Manteca's Crack Code Enforcer

Under-staffed or under-brained?

(...but I just sent it to the last known owner instead of checking anything...)

Manteca Code Enforcement: Cosmic Entropy? *

.............................................: Comic Entertainment?
.............................................: Cannibis Enjoyment?

You say what, Mr. Cunningham (Scott)?

You, a bright C.E. brain? Clearly not!
Since your current employer
Allows cann'bis enjoyer
It's no wonder your work's gone to pot

Sheesh! Your skill set and methods are slim

Makes your chance of success flicker dim
Maybe look on the 'puter
For the foreclosure suitor?
Send your "We Notice Shit" on to him!

From the time of citation 'til now**

Musta smoked your Sierra High (r) grow?
Dumb! Ya gotta have vigor
Pulling Oaf-icial trigger
Coulda saved your embarrassing row

So this here's what I want you to do-

'Specially now that I gave you a clue:
1. Reverse all of these "crocks"
2. Send confirms to my box
3. Let me NEVER again hear from you!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* the degradation of the matter and energy

in the universe to an ultimate state
of inert uniformity

** 03Jan13 to 20Feb13,

seven weeks of pissing up the wrong tree!
.
.

Manteca City Governance

...

Citizen:

I have upset the tea of some “power-that-be”
Of a king with some fancy new clothes
It appears the shoe fit, but he’s shamed to wear it
Because then we would see his twelve toes

King:

The affairs in our gate (whether soon, more oft late)
We can see with these cool X-ray glasses
But the law, as they say, merely gets in our way
We prefer to kiss each other’s asses

Citizen:

My dear sirs, let us think – you provided the ink
To record your whole long list of crimes
Can one slander with truth? Or dress up the uncouth?
Or defame such depraved sods, betimes?

King:

We reject you… you… all! And your poison pen scrawl!
We demand you remove yourself hence!
There is nothing you say will impinge on our day
We paid our silv’ry coins – thirty pence

Citizen:

Should we follow the trails, what that money entails
And discover those masters of power?
When the towers of earth fall, to what god will you call?
Your reward will be: Kneel, blanch and cower!

...

KRISKO: WHEN LARD JUST WON'T DO!

.

Ticky-Tacky Little Narc Squabs

.

Duh... what happened to all my Dodo squabs?

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

My email to the Superintendent of the Manteca Unified School District regarding the illegal marijuana cooperative operating right behind Sierra High School:

Mr. Messer,

Consider this an update from last year, when the three residents were growing their own weed at 810 Fishback Street. That usage was apparently legal. Those three moved last Easter, turned the property over to a relative, yet still return to collect the crop. That activity, however -- growing for non-residents -- constitutes a cooperative or collective, which is strictly prohibited within a thousand feet of a school, not to mention being in a residential district.

I would suggest you request another police visit to ascertain the cardholder status of the property residents, and investigate the shipments of marijuana to non-residents (ie., a co-op.)

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

His response:

Mr Behling,

We did contact the Manteca P.D. again and they emailed Sergeant Mraz, cmraz@ci.manteca.ca.us, who is the supervisor for the narcotics unit.  They did a compliance check on the home and they meet all requirements.  The address on Fishback is in compliance with state law.  They recommended that if you needed any further information you could contact Sergeant Mraz.  Thanks for keeping me posted.

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


Compliance check, my ass! Contacting Sergeant Mraz - or any other useless, unreliable party - at the Manteca P.D. is a waste of time, breath, or any other resource. (I'd love to see some dip-shit email him with words of encouragement and support for not enforcing the marijuana laws. Be sure to leave a copy here on a Comment; I'd love to post it!) The former residents had to be forced into structural "compliance" the previous year, although there was an awful lot of collective "sharing" of the more-than-three-persons crop going on. City law requires destruction of excess marijuana, not "sharing" or selling it to persons not holding some perjured doctor's medical recommendation.

Compliance with state law? Barely... California law does contemplate private cooperatives among medical marijuana patients only (but not the so-called cannibis clubs.)

Compliance with Manteca law? Bullshit, Sergeant Mraz! The new residents, relatives of the scofflaw Barefoot Dirty Girls, are openly distributing the crop off the property, which is a clear cut restriction on a collective or cooperative in Manteca's very own officially adopted -- but heroically unenforced! -- Municipal Code (here.) While you're reading subsections F. and G., be sure to also read about not having co-ops in a residential district or next to a school.

