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.

.

Tactical Retreat as a Strategic Offense

A whole week went by with the yard radio magic rock speaker turned away from my house and the volume set really low - until this morning.

The night and morning temperatures were pleasant enough to sleep with the bedroom window open - until 7:07 this morning. Upon being assaulted yet again by the act of Lynda, Theresa or Corky manually turning on the yard radio, I slammed my window shut. One of the Trinity gleefully added injury to injury by increasing the volume and turning the speaker my direction again.

Do they think to "hide" by waiting until no one (in authority) appears to be watching (or, listening) before turning it back up? Please forgive my suspicion and skepticism, but factoring in their history of deceit, lying, abrasiveness, intimidating, and outright scoffing at laws their one-week retreat convinces me this scaled back low-level harrassment is merely a ploy to "fly under the radar" for a while.

For the first five or six years of T, L & C's illegal operation on 810 Fishback St, their tactic of "laying low" - not calling attention to themselves - was mainly how they evaded detection and regulation by the City of Manteca. This period also established the "long time on the property" argument, which they parlayed into the "grandfathered from the county" lie that they successfully perpetrated on the Manteca Planning Department to obtain their "free pass."

Too bad for them I have recordings and photographs of the yard radio, and police reports of their malicious usages of it, which establish their cagey, cynical dealings in this matter.

More proof that T, L or C get their little rock off deliberately? Same day; lunch time; speaker turned completely away (can't see the little circle on the front.) And, never fear, the very next time the magic rock senses any disturbance in the Force, it will come spinning back around into offensive position.

Keep the really good, noisy stuff coming, ladies.


.
p.s. Everyone knows the old saying, "Owners tend to look like their dogs and their rock speakers."

.

Fungible Neighbors, Fungible Lawsuits

Fungible - the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. The concept is stated colloquially as, "Seen one, you seen 'em all." Examples of highly fungible commodities are crude oil, wheat, orange juice, precious metals, currencies... and the residents of 810 Fishback Street in Manteca, California.

The three women who haunt the neighboring property are highly fungible. (The word reminds me of what fungi do - they decompose organic matter.)

Their shared characteristics and observable commonalities are frighteningly uncanny. Take, for example, the ritual of turning on the yard radio promptly at 7:00 a.m.  A few weeks ago it was Lynda who shuffled from house to outbuilding, in slippers and robe, to turn on the radio and point the speaker my direction before returning to the house; later it was Corky's fingers on the knobs.

This morning it was Theresa's turn. Sure enough, at 7:00 sharp, she made a beeline from house to outbuilding. A few seconds later, Mega 100.1 FM came on and played loudly on the yard radio. A few seconds after that, Theresa headed back to the house... but she saw something unusual, arrested her forward motion, her mouth opened and very unladylike language came out! She came to the fence, couldn't see over it (see the "fence extenders" they put up?), and rattled it while barking challenges. In short, she acted just like Rufus and friend. (Theresa has come unhinged over dogs before...)

(The picture above was taken on Easter Sunday about 1300 hrs. The neighbors were off screwing around somewhere all day, making sure to turn the radio ON just before leaving. Notice the speaker's orientation.)

Now, when my neighbors are really mad at me, they set up their ladder so they can see over their own "fence extenders" and they turn the speaker towards my house. The picture below was taken this morning, two days after Easter.

I know, I know... I've covered all this before. But the excitement didn't end yet. Oh, no. I really stirred the hornets' nest.

Like one of her pressure cookers building up steam, Theresa's pressure relief valve didn't take long to pop off. Three-and-one-half minutes after turning the radio on, she turned the speaker towards my house (above pic) and turned the volume up to maximum. ----> Her orgastic release lasted twenty-seven seconds. <---- After she got her pressure valve screwed back on straight, her next *and brightest* idea was that maximum volume was not her brightest idea... and she turned the volume back down from ear-splitting to merely objectionably loud and sent out an SOS to the Alpha female, who is the Mother Protector... and the Father Protector.

(This is now the second time, four days apart, that they have sent a "burst" of Mega-high volume over the fence. Good thing I have these deliberate outbursts recorded because police and courts might find this ultra-childish behavior unbelievable as coming from 57-year-old women.)

As I pulled out of my gate to leave for work, the two of them pulled up in front of my driveway in Corky's little silver Ford and turned it around in the street. Lynda's window was down and she waved and shouted naughty things as they drove away the opposite direction. Lynda's only intelligible burble was, "... see you in court!"

Really? See me in court? Then why have they and their "free" insurance company lawyer been so non-responsive during discovery? I was beginning to feel they had no desire to go to court. If she was referring to the civil case, that means she will likely not agee to the Proposed Stipulated Judgment sent over last week to Mr. Mark D. McCauley, Esq., and we will indeed proceed with the suit. I understand that Farmers Insurance has pulled the indemnity and representation plug on them, so will they now proceed in propria persona, or pro per, - a Latin term meaning “on one's own behalf”? The old, but updated, saying goes, “The woman who represents herself, has a fool for a client.”

But we already know the referenced foolish client (or, those foolish clients) and I'm ready for her or them (fungible.)

