NsFH Avec Ou Sans Moteur (With or Without Motor)

.

Exhumations Will Continue Until Rehabilitation Occurs

Lynda and Theresa must be the Father and Mother of all Packrats! (or is that Mother and Father?)

During the end-of-July demolition of the illegal mobile home and the illegal shanty shed attached to its backside, there emerged into the sunsine a previously unseen [and illegal] collection of inoperable inoperative vehicles (gotta use the same word as the city code so the code enforcement personnel don't get confused, even moreso than their usual confusion, paralysis, and impotence.)

These two "beauties" have been hidden from view for a very long time under accretions of flotsam and jetsam, deteriorating from deliberate disuse, serving as habitat for wasps, spiders, rodents (controlled only by feral felines) and as off-the-ground storage for junk of all stripes. Operability Operativity and roadworthiness are certainly missing, as are vehicle registrations and licensing.

Two titles within the Manteca Municipal Code (MMC) speak to the issue of harboring abandoned, wrecked, or inoperable  inoperative vehicles - a chapter regarding abandoned vehicles and a chapter on nuisances. (And where have we heard about nuisances before? You're so right! My NsFH... Neighbors From Hell...)

MMC 8.20 Abandoned Vehicles 

8.20.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:

A. “Abandoned vehicle” means a vehicle which is not currently registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles and appears by sight to have been left to the elements.

B. “Dismantled vehicle” means a vehicle from which any part has been removed which removal prevents its lawful operation upon any highway.
...
D. “Inoperative vehicle” means a vehicle which cannot be lawfully operated upon any highway.
...
J. “Wrecked vehicle” means a vehicle which, due to physical impairment or damage, cannot be lawfully operated upon any highway. (Ord. 786 § 1, 1988; Ord. 765 § 1(part), 1987: prior code § 12A-14)


8.20.020 Findings—Nuisance declared. In addition to and in accordance with the determination made and the authority granted by the state under Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code to remove abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof as public nuisances, the city council makes the following findings and declarations: The accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private or public property not including highways is found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of minors, to create a harboring for rodents and insects and to be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle or parts thereof, on private or public property not including highways, except as expressly permitted in this chapter, is declared to constitute a public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with the provisions of the chapter. (Ord. 830 § 2, 1989: Ord. 765 § 1 (part), 1987: prior code § 12A-13)


8.20.030 Exemptions. This chapter shall not apply to:


A. A vehicle, or parts thereof, which is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property.

MMC 17.53.020 Nuisances.

A. Unlawful Residential Property Nuisance. It is unlawful for any person owning, leasing, renting, occupying or having charge or possession of any residential property in the city to maintain or to allow to be maintained such property in such manner that any of the following conditions are found to exist thereon, except as may be allowed by any other provision of law, including provisions of city ordinances:
...
9. Wrecked or inoperable vehicles, vehicle parts or other articles or personal property that are abandoned or left in a state of partial construction or repair;

Gee, I wonder what excuses the City of Manteca, Code Enforcement Department, will dream up this round of inoperable vehicle complaints to avoid taking action?

If Code Enforcement uses the balls brains God gave them and cite these owners, this situation - with these NsFH - will perfectly illustrate the need of the administrative hearing procedure the city recently adopted. The BDG NsFH, Yellow and Red, will ignore the citation. The city will have to fine the BDGs and take them through an administrative hearing - and probably all the way to court.

Welcome to my world, boys. (I'll be happy to consult, for a fee.)

.

Missa Pro Defunctis (Requiem) in Limerick

.

REQUIEM for AUNTIE LYN
(Pro Forma)

There is this old shrew from Pinole

Whose life is a greedy black hole;

Though Red is her lover

And Green is her cover,*

Yet nothing accrues to her soul.

The ants and the roaches all tremble

When their big boss (they closely resemble)

Turns the key to their coach,

Streets of Tracy to poach,

While the icemaker stays back to rumble.

Her orders in high cackley voice

Are meant to leave one without choice

As they pierce the still air

With a malignant flair.

Her incipient demise? We rejoice!

Lest the reader should think that I'm crass -
(With the goal to kick her in the ass) -
'Tis her PAIN! Hard to suffer,
Let God quickly snuff her
Then we all'd be in good smokin' grass.

She leaves behind yards full of junk

And dress styles that really are punk.

The dogs, they will yap

As though still in her lap -

Please stuff them in with her in the trunk.

The radio, too, snuggle next to her head

And turn it up LOUD (‘cause she’s dead)

On Mega one-hunnerd

That acoustical canard

May the noise go with her to the shed.

After popping the cork and the bung,

All the crimes of this bitch will be sung,

‘Bout her leathery face

And complete lack of grace,

All back-stopped by her facile tongue.