Compliance check, my ass! What'd you do, Sergeant Mraz? Read last year's reports? They don't tell you that:

1. The formerly barely legal residents became non-residents.
2. The current residents are growing weed for those non-residents (ie., became a co-op.)
3. The current residents are illegally distributing weed off the property for those non-residents and others.
4. MMC 8.35.030, subsections F. and G., prohibits co-ops in residential districts and next to schools.

Make sure of your entries on the police department service call logs for that so-called "compliance check." Hell, Sarge, you probably went over, all right... just to pick up your monthly vig of Sierra High (c) whacky tabacky.

It appears the overly  highly  educated  educators  administrators at MUSD are willing to trust  believe  be duped by the underly educated  Voc Ed dropouts  _?_?_?_ at MPD regarding this law - and breach the duty they owe to the students and parents.

The people of Manteca, and parents within Manteca Unified School District, get exactly what they deserve when they cede authority to such troublemakers, scoundrels, beatniks, bumpkins and bastards!

To honor (or ridicule; they won't know the difference) the rabble of monumental imbeciles on the public dole  employed at the Manteca Police Department, I composed alternate words to a ditty seen/heard earlier on this blog:

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

Little Narc Squabs*

(sung to the catchy little tune of "Little Boxes," here, Season 1, Episode 1.)

[1]
Little narc squabs, in Manteca,
Little narc squabs smoking tacky-tacky,
Little narc squabs, bumbling drug cops,
Little narc squabs;  not a brain.

There’s a nose ring, and a tattoo,
And the ones should been fired long ago,
And they all smell of homegrown ticky-tacky
And they all act just the same.


[2]
So the potheads in their grow sheds
Still cultivate with impunity-
They just put some in special boxes
When the narc squabs call again.

Some for Mayor, some for Sergeant,
And a whole host of other City squabs,
’Cause they all toke lots of ticky-tacky
And they look the other way.


[3]
And the kiddies in the schoolyard
See the narc squabs playin' fast and loose;
“What the hell, then, I can smoke, too,”
Is the kiddies’ last refrain.

But the teachers and the principal
And even the Superintendant
Take the word of reeking narc squabs
That there’s nothing going wrong.


[4]
There’s a fox and there’s a henhouse,
And the one’s to keep the other safe.
In Manteca, them’s the narc squabs-
Keep the co-ops nice and green.

There’s a fat one and a thin one
And a pock-faced really ugly one,
And they all smell of homegrown ticky-tacky
And they all act just the same.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* squab (n) 1. A young, newly hatched, or unfledged pigeon. 2. A soft, thick cushion, as for a couch.
(adj) Young and undeveloped; newly hatched or unfledged: "a narc squab."

All these descriptors fit: unfledged, soft, thick... esp. thick...


...

Sierra High Pot Co-op Still Thrives!

.

Illegal marijuana cooperative at 810 Fishback Street,
with Sierra High School buildings in background.

Here is Manteca's definition of a marijuana cultivation cooperative:

“Medical marijuana collective,” “medical marijuana cooperative,” “collective,” or “cooperative” shall mean a location where medical marijuana is cultivated collectively or cooperatively by more than one qualified patient, person with an identification card or primary caregiver, as described in California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775. (Chapter 8.35 CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA)

Given the ineptitudes of Manteca law enforcement, the backsliding perversities of San Joaquin prosecutors, and county and state judges who greedily insist on rewriting law from the bench, even the "more than one" phrase has been adulterated to encompass all residents within one property. But even the debased definition of "more than one" user has limits; it does not allow for users from other properties (non-residents) to share in the cultivation on a property not their residence, unless such a "sharing" arrangement is registered as a cooperative or collective.

8.35.030 Cultivation restrictions.

F. Requirements for Collectives or Cooperatives. A cooperative or collective must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. No business may call itself a cooperative or collective unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agriculture Code of California. Cooperatives or collectives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. Cooperative or collective corporations are democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons. They must be nonprofit operations. The cooperative or collective must not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, nonmembers; instead, it must only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating cultivation projects, including the allocation of costs between members.

