Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Susan Sioux Colombe - Appeal to the Hearing Officer's Decision for Nuisance Abatement Case Butte County Board of Supervisors Contact_Supgrvisor_Con_nelly_ August 28th 2017 Contact Supervisor Wahl Contact Supervisor Kirk Contact Supervisor lambert Contact Supervisor Teeter Oroville, CA. 95965 Phone: 530.538.7631 Fax: 530.538.7120 RE: Appeal regarding ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION RE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (Butte County APN: 058-260-060) To Whom It May Concern: Dear Supervisors of Butte County, i, Susan "Sioux" Colombe, as an interested party, a member of the church, "Oneness Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari" and a concerned citizen, respectfully file this appeal, relating to the ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION RE NUISANCE ABATEMENT, (that you should have read), do hereby ask that the Butte County Board of Supervisors, not adopt the resolution that will be presented to them sometime in the near further... Furthermore, I prey that you order Butte County Department of Development Services Code Enforcement agents and agency to cease and desist their action against "subject property" define 11228 Dawn Terrace Drive, Oroville, CA. 95965 on the grounds that irreparable harm and injury will occur. According to the "California's Fair Employment and Housing Act(FEHA) defines religion as all traditionally recognized religions and beliefs, observations or practices that are sincerely held and that occupy in the employee's life a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions. In addition, case law has clarified that this duty extends beyond accommodating only required religious tenets and may include observances an employee simply prefers to follow or attend and that an employer should generally avoid inquiry into whether a religious observance is required". In addition, the California Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012 (WRFA), religious creed, religion, religious observance, religious belief and creed have been defined to include all aspects of religious belief, observance and practice, including religious dress and grooming practices. "Religious dress practice" includes wearing or carrying religious clothing, head or face coverings,jewelry, artifacts and any other item that is part of a religious observance. "Religious grooming practice" includes all forms of head, facial and body hair that are part of a religious creed (C.G.C. §12926(q)). This covers peace pipes, rolling papers, and other item's I, member might use in the practice of my belief, and It is my understanding that our religious belief in the use of cannabis is the "Sacrament Subject Matter" here. J 115 The garden is being cared for by my Reverend, for might, and others "Sacrament" I believe working the field or garden to produce all Sacrament, for all its members is covered under law, as any other practice, and the use of cannabis "herb" is covered. Furthermore the federal law has already stated under I did not provide testimony, and was not sworn in, and assisted Mrs. Sunja Duncan as her support person, at the August 8th 2017, Nuisance Abatement Hearing. I do not recall Mrs. Duncan: being sworn in, but asked to testify, not all of the questions were directed to her, as I was also asking questions. I do not remember County council asked Mrs. Duncan any questions about her beliefs, What I do remember of that 8 hour recorded hearing was at the beginning, the hearing officer stated he would allow us only 20 minutes to gather up what ever was needed, which is not enough time for anyone to gather up facts. In addition, I would like to point out several relevant facts relating to this proceeding, what are concerning and should be considered. 1) The first hearing was scheduled for July 11th 2017, but was canceled and rescheduled by the witness, code enforcement officer Tim Torres, on July 5th 2017, and that Reverend Jeffre Sanderson, found a new NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARING, July 20th 2017 scheduled for Tuesday, August 8th 2017, had been stapled to the gate post at subject property. (Affiants Exhibit "5") 2) Tim Torres, code enforcement officer, and witness for the county, testified that he did receive a certified reply from the property owner Mrs. Duncan, but he handed it off to county council, Roger Wilson because it was to big, and he couldn't understand it., It had. all.to of legal dopqrnerits in-there-and.did not and l,er.s.t.aln,dl...thl.elm. 3) Mr. Torres never stated what he did get Mrs. Duncan's first letter that she certified, May 31't 2017, to him requesting a hearing, but at the hearing Mr. Torres had only provided one of the two letters that Mrs. Duncan certified. The second letter also requesting a hearing: was dated 7/21/17. 4) For the record Mrs. Duncan reply notices were both certified to Mr. Torres, not county council, Mr. Rodger Wilson, and the evidence was presented at the hearing. 5). Mr. Torres then got more flight time, to do another fly over to gather more evidence, even though he knows and has know this property has been compliant for the past seven years. 6). Mir, Torres took the photographs, that look just like the other witnesses, and neither witness provided a "full length photo" of the "whole" property, which is double fenced, and that the Sacrament is behind two fences. 7) So the "Open Field Doctrine" does not apply, because the Sacrament, is grown in the yard, which is "intimate" with the dwelling, or living space, and is protected under "Curtilage" so any fly overs are illegal, and do violate ones rights to presume you have privacy in your"back yard". These types of"warrantless searches" are illegal in these cases, and are illegal in all cases, which violates the pith Amendment. . 