1993.

[Z] EHD Account Statement, dated 08/15/94. Commissary application payment posted 09/17/93; Commissary permit posted 07/13/94.

[AA] Case notes, CE-08-753, 11/17/08, 2:01 p.m.

[BB] Picture of Crystal truck, and information from Foster Farms Dairy website. Three pages.

[CC] Information from Interstate Bakeries Corporation website. Two pages.

[DD] Picture of Oroweat truck, and information from Bimbo Bakeries USA website. Two pages.

[EE] Information from Darling International Inc. website. Two pages.

[FF] Fictitious Business Name Statement form and instructions. Two pages.

[GG] Small Claims Court register page for Case # MS-34246, filed June 21, 1996. Two pages.

[HH] Manteca building permit, dated April 2004. Two pages.

[II] Annotated pictures of TLC Catering’s operations yard. Two pages.

[JJ] Picture of Manteca’s refuse pickup “opt-out” program for unlawful businesses.