Observations of such obvious contempt for and breaking of law by Lyin' Lynda Sue Allen, Theresa Ann Brassey, and Cornelia Jane Green are commonplace. It has gone on for years, decades, documented in this blog, while Manteca officials sit by, eyes closed, gently rocking and humming in their corners. The three scofflaws named above vacated the property at 810 Fishback Street on Saturday, April 23, 2011, and turned the pot farming operation over to a relative. Yet they still return regularly (June 27 and July 27, pictured above) to collect their collective crop. Other arrangements have also been made for delivery service.

"Ah, ha!" you say, "Why are you telling this stuff to the Barefoot Dirty Girls? Won't they just turn around and register their co-op and make everything all legal-like on paper? After all, aren't they successful businesswomen who [illegally] ran an catering truck enterprise for decades from that very same property?"

All good questions. Here is the answer: It is prohibited for medical marijuana users, under both California state law and Manteca city code, to operate such a cooperative within 1,000 feet of a residential district or school - or, in this case, on an R-1 property and zero feet from Sierra High School. Yet, here are the BDG's doing it anyway - this is yet another example of "who they are."

MMC 8.35.030 Cultivation restrictions.

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.

In October of last year, I posted this prediction: The Beginning of a New Illegal Business Operation? Well, here it is City of Manteca and Manteca Unified School District! A new, illegal drug business, in a residential district, right next to Sierra High School, right under your insentient* noses! I'm sure Manteca's police department will come up with one or another of their well-polished excuses for their incompetence [bad], official ignorance [worse], or active abetting [worst] of these prohibited activities. It would be nice if they spoke up and didn't mumble so.

(What is that dried green stuff... oregano?... in the pizza sauce?)
(I dunno... Duh! Let's ask Off'cer "H__b". He's gotta know his weed, if not the law.)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* in·sen·ti·ent (adj) Devoid of sensation or consciousness; incapable of feeling or understanding things; inanimate.
.

Sierra High (c) Marijuana Growing Company

.

Saturday was a busy day at the fortified compound and marijuana growing operation at 810 Fishback Street in Manteca.

After the Barefoot Dirty Girls vacated the premises last Easter, the place has finally achieved the level of quiet it should have had for the last four years - actually, the last twenty-three years.

However, the announced visit of the CEO of the Sierra High (c) Marijuana Growing Company, Lyin' Lynda Allen, and her entourage of Cork-Screwed lovers caused so great anticipation that on Friday the sentinel sharecropper, Bubba Lite, busted out the yard tools and trimmed and mowed and blew. He also cleaned up the construction mess from the constant building taking place inside the house, the Smokehouse, and the marijuana sheds. (He usually starts with the saw about 7:00-8:00 p.m. and hammering continues well into the night.)

Saturday's family reunion & pot harvest celebration was a monumental affair. Cars and trucks and people overran the property all afternoon like a plague of locusts, coming and going, and hootin' and hollerin', interspersed with periods of fortifyin' smoking. Because they were celebrating, third world style, the payday of their psychoactive cash crop, the only thing missing was the shooting of guns into the air. (Hey, blockhead, watch where you're aiming that thing!)

Lyin' Lynda arrived in Resectioned Red's black SUV and held court as only she can, hollering and ordering everyone around, telling lies, emitting that high, cackling death rattle that passes for her laugh.

Cork-Screwed brought her own process server evasion car. She strode around the barren compound as if she owned the place. Her part, no doubt, was to oversee the production operations: weed growing, harvesting, and processing standards, young Bubba's employee performance standards (free rent, no work, except growing and protecting our weed, and watching our big screen TV), and to enforce the strict standards for collection and disposal of dog shit.

It was a fine day for the pickup truck rally events, and it was capped off with a magic show worthy of a Las Vegas illusionist. At 5:46 p.m., Cork-Screwed's peripatetic Wilderness Advantage travel trailer disappeared! In its place appeared a trailered pair of personal watercraft (which have before been seen on the propertry. Free rent at Auntie Lyn's!) Wherever the travel trailer went, it will probably fit snugly behind Allen's and Brassey's single-wide - effectively making it a double-wide - thus allowing Green finally (!) to sleep in a bed by herself. (Yeah, poor sod, it's been a whole month since the Exodus... a long time to be cooped up with those other two.)

