HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.30.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ URGENT – DISPUTED LIEN, LACK OF NOTICE, AND REQUEST TO HALT TAX SALE SCHEDULED JUNE 6.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod; Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Little, Melissa; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Cc:Daneluk, Paula; Cannon, Jamie; Kidd, Troy; Taggart, Kevin
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: URGENT – DISPUTED LIEN, LACK OF NOTICE, AND REQUEST TO HALT TAX SALE SCHEDULED JUNE 6
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 2:32:04 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Please see Board Correspondence -
Lewis LeeAdministrative Technician - ConfidentialButte County Administration25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 • Oroville, CA 95965T: 530.552.3326www.buttecounty.ca.gov | lelee@buttecounty.ca.gov
From: Robert Jackson <robertja1969@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 1:40 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>; TRSTax <trstax@buttecounty.ca.gov>; DSCodeEnforcement <DSCodeEnforcement@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: URGENT – DISPUTED LIEN, LACK OF NOTICE, AND REQUEST TO HALT TAX SALE SCHEDULED JUNE 6
To: County Tax Collector; Code Enforcement Department; County Counsel; Board of Supervisors
I am writing to formally demand an immediate review and temporary halt of the pending tax sale scheduled for June 6 concerning my property.
The delinquent amount includes over $12,000 in administrative fees arising from a code enforcement action that is fundamentally flawed and legally
defective. Specifically:
1. Wrong Property / Misapplied Violations
The underlying code enforcement case improperly combined conditions and alleged violations from a neighboring property with my parcel. As a result,
penalties and administrative costs were assessed against my property that do not belong to it.
2. Lack of Proper Notice (Due Process Violation)
I was never properly served notice of the code enforcement proceedings. Documentation indicates the use of an invalid or nonexistent address (e.g., “0
Boardman”), and no corrective action was taken after failed delivery attempts. This constitutes a failure of legally required notice and a violation of due
process.
3. Invalid Lien Components
Because the enforcement action was based on incorrect property identification and defective notice, the resulting administrative charges and lien
amounts are invalid and should not have been attached to my property tax obligation.
Despite prior correspondence raising these issues, I have received no response.
Given the seriousness of these errors and the imminent loss of property rights, I am demanding the following:
- Immediate investigation into the code enforcement case and associated lien
- Written confirmation that the disputed amounts are being reviewed
- A temporary hold or postponement of the June 6 tax sale pending resolution
Please understand that proceeding with the sale under these circumstances will result in further legal action, including claims related to wrongful lien, lack
of due process, and improper tax enforcement.
This matter is time-sensitive. I request a written response within 5 business days.
Sincerely,
Robert Jackson
530-552-0113
APN # 058-330-038
**See attached map showing discrepancy and video of the b.o.s. lien hearing showing mistakes made.
EMAIL SENT ON 4/20/2026
Re: APN 058-330-038 | 0 Boardman Lane, Concow, CA | Case No. CE21-00953
---
I am the owner of APN 058-330-038, located at 0 Boardman Lane, Concow, California. I write to formally demand that Butte County vacate the lien in the amount of $68,045.70 and dismiss
Code Enforcement Case CE21-00953 due to material factual error, lack of substantial evidence, and violations of due process.
---
1. Fundamental Factual Error – Misidentification of Structures
The County’s determination is based on the incorrect assumption that multiple greenhouse structures were located on APN 058-330-038.
As demonstrated in Exhibit A (Actual Structure Locations and Parcel Boundaries), only one greenhouse is located on the subject parcel. The remaining three greenhouses relied upon in the
County’s findings are located on an adjacent parcel (APN 058-330-059), not on the subject property.
Because the County attributed off-site structures to APN 058-330-038, the findings regarding the scale and severity of the violation are factually incorrect.
---
2. Lack of Substantial Evidence
Under Topanga Assn. v. County of Los Angeles, administrative findings must be supported by substantial evidence and must bridge the analytic gap between the evidence and the decision.
Here, the County’s findings—including an estimated 8,000 square feet of cultivation and approximately 450 plants—are inconsistent with the actual conditions of APN 058-330-038, which
contains only a single greenhouse. The record reflects reliance on aerial observations and limited roadway inspections without verification of parcel boundaries.
Accordingly, the County’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence.
---
3. Failure to Resolve Material Factual Disputes
The administrative record reflects that conflicting information was presented regarding the location of the cultivation activity, including statements indicating that the primary grow was located
on a different parcel.
Despite this, the County proceeded to a final determination without resolving this material factual discrepancy.
Administrative bodies are required to address and resolve conflicting evidence before issuing a decision. Proceeding in the face of unresolved factual uncertainty constitutes an abuse of
discretion under California law.
---
4. Improper Assessment of Daily Penalties
The County imposed approximately $61,000 in daily penalties, implying more than 60 days of continuous violation.
However, the record reflects:
- Limited access to the property
- Observations conducted primarily from the roadway or aerial imagery
- No verified timeline establishing continuous violation specific to APN 058-330-038
Moreover, the scale of the alleged violation is based on structures not located on the subject parcel. As a result, the penalty calculation is not supported by verified conditions and is arbitrary.
---
5. Violation of Due Process – Failure of Notice
The County’s notice procedures were not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the property owner.
Correspondence was addressed to “0 Boardman Ln,” which is not a valid mailing address, and at least one notice was returned undelivered. Despite having actual knowledge that notice had
failed, the County proceeded without taking additional reasonable steps to notify the property owner.
Under Jones v. Flowers, when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, due process requires the government to take additional reasonable steps to provide notice. No such steps appear to have
been taken here.
Additionally, due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Horn v. County of Ventura. Because I did not receive actual notice, I was deprived of the opportunity to participate
in the hearing or present evidence correcting the County’s factual errors.
---
6. Improper Proceeding Despite Known Uncertainty
At the time of the hearing, the County was aware of uncertainty regarding whether the cultivation activity was located on APN 058-330-038. Rather than continuing or reopening the matter to
verify these material facts, the County proceeded to impose substantial penalties and record a lien.
Proceeding under unresolved factual uncertainty further undermines the validity of the decision and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
---
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Based on the foregoing, I respectfully demand that Butte County:
1. Vacate the lien recorded against APN 058-330-038
2. Set aside the administrative order in Case CE21-00953
3. Dismiss the enforcement action due to lack of factual and legal support
Alternatively, I request that the County:
- Reopen the matter
- Conduct a new hearing based on verified parcel boundaries and accurate evidence
---
NOTICE OF INTENT
While I prefer to resolve this matter cooperatively, I am prepared to pursue all available legal remedies, including a petition for writ of mandate, if necessary.
This matter has had a significant financial and personal impact, and I respectfully request that the County review the enclosed evidence and take corrective action.
---
Please confirm receipt of this correspondence and advise on next steps within ten (10) business days.
Sincerely,
Robert Jackson
530-552-0113
Robertja1969@gmail.com
Enclosure: Exhibit A – Actual Structure Locations and Parcel Boundaries
Board of Supervisors Meeting_001.mp4