612) -!5 In addition the witnesses are not qualified as "photographers"'to the level of standard that one would need to do these types of detailed duties. There for it is impossible to see all of the fencing that the property has which covers the Sacrament garden, and is not within public view at all as testified by officer Tim Torres. 8) Mrs. Duncan disagreed with Mr. Torres's testimony, about what he claims she had mailed him was certified, and was only two pages long. It was not the large packet of papers he had in his hands while testifying. 9) Those documents would become concerning when county council offered to give me copies of documents that County Council Rodger Wilson stated Mrs. Duncan, had mailed to him, Mr. Wilson stated that he had gotten this packet of papers from Mrs. Duncan, and because she did not have her copies with her, he would assist her and had already made copies of his documents for her. I thought that was strange, and wrong. I walked over to Mrs. Duncan who stated, "I did not mail those to him". As she looked through these documents, I asked her to go home and gather up everything she could find', and get back, a.s.a.p. 10) 1 later was given a copy of what documents Mrs. Duncan had, and the ones Mr. Wilson gave me, which turned out to be different then the originals. NOTE: There were two documents that were been removed from a packet that was sent to Mr. Torres in support of Mrs. Duncan, and not by Mrs. Duncan. That county council, and/or the witness Mr. Torres, with knowledge, during the hearing handed me, false, incorrect, or fraudulent, evidence and that in the hearing it was stated that those documents where from Mrs. Duncan. Mrs. Duncan had provided certified receipts shows evidence to the contrary that she did not send that packet Mr. Wilson claims she did. There is concern about professional standards the government must comply with, and at this time I do not believe those standards have been met, that this behavior is concerning to me, as a citizen, that local government is doing questionable practices in their policies, which is not clear. How are these agents qualified? If no complaint active was filed, there is no issue. The officers testified to have no education or training in medical cannabis cultivation, non-medical cultivation, and even less in Sacrament, or religious "rights"? Again, the property had been in compliance for seven years, and that the county knew of the "Sacrament herb" so what was the bases of the county's nuisance? This subject was never addressed in the hearing. The issue was only two things, 34A, and/or 34C, but it's neither, and if not written in the law, it cannot be broken. The county's witnesses stated, no complaint was made, but by Code Enforcement Officer Torres and no crime has been committed. ,3 In addition,, the hearing officer never stated that there ever was a "marijuana inuisance complaint". It is my understanding that, no, neighbor filed a written complaint against the "Subject Property", located at 11228 Dawn Terrace Drive, O,roville, California, 95965, and that I am beneficially interested in the outcome, of the proceeding's. It is my understanding that this property has been growing cannabis "herb"for Sacrament, for the past seven years, and has been 100% compliant in the past seven years, as far as code enforcement (county) was concerned. The property has done nothing different. The question, here is, whether or not Butte County, allows Cannabis Sacrament? I believe that has already been decided by the hearing officer. The law allows code enforcement to regulate non-medical and medical but not Sacrament. Therefore, no law has been broke. The decision must be reversed and all fees, fines, penalties or tax liens shall be waived and the property shall be allowed to do as it has been. We are not law brakers but law defenders, and it is our right to defend what are fundamental Rights, which is protected under the California constitution. 1, appeared as court support for Mrs. Duncan, who is only one of the three "property owners". I was not sworn in nor do I remember IMrs. Duncan being sworn in, and could not truly "testify" is not sworn in. I believe the record need to be transcribed, as the written if decision is inconsistent. In addition it was my understandings that there are two other owner of this "subject property" who were never notified, Mr. Duncan has passed, and it would behoove the hearing officer, to have considered whether all owners were properly notified, and/or present, and never asked Mrs. Duncan to provide a death certificate showing Mr. Duncan had passed. This tax lien will negatively affect his heirs. The county's issue here was a violation of 32A, Wor 32C, and this herb is neither. The "Oneness Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari" is tended for Sacrament of which 1, am a member who receives this Sacrament, free of charge. This Sacrament is a part of my daily prey, and belies as a member of the church. In addition, as a Native American, it is my way of life, which differs from most people, and in conclusion is very privacy. Mrs. Duncan is also Native American as her name speaks for it self, "Sonja". Our church is "Oneness Ministry p_f_GanRqbis and Rastakfqff%,whJch._the hearing officerdid not state correctly ,Ahroughwt"i decision. We have over 400 members in our congregation, but can have as little as 12 disciples on a daily bases who handle the Sacramental herb. The herb is not "non-medical" or "medical" by county's definition and does not fall into those two categories, It is my understanding that the hearing officer noted that he did not belief Mrs. Duncan, who did not testify however, did testify to her belief system... Which is it? I believe that, the Hearing Officer was inconsistent, clearly bias, denied due process, and no proof of service or verified complaint was provided as evidence. Sincerely Submitted Susan "Sioux" Colombe Yate 2621 C Street#3 Sacramento, CA. 95816 Member of"Oneness Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari" Member of One f=eather Nation, Herb &Sacrament ambassador Member of the Justice Reform Coalition, (JRC) Medical Cannabis coordinator 5 4