- - - - - -

The HUGE open issue in this BDG property swap charade is: Under both state and city law, marijuana grown on private property is for resident(s) use only, and only under physician recommendation. When it is grown for or given to non-residents, the operation is deemed a cooperative - and cooperatives are illegal within one thousand feet of a school. In this case, the BDG's cooperative adjoins Sierra High School. (See here for last year's prediction.)

Knock! Knock! MPD, where are you?

As I understand it, MPD and San Joaquin County DA's office don't give a shit about dope and dopers. So far, since 1996, they have failed to put in place any procedures to track registrants, caregivers, so-called legal cooperatives, and those illegal things called cannibis clubs.

Must we again notify Manteca Unified School District of an illegal drug house operating on their border, contrary to Education Code and other sections of Health and Safety Code?

Perhaps the DEA might like to hear about this breaking of federal drug law - AND - California's own skanky drug legalization law, the Compaaaasionate Use Act?



.

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?

.

Second String Takes The Field

.

Source


A new millenium new day new thought has dawned in Manteca's Animal Control department - "We are no match for Lyin' Lynda and Resectioned Red. It's time for a lateral pass to the C.E. professionals."

And to help the second-stringers get their heads outta their asses into the game, I provided to them a lushly illustrated twelve-page history of the six prior contacts I have had with the City of Manteca over this one item alone. This is now the seventh. (They'll probably claim to read it, but only look at the centerfolds.)

Below is the cover letter. Everything else has appeared in this blog before, except for the security camera stills.

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

City of Manteca
Code Enforcement Dept
1001 W. Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

March 3, 2011

Dear sirs,

As shown by the within documentation, this complaint has been in existence for eighteen months. Despite the very best efforts of Animal Control personnel there are still at least seven dogs and cats being kept by their fossilized owners on a residential lot in the City of Manteca.

The owners and the property in question are:

Lynda Allen & Theresa Brassey
810 Fishback Street
Manteca, CA 95337

To aid you in identifying and counting the canines and feline in question, I have provided pictures of the animals from 2009, and security camera stills from last month (February) after impotent Animal Control threw up their hands.

The large dogs are named Gus, Blue, and Whiskey; one of the small dogs is named Rufus. Lynda calls them “her kids” in Answer #4, below.

Please see to it that the number of dogs and cats on the property is reduced to no more than three, in order to conform to Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.07.030.

Sincerely yours,


.

The Grand BDG Skedaddle

.

Description: "Man walking dogs in the 'Grand Skedaddle' of the inhabitants from Charleston, S. C., when threatened by an attack from the Federal troops. When General Brannan made his daring and successful dash upon the railroad between Pocotaligo and Coosawhatchie the terror both in Savannah and Charleston was very great. Despite the fact that General Beauregard with thirty thousand troops was stationed midway between the cities a restless desire for flight took possession of thousands, and for three days the roads to the interior were crowded with as miscellaneous a group as that which marched into Noah's ark. Lieutenant Kirby, of the Forty-seventh Massachusetts Regiment, being then a prisoner, had an excellent opportunity of sketching this motley stream of humanity. But our sketch renders all further description unnecessary."— Frank Leslie, 1896 [Source: Frank Leslie, Famous Leaders and Battle Scenes of the Civil War (New York: Mrs. Frank Leslie, 1896)302]

web source

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

Imagine the impotent frustration of Manteca's spayed/neutered Animal Control Department!

It has now been one and one-half years - and four separate contacts - since Lyin' Lynda was reported with too many animals (dogs, cats, chickens) on her property. And guess what? Despite warnings, notices, and citations, there are still too many animals on her property. The dumbass doper, L/L, just ignores the city ordinance, flips off the city officers, and continues to do as she pleases.

As I said last week, "Yep, Lying' Lynda is real good at sniffing ass ... er, sniffing out... dog catchers..."

So good, in fact, that after the latest complaint was logged, the Circus Ringmistress loaded up everybody - and four of the dogs - and disappeared for a week. The two big black junkyard dogs stayed the entire week and were visited daily for feeding/watering.

In the dust of the departing caravan, cometh Animal Control!

No doubt, a most thorough and intensive investigation took place, wherein the intrepid officer managed *not* to attract the attention of the two junkyard dogs, animals who spend their entire days lounging behind the driveway gate and barking at *every* jogger and dog walker, *every* baby carriage stroller and soccer mom car parker who happens to pass or park in front of the BDG's house.

