Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout028-170-098i CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 28-17-98 WITHOUT PERMITS = MOXIE,•A.,&,WILMA ASHIRLEY 12/19 { 266 StoneyVOaks-loop-; Bang ---F jll .1 f �1 :C � t4'-=- �'� - _ � � G � --.. � — � : � - _ � _ -� �� � r� - _ _,-- -.- _. �• .1 — - � � — _ -: � ., _ � � �- � _. ice- •=0 �r Ci7 - a ��� 1' r � , l t uo � � i'. ' it ;£ �} , � ilia .�► A.. ., '""a'5-+-_ �+`.>-. rn al• ,rdh.+i1r'�t�"',"�� 1' _ _Y:� — _ _ -`C 5:._x,•1. Butte County Department of Development Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 11 INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Fogel, Environmental Health Q28i7o 09� FROM: Yvonne ChristopC41-1r0,County SUBJECT: Waiver of sectio Code for 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Oroville DATE: September 18, 2002 I have reviewed the property as noted above and concur with the Director of Public Health that the refusal to issue a well permit be waived. This waiver is due to the potential health hazard and requirement of potable water for each dwelling unit on a property. Please contact me if you have any questions. rm \\bcdev3\dhom\DDS Department Correspondence\Yvonne Christopher\I-D Memo Doug Fogel 091802.doc Y September 10, 2002 Mr. Doug Fogel, Supervisor Department of Public Health 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Re: PN 028-170-098 Dear Mr. Fogel, i am in receipt of your letter and application for a permit to construct a sewage disposal system. Please be advised that we have had a sewage disposal system for the past 18-20 years. Our system was constructed exactly in accor4 with county specifications, which my husband obtained from your office at that time. Nothing was ever said about a permit and this is the first we have heard about a violation. Our gravity flow water supply from a spring on our land has always been quite adequate, until recently. Our water lines are well above and away from our septic system, which comes under the heading of "common sense". Our home is on 40 acres in the unincorporated area of Butte County, on a private road. We have lived here for approximately 30 years. No county services are provided and never have been. We are now in need of a well for health purposes and have made arrangements with Mr. David Moench to provide same. To deny him a permit to drill our well because we did not have a permit 20 years ago, when none was needed, does not make sense. This has created a costly delay for Mr. Moench and an unneccessary delay for us. Please remove your Notice of Violation, as nothing on your application applies to us. Thank you. Sincerely, A 64;� Wilma C. Shirley P.O. Box 219 rG LS0 Rackerby, California 95972 V E�7cc: Building Department P 1 7 2002 David & Son Drilling Co. Bob Beeler, Supervisor BUTTE COUNTY Wilma C. Shirley P.O. Box 219 Rackerby, California 95972 ol - Jlir-ector of' Public Works CEu�in�e artmen�t 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 5 "WZ --qqqNl -�I � IT dii !I I Wf! i 111d dh YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE WILL BE RECORDED AT THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AGAINST THE BELOW IDENTIFIED PROPERTY UNLESS CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TAKEN: As a result of convictions on February 22, 1994, in the South County Municipal Court in People vs. Moxie & Wilma Shirley, Case Nos. CR -21644 & CR -21645 of violations of the Butte County Code on your property at 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Bangor area, California, a Notice of Violation, in the form attached, will be submitted to the County Recorder's Office for recordation against your property. Recording of the Notice of Violation will be suspended if the following steps are taken within ten (10) days of the date of this Notice: Make an application for Planning approval with the Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, and submitted required plans and pay all fees. XX Make an application for a sewage disposal permit with the Environmental Health Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, and submit required plans and pay all fees. XX Make an application for a building permit with the Public Works Department, Building Inspection Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, and submit required plans and pay all fees. . Remove violations and obtain an inspection to verify compliance. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Code Enforcement Officer, Jeffrey D. Madden at (916) 538-7541. 1 Michael Vieira, C.B.O. Manager, Building Inspection cc: Department of Public Works Environmental Health Department Planning Department Code Enforcement - e w._;,,•_ ��� LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY BUILDING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7541 WARNING NOTICE FAX: (916) 538-2140 Owners: Moxie A. Shirley & Wilma C. Shirley JT Date: November 14, 1994 Address: P.O. Box 219 Rackerby, CA 95972 AP#: � 028-170-098 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE WILL BE RECORDED AT THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AGAINST THE BELOW IDENTIFIED PROPERTY UNLESS CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TAKEN: As a result of convictions on February 22, 1994, in the South County Municipal Court in People vs. Moxie & Wilma Shirley, Case Nos. CR -21644 & CR -21645 of violations of the Butte County Code on your property at 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Bangor