Humboldt County Files a Motion to Dismiss the Institute for Justice’s Federal Class Action Lawsuit Against Its Cannabis Abatement Program
Notice to abate. Photo posted in Redheaded Blackbelt on June 24, 2018.
On November 23, Humboldt County urged the Northern District of the United States District Court to dismiss the Institute for Justice’s class action lawsuit filed in early October that alleges the cannabis abatement program is “unconstitutional” on five general counts. The Institute filed the lawsuit after learning about the fines and penalties assessed against the Thomases, Blu Graham, Rhonda Olsen and other residents in earlier Redheaded Blackbelt stories.
Attorneys for the county laid out why they filed the motion, writing,
The Complaint should be entirely dismissed because it does not establish standing as to any Plaintiff. It does not plead injury in fact traceable to the challenged action or that any injury can be redressed here. Alternatively, the County moves to dismiss Counts One through Five for failure to state a claim for these reasons.
- The Complaint fails to Plead a Claim upon which relief may be granted;
- Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies (Counts One, Two and Four);
- Plaintiffs redundantly and improperly sue individuals in their official capacities; and
- Individual Defendants are subject to legislative and qualified immunities.
Because these procedural deficiencies make amendment futile, the County seeks dismissal without leave to amend.
According to local abatement expert and cannabis Attorney Eugene “ED” Denson (who is not involved in the class action lawsuit, and thus can comment on the case), in layman’s terms, he says the motion is essentially arguing that, “In order to bring the case, at least one of the named plaintiffs has to have suffered an actual injury. The county is saying that since none of the named plaintiffs has actually been fined, they have no injury. They should wait until they get fined to file suit.”
But, Denson says, “[The Institute of Justice] says the abatement notice is the injury. It requires the victim to do things, often expensive things, to avoid fines or additional fines. Code violations are also misdemeanors and in the county process the notice is the conviction, all you can do to contest it is appeal.”
The class action suit against the County’s cannabis abatement program names all five Supervisors and the Director of the Planning and Building Department individually as defendants, and reads, “The Planning and Building Department has run wild with its new fine-driven mandate and adopted a policy and practice of charging cannabis-related code violations without proof or process.”
Institute of Justice attorney’s Jared McClain and Joshua House detail the five constitutional violations at a town hall meeting November 16. [Video by Ryan Hutson]
The Institute for Justice attorneys said the County violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights on five primary counts, stating in the complaint, “Humboldt County’s abatement program violates due process, imposes unconstitutional conditions and unconstitutionally excessive fines and fees, and deprives accused landowners of their right to a jury.”
| IJ Class Action Claims | Type of Constitutional Violation Alleged |
| Claim One | Procedural due process |
| Claim Two | Substantive due process |
| Claim Three | Excessive fines |
| Claim Four | Unconstitutional conditions |
| Claim Five | Right to a jury trial |
In a statement, Institute for Justice attorney Jared McClain reiterates the plaintiff’s case, writing,
The County designed its cannabis-abatement program to squeeze every dollar it can out of residents it merely suspects of growing cannabis without a permit. Without regard for probable cause, the County accuses anyone with a greenhouse or garden plot of growing marijuana without a permit and fines them millions of dollars, plus steep fees to even talk to County officials about the charges.
The County does not deny that its dragnet sweeps up innocent people who just bought their property, and others who are guilty of nothing more than growing asparagus or lavender. Innocent or not, residents accused of violating permitting requirements must endure years under the constant threat of excessive fines they cannot afford while they wait indefinitely for an administrative hearing that the County never provides.
The County however, argues, that the plaintiffs sued before they utilized all other legal avenues available to them to resolve their cases. Subsequently the county’s lawyers say the plaintiffs do not have a right to sue, for claims pertaining to excessive fines or due process (substantive and procedural).
Denson wrote, “To bring a case in court you must have “exhausted your administrative remedies” – like appealing the abatement to the Planning Department’s administrative hearing, and getting a ruling against you by the Planning Department’s judge. But if such action would be futile, you don’t need to do it. Just file your suit. Which is what has happened.”
Excessive Fines
Example of an abatement notice and associated fines.
According to the Institute of Justice, Humboldt County’s cannabis abatement program is violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents Federal, State, and Local governments from imposing excessive fines, fees and forfeitures.
At the town hall in November, Attorney Jared McClain explained, since the Institute of Justice’s unanimous win at the Supreme Court in the Timbs v. Indiana case, the Eighth Amendment has been incorporated to the states, which means constitutional protections apply to the states and local governments.
The Institute of Justice used plaintiff and property owner Rhonda Olson as an example of the fines that can be levied. For instance, the lawsuit reads, “Olson is facing over seven million in fines because someone else grew marijuana on her property before she purchased it.”
Empty field and vineyard owned by Rhonda Olson. [Photo by Nichole Norris]
These fines are insane. Rhonda Olson faces $7.4 million in fines right now and I’ve been to her property several times— one is literally a vacant piece of land… We have in writing from Code Enforcement that says the grading might have been here since [it was logged in] the 80s but because someone grew cannabis on it, it must be returned to its pre- cannabis state…the land is somehow now dirty and tainted because it’s had weed on it, and unless you correct that you are facing $7.4 million in fines, oh and by the way, you have ten days to [do so].
The County’s response highlights the People v. Braum case which states the factors considered when deeming fines unconstitutionally excessive.