These environmental facts lead me to disbelieve the second sentence of the officer's report. I also take umbrage at the insinuation I cannot count - or lie about it [...as you say.] - and that I must somehow do their job [proving the count] for these highly trained officers. (Lyin' Lynda's part in this FUBAR is to supply the lies.)

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

Thu 2/24/2011
Closed Request # 593614
Your request # 593614 has been resolved with the resolution:

I been [sic] out to Lynda's house and no one seems to be home or they just don't answer the door, I have not heard or seen any dogs while I was there. I will at least call her and advise her if she has a machine that code enforcement will be taking over. since I have already issued her a citation and she has not got rid of some of her dogs as you say, The code enforcement team will taking over.

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

Lyin' Lynda and Resectioned Red snuck home a week later (yesterday), after giving Animal Control the slip.

What an amazing coincidence that the BDG's ditched the day after I filed the complaint, and returned the very evening before Animal Control closed the on-line case!

Another oddity is that Corkscrewed Green did not return with them. That was really funny! R/R and L/L had to tiptoe around yesterday afternoon because Corkscrewed is their doggie doo-doo picker-upper and a week's worth of "sole surprise" lay about. (What a life! Picking up shit for those two... just sayin'...)


........Oh, Rapturous Day! Calloo! Callay!, I chortle in my joy.

........They're sending in the code enforcement team?! Really?

........My complaint is being kicked "upstairs"? From the bench warmers to the second string?

Now we're really gonna see some code enforcement ass kickin'!

{Lyin' Lynda loves Manteca's CE circus clowns!}

.

Manteca Sleeper Cell Pretends Christian Piety

.

Recitation of facts

For history on the sudden appearance of the yard radio immediately after the lawsuit for illegal land use was filed on Lyin' Lynda in May 2009, see [this post]. This is how L/L added spiteful noise to nuisance noise for daring to question her bona fides (which she ain't got!)

In April 2010, L/L was charged with P.C. 415(2), Disturbing the Peace, with her outdoor radio playing. See [this post] for the back story.

In July 2010 the outdoor radio was rolled into the civil lawsuit charging illegal land use (catering business on a residential lot) and creating nuisance noise, see [this post].

On a repeat Disturbing the Peace offense, L/L was arrested on January 16th. See [this post] for the story of the citizen's arrest (catch and release).

Commentary on Lyin' Lynda'a statements to police

Crime Report 2011-1362 narrates the events surrounding Lyin' Lynda's latest arrest. The gist of the report is that the officer understood her phony call for police service ninety minutes earlier, he plainly saw her manipulative actions on that first visit, and he experienced her utter predictability for making a patience-straining nuisance of herself, necessitating my second call of the morning.

Give the bitch credit for BIG BRASSEY BALLS because, even in this extremity, straight from the horse's ass mouth came these two supposed defenses:

"Allen stated she was listening to Christian music and used her outdoor speakers because she did not have indoor speakers."

Never at any time have I differentiated what kind of music or sports L/L has played on her infernal radio. The responding officer apparently agreed with that stance; a noise disruption is a noise disruption, the "flavor" of the disruption makes no difference. There is no infringement on one's God-given right to worship how, where, or what one may, provided there is no infringement on another's right to do the same - in this case, quietly and without someone else's choice of music or sports being forced upon him.

Did I mention before that I believe NOTHING that comes out of that horse's ass mouth. Like lawyers, if Lyin' Lynda's mouth is moving, she's lying. One reason I find her lack of speakers defense totally unbelievable is that during the summer and fall of 2010 L/L spent tens of thousands of dollars on a total home makeover, inside and out, including a giant Sony TV for her north-facing bedroom living room, yet "she did not have indoor speakers."

A second reason I do not believe her "no speakers" statement is the existence of at least two stereo speaker systems in her piles of yard junk on June 5, 2010. And who knows how many rock speakers she has lying around, as well?

Of course, NONE of the foregoing will make any impression on L/L's drug-sotted mind. The only thing the officer told her - or, the only thing that caught her slow-witted attention - was this:

"Allen was also informed of the Manteca Municipal Ordinance which states she may be billed for police services should we be called again for the music."

Ah, finally! The police are talking her language, which is...

Prayer, no. Parsimony, yes!

.

Hey, Lantz, Look! It's A 20-Foot Wall, After All!

.