Really? "... see you in court!"? If she was referring to some criminal matter, I say, "Bring it on, Babe!" But she'll have a helluva time selling some public prosecutor on her case. She should know by now that I have her, or the fungible Theresa, nailed down regarding their nuisance radio - which radio THEY put into play on the nuisance lawsuit table last June 2009.

The Babe's mouth is running again. Bring it on! This whole thing could win them an adverse judgment in both the civil suit AND in a potential misdemeanor charge.

- - - - - - -

Clear and Convincing Evidence of Malicious Intent

O.K., they missed Concept #2 also.

Something really stirred up the hornets over the weekend because promptly at 7:00 a.m. this morning - and I mean on the dot at 0700 hrs - the magic rock once again reoriented itself in my direction and began spewing its louder-than-usual and always-obnoxious klaxon. (It's a wonder their dogs don't go deaf. hmmm... I wonder if this qualifies as animal abuse?) Anyway, the pic below was taken at 0810 hrs, just prior to heading off to work.

This next pic was taken, same day, from the same location as the one above, at 1333 hrs during lunchtime. Note the speaker has been turned about 90 degrees opposite its morning position.

I find it extraordinary that their Farmers Insurance homeowners insurance company defense attorney ( Thing #2 or Thing #1 ) must have told Hip & Hop, "Go ahead and really, REALLY irritate the guy who's suing you for noise nuisance and maybe - just maybe - he'll succumb to our paltry offers at settlement." If he did, he's the dumbest lawyer ever. That's like giving sugar candy to a child just before bedtime and expecting him to drift quietly off to sleep.

But then again, this legal beagle on the Farmers leash could be the sharpest lawyer ever. If that's the case, then he and his employer have the absolutely dumbest policyholders/clients ever. We all know, given their modus operandi* over months and years, that these ancient hash-slingers are truly the sharpest cookies in the cutlery drawer... yes sir, razor sharp brownies... sugary cutting edges...

"G'night, John Boy."
"G'night, Greene."
"G'night, Super Freak."

{humming... Super Freak, She's a very kinky girl, The kind you don't take home to mother.}


- - - - - - - - -
* Modus operandi of T,L&C - noisy midnight operations, illegal business operations, illegal mobile home, don't know what a law is, practiced liars, redneck humor (sorry for the redundancy), can't count dogs, cats and chickens, drive big, greasy, smelly catering trucks, collect and abandon obsolete business equipment, put icemaker on neighbor's fenceline, put radio speaker on neighbor's fenceline in same place as icemaker, devoid of social skills, etc.

(taken from http://www.answers.com/topic/modus-operandi) [Latin, Method of working.] A term used by law enforcement authorities to describe the particular manner in which a crime is committed.

The term modus operandi is most commonly used in criminal cases. It is sometimes referred to by its initials, M.O. The prosecution in a criminal case does not have to prove modus operandi in any crime. However, identifying and proving the modus operandi of a crime can help the prosecution prove that it was the defendant who committed the crime charged.

Modus operandi evidence is helpful to the prosecution if the prosecution has evidence of crimes committed by the defendant that are similar to the crime charged. The crimes need not be identical, but the prosecution must make a strong and persuasive showing of similarity between the crime charged and the other crimes. The prosecution may introduce evidence from prior or subsequent crimes to prove modus operandi only if the other crimes share peculiar and distinctive features with the crime charged. The features must be uncommon and rarely seen in other crimes, and they must be so distinct that they can be recognized as the handiwork of the same person.

For example, assume that a defendant is on trial for armed robbery. In the robbery the defendant is alleged to have brandished a pistol and ordered the victim to relinquish cash and valuables. Assume further that the defendant has committed armed robbery in the past by brandishing a pistol and demanding cash and valuables. A prosecutor might be able to introduce the evidence into trial to show the defendant's motive, intent, or state of mind, or to identify the weapon used in the crime. However, the prosecutor could not argue to the judge or jury that the robberies were so similar as to demonstrate that it was the defendant who committed that particular robbery, because it is not unusual for a robber to brandish a pistol and demand cash and valuables in the course of an armed robbery.

Now assume that a defendant is charged with robbing a movie theater that was showing the movie Showgirls and that the defendant was wearing a glittering, flamboyant Las Vegas-style cabaret costume during the robbery. Assume further that the prosecution has evidence that the defendant, while dressed as a Las Vegas dancer, has robbed other movie theaters showing the movie Showgirls. The prosecution could introduce this evidence into trial to prove modus operandi and show that it was the defendant who committed the crime, because the method of armed robbery used in the crimes was both similar and distinctive.

When offering evidence to prove modus operandi, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other crimes occurred. Rather, the prosecution simply must present sufficient evidence to show that the act took place and was committed by the defendant.



(p.s. I soooo love the mental image of T,L&C dressed in "glittering, flamboyant Las Vegas-style cabaret costume" while cooking in their MFPU and peddling their schlock to the masses! Of course, the pictured women are the right age, twice as tall, and have the faces and other attributes necessary for employment in the showgirl industry. ed.)