area, California, a Notice of Violation, in the form attached, will be submitted to the County Recorder's Office for recordation against your property. Recording of the Notice of Violation will be suspended if the following steps are taken within ten (10) days of the date of this Notice: Make an application for Planning approval with the Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, and submitted required plans and pay all fees. XX Make an application for a sewage disposal permit with the Environmental Health Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, and submit required plans and pay all fees. XX Make an application for a building permit with the Public Works Department, Building Inspection Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, and submit required plans and pay all fees. . Remove violations and obtain an inspection to verify compliance. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Code Enforcement Officer, Jeffrey D. Madden at (916) 538-7541. 1 Michael Vieira, C.B.O. Manager, Building Inspection cc: Department of Public Works Environmental Health Department Planning Department Code Enforcement r� A Ll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 028-��0-098 ItYt9YM" m BUTTE CO.10MCT AM SEP 0 6 1994 CROMACA . I L E SEP 11994 sr °R. hC1cRM � �ot.s_ Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) CALIFORNIA, ) No. APP 1755 Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT ON APPEAL . V. ) MOXIE SHIRLEY, ) Defendant. ) ) This appeal came on for hearing before the appellate panel on June 30, 1994. The court took the matter under submission. After r complete review of all papers and oral arguments, the court now j i renders its decision. BACKGROUND i Appellants were convicted in municipal court of unlawful use and maintenance of various structures which allegedly were built without permits in violation of Butte County Code Sec. 26-6(a). j The offenses are infractions. Appellants state the issues on appeal as follows: 1) Whether the Municipal Court correctly dismissed Defendants, jurisdictional challenge on the ground that 1 2. .3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 13 � i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the complaint filed against Defendants on information and belief contained no element of a violation of any criminal statute. 2) Whether the Municipal Court was correct in denying Defendants'. Motion to Suppress Evidence based on illegal trespass and search without a warrant. The People raise the additional issue that the notice of appeal was untimely. NOTICE OF APPEAL California Rule of Court 182(a) provides that the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the- rendition of judgm. ent or .making of the order. The trial in this matter was held on February 17, 1994. The notice of appeal was filed March 16, 1994, 27 days later. The notice of appeal was timely. JURISDICTION Appellants contend that the court has no juris-diction over them for three reasons: first, because the complaint was not subscribed by a private person, second, because the Uniform Building Code is not law, the violation of which. subjects one to prosecution, and third, because the Uniform Building Code only applies to corporations or contractors. The Complaint The statute relied upon by appellants only requires that the complaint be verified by a natural person. Mr. MacKenzie being a natural person, th,) requirement of the statute has been met. Appellants have cited no statutory or constitutional authority for their position that the complaint must be subscribed by a private 2 i person. 1 Uniform Building Code - Violations 2 Appellants contend that there is no provision for criminal 3 prosecutions of violations of the Uniform Building Code. However, 4 Butte County, by ordinance, adopted the Uniform Building Code at 5 Sec. 26-1. At Sec. 26-6, the County declared that any building, 6 use, maintenance, etc. in violation of this chapter is unlawful. 7 Gov. Cd. Sec. 25132 provides that violation of a county ordinance 8 is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. 9 Therefore, any violation of the Uniform Building Code is at least 10 an infraction. 1$1 Uniform Building Code - Limitation to Contractors .12 The authorities cited by appellants do not support their 13 argument that the Uniform Building Code does not apply to pr-ivate 14 individuals. 15 WARRANT 16 Appellants contend that the building inspector's warrantless 17 inspection of their property was unlawful, and therefore any 18 evidence obtained during that inspection should be suppressed. 19 Appellants are correct that a warrant is constitutionally 20 required for some searches and inspections. The determining factor 21 in whether a warrant is required is whether the owner of the 22 property has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy in the 23 area searched or inspected. 