Circle the wagons Marijuana Sheds!

BDG's Tuesday morning property configuration 

But by Tuesday evening...
Not enough! Build a wall!



Display of other-world ability for tasteless architecture
by Frank Lloyd "Lyin' Lynda" Wright

These benighted women still have not learned that property rights have very little to do with an actual piece of dirt, but much more to do with conforming to community standards of behavior (municipal laws) and not exporting their noxious (and incredibly stupid) lives onto others.

This episode is a developing response to my recent response to the BDG's pathological and never-ending intrusions and invasions onto my property and into my life. They have not let up since I got here - despite a few bumbling actions by the city, and despite a lawsuit (now almost two years old) against them.

Notice the letter date, March 5, 2008, when I documented my very first visit with Lantz Rey of Manteca's Planning Department with a proposal to build a freeway-style sound wall on the property line.

Request #: 127445 Entered: 03/11/2008 1:27 PM
Status: Closed
Request Type: Complaint
Topic: Noise (other than animals)
Incident Time: Continuous
Incident Date:
Description: From: Lantz Rey in the Planning Division

On March 5th I received a letter from Richard Behling who lives at 786 Fishback Road. Mr. Behling had previously been into City hall to talk with Planning about putting up a masonry wall between his property and 810 Fishback. ...

His response was essentially, "Rather than create a variance condition, why not take care of the real problem?" He has since been promoted to a position where he can do some real damage good.

Sounds great, doesn't it? But then I discovered where the "real problem" lies...

The trouble is that for the next year, every single city department and official, including the police chief speaking for the city manager - and especially those Five-Zeros, the city council - told me in flowery, oh-so-polite and condescending terms to... go fuck myself! ...and have a nice life. Now you can see where the "real problem" is lodged.

Returning to the current round of one-ups, I find it rather amusing that I could stand being surveilled by the BDG's for three months, since October, while they could not stand the return treatment for even ten days (and that's not counting Lyin' Lynda's false police report the first day.) Kinda makes one wonder, Who's got something to hide here?

Reality TV sucks when compared with the antics of the BDG's. It was hilarious to watch the original marijuana tent do little bunny hops westward until it abutted the eastern Marijuana Shed and closed a viewing gap. Later, the medically retired sponges on the system women of leisure waddled up and down, back and forth - and up and down again - trying to figure the angles to fly a mainsail. (Those five-times-a-day doobies are really working. Both Lyin' Lynda and Resectioned Red are really, really paranoid... and they must have great appetites to go along with their complete inactivity, judging from their broad beams, which make them look like bottom-heavy penguins when they walk.) They had their worker boy climbing on the walk-in freezer and catwalking across fence tops to put up the braces seen earlier.

Speaking of braces (an English word for suspenders), wasn't it a real treat to see Plumber-Crack Crystal again? Really, now that the icemaker is gone, his only reason to visit is to catch up on smoochies from the Party Girls. One could easily see from his pear-shaped torso (or did he just have a blimp tucked in his shirt?) that suspenders are an absolute necessity.

Speaking of Party Girls, the BDG's now have nothing to do - except go out for groceries on occasion and to grow and smoke marijuana. For company they keep six dogs; two junkyard dogs, three indoor lapdogs, and one that swings both ways. Every few hours they shut up the junkyard dogs in the Smokehouse so they can run the house dogs in the yard. "Girls in!" "Babies out!" "C'mon, little man, pee-pee. Hurry up!" "Babies in!" "Girls out!"

With three BDG's trying to run the show, once in a while they get crossed up and the big dogs go after the pissy little dogs... then the hollerin' and screechin' begins... then the East Bay white trash roots come out.

That reminds me... Animal Control got back to me the other day with:

Manteca-CRM: Closed Request # 574732
Sent: Tue 1/25/2011 7:29 AM
Your request # 574732 [of 1/17/11] has been resolved with the resolution:



Lynda hasn't been home for me to check on the # of animals, so I'll be issuing her a citation through the mail in regards to having to (sic) many animals.

That's rich! Lyin' Lynda is home all day, every day... except for the two days she hauled her junk elsewhere. Even so, the other property owner, the other irresponsible party, the delicate flower, Resectioned Red Riding Hood, was left behind to keep the ravenous wolf from the door. No, it's more a matter of these slippery sleaze buckets possessing a sixth sense regarding process servers and dog catchers.