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

* two lines paraphrased from lyrics to Take It Easy, sung by the Eagles and reparaphrased below.

…

Lookin' for a [c]over who [wants to] blow my [l]over;

She's so...oo hard to find.

…

Tour: Barefoot Dirty Girls Dog Kennels

.

... where there's always a special room for Rex!

Last September 8th, 2009, I told the City of Manteca Animal Control Department that five dogs, plus an assortment of cats, chickens, orangutans, spotted owls, California Condors, sturgeon, and Beluga whales, inhabited the single lot (APN 222-11-003) known as 810 Fishback Street.

I was mistaken... there are SIX canines - in addition to the other occupants of indeterminate species.

Please meet:

House dog #1

House dog #2

House dog #3

Yard dog #1

Yard dog #2

Yard dog #3

On her visit over a year ago, Animal Control Officer Peg Miller, in a spectacular leap of illogic, arrived at the conclusion that three dogs belonged to one address and two dogs belonged to the other address on the same parcel. This completely contradicts the fairly clear language of Municipal Code section 17.07.030, which reads:

In any district on a lot with a principal permitted use, no more than six small animals may be kept, provided none are kept for commercial use. Not more than three of such animals may be dogs or cats over ten weeks of age and not more than two may be pot belly pigs.

My speculations on the reasons for Ms. Miller's brain fart are:

1. Theresa "Red" Brassey (filling in for the absent spokesmouth, Lynda "Yellow" Allen) filled the officers ears with that really old bullshit about having a "grandfathered" business, which occupied the mobile home at the second address, 812 Fishback Street (which never was a "house" or residence during the BDGs' twenty-three year possession.)
2. Somehow, "grandfathered' status exempted them from the municipal code and allowed the BDGs to have extra dogs on the property to stand guard duty on the business assets.
3. Without laying eyes on the excess four-footed charmers, Ms. Miller took the word of a charlatan and wrote it down on an official citation. (Hey, City of Manteca, are those your "best practices" for investigation and documention standards?)
4. Peg was smoking some of the same "weed" Lynda now legally smokes. ("Hey, brah'... uh, pass me, uh... some chipsssh.")

Twice I submitted a written request to the Manteca Police Department to review Peg Miller's (mis)interpretation of the zoning law. Never did I receive an acknowledgement or a response. The letters must have disappeared into a black hole on the way to City Hall. (Oh, how I love to speculate in the absence of any emanations from the Black Hole!)

Some critical things have changed now.

• First, there appears to be no TLC Catering operating from the property any more, although business assets still encumber the place. February 15, 2010 is the (not yet admitted) end date of TLC Catering.
• Second, the mobile home, designated as 812 Fishback Street, was demolished over the course of a week commencing July 20, 2010. The illegal structure no longer exists.

These are two conditions that I have been waiting for before renewing my complaint of the Barefoot Dirty Girls harboring too many dogs on their residential property.

I’ll be very interested to hear whatever new rationale Animal Control dreams up now - or what lies the BDGs attempt to spin - seeing as how there is no longer an operating business and only one "house" exists on the property.

.

Admittedly, She's BAAAAACK!

.

Yup, and she brought her L-130 Automatic John Deere Riding Mower back with her. Who knows what adventures they and this machine had together for the last week, while their yet-to-be-documented house-sitting, remodeling, foreign language speaking, work crew held down the home front.

And what's with that giant tent in their yard now? It beats me to hell all the shit they constantly haul onto their property! It's like living next to a cross-pollinated wrecking yard, flea market, and opium den.

Speaking of non-admissions, I obtained the following Request for Admissions from my attorney. The first two pages contain the statements I requested a long time ago that Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey admit to:

Thes next two pages are the responses:

Notice the date of August 13, 2010 on the responses. It is now August 27, 2010 and the required verifications, signed by the defendants, have not yet appeared as promised two weeks ago. Either concious game-playing delay tactic, or pure, unconcious, second nature sloth and ineptitude.

What that means is, until verified, these responses are worth only what the paper would bring as recyclable wood fibers.

The attorney's say-so by itself ain't worth sh... "aving cream! Be nice and clean. Shave every day and you'll always look keen." (But we already knew that...) On the other hand, any statements ever made to me by the Ravaged Red BDG or the Mellow Yellow BDG - verbal or written, signed or sworn - have all been worth less than even wood fibers or an attorney's say-so.

Now that the Barefoot Dirty Girls are back from their big "cancer" scare, perhaps they will get back in the stirrups. (Or was that, saddle?) Oops.
.

Sierra High School v. Marijuana Farm Team

.

Here we go again...