The Motion to Dismiss says,
To determine whether a fine is grossly disproportional to the underlying offense, four factors are considered:
(1) the nature and extent of the underlying offense;
(2) whether the underlying offense related to other illegal activities;
(3) whether other penalties may be imposed for
the offense; and
(4) the extent of the harm caused by the offense.
The motion to dismiss argues the county is simply doing their job enforcing local laws against those who “persistently refuse” to comply, and the fines cannot be excessive if it has only been threatened, rather than imposed.
The motion states,
No large fine has been finally imposed here and the large fines possible under the County’s ordinances for persistent refusal to bring property into compliance with law cannot be adjudged excessive on their face, but only as applied and many Court decisions in other cases uphold even larger fines for willful refusal to comply with land use laws. The unconstitutional exaction claim shows no exaction at all for requiring one to maintain his property in compliance with law exacts nothing. Moreover, the conduct allegedly coerced is that the County can command ― again, compliance with local law.
However, the Institute for Justice wrote in the class action that innocent property owners are often wrapped up in the program unjustly. The lawsuit reads,
“By alleging that code violations relate to illegal cannabis cultivation, the County exponentially increases the fines for those violations, regardless of whether the violation poses any harm to the community. Minor violations like building a temporary greenhouse without a permit suddenly carry a daily fine between $6,000 and $10,000… Violations that would typically carry fines between $1 to $1,000 multiply by a factor of ten or more based solely on an alleged nexus between the alleged violation and marijuana.
In the Thomases’ case (also featured in previous articles) they received an abatement notice only seven days after they purchased their property.
Corrine and Doug Thomas in front of their home and shop. [Screenshot from a video by the Institute of Justice]
![The Thomases abated shop. [Photo by Nichole Norris]](https://kymkemp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/image2.jpg)
The Thomases abated shop. [Photo by Nichole Norris]
The motion to dismiss states, “Plaintiffs also allege the excessive fines clause is violated by the County’s order to remove unpermitted structures, but the excessive fines clause does not govern that claim, which is a land use standard, not a penalty.”
Aerial drone image by engineer David Nicoletti displaying the approximately seventy trees that would have to be removed in order to facilitate the demolition of the shop next to the Thomases home
In return, the Thomases and Rhonda Olson ask the county how hundreds of thousands in costs is not penalizing innocent owners, particularly considering the properties had clear titles at purchase. The county had the ability to post the abatement on the Thomas’ and Olson’s titles, but the County did not do so before these purchases, at their own discretion.
Screenshot of 7/7/2020 Supervisors Meeting highlighting the CEU’s ability to post abatements to title.
At the meeting McClain said the cannabis abatement program was not about health and safety as alleged, but instead the county’s way of getting the maximum “cut” of cannabis permit money.
McClain explained,
California legalized cannabis– It’s not about breaking a criminal law, it’s about not paying the county it’s cut. In order to make sure they are getting every permitting dollar out of cannabis, they are putting these extortive fines over people’s heads and pressuring them into settlements, and that’s the purpose of the program, and we know thats the purpose because when you try to fight the fines, they do not give you your day in court.
For example, according to Institute of Justice’s filing, Plaintiff Blu Graham waited four and a half years in abatement limbo while facing “$900,000 in fines based on unfounded and uninvestigated allegations that he was growing marijuana in greenhouses that the County saw in satellite images of his property. Really, he was growing vegetables for his restaurant.”
Blu Graham beside his pepper plants, used for dishes made at his restaurant. [Screenshot of video by Institute of Justice]
The Institute of Justice filing explains the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in the complaint, stating, “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…The Due Process Clause guarantees a fair legal process in … proceedings, including code-enforcement actions.”
In return, Humboldt County’s Motion to Dismiss argues, “The County’s processes comport with due process. Plaintiffs baselessly plead a jury right in the County’s administrative hearings…Administrative hearings need not be tried to a jury…This claim fails as a matter of law and no amendment can save it.”
At the town hall, however, Institute of Justice attorney Jared McClain described the two types of due process claims brought against the county, and detailed what procedural due process means, saying, “When the government accuses you of something, you have a right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard and the way they’ve designed this program is, one, you don’t get heard at all so it can’t be meaningful… [and] even if you are heard, it’s not meaningful.”
The County’s Motion to Dismiss argues, “To allege a procedural due process claim, one must allege (1) deprivation of a liberty or property interest, and (2) constitutional inadequacy of the administrative procedures government offers to remedy the deprivation.”
The county’s motion also claims the plaintiffs injuries are “speculative” and “hypothetical,” adding, “Plaintiffs each received a Notice of Code Enforcement Appeal Hearing and Notice of Administrative Civil Penalty Appeal Hearing [and] … opportunity to be heard. None can allege a procedural due process violation on these ordinances or the facts alleged.”
On the other hand, all plaintiffs denied they obtained an appeal hearing, except Blu Graham who waited four and a half years (May 2018-September 2022) before getting his notice, days before the lawsuit was filed.
Another type of due process claim brought against Humboldt, is substantive due process, which relates to the extent governments can pry in your personal business on your private property, and what type of evidence is required for citations.
Attorney Jared McClain explained the county’s assumption that greenhouses or structures contain cannabis, is not sufficient for probable cause. McClain said,
We argue that fining people without probable cause also violates due process. It’s very expensive to be in this system that they’ve created, there’s reputational damage involved, there’s all sorts of costs involved and they should have to have proof that you violated the code before they levy these fines and they’re just not doing that.”