"Oh?" says L/L in surprise (everything is a surprise to her), "Another pissy citation in the mail? Well, honey, you just send it along 'cause, I do declare, I ran outta Zig-Zag papers."

This morning, Lyin' Lynda bellers hollers screeches out, "Step lively, now! Hoist the mainsail!"

...and up it goes! A tarp on toothpicks!


Sail away with me, you little wog
Sail, sail, sail away with me...

 I'll bet that lawyer fellow had a sailing picture in the office where Lyin' Lynda sat recently... and wasted everyone's afternoon.

Hey, Lantz Rey, look! It's a 20-foot wall, after all!

(I feel a formal complaint coming on...)

.

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.

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

.

Spanking New to the BDGs: The Manteca Municipal Code

.

Here is yet another example of the Barefoot Dirty Girls acting on their endocrine secretion driven emotions rather than using any brain function or rationality.

The BDGs flew the coop at 5:00 a.m. Thursday morning and have not returned since. (Having a nice ten-year trip to Oregon? Too much to hope it's permanent?) Again they left the keys to the compound - house, radio, marijuana, dogs, everything - with their foreign language speaking handyman crew, Felix and Joaquin. Las instrucciones a los trabajadores son:

• feed the dogs,
• prepare the Bally walk-in freezer for removal,
• build a fence,
• and play the yard radio loudly!

(Who ya gonna call? A Gnome-Be-Gone!)

However, it is plain that the fence they envisioned was not the replacement for the one their illegal shed runoff destroyed, but a front yard screen instead. I'm just guessing here, but perhaps my existence hassles her/them somehow? {smilie} I certainly hope the druggie's brain dump plan on paper took into account the relevant sections of the Manteca Municipal Code.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MMC 17.09.030 Front yard setbacks

(from Table 2 for R-1-6 properties: 20 feet from sidewalk)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MMC 17.09.050 Structures in required yards

B. Fences, Walls and Landscape Related Structures.

     1. Solid fences, walls, hedges and retaining walls not more than seven feet in height may occupy any required yard or other open space, except that fences, walls, hedges and retaining walls shall be no higher than three feet six inches when located in the required front yard setback area, in the required set back area along the side street of a corner lot, and along the rear or side lot line of a reversed corner lot where it abuts the front yard of the adjoining key lot.
          a. In the R districts, solid fences, hedges or retaining walls between the height of three feet six inches and seven feet may be located to within twenty feet of the existing or future back-of-sidewalk.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MMC 17.19.040 Screening

B. Height and Location of Screening. Unless otherwise specified, screening required by this title shall be not more than seven feet in height. Except that adjacent to the front yard or street side yard of an adjoining lot in an R or C-O district, such screening shall be not less than thirty inches nor more than forty-two inches in height. All screening shall follow the lot line of the lot to be screened, or the inside edge of the sidewalks, or shall be so arranged within the boundaries of the lot so as to substantially hide from adjoining properties the building, facility or activity required to be screened. [That's 2½ to 3½ feet.]

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

See how simple it is? What it means is that a homeowner cannot... uh, should not... build a fence over 3½ feet tall in the front yard.

This could be an interesting weekend...

Actually, it already is somewhat interesting since my attorney called to say opposing counsel has again promised to get us the last one or two outstanding items; the August 13th Admissions with Verification Signatures and date/time/place/name for a Voluntary Mediation session.

Am I going to hold my breath and trust Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey to actually perform? {Have they ever performed correctly before? Are they ever going to get it right?} Hell, no. I'm just waiting for them to default on this dance before calling this litigation ripe for judgment.

.

The Cancer Metastasizes*

.

Great Scott! Wave after wave of flotsam and jetsam - vomit from the BDG's illict decades-old catering enterprise - are now spilling over into the street!

I'm guessing the triage** underway is to segregate the pure crap from the flea market merchandise, and those from the piles of shit stored under the Big Top, the latter likely to be dragged along by the BDG's to their future paradise home... far, far, far away. (The farther the better... but wherever that paradise is, it's about to suffer a mortal blow. See definitions for metastasize.*)

Like everything else the hash-slinging potheads do, they don't have the good sense to sneak out of town in the middle of the night; instead they have to trash the neighborhood first.