America's grand experimental system of self-governance breaks down when selfish citizens do not voluntarily follow the laws adopted for the common good. And when the system of enforcement, designed to help the selfish ones comply, is overwhelmed, who is going to protect the public interest?

The Supreme Court of California, in People v. Kelly, filed January 21, 2010 [47 Cal. 4th 1008; 222 P.3d 186; 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733; 2010 Cal. LEXIS 113], in footnote 21 said,

At this point the Court of Appeal observed: “An argument against the CUA [1996 Prop 215] was [that] it ‘allows unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere … in backyards or near schoolyards without any regulation or restrictions. This is not responsible medicine. It is marijuana legalization.’ (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996), argument against Prop. 215, p. 61.) San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan responded, ‘Proposition 215 does not allow “unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere.” It only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient's personal use. Police officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it.’ (Id., rebuttal to argument against Prop. 215, p. 61.)”

Two facts exist:

1. The Barefoot Dirty Girls obviously have no intention to voluntarily conform to Manteca law about enclosing and securing their "weed patch."
2. The City of Manteca obviously has no intention (or pretence) of enforcing its own law about enclosing and securing outdoor "weed patches."

Today, I sent the following email to the Manteca Unified School District superintendent and entire school board, the City of Manteca city manager and police chief, and the Manteca Bulletin newspaper editor.

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

Manteca Unified School District
Superintendent Jason Messer – jmesser@musd.net
2271 West Louise Avenue
Manteca, CA 95337

August 27, 2010

Dear Mr. Messer,

This email is to inform you of an active marijuana growing operation just over the back fence (west) of Sierra High School, on the middle lot of the three residential lots located there - the one numbered as 810 Fishback Street. This information will assist you in continuing to protect the health, safety, general welfare and public morals of the students in your charge by nipping this unlawful use before it buds.

On July 8, 2010, I took some photographs of the marijuana plants to the Manteca Police Department and asked for an investigation (blog post and pictures here.) The next day the MPD called to inform me that the property owner held a medical marijuana card AND was also advised of Manteca’s Health & Safety ordinance, MMC 8.35 Cultivation and Possession of Medical Marijuana, which prohibits cultivation openly and unsecured. The owner was given a “few weeks” to enclose and secure the plants, but to date has failed to comply. Voluntary compliance with any law is something this owner never does; when informed of these laws the owner simply scoffs and ignores. The City of Manteca has briefly touched the situation, but without follow up or resolution, although “the purpose and intent of this chapter [is] to require that medical marijuana be cultivated in appropriately secured enclosed structures so as not to be visible to the public domain, to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public.” (ibid.)

Manteca city law, Section 8.35.030 Cultivation Restrictions, in part, specifies:

B. Secure Enclosed Structure. The cultivation of medical marijuana shall at all times occur in a secure, locked, and fully enclosed structure that includes solid walls, a ceiling, roof or top. No outdoor growing shall be permitted within the city.

G. Collective or Cooperative Cultivation. For the collective or cooperative cultivation of marijuana, such cultivation shall be prohibited within any residential districts as defined by the Manteca Municipal Code or within one thousand feet of any residential district, school, recreation center, or youth center.

This pot farm is not a collective or cooperative, which has the 1,000 foot distance requirement. As a single-user grow on a residential lot - without the distance requirement - the Secure Enclosed Structure requirement is even more imperative, yet nothing but an easily scalable chain link fence separates one or more of your students (or an interloper) from a serious problem - with the law, dope, dogs or unstable scofflaws.

You, Mr. Messer, representing the Manteca Unified School District, are hereby informed of this potential “attractive nuisance.” Since the policy of your school board directs “The Superintendent … to work closely and cooperatively with [local] agencies, and to bring all areas of conflict to the Board of Education whenever it appears that they cannot be promptly and appropriately resolved,’ (Policy 1410, Community Relations, Local Units), I wish you success in resolving this situation with the unconcerned Manteca Police Department and the recalcitrant property owner.

Sincerely,

Richard Behling (Dances With Timberwolves)
(contact info)

copied to:

MUSD Board of Trustees:
Michael Seelye – mseelye@musd.net
Manuel Medeiros – mmedeiros@musd.net
Vern Gebhardt – vgebhardt@musd.net
Evelyn Moore – emoore@musd.net
Wendy King – wking@musd.net
Rex Holiday – rholiday@musd.net
Nancy Teicheira – nteicheira@musd.net

City of Manteca administration:
Steve Pinkerton – citymanager@mantecagov.com
Dave Bricker – mantecapd@mantecapd.com

Manteca Bulletin:
Dennis Wyatt – dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com

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

(The email addresses for Medeiros, Moore, and Teicheira are incorrect. Mr. Gebhardt, who is not standing for reelection in November, has already sent a short response.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Behling,



I want to thank you for pointing this out to our Superintendent and Police Dept. I will see that there is follow up regarding this, and I am sure other Board members will do the same. We have an excellent Superintendent In Jason Messer and I am sure he will work with the Police Dept. to correct any illegal activity such as this.