24 In the present case, the transcript of the administrative 25 26 3 1 2 3 4 5 6' 711 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 hearing does not reveal a great deal of information about the appellants' property. The inspector's testiihony was that he "parked and walked up the driveway", that he did not cross any locked gate, and that he never remains on property after he has been asked to leave (p. 12-13). There is no evidence in the record indicating that the appellants took any action to keep their driveway private, such as by posting signs or putting up a fence. If the inspector simply entered property that was open to casual - visitors (such as sales people, for example), a warrant was not required. From the evidence provided, the court can only conclude that this driveway was open to visitors, and a warrant was not required for the inspector to enter thereon. S UMMAR Y For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. l[( Date q� Date P• 14vi r, I " 0, U /' - R ger Gilbert Presiding Judge Ann H. Rutherford Superior Court Judge 4 for Court fth PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA P aint Pet toner VS. MOXIE SHIRLEY, ET UX Defendant/Respondent State of California County of Butte NO. APP1755 AND APP1754 PROOF OF MAILING I declare that I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within cause. My business address is 25 County Center Drive, Oroville,. Ca.. 95965. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence /documents for mailing wth the United States Postal Service and that said correspondence/ documents are deposited with-. the United States -Postal Se-rvice- in the ordinary course of business on the same day. I further declare that on SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 I served the within JUDGMENT ON APPEAL on the parties by enclosing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and following ordinary business practices, said envelope was placed for mailing and collectiion in the appropriate place for mail collected for deposit with the United States Postal Service on the above date: BL.'E COU:v'TY Ld.6 C . ATTORNEY MOXIE SHIRLEY 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE (VIA COURIER) 266" STONEY OARS LOOP OROVILLE, CA. 95965 RACKERBY, CA 95972 1 declare under penalty of perjury -that -the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Oroville, Ca. DATED: SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 CANDACE J. GRUBBS, Clerk -Recorder Ex -Officio Clerk of the Superior Cou t the State of California r e Co my of Butte Deputy AP# 029- /70-099.CASE R21644 NUMBERC ANT: MOXIE ALTON SHIRLEY MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS AND ORDERS: DEFENDpe Seven 2-22-94: ag Tape 1371 #0664 Judge Steven J Howell, presiding Clerk, J. Steele. Court Reporter, Patrick Enck D.D.A. Robert MacKenzie, present for the People. Defendant present Pro Per Peoples' Exhibit #13 marked copy of Uniform Building Code 1964 Edition paqe 21 and 1973 Edition age 23. Court reaffirms its finding of guilt. Court finds no legal reason or cause why Judgment should not now be pronounced. On cts. 1 4 7 and 10 deft. ordered to pay a fine of $270.00 for each count for a total of $1,080.00 (no stay fee) stayed to 7-13-94 1:30 p.m. or appear (posted to accounts receivable) Fines suspended on cts. 2'3 5 6 8 9 11 and 12. Peoples' Exhibit #13 retained in court file SP21645. AP -t O CASE NUMBER; MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS AND ORDERS: . 2-22-94: CR21645 DEFENDANT:WILMA CHASTAIN SHIRLEY Page Seven Tape 1371 #0664 Judge Steven J. Howell, presiding. Clerk, J. Steele. Court Reporter, Patrick Enck. D.D.A. Robert MacKenzie, present for the People. Defendant present Pro Per. Peoples' Exhibit #13 marked copy of Uniform Building Code 1964 Edition page 21 and 1973 Edition page 23. Court reaffirms its finding of guilt. Court finds no legal reason -or cause why Judgment should not now be pronounced. On cts. 1 4 7 and 10 deft. ordered to pay a fine of $270.00 for each count for a total of $1,080.00 (no stay fee) stayed to 7-13-94 1:30 p.m. or appear (posted to accounts receivable) Fines suspended on cts. 2 5 6 8 9 11 and 12. Peoples' Exhibit #13 retained in courts file. MICHAEL L. RAMSEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY HELEN HARBERTS HOWARD W. ABBOTT Chief Deputy District Attorney Chief Deputy Distrct Attorney Criminal Civil 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965-3385 Telephone: (916) 538-7411 Fax No. (916) 538-7071 Moxie Alton Shirley and Wilma Chastain Shirley P.O. Box 219 Rackerby, CA 95972 February 22, 1993 C gUOF UM DBUrTE FEB 2,3 1993 ROBERT E. PETERSON Chief Investigator Administrative Assistant 655 Oleander Avenue Chico, California 95926 Telephone: (916) 891-2712 Fax No. (916) 891-2715 RE: Your Letter of January 9, 1993; Request To Inspect Property at 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Bangor: Assessor's Parcel Number 028-170-098 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shirley: Thank you for your letter of January 9, 1993. With regard to the assertion in paragraph three of your letter that you are entitled to find out if a neighbor contacted the Building Department and if so, who that person is, you are entirely correct that you have a constitutional right to face your accuser in court. Unfortunately, you have incorrectly identified the person who would be your accuser as a neighbor. Your accuser would in fact be Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Madden. Mr. Madden would testify that you are maintaining a structure built without permits, inspections or approval for use and without benefit of a lawfully installed sewage disposal system. As I have set out more fully below, I am quite eager to set up a meeting between you and Mr. Madden so that the two of you may discuss this case if you wish to do so. As I explained in my letter to you of December 14, 1992, building codes and other similar regulations are designed to protect the public by making sure that structures which are sold, rented or used as homes are safe for