Which is what happened in Olson’s case who was abated in 2020 right after her property purchases, and then again in 2022. She had her name published in the paper announcing the cannabis abatements, she spent thousands of dollars on experts and various costs, all while the county did not have evidence of cannabis on her three parcels. Olson says there was none there.
Rhonda Olson standing by an empty garden bed. [Photo by Institute of Justice]
Olson asked the County about the violations, learning corrective actions were needed on all the properties… The County allowed her time to abate before serving any notices on her… Days later, Olson’s consultant submitted an Initial Plan for Restoration, asking for more time to comply. .. Olson has taken no further abatement action to date, and months later in March 2021, her new consultant again discussed remedial grading with the County…Another year passed without action by Olson.
Olson totally rejects the idea that she has not done everything in her power to comply, and explained she kept getting mixed messages from Code Enforcement about what needed to be done to correct the prior owner’s violations.
Olson said, “The motion claimed I didn’t do anything from 2020-2021 but I was working my ass off…I spent tons of hours and thousands of dollars doing perk tests, working with experts, and cleaning up the properties overall, so for the county to try and paint me as somebody who did nothing for years, is incredibly dishonest.”
Another empty field once used to cultivate cannabis by previous owners years ago, now owned by Rhonda Olson. [Photo by Nichole Norris]
Olson explained,
“I have an email from Ford to Madrone dated 6-28-21 where Ford says “we sometimes make mistakes.” Then, 3-21-22 I participated in Nikki Noris’ article “Punished for Another’s Crimes.” While expecting Code Enforcement to correct their mistake instead I got a retaliatory abatement and red tag only days later.”
After the email from Ford, Olson waited for nine months on the county to “correct their mistakes,” but then Olson said, “[Warren Black] re-noticed the abatements days after the article saying cannabis was on all three parcels and greenhouses on one… How do you abate something that’s already been abated years ago? I received 14 violations where only one existed for a bus, a bus I can’t even give away.”
A shed and bus at one of Rhonda Olson’s properties.
Olson’s 2022 abatement notices and red tag were signed by Code Enforcement Official Brian Bowes and backdated, giving her what she felt was zero of the ten days allowed to apply for an appeal hearing and comply with the orders.
The Institute for Justice’s complaint argues this is another example of the lack of due process in the County’s cannabis abatement program, stating,
The County often obscures when the clock starts by dating notices before the date it actually affects service,” and added, “Another way the County pressures landowners to settle is by delaying administrative hearings indefinitely. But the County’s policy and practice is to ensure that the full 90 days of fines run against anyone who seeks an administrative hearing… Consequently, people who seek an administrative hearing must incur hundreds of thousands—if not millions—in fines just to defend themselves.
Local Cannabis Attorney and abatement specialist Eugene Denson, worked on the plaintiffs’ abatements prior to the Institute of Justice lawsuit. Denson concurred that requesting an appeal hearing required clients to “incur risks of daily penalties while waiting, sometimes years.”
Denson elaborated, writing,
For the innocent owner waiting for the appeal brings on its own penalties in that your use of your land for permitted activities is frozen, possibly for years, in addition to the quite likely result of the hearing being enormous penalties imposed by the hearing officer who is an at will employee of the Planning Department. These penalties are inflated by the accumulation of daily increases, while the number of days is determined by the Planning Department who schedules the hearings.
Another related claim raised by the Institute for Justice is constitutional conditions, which are the “frozen permitted activities” Denson mentioned, that has restricted all plaintiffs from developing their property due to the abatements. For example until the violations are resolved one cannot obtain septic permits, back-grading permits, sell their property etc.
The motion argued the delayed hearings are not infringing on their rights and an “administrative hearing before an impartial decision maker employed by the agency suffices,” adding, “The Plaintiffs allege a violation of their constitutional rights by delayed hearings during the epidemic.”
However, the notion of hearings being “delayed …during the epidemic,” is perplexing as the abatement program was alive and well during the pandemic. For instance, Graham’s hearing was put off over two years before COVID.
The Planning and Building Department had reduced hours briefly in early 2020, but the CEU was open for business while most of the staff worked from home. The lawyers hired by the county to judge appeal hearings, appeared via Zoom before and after the lockdowns. During the height of the pandemic (and still today for certain types of non-criminal court cases), it was not uncommon for court cases in the county to be held via Zoom either. So the lack of appeal hearings hardly seems to coincide with the pandemic.
| Year Reported | Year(s) covered | New Abatement Notices | Closed Cases | Appeal Hearings requested | Appeal Hearings held |
| 2020 | August 2017-July 2019 | 972 | 525 | Unreported by CEU | 13 |
| 2021 | 2019-2020 | 103 | 19 | 3 | 2 |
| 2022 | 2021 | 200 | 119 | 18 | Unreported by CEU |
The first 2019 CEU “annual” report was given in the fall of 2020, but covered August 2017- July 2020) after the Planning Dept. took over Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement Manager Karen Meynell gave these reports. [Chart by Nichole Norris]
During a July 7, 2020 Supervisor Meeting, mere months after the first COVID case was discovered in the County, a new amendment was even passed unanimously to ramp up the Code Enforcement Unit (CEU), increasing fines for citations related to cannabis cultivation, such as grading, hoop houses, and developments in a streamside management areas (which applies to Class C, seasonally dry waterways).
Thomas Mulder, Planning Commissioner for District Two, spoke at the July Supervisors meeting encouraging the county to consider the pandemic and loosen up on the cannabis abatement program.