I wonder if they have a permit for their merchatile display going on the second day now? Flea market... yard sale... garage sale... lawn sale... take your pick of terms; they are all equivalent under the Manteca Municipal Code.

“Garage sale” means a sale conducted by an individual homeowner or occupant of a home, or apartment owners, or occupant of an apartment unit, for the purpose of selling, trading, bargaining, exchanging or otherwise disposing of unwanted or surplus household furnishings or goods, or other tangible property, usually conducted in a garage, on a patio, upon a driveway, or on or in any portion of premises in a residential zone and for which no inventory or permanent or detail records are kept on the transactions thus carried out. It may, at times, be conducted by a combination of residential dwellers at a single location and may take on the nature and character of a rummage sale or a fund raising event for civic or charitable purposes. All sales designated “lawn sale,” “attic sale,” “rummage sale,” “moving sale,” “flea market sale,” or other terms of similar or like intent and having the foregoing characteristics and purposesshall be deemed garage sales. (MMC 17.61.030 Definitions)

28. Garage or Yard Sales. A garage or yard sale may be conducted on any developed lot in an R district, subject to the following requirements:

a. No more than two such sales may be conducted on any one lot in any one calendar year.
b. Each sale period shall be for no more than three days, unless additional time is approved by the community development director.
c. All related signs shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 17.17 of this title. (MMC 17.07.020 Permitted and Conditionally Permited Uses)

Oh, I know. The BDG's will claim it is not a yard sale - yet - because there are no For Sale signs up - yet. But they are fooling no one, because the BDG's have never followed any rules before and the City of Manteca officials don't enforce any of their own rules, especially on these scofflaws.

As Karen Carpenter sung:

I know I ask perfection of
A quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think
That’s what I’ll find.

And I quote an excerpt from my own soon-to-be published legal writings below:

D. Nonconforming and Noncompliant Uses

The rationale advanced in the citations in this section applies to legal nonconforming uses and is couched in that language. It goes without saying that these principles apply - with imperative action to abate - against illegal or noncompliant uses.

In California, "[Zoning] legislation . . . looks to the future and the eventual liquidation of nonconforming uses." [Citation] [Sabek, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, 190 Cal. App. 3d 163 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1987)]

Why is that? The answer was outlined [by the court in Gage] in 1954:

"No case seems to have been decided in this state squarely involving the precise question presented in the case at bar. Until recently zoning ordinances have made no provision for any systematic and comprehensive elimination of the nonconforming use. The expectation seems to have been that existing nonconforming uses would be of little consequence and that they would eventually disappear. [Citation] The contrary appears to be the case. [Citation] It is said that the fundamental problem facing zoning is the inability to eliminate the nonconforming use. [Citation] (footnote 2) The general purpose of present-day zoning ordinances is to eventually end all nonconforming uses. [Citation].
...
“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)]

A perfect description of that metastasizing cancer known as TLC Catering, owned and illegally operated by Lynda S Allen and Theresa A Brassey, for twenty-three years on the always-zoned-as-residential property at 810 Fishback Street, Manteca, California - aided and abetted by the lazy, bungling, incompetent fools soaking up our tax dollars down at city hall.

I'm waiting for the multiple (Red, Yellow, and Green) lumpectomies and the proper radiation treatment of this cancer. Which button do you think I'd push?

(from the Natural News site)

.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* me·tas·ta·size (verb used without object. It's alive!) 1. Pathology (of malignant cells or disease-producing organisms) to spread to other parts of the body by way of the blood or lymphatic vessels or membranous surfaces. 2. to spread injuriously (Ex., Street gangs have metastasized in our city.) 3. to transform, esp. into a dangerous form (Ex., The KGB metastasized after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ex., Truth metastasized into Lynda Allen's lurid TLC fantasy.)

** triage (transitive verb) 1a: the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors b: the sorting of patients (as in an emergency room) according to the urgency of their need for care; 2: the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where funds and other resources can be best used, are most needed, or are most likely to achieve success. Ex., Nurses do triage in the emergency room. (Fr, sorting, sifting, from trier to sort, from Old French) Rhymes with triage: barrage, collage, corsage, dressage, frottage, garage, gavage, lavage, massage, ménage, mirage, montage, moulage, portage, potage, treillage.

(Great rhymes! I'll have to use some of them soon because a couple, in particular, apply to the BDG's.)
.

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.

.