human habitation. In addition, laws Moxie Alton Shirley and Wilma Chastain Shirley February 18, 1993 Page 2 which require that sewage disposal systems be installed pursuant to permits and regulation ensure that sewage is disposed of in a safe and sanitary manner so as not to spread disease or contaminate water supplies. Legislation in this area is referred to as public welfare legislation. The idea of enacting laws which require permits for building homes and installing septic systems is to protect the public from the type of activity which leads to people dying or becoming injured or ill in their homes because of structural inadequacies, fire or outbreaks of disease. Because public welfare statutes are intended to prevent actual victims, your statement that "without actual injury to someone's person or property, no crime has been committed and no law has been broken" in paragraph four of your letter is incorrect. With regard to the assertions made in paragraphs five through nine of your letter, I have already explained to you that Butte County Code section 26-6(a) adopts the Uniform Building Code and prohibits the maintenance of any structure within the unincorporated area of Butte County in violation of that code. Further, I have already explained to you that building safety laws and regulations protect the general public, because nothing prohibits you and others like you from renting or selling the structures on your property to others. Apparently you feel that you are immune from laws which are applicable to every other property owner in the unincorporated area of Butte County and every other county and city in California which has adopted them. As you have been informed by previous correspondence from Butte County Building Department, the Code Enforcement program seeks voluntary compliance and you may avoid prosecution in this matter by simply obtaining the required permits, inspections and approvals. This office is in full agreement with the Butte County Building Department that you are obligated to obtain such permits, inspections and approvals and as a result of your refusal to do so it appears as if prosecution of this matter will become necessary. This letter is also a formal request for your consent to inspect the premises at 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Bangor (Assessor's Parcel Number 028-170-098). If you are inclined to consent to an inspection of the premises by Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Madden, please contact me at the above address and we can set up Moxie Alton Shirley and Wilma Chastain Shirley February 18, 1993 Page 3 a time for the inspection that fits your schedule. If you do not respond within ten (10) days of the date of this letter, your failure to respond will be deemed a refusal. Refusal for consent to inspect is a necessary prerequisite for this office to obtain a warrant to inspect the premises pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 et. seq. Should I request a judge to sign a warrant to inspect your premises, such a request would be an ex -parte proceeding of which Butte County local court rules require that I notify you at least four hours in advance of. Should it become necessary to request an inspection warrant, I will send you a letter one week in advance of the date and time which I will request the warrant in Butte County Superior Court, One Court Street, Oroville, California. Such procedures are usually conducted immediately before lunch hour or immediately after lunch hour on Monday through Thursday depending on the availability of judges. If seeking an inspection warrant becomes necessary and either you or your attorney wish to be present, please inform me whether you have conflicting matters on any particular day. Whether the inspection occurs pursuant to your consent or pursuant to a warrant, I would like to coordinate with you the time and day that the premises will be inspected so that you can be present to unlock your gate. If a prosecution becomes necessary in this matter, I anticipate that approximately seven to 10 infraction charges will be filed against both of you. Infraction charges are similar to most traffic violations, in that you cannot be incarcerated upon conviction. Butte County Code section 41-5 instructs judges to impose a $100 fine for each charge on which a defendant is convicted. Courts must add on a penalty assessment in the amount of 170% of the amount of the fine imposed. Thus, the penalty for violation of each Butte County Code section you are convicted of violating is $270. Because you cannot be incarcerated for violating an infraction you will not have the right to a trial by jury and you will'not have the right to have an attorney appointed for you at court expense. However, you will have a right to be represented by an attorney at each stage of the proceedings at your own expense. You will also have the right to a trial in front of a Judge of the Municipal court in Oroville. Please inform me at your earliest convenience whether you are represented by Donald Blake. If you are represented by Mr. Moxie Alton Shirley and Wilma Chastain Shirley February 18, 1993 Page 4 Blake, I will cease communicating with you directly all communications to Mr. Blake. If you retain an than Mr. Blake, please inform me and I will direct correspondence to your attorney. and direct attorney other all If you are convicted of violating the Butte County Code, a Notice of Violation may be recorded in the Butte