Mulder said, “I’m aware of people that have been abated a couple years ago, and financially because of COVID, you know what, they don’t really have very many options because they need to grow 500 sq. ft. of cannabis, and that technically may be illegal right now.”
The County’s Motion to Dismiss argues, “Substantive Due Process Ought Not To Be Invoked Here,” and “To state a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a property interest or fundamental right, and (2) the defendant infringed that right by conduct that “shocks the conscience” or suggests a gross abuse of authority… The Complaint Does Not Allege Egregious Conduct that “Shocks the Conscience” or a Gross Abuse of Authority.”
“My conscience is certainly shocked, and how is this not a gross abuse of authority?” Corrine Thomas asked, adding, “We just moved here you know, I’ve never heard of such a thing happening to innocent property owners.”
Qualified Immunity for Public Officials
The County’s Motion to Dismiss claims the Supervisors and Director of the Planning and Building Dept. cannot be sued due to qualified immunity, which basically shields public officials from litigation.
The class action complaint details why officials are being held accountable, stating,
“Humboldt County and its officials, agents, and employees have acted under color of law. The actions that give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims are, unless otherwise indicated, taken pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs of the County, at the direction of, with the knowledge of, and through the actions of its former and current policymakers, including its Board of Supervisors and its Planning and Building Department. Defendant Humboldt County Board of Supervisors is the legislative and executive body of the County’s government. The Board of Supervisors passed the ordinances at issue in this case, and it controls, directs, and funds the County’s Planning and Building Department and its subsidiary Code Enforcement Unit.”
Though the Motion to Dismiss states those county officials named in the class action have qualified immunity, stating, “The Individual Defendants are immune to their claims.”
The Motion to Dismiss explains, Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity, and, “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” …Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff‘s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.”
Screenshot of Ruth Bader Ginsberg from a Democracy Now Story featuring the Timbs v. Indiana Institute of Justice Supreme Court case about the Eighth Amendment’s protections against excessive fines, fees and forfeitures, which she wrote the unanimous decision for.
Local attorney Denson explained why the County says the individuals named can’t legally be sued as individuals. , writing, “The Supervisors have legal immunity as individuals because they were legislating when they created the abatement program, and John Ford because he works for the county. The county can be sued, but not the individuals. This is generally true, but if the individuals do really bad things under color of official status, they can be sued.”
The County’s Motion to Dismiss said all claims made by the plaintiffs “fail substantially,” adding,
Plausible Allegations of Fact, Not Speculation, Are Required…A plaintiff may not merely allege conceivable conduct, but must allege “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.”…Although courts construe allegations most favorably to a plaintiff, they need not accept conclusory allegations, legal characterizations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact… “Establishing the plausibility of a complaint’s allegations is a two-step process that is ‘context-specific’ and requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Stay tuned to Redheaded Blackbelt for the Institute for Justice’s response to the motion to dismiss the class action suit.
There will be a case management conference on January 3, 2023. According to the Motion to Dismiss, “on January 10, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter the matter may be heard.”
This reporter sometimes works in the Law Offices of Eugene Denson and worked on Blu Graham’s abatement case.
If you have any questions or comments you can reach this reporter at [email protected]
If you value Nichole Norris’s investigative journalism, please donate at her Gofundme.
In addition, please donate to Redheaded Blackbelt to keep this work going.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Who’s sick of listening to growers whine about everything?
Not anyone in this county who cares that 25% of businesses are expected to close in the next 2 years is tired of growers or Marijuana or the county’s abject failure to support the market.
Maybe they will force you to tear your house down due to a arbitrary law, then you might change your mind about the constitution
Did you read the article? All three properties discussed had no cannabis, so this actually could happen to anyone, including you.
You are missing the point entirely. The folks in this story weren’t growing. Who’s sick of people who don’t read articles and then point fingers at the nearest scapegoat?
Just sick of the Legal scab ones 🙂
Even if you’re sick of it, you should still acknowledge the validity of legitimate complaints about systems that really are unfair.
Think twice, next time, about that bargain-priced ex-pot-farm, and beware of ass-backwards counties with Supervisors who are all dope-farmers who have major conflicts of interest and don’t care about anyone else…
Yes, we are all sick of whiny dope farmers, but they all should have been investing in gold and silver bullion, back in the day, and by now should have made out like bandits on the metals as well as the marijuana, sold up and moved to Tahiti or Bali or Captain Cook or Hana…
Hawaii is covered in dope grows, and only medical is legal…
I think Pele is pissed…
We are all? Who are you referring to? I am actually sick of people complaining about weed growers. I think you could be a troll bot paid for by big Pharma
No, I’m a troll paid by Social Security and I just got an 8.6% raise…
Don’t move to crazy-land and then complain that the crazy-people are crazy…
The management of dope-farmers has been very poorly established, but nobody in California knew what they were trying to do, in the first place…
Humboldt County is the model for corruption, incompetence and nepotism, and accomplished, educated and experienced people sometimes move there, but they never stay…
Enjoy your life, and remember, you can always move to the slopes of Mauna Loa and truck in your water from wherever.
Humboldt County makes up the rules to favor the friends and families of the Supervisors, and to favor the folks who pay off the Supervisors! You should never, ever think, that they know what they are doing…
AND:
“Big Pharma/Medical Care Corporations /Part D Medicare, are all just a scam to rape the Government/Citizen Taxpayers…
People who are either “on-drugs” or who “want drugs”, clog every ER, Clinic and Pharmacy in the entire country!