Sincerely,
Vern Gebhardt

I hope such is the case.
.

Game-Playing By Farmer's Insurance

.

Latest Bombshell!

"Well, here’s the bombshell: [Gorfang 1.3.6] players will have the capability to play as both Order and Destruction on the same server. Warhammer has a lot to offer between Order and Destruction and we want to give you the opportunity to experience all of WAR with a single account while still maintaining ties to the community of your home server. We’re aware of the possible downsides (such as cross-realming [Oh, horror! see picture above!]) and we’re aware that people have a lot of realm pride, which we believe is very important."

I guess trial lawyers run all of Farmer's Insurance departments because another lateral pass has been made, this time in their Adjusting Department.

• Ravaged Red's and Mellow Yellow's homeowner's claim has been reassigned to a new adjuster (probably just the next desk over in some Farmer's Podunk Agency office.)
• The chap, who has a cell number originating in Merced, California, of course knew nothing about the claim even though he placed a call to my attorney. (...or, maybe he does know but is doing a damn good job of playing dumb.)
• He kept tap dancing to that tired old tune, "Reservation of Rights," also known as, "Cross-Realming Ass-Covering For Insurance Companies." (If you think politics is crooked, try finding out the rules by which legalized gambling (ie., insurance companies) play!)
• Actually, he was difficult to understand because he used his cell phone speakerphone. (He never declared if anyone else was listening.)
• The gist, however, was his constant repetition that his employer has a "duty to defend" a policyholder where damages are being litigated. (That is bullshit because the insurance company can and will deny such damages claim when the issued homeowner's policy in question clearly excludes business uses and illegal activities on the property.)
• There is absolutely NO good, profitable reason for Farmer's Insurance to continue paying defense counsel fees. (The only reasons for persisting are all unprofitable and most likely based on supposed friendships. Is this any way to run a business? Are you Farmer's shareholders taking note?)

Why a "new" adjuster is calling us (or, my attorney) this late in the lawsuit is a puzzle for now but, like every other idiotic maneuver by the Barefoot Dirty Girls, it will come out in the wash.

Whatever other motive, this is game-playing, wherein the "new guy" is allowed more time to "come up to speed" before again conferring with the Legal Dept regarding the "possibilities" of changes regarding footing the bill for defending this policyholder under the terms of the issued policy. Farmer's Insurance has already squandered had fifteen months trying to figure out the particulars of this simple case - and now they want more time? As a company, either they are very stupid and wasteful and not very good at their job, or they are cunningly, schemingly clever - as any gaming enterprise has to be in order to avoid being detected while ripping people off.

Farmer's is afraid I am trying to take them for a money ride, while the reality is that their policyholder, Lynda Allen, is the one defrauding them, just as she has lied to and manipulated, intimidated, used and abused, and defrauded everyone she has ever encountered. She is very good with the very few well-practiced techniques she uses to tell her deceptively simple lie.

From Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961), 56 Cal. 2d 355
(This 1961 California Supreme Court case rehearses the 1957 Discovery Act, which Act was rewritten in 1987.)

The new system, as was the federal system (Moore's Federal Practice, vol. 4, pp. 1014-1016), was intended to accomplish the following results: (1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial.[4]


[15] Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature intended to take the "game" element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial itself. One of the principal purposes of discovery was to do away "with the sporting theory of litigation — namely, surprise at the trial." (Chronicle Pub. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 54 Cal.2d 548, 561. See also page 572 of the same opinion wherein we adopted from United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 [78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077], the phrase that discovery tends to "make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.")

Who needs Warhammer's Gorfang realms of Order v. Destruction when DestroLive! herself lives next door and is aided by the delay tactics deployed by game-playing Farmer's attorneys?

.

24th of August 2010

.
In honor of this fourth anniversary, I publish my most-played iPod playlist:

You Will Only Break My Heart – Delta Goodrem [demanding, controlling, nagging]

Solitaire – The Carpenters [indifference, withdrawal]

Woman – Delta Goodrem [more demanding, more "deserving"]

Why, No One To Love? - sung by Judith Edelman, music by Stephen Foster [done, gone]

Good-Bye To Love – The Carpenters [there are no tomorrows]

Comrades, Fill No Glass For Me - sung by Ron Sexsmith, music by Stephen Foster [blighted]

Such is my toast to life...

Perhaps I'll add others as time goes on...

.