County Recorder's Office on the parcel number on which the violation occurred pursuant to Butte County Code section 41-7. This procedure is necessary to protect prospective purchasers of the parcel number on which the violation occurred. This procedure may also have the effect of somewhat clouding your title to the property. I hope this letter has answered any questions you may have and also cleared up your misconceptions concerning the requirements of the United States Constitution. Yours very truly, MICHAEL L. RAMSEY District Attorney By. ROBERT W. MacK N IE �r Deputy District Atto ney Code Enf/Env Prot Unit , RWM:jlg:M.SHIRLEY cc: 'Jim Glander, Butte County Building Department Donald Blake, Attorney at Law !4 - EM He _MHeyu t LAND Of NATURAL W E A L T H AND BEAUT'i '_- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WILLIAM (Bill) CHEFF, Director 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE # OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 Telephone: (916) 538-7541 February 3, 1992 RONALD D. McELROY Deputy Director Wilma C. Shirley P.O. Box 219 .Rackerby, CA 95972 RE: Building Code Violation A.P.428-17-98 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Bangor Dear Ms. Shirley; With reference to the above subject and your letter dated January 23, 1992, the Uniform Building Code is written and published by the International Confer- ence of Building Officials, whose address is 5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601. The California State Legislature, by Section 17921 and 17922 of the California Health and Safety Code, specifies the codes to be adopted in California which are applicable to housing. Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code specifies these codes are in effect, whether or not adopted by cities and counties. (See Attached) The Butte County Board of Supervisors has adopted the Uniform Building Code by Section 26-1 of the Butte County Code. (See Attached) Both the State of California and Butte County require compliance with the Uni- form Building Code when constructing a dwelling. Please contact this office within 30 days of the date of this letter and make the appropriate permit applications as requested in our previous correspondence. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at (916)538-7541. JFG:hla Attachment Yours very truly; William Cheff Director of Public Works a- 'steal 8 v 1t o P, G6n J.F. Glander Manager, Building Inspection h A: 3 o p C, t Ld-i-L-1- 1-e 4fir �o /`i%r c ke ff From owv%, r C,0 C� sit r �b December. 19, 1991 Moxie A. & Wilma Shirley P.O. Box 209 Rackerby, CA 95972 RE: uilding_.de ion A.P. #23-17-98 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Dear Mr. & r t We sent you a warning letter dated February 5, 1991 notifying you that you are in violation of the Butte County Code at the above referenced loca- tion. As of this date, the following violations still exist. Failure to obtain the required permtis, inspections and approvals for construction of an occupying siigle family residence in violation of the 1985 Uniform Building Code 'adopted by Section 26-1 of the Butte County Code as follows: (a) Section 301(a) Permits Requi'red (b) Section 305(a) Inspections 1equired (c) Section 305(d) Inspection Approval Required before Use or Occupancy The above violation(s) shall be corrected or abated by you by submitting two complete sets of plans, applying for the_required permits, and paying the appropriate fees including penalties within 30 "days of the date of this letter. After permit issuance and field authorization to proceed, the work must be completed and approved by this office within the permit specified time. ! Unless the violation(s) is(are) so corrected or abated, a citation shall be issued to you to appear in court for said Violation(s) and for failing to comply with this notice. Upon conviction of said violation(s) or for failing to comply with this notice, penalties shall be imposed and a Notice of Violation recorded in accordance with Section 41-7 of the Butte County Code. PA e A /N 17- �3 F.0 �fo lJ 3 z� F)f.o ul 10.0.4v i ' 9Z t , ,,,-,: �7/� 1992 Department of Public Works William Cheff, Director 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Dear Mr. Cheff, We are in receipt of another letter from your department, alleging a violation of the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, Sections 301 (a).and 305 (a) and (b), per- taining to permits and inspections. We have also been threatened with court action for failure to comply with said notice. Please note that I contacted your office, in person, and spoke with you personally, on the day following Mr. Tom Coleman's appearance on our property with a complaint from a private individual, alleging a possible violation of the building code. In addition, I followed up with a letter (see enclosed) which was not mailed but, in liew of which, your office was contacted by our attorney. Since receipt of your 2nd notice, I have searched and re- searched the Uniform Building Code, in a vain attempt to find a clue as to how this code can possibly pertain to a private individual who erects any type of structure on his own land, and how criminal charges can be filed against a person, as long as there was no endangerment or injury to a person or property. As I understand the Uniform Building Code, it was first en- acted by an International Conference of Building Officials. My question is: Is this an International Law and, if so, who enforces international law? We have never, knowingly, given up any of our property rights to an international or- ganization. Nor have we ever signed over our property rights to any federal, state or local jurisdictional control. Title 5 USC Sec. 556 (d), covering jurisdiction, states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof." We are asking you to prove your authority to demand compliance with'a code that cannot apply to a private citizen or his property, without violating that citizen's Constitutional guaranty to the right to privacy, the right to free expression and the right to own and enjoy one's property without interference from either a complaining individual or from government. -2 - . We'hereby object to -having been accused of an alleged .law violation. 