If people didn’t seek pills, there would be no CVS, no Sutter Health, no “Sisters of Orange Inc…
Sobriety is it’s own reward, and better living through chemistry is a lie we are sold from birth…
AND:
If you are gonna do crime, think bigger:
https://www.sfgate.com/cannabis/article/california-company-fined-for-edibles-17640616.php
Who’s sick of listening to Patty who’s not paying attention?
You are unconcerned about government overreach. Abatements and Planning department issues are a revolving issue, as there were protests by rural landowners for the same type of shit in the 90s.
My question is. Why are the taxpayers funding the dismissal if the B.O.S. and Ford are being sued?
The only people who benefitted from the abatements were the staff of the government in the forms of Cal-Pers retirement and wage increases. Why do the taxpayers have to pay for the enrichment of county staff? And potentially the settlements due to hundreds if not thousands of landowners.
The citizens didn’t try to exterminate the farmers. They voted to have small farms with an acre cap and time to get their footing in the legal market.
Both the voters and the farmers were bait and switched they shouldn’t have to pay for it
Time to take personal responsibility for the suffering and loss of life the B.O.S and Ford caused
I also would say that everyone who has lost a family member because of the abatement program should be able to sue the B.O.S and Ford personally for damages, pain, and suffering. (I personally know of both abated farmers and permitted farmers who have their lives)
Every person who paid excessive fines should be able to sue the B.O.S for pain and suffering personally.
And every person baited and switched into the permitting process should also be able to sue.
When we see that one Board member used the permitting process to gut farmers under the guise of environmentalism, killing regenerative and holistic agriculture in the hills in 2016. Making it impossible for any small mom and pops to participate. Or just not wanting cannabis in their own neighborhoods because it didn’t match the neighborhood of white rich people.
And others used their positions to manipulate the market and opportunities for their business and friends. We have some very serious and very illegal shit going on.
A lot of us came to you in good faith suffered terribly and those smart enough to know not to trust you suffered more
Ok sure and everyone that was growing pre 2016 and continued after should pay back taxes. Lol
Sure, Joe, as long as you compensate every individual jailed, fined, or put in prison for Cannabis. I believe wrongful imprisonment compensation is 50k per year, so you can imagine what that might be pretty steep, given how many people went to prison over a non-lethal non-addictive plant. Oh yeah, and also have the feds, and local law enforcement give back every penny and asset they seized….. oh and compensation for people not being considered for jobs or higher education because of frivolous felonies from hash or selling dime bags …a whole fffing generation of black and brown people locked up… and compensation for the children who were traumatized when they were ripped from their mothers arms and put into foster care over cannabis and all of the trauma and pain and fear they suffered… Maybe even go deeper and see how many law enforcement and fire chiefs were growing( or just ripoff artist) while they busted other people while you’re at it… if you know you know…The debt was paid bud and it was costly
All of a sudden, conservative talking points shift from ‘No to the IRS!’ and ‘Less regulations for a free market economy!’ to being the mouthpiece for the government. Ha! Whatever serves your current narrative to harass a group of people I suppose. That’s weak. 🙁
Just about everything the government does is government overreach I would say
Then look for food and medical supplies that are not inspected by the government (to keep their citizen safe and healthy). And no, that comment does not apply to the government – pharmaceutical collusion.
I’m guessing Patty didn’t understand that these people were not pot growers. Even if you want to just grow your own food, you can’t do it without paying the county at least $275 for a permit to cover them up during a frost. Humboldt County should be held responsible for causing harm by threatening it’s citizens for any kind of gardening. Humboldt County misuses the law to extort it’s citizens. It’s sad, because otherwise Humboldt is a wonderful place. Please allow citizens to sue the county workers responsible for these crimes against our right to plant vegetables without fear! Vegetables Patty, not cannabis.
Politicians and police, the biggest thieves and crooks of all.
there’s a few bad apples. Don’t let them spoil the rest of the basket.
Most often, when there are one or more pieces of rotting/molding food in a “basket” of more, the rot/mold spreads and ruins others.
Maybe it’s time for a better, more accurate adage…..
Okay, how about “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Umm…like the kind of power the supervisors granted to John Ford?
Yes, and the kind of powers we granted to the supervisors by electing them to do a job for which they are not morally suited.
…powers to Ford, and then to the code enforcement guys. It seems they’re the ones plunking these files down for the building dept. Black sounds like he’s gone out and re-redtagged places as retribution for his victims speaking out. Ford and the Supes have had the power to recognize and stop the abuse inherent in this programs methods.
And the power the county council felt when he said openly that if local landowners want to improve the value of their land with an mj license, then the county wanted a cut, not just in property tax, but in pre season crop taxes too
Hey you guys should recall each Supe who voted to dismiss the suit or supports the satellite program. Seriously, kicking them out of office will help. Then only vote for new supes who promise to fired Ford.
??
Cien por ciento
There might be only a few that aren’t completely rotten…
The rest of the bushel is completely and hopelessly spoiled, and can’t be saved.
It must be discarded.
Abatement = Pure Communism
I moved in 2017…GLAD I DID….THIS IS NOT C GERMANY OF HERB
Good news reporting! Very detailed! But I would not get too worked up over this particular action by the county… it is always the first motion done in a legal argument- attempt to get it all dismissed. I just sure hope we don’t get a cruddy judge who actually dismisses it! THAT would be cause for a protest at the Building Department (I would hope, still can’t believe we haven’t had one yet)
Thanks farce, I’m certainly not ha ha. Seemed like a pretty boiler plate response to me. I’m excited to hear back from IJ soon. I just want to make sure folks are up to date with the case happenings for when they do 🙂
I shouldn’t be as amazed as I am about their response. I’m wondering if this is the view of Bushnell and Madrone?
You guys need to recall the Supes who support the satellite program and/or dismissing the lawsuit. It’s your best power move left.
No way to tell. The Supes hire a law firm that specializes in defending County Governments against their citizens, and leaves the arguments and tactics up to them. We don’t know which Supervisors voted to contest the suit. Probably all, since the suit names them all as Defendants. FYI the firm the County hired in the IJ case were the county’s attorneys on the Measure S appeal also, which they lost.
Did you check out their resumes ED? The Attorneys for the county are Pamela K. Graham ( https://chwlaw.us/attorney-post/pamela-k-graham/ ) and John A. Abaci ( https://chwlaw.us/attorney-post/john-a-abaci/), and Vernetra L. Gavin (couldn’t find), of COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY law firm
Has the County ever prevailed in a lawsuit against it?
Very unlike their abatement administrative hearings, which they have stacked against the constituency, haven’t they lost nearly 100% of the time, if not 100% of the time?
I can think of a couple of cases, where I could verify the county was at gross fault, involving property damage, and death, that somehow, the county skated on them…
Must not have been federal judges.
Let’s hope that makes the difference this time.
It ought to.
If the abatement has resulted in a defect in the title to the land, as in a lien or even a shadow, that devalues the land or creates any kind of difficulty marketing it, or in it’s sale, there has been an injury.
If in an attempt to exhaust administrative remedies, (the administrative remedy process is defined and/or described as “completely hopeless and futile” (“unwinnable”), ( “the county has rejected 100% of the appeals”, etc., by the County itself,), it’s the administrative remedies are what’s been doing the exhausting, it’s not a legitimate administrative process to begin with, it’s a sham process.
To be subjected to that, to have that illegitimate process as your only alternative to the excessive fines and/or other impossible alternatives are injuries in and of themselves…
No action by the plaintiffs in their defense of these unjustified actions comes without cost and financial injury in terms of lost productivity, time, significant travel costs to visit the planning department, and the resulting headaches.
In fact, it goes way beyond injury, these illegitimate unconstitutional abatement procedures have literally resulted in loss of life, driving many of those that have received them to take their own lives.
It is very callous and cavalier, cold blooded even, for the county to suggest for even a moment, that no injury has been suffered by these abatement overreaches.
A demand, by the County, to destroy a structure, fulfilled by the plaintiff, is clearly a significant injury.
Any equity that the structure represented has been lost, not to mention the cost suffered in order to comply.
I find this County motion to dismiss excessively cheeky, and I feel that it should be swiftly and soundly rejected as merely the stall tactic that it is.
Unfortunately, I am not the Judge.
You’re absolutely right, and the fact that we without legal licenses ca see that, is evidence of the crappy skill the county council possesses. ?
Maybe he should go clerk for judge cannon.
What the County defendants are trying to hide behind…
Qualified immunity
Overview:
“Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan .”
“Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff’s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.”
“Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.”
“Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines.”
I don’t recall getting to vote on how the county handles this suit.
I wonder how many Humboldt county citizens want this lawsuit to be successful? I certainly do.
“The motion to dismiss argues the county is simply doing their job enforcing local laws against those who “persistently refuse” to comply, and the fines cannot be excessive if it has only been threatened, rather than imposed. ”
An attempt to comply, for people ensnared by the entrapment process the county dubbed an amnesty process, to bring their structures and livelihoods into compliance, is precisely what the county misused in bad faith to identify and then target individuals for abatement.
These people did not “persistently refuse” to comply, on the contrary, they bravely took the first step towards compliance in good faith, and we’re met with premeditated betrayal as soon as they entered the back stabbing planning department.
The planning department is the one that has persistently refused to comply, when folks, especially from Southern Humboldt have tried to navigate the planning and permitting process in good faith.
This has been the norm for them since their inception.
When Bob McKee initially went to the County Planning department for building permits in the Whitethorn area in the 50’s, as he told the story, they just laughed at him…
That unacceptable, discriminatory, Humboldt County Planning Department attitude stench obviously persists and permeates to this day.
I worked for the county for over 30 years and met a few people who let their positions go to their heads but nothing like the people who work at the planning/building department. We have had to work with them to get building permits, which you are supposed to get for just about anything that you do on your property and they seem to have a God complex. The inspector who came out to our property was a pompous jerk. We had a pile of dirt in the field from the site where our contractor was putting in a cement slab and he wanted it covered immediately because it was supposed to rain and it might wash it into the river which is about a mile from our property. It didn’t rain enough to move it at all. You get a different answer from each person you deal with.
What has been occurring (the abatement program) is so egregious, so utterly appalling as to shock the senses. How the county can attempt to dismiss this case, in the face of all the evidence is embarrassing
Taken along with the recent abrupt termination of Wireless Advocates employees (among many other examples), it’s becoming apparent that large institutions, government or private sector, often view the public as their exploitable prey. But there is only so much blood that can be squeezed from a turnip. At what point it all finally blows up is still the known unknown.
The process is the punishment.
Don’t give government any more power or $ than absolutely necessary. The more power and $ you give government, the more corrupt that government will be and the more likely it will push you around to grab even more $ and power.
It is a viscious circle that spirals down to tyranny. We owe it not just to ourselves but to our kids and grandkids to preserve and claw back our freedom from excessive government.
??
Ed Denson I love you and I’ve wanted to tell you that for decades!
With that said I hope the law suit prevales! The brutal truth is the county of Humboldt has not worked in it’s constituents best interest. The abatement policies have been odious.
Dear Cetan, I appreciate the love and hope it is for things other than the IJ lawsuit. I certainly was a cause of the suit being filed, but an unconscious one. I know and helped the Plaintiffs, and brought their plight to Nichole Norris’s attention. Kym Kemp was willing to help edit, and publish her articles. Her writing then attracted IJ. They investigated and found she was not exaggerating and brought the suit. Each step led to the next with no expectation of the ultimate result. The suit is a dream come true, the more so since I am not one of the lawyers bringing it. So, I am free to go on helping victims of the county, one at a time, while awaiting the victory in court that might help the great mass of the victims.
“The pen is mightier than the sword”
There is much truth to that…
Didn’t standard property inspecting identify all code violations before purchase?
No. Corrine Thomas used to work in real estate and did her due diligence (as well as Rhonda) to find such issues, and it had a clear title.
Code violations wouldn’t be on title, need inspection. Same for any property purchase
I was speaking about the abatement itself with the violations listed which could have been posted after the two raids of the thomases land prior to their purchase. this is not my area of expertise, but I’m not sure why someone would assume they needed to check for past cannabis violations when there was no cannabis there. Or check on the old owners actions in the past, encase it would result in their having to remove a structure they just purchased. That doesn’t sound like a common inquiry to me, but again, not my area of expertise. I do know that in the thomases case that full disclosure was not given by the agents.
Nope, and for decadesd until the county realized where the money could be made, these codes were widely violated and almost never prosecuted. I suspect a state wide conspiracy among the delegates to County Government Club (whatever its name is). That Club actually gave Humboldt an award for their abatement program.
Interesting! It’s CSAC, the California state association of counties that have them an award. I believe supervisors Estelle fennel and /or Virginia bass were board chairs or something during that time.
Once again the people who happily violated the law, failed to pay taxes, created environmental damage, facilitated criminal activity, and created the mess that is Humboldt County now want to be seen as victims.
Let the buyer beware, you own it good and bad. Probably a cheaper price because of code issues
Nope, the code issues popped up after the sale. The physical problems existed, but the legal ones did not. If Code Enforcement were to treat every property as they treat the properties used for traditional marijuana growing, Humboldt County would be a real estate desert where nobody would buy rural property, and a good percentage of the rural population would leave the county.
Indeed, I’ve heard anecdotal stories of Warren Black dissuading non weed growing “legit” farmers from buying property in Humboldt. They said it was so remarkable how much this County employee hated the place/people, that they shared the experience with their USDA friends.
You seem to have no idea what a “mess” rural Humboldt was when the ‘back-to-the-landers’ bought and settled the land in the late 1960s-70s. To be sure there are marijuana messes around, but nothing like the serious environmental damage done by logging that was barely/ not regulated. That’s the industry primarily responsible for the silt that filled the Eel (and other) river channels!
Except that logging became regulated and inspected and registered professional foresters had to actually get education and degrees and file plans with the STate that included inspections and mitigation measures. Logging in the 40s and 50’s was totally different from logging in the 90’s. But enviro-communists demanded protection of a bird that needed no protection (I have a friend who worked for the Fed’s and literally went out to call for owls and found them in every kind of growth, old, second, third, etc.). They intentionally destroyed an industry and destroyed the county. Nothing happens by accident.
And the “back to the landers” were just dirty hippies just like they are today.
Dear Maximus, your reasoning is de minimus. Once you read the article, or the suit, you’ll see that the Thomases and Ms. Olson did not create the problems. They bought the properties, and then the County abated the prior owners. But as the county visits the sins of the prior owners upon the successors, the prior owners walk free and unmolested by the county while the innocent suffer. I don’t know if they want to be seen as victims, but they certainly are victims and deserve nothing less than our sympathy and assistance.
The best way to beat the corrupt overreach of the humboldt county government elites? DEFUND them! How, you ask?
Withhold your property taxes. Use them as a bargaining chip to get the will of WE THE PEOPLE. After all, they are using OUR money to hire the best lawyers and give themselves fat raises. If we hit them in the pocket it will force them to listen.
This will only continue as long as we the people allow it. Remember, government is supposed to be for the people, by the people. Cut off their money supply, and essentially ABATE the county of Humboldt!! Give them 10 days to comply or we the people will fine them $10,000 a day of their salaries. Beat them at their own game, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. United we stand!!!
You know that won’t work. This is not 1775 and this is not about a tax on tea. This is about attacks on thee & me.
There are always the other ways that were used before 1775.
Pretty sure the state gets most of property tax money. I heard that from a former county supervisor
Humboldt citizens, you should identify all the Supervisors who support the satellite program and/or voted to have the suit dismissed and start a recall. Seriously, get those people out of there is the best way to see the situation change.
?
I would also like to know the specific people who were behind filing for this dismissal.
Probably a vote during closed BOS session. They will not publicly disclose who voted, but the individual supes can say how they voted. One time in trinity we managed to apply enough pressure to each supe that 3 of 5 told us their individual closed session vote and we could deduce the others votes from there.
I’d start by publicly demanding to know during open public comment at each BOS meeting going forward. A strong PR campaign to know will also be needed. Good luck.
Well… process of elimination…
Bass is leaving on her own accord. Natalie Arroyo, who will take her seat, was not involved. Bushnell and Madrone weren’t in office in 2016. The satellite abatement program predated both of them.
That leaves only Bohn and Wilson as Supervisors who crafted the original permitting and abatement program. Worth noting that Wilson represents the urbanized Arcata area while Bohn represents the more rural 1st district. There are/were many more farms in Bohns district. He also has family members with permitted farms.
From what I remember Rex Bohn, Ryan Sandoval, Estelle Fennel and Virginia Bass voted for this Abatement. Wilson did not vote. Bohn seems to benefit the most from this with all of the licensed pot farms his family has.
Yes but who’s district received the most abatements…???
I’d wager it wasn’t Bohn’s district…
We know it was Estelle’s district that received the most abatements…
I’d love to read a transcript of that meeting…
Or watch and listen to a video of it…
Do you recall the date of that meeting…???
It would be pertinent to the class action suit, and could even be presented as evidence, that would show intent to harm.
I recall them saying, and discussing, and I don’t fully recall who it was, but that “it’s got to hurt.”
I’d say that would clearly establish intent to harm, and that there was complicity involved, the majority agreed.
https://www.madriverunion.com/articles/standards-set-for-grower-violations/
Getting closer…
Here is a link to the video of one of the pertinent supervisors meetings on expedited abatement May 16, 2017…
Wilson is actually the supervisor that made the motion to adopt the most stringent, and most fast tracked, options…
It passed unanimously.
https://humboldt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1122&meta_id=161242
Any video on when they changed it to a category 4 violation or the actual vote. The part that gets me is the talk of the county cleaning up the property.
Just something to keep in mind: initially at least, the supervisors may have approved the program in broad terms, but couldn’t, or didn’t ( or did) anticipate sadistic code enforcement revenue hunters, nor the abusive administrative process that evolved when put to practice.
Ryan Sundberg, not Ryan Sandoval…???
Oops it’s Sundberg.
From the Mad River Union, June 4, 2017
By Daniel Mintz.
https://www.madriverunion.com/articles/countys-code-enforcement-unit-gets-overhaul/
Humboldt county officials are like:
“Yeaaaaahhhhh… If you can go on ahead and, you know dismiss this case for us, that would be pretty nice…”
*Slides an envelope filled with millions of abatement dollars towards judge at a table at in and out in eureka*
Dude Eureka has in n out now? That’s crazy.
Wow. Just like stripmallbumbfukia, USA.
Time for a special trip to Eureka.
Okay, here’s what I really don’t understand– the Planning Department (PD) has the option of following up on Abatement notices, or not. For instance, in the case of the woman on 150 Stamps Lane in Manila who illegally rented out RV spaces on foreclosed-upon property she doesn’t even own: the PD issued an abatement notice and never followed up, despite multiple code violations endangering families with children. Yet in the case of these issuances of pot abatement, they begin leveraging fines when abatement issues no longer even exist! Also, in the case of an out-of-state multi-billion dollar corporation (Sun Communities) that owns Ocean West Senior Village mobile home park in McKinleyville, when the Planning Department was informed that they had violated regulations by siting not one but two new manufactured homes without obtaining any permits, and the elderly people living in them were suffering as the result, over a period of two years, no fines or penalties were leveraged!! When questioned about this by Supervisor Madrone, PD Director John Ford said that he would not levy fines because Sun was “working with them.” This certainly gives the appearance of impropriety! It’s bad enough that they’re trying to fine land owners for code violations that the previous owner incurred and that no longer exist– that’s disingenuous and at least borders on fraud, if not indigence. But choosing not to fine landowners that are in clear violation and endangering county citizens? John Ford needs to go! Supervisors are his boss, and with full knowledge of multiple examples of his incompetence, they bear liability, while we taxpayers are the ones footing the bill!
I am interested in hearing more about this story. Can you please contact me at [email protected] ?
Both sides are dirty. The county is corrupt as a fourth world country government, but I know some names mentioned and they’re lying through their teeth with the claim they’re not growing lmao. I get why, but the validity of the whole article is trashed if you know what’s up.
That said the county is massively out of line with 80% of the shit they do and they know it.
I see the how’s and why’s of both sides here, but both are liars and cheats. Let’s be honest here.
Please let me know if you know something I don’t (and a nationally acclaimed law firm and their investigative team) at [email protected] . I and IJ have been to all the properties and saw no cannabis, there was no evidence provided by the county either, or welcomed inspections, except in the thomases case.
There is a big difference between people making money and people taking money.
How much is this all costing the county in legal fees etc? What if the county loses and has to pay? What waste of not only time but also money! Our roads and schools are beat to crap. But let’s spend millions on an abatement program that will then end up costing us millions in legal fees and settlement payments.
Great job Humboldt. Thank you for destroying our commercial real estate market. Instead of wasting all this time and money on a failed abatement and satellite program maybe they should have been focused on making sure we had adequate power for new build outs in the southern half of our county!! Insane. No new upgrades or power drops for huge section of our county. Meanwhile let’s bust and traumatize a retired couple for not growing weed. ??♂️
I wonder why Supervisor Steve Madrone’s name is not on this Motion to Dismiss. He did say he was against this abatement program.
Kym, Why did my comments disappear…?
I hope there wasn’t a misunderstanding…
No comments of yours have been deleted today.