'Someone in .your . departrrient,-has •evidently made a'conclusion of law that we, as private citizens, are under the'same laws or•rules as a,person who has been is sued a license to.perform a service for someone else. r Please send a copy of all evidence, criteria or standards used to reach the conclusion 'of law that the Uniform Build=., ing Code applies' to us.-. - Thank you very much. Sincerely, Wilma C.'Shirley # P.O. Box 219 3 Rackerby,{CAr 95972 Encs. P. S. Enclosed please find copy of thelargument against the proposed ordinance to adopt the Uniform Housing,Code which was presented to the Board of Supervisors on-May.1A,- 1976. Approximately 400 outraged citizens of Butte County attended that meeting, resulting in therejection-of the proposal at that time:. _ I le 4 .. �g Y •4Y � '.tit , - . 7� OOp�O -7 S I File No.� , I� BUTTE COUNTY (For Action 1, 2, 3) 1 Public Works Dept, v . (Fo Information Director Dep. Dir, Sec. �+ Rd. & Br. Mtce. b Shop & Yards I Bldg. Insp. Admin. `4 I Design Engr. Bridge Engr, I� Constr. Engr. Surveys Mapping Transp. Land Dev. Drng. /S.I. Sub. & Pcl. Maps Permits Addr. S 4 , December 26, 1990 Director of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California Dear Sir, On December 20, 1990, Mr. Tom Coleman, Inspector from the Butte County Building Department, entered onto our property with a complaint, alleging a possible violation of the county building code. Mr. Coleman wrote out, signed and handed to me a "Correction Notice," with instructions to contact your office within 10 days. I did contact your office the follow- ing day, December 21, 1990, in person. Please be advised that Mr. Coleman was trespassing; on private property, from the time he left Swede's Flat Road and entered Stoney Oaks Boulevard. As you know, this is all private pro- perty in the Stoney Oaks area. The roads are owned and main- tained by the land owners, with access limited to the land owners and to those person to whom permission has been granted. Mr. Coleman did not have prior permission to trespass. After driving through property owned by others, he entered onto our property, blocked our road with his vehicle, walked around our "gate," consisting of two sawhorses, and came into our -yard. I went out to see who the person was and was told by Mr. Coleman that "someone" had filed a complaint against us. He would not say who that "someone" was. On December 21, 1990, I went to your office with questions pertaining to this matter; specifically, Who filed the com- plaint? I was told that policy prevents the divulgence of this information. This is in total conflict with our consti- tutional guarantees to the right of privacy and of the right to be confronted by our accuser. The Correction Notice fails to state a specific cause of action or a law or regulation authorizing this investigation. Nor did I receive an answer to my question as to whether or not this was a "general" or "special" investigation. Policy must fail when in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. I have a right to know t'n_e name(s) of my accusor and also to be informed of the specific nature of the accusation. Sincerely, Wilma C. Shirley C: Donald J. Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law .., - � ; - ` r1%cr: t ;� � �}p�"k; d tY y •y,; .�•."Iit+;,� } f t �; i ti k , • , t.,•'..ai-� '> �a,hf4,rF{Gh�k*t���i�''t� �1 -y�.. ia, aS,,���r��ixsP�,�li• ,� r'`•d ✓ft C S �':. ARGUMENT AGAINST UNIFORM HOUSING CODE a. •� 'dZ (:t S"��.frFfi'+'}eit� S'" !y.;' ..,s The proposed ordinance to adopt a .uniform Housing Code throughout;;r:y;,�•,,`: the unincorporated areas of Butte County could not possibly`be''com-` << plied with without waiving one's rights guaranteed under.the,:lst,­' �Y 4th,, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th and 14th amendments,"to; the Constitution of the United States.,,',- The tates. , �r The Preamble to the Constitution of,the State of California.reada We, the people of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and per "' petuate its blessings, do establish,this Constitution. .j,1 Article I. Sec. 1. - All people are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of defending life and liberty; acquiring, ?, possessing and protecting property; and pursuing and ob-::.'`;r taining safety, happiness and privacy. Article III, Sea. 1. - The State of California is an in- separable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land... Since each member of the Butte County Board of Supervisors has taken, as required by law, a sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitu-, tion of the United States of America and of the State of California,', it can thus be assumed that each member is'interested in passing no laws which would in any way abridge the privileges and guarantees of the citizens of the United States and residents of the State of California. ta; lyrrany is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as: Arbitrary or despotic government; the severe and autocratic... exercise of sovereign power, either vested constitutionally in one ruler or usurped by him by breaking.down the division_,,,,-.:, and distribution of governmental power. To safeguard the people of the United States of America against tyrrany, our founding fathers gave to us a Republic (Rule by Law), not a democracy (Rule by man). We pledge allegiance to the.flag of the United States of America[ and "to the Republic for which it' stands." This does not mean recognizing this nation as a Constitu- tional Republic, then following the rules in the Communist Manifesto. t One of the first principles of American constitutional law is that' government has no powers except as delegated to it by the Constitu-.' tion. Consequently, if any "law" passed conflicts with it, the " Constitution invalidates the conflicting "law." This is expressed in 16 American Jurisprudence as follows: • . S •a ` t The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but•is• • ti�Y: J t • •`� -2- wholly 2- wholly void, and is ineffective for any purpose; since uncon- stitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an un- constitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. :. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law ... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow. that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no offices, bestows no power or authority on.anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...No unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it... The right to property ... is sometimes characterized judicially. as a sacred right, the protection of which is one of the most. important objects of government. The guaranty (to the right of property) refers to the right to acquire and possess the absolute and unqualified title to every species of property recognized by law, with all rights incidental thereto. I Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property (and therefore null and void) within the meaning of this con- stitutional guaranty (the 4th amendment) if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold it or use.it and therefore seriously impairs its value. (16 Am. Jur. 2nd ed.) Since ignorance of the law does not excuse a citizen from breaking the law," neither are elected officials and appointed bureaucrats above the law. To further ensure our liberty and freedom from tyrrany Congress has passed criminal statutes, now known as Title 1b, United States Code, Sections 241 and 242, providing im- prisonment and fines for those who "conspire to -injures oppress, threaten, or.intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoy- ment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same." This is from Section 241 and violators are subjected to up to $10,000 in fines and 10 years imprisonment. Section 242 provides: "Whoever willfully subjects any inhabitant ' of any State...to the deprivation of any rights...secured or-protecbod by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $10000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." There is no reason to doubt that social planners who desire the adoption of uniformity in housing codes, etc., are not motivated by the best of intentions. There always have been, and probably always will be, many people who have a great urge to plan and prescribe what they deem best for everybody. And in that process, they are quite willing, consciously or unconsciously, to override any in .dividual liberties that stand in the way of what they consider r.; beneficial and desirable. The Constitution is and was intended to be, a curb upon and a barrier against such persons --when they have achieved public office. and hold the reins of government in their hands. As Daniel Webster declared: "It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good.inten-.`. tions ." And as Thomas Jefferson vividly expressed it: "Let us hear no more then of the good intentions of man, but' bind him down with the chains of the Constitution." I hereby urge that the proposed ordinance to adopt a uniform Housing Code throughout the unincorporated aread of Butte County be junked. Attached are statements and proxies from other concerned property owners in Butte County, opposing this proposed ordinance. Request this be made part of your records. Moxie A. Shirley Rackerby Presented to the Board of Supervisors, County of Butte, State of. California, on May 180 1976. Proposed ordinance was junked. c PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this cause. I am a resident of Butte County. I enclosed a true copy of letter to Director of Public Works, Mr. William Cheff, in a sealed envelope and de- posited said envelope in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid on it�yiJ a3 , 1992, and addressed as follows: Department of Public Works William Cheff,,Director 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on ,�, 3 , 1992, at Rackerby, California. N os ca O� WO To CE. -o. OW December 19, 1991 Moxie A. & Wilma Shirley P.O. Box 209 Rackerby, CA 95972 RE: Building Code Violation A.P. #28-17-98 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Bangor , Dear Mr. & Mrs. Shirley: / We sent you a warning letter dated February 5, 1991 notifying you that you are in violation of the. Butte County Code at the above referenced loca- tion. As of this date, the following violations still exist. Failure - to obtain the required permtis, inspections and approvals for construction of an occupying single family residence in violation of the 1985 Uniform Building Code .adopted by Section 26-1 of the -Butte County Code as follows: (a) Section 301(a) Permits Required (b) Section 305(a) Inspections Required (c) Section 305(d) Inspection Approval Required before Use or Occupancy The above violation(s) shall be corrected or abated by you by submitting two complete sets of plans, applying for the required permits, and paying the appropriate fees including penalties twl`fF17n 30 days of the date of this letter. After permit issuance and field authorization to proceed, the work must be completed and approved by this office within the permit specified time. Unless the violation(s) is(are) so corrected or abated, a citation shall be issued to you to appear in court for said violation(s) and for failing to comply with this notice. Upon conviction of said violation(s) or for failing to comply with this notice, penalties shall be imposed and a Notice of Violation recorded in accordance with Section 41-7 of the Butte County Code. Letter to Moxie A. & Wilma Shirley RE: Building Code Violation A.P. 28-17-98 Page 2 December 19, 1991 Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Rod Taylor or Jim Glander of this office at (916)538-7541. JFG:dms cc: Building Inspector Yours very truly, William Cheff Director of Public Works J.F. Glander Manager Building Inspection 11 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I am over the ace of 18 and not a party to this cause. I am a resident of and employed in the county where the mailing occurred. My business address is Butte County Department of Public Works 47 County Center Drive California. Oroville, CA 95965 I served the foregoing 30 -Day Violation T,Prtar by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope and depositing said envelope in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid on 19th. of December 19 91, and addressed as follows: Moxie A. & Wilma Shirley P.O. Box 209 Rackerby, CA 95972 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of _i.a State of ;,al�r;...ia hat t:`:e :or going is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 12/19/91 at nrn,.,; i i P , California. 11 Moxie A. & Wilma Shirley P.O. Box 209 Rackerby, CA 95972 RE: Building Code Violation 266 Stoney Oaks Loop, Bangor Dear Mr. & Mrs. Shirley: February 5, 1991 A.P. #: 28-17-98 This is a warning letter to notify you. that you are in violation of the Butte County Code at the above referenced location as follows: Failure to obtain permits, inspections and approvals for new single family residence. Since permits and ctions are required for the above work, please contact this officet.. . ten days f'the date of this letter, submit two complete sets of plans, apply for the required permits, and pay the appropriate fees.` All work must stop until these permits are issued and you are authorized by our field inspector to proceed. This field authorization cannot be made until the existing work is inspected and approved. Please be aware that Butte County has entered into a Code Enforcement Program that seeks voluntary compliance with the Butte County Code but provides an effective means of enforcement if such compliance is not obtained. If voluntary compliance is not obtained, enforcement will be pursued through the issuance of citations, fines, and the recording of a Notice of Violation. Your cooperation in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Rod Taylor or Jim Glander of this office. :30 1107 L�7 #/ ' c / 9 al/ Yours very truly, illoLA 7to-v 0"► C� William Cheff !S D LvTGo y (:gjl 7 JFG:ds cc: Assessor Building Inspector 0 Director of Public Works 86 J.F. Glander Chief Building Inspector 4�f�:5t )J.'. 'A Donald J. Blare, Jr. Attorney at Law 2420 LOWER WYANDOTTE OROVILLE, CA 95966 'January 4, 1991 Mr. Tom Coleman Code Enforcement Officer Public Works County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Wf I cOA414-drZ10 AM. &.Az5A_, �t DlrLsi�O 141"4% C) -f4-0 PHONE 916/5� 6� 7p CLrc�/.L�r g o '9 Re: Correction Notice Issued to Shirley. Date of Issue: 12/20/90 Dear Mr. Coleman: I have been contacted by the Shirleys relative to the above - referenced matter. I tried calling your office this morning only to get a recording that the phones wouldn't be answered until 10:00 a.m. I stopped by your office about 9:15 a.m. only to learn that you had left for field duties and wouldn't be back. Please contact me Monday. I would like to discuss with you your view of this matter and the steps which you feel should be taken. DJB: j Very truly yours, DONALD J. BLAKE, JR. Attorney at Law tA6t � 0 Ndr SAiCOA :XWd -40 '1dW aline 4o Amnoo ` COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 196 Memorjal'Way, Chico — Phone: 891-2751 7 County Center Driv6, Oroville —*Phone: 538-7541 747 Elliott Road, Paradise — Phone: 872-.6307 CORRECTION NOTICE q al d / z- �_/ OWNER IT NO. A routine inspection indicates that the following violations of County Ordinance exist at the above address and should be corrected. Please notify this office when correction of work is completed. If you have any question pertaining to this Date—) Inspector ---j COMPLAINANT ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: OTHER COMMENTS: