Meth Lab and Distribution Is Preferred Over Habitability In Unlawful Detainer(?)

Yes, but . . . it is much worse.

The following is a bit of a saga, but it shows a pattern and practice of the Santa Barbara State Superior court depriving a citizen of their rights. This invokes a really bad image, but the situation is actually different than the reader perceives because of what the reader does not know, which radically changes the meanings. It also is happening officially, unconsciously. They don't know they are doing, and are not inclined to accept such could be true. So the reader here, objectively evaluating the entirety of the information gathered over time, all actions, speaking far louder than words, is in a unique position. Not to judge, but to understand. This page and related pages are to create an understanding not condem the individuals of the official institutions exposed in what is collectively a heinous criminal action over 15 years. Yes, things will have to change and we start with mental health care that works, period.

Considering the alternative of deeming these facts of this unlawful detainer eviction, with their meanings as unrelated to my legal history, focused mostly on creating effective mental health care in these courts as well as a 2010, 9-11 disclosure of treason, with the suit linked below for specific performance and secret circuit court rule changes occurring there in 2006; the proposition they are unrelated, is unreasonable. The extent of deprivation indicates an agenda, likely unconscious because they do not want top know what they are doing, and it is designed to conceal methods of creating secrecy. This factor showing clearly in the decisions of this case prompted another disclosure of knowledge of treason to judges of the Santa Barbara County specifically disclosing to them their collective actions which act to conceal treason by depriving me of what is needed to make my speech heard which reasonably explains how the ultimate form of secrecy is created. That secrecy is used to conduct treason. Also the direct disclosure of 9-11 factors showing treason is seriously impaired by the decision of local courts.

The proposition that the firings, resignations from the Newspress and that of the County Public Defender is unrelated, is not reasonable either. The deprival of my rights in local courts is other than an apparent preference for clandestine methamphetamine labs. That agenda is not confined to the courts and county but extends through the supreme court, the media and when forums related to the information of disclosure and efforts to share it. The agenda is one (has been one) of concealing the methods of the creation of secrecy which has, and is being used to conduct treason. What is unconscious is better than secret.

The lawsuit against the county filed CV06-2085 complaint for "Injunctive Relief and Specific Performance Filed in the U.S. District Court April 6, 2006 was about appropriate mental health care which is applied directly to the unconscious mind. For the purposes of treason, what is unconscious is better than secret. That lawsuit, if decided lawfully, would perhaps, in the eyes of those conducting treason, weaken exiting secrets.

The 9th circuit district court secretly revised its local court rules to deprive that case of justice and prevent an understanding of the unconscious mind. Only the supreme court can write court rules and these were written to be easily abrogated (rules removed) and deprive a part of the nation of a prime constitutional right, access to courts with fair and constitutional judges.

To appreciate this page, with regard to the above and what had gone on with my personal living situation(s) over that 15 years, a review of earlier deprivations of justice relating to rental housing should be seen. In 1999, a 10 year lease ran out and the rent doubled, it was a grim time with employment and I had to resist on a basis that conditions had never met standards and I would pay, but repairs were needed. Basically ADHD left me without the evidence/documents for the issue on the trial date so I moved for a new trial.

Water flow of 1gpm for 10 years is not adequate even with low rent. Within the legal process I tried to interface with, I had to shorten notice of a motion for new trial before the notice to vacate was executed. It was an ex-parte hearing and service with proof filed had to be completed before noon on a certain day, and it was, but the judge denied it. (In the state superior court in 2006 the 1999 eviction matter and deprivations of due process was brought into family law court as part of a motion for estoppel against collection of child support, and the motion was never heard, this was while the federal case was pending or in appeal. This is an action stating, "we are gods and can do no wrong so no question is allowed.")

After perhaps 4 months I found another place in May of 1999. It was a space in a garage in Santa Barbara near Goleta. The space was small, without drainage, with perhaps drunk partying tenants until 3AM. Various rooms in the house were rented and to find people sleeping in halls, using showers and washer/dryer, drug deals, was not unusual. Moving was never an economic option if I were to try and keep perhaps 1/2 dozen different self employed occupations up and running whenever one might pop up.

There was an incident in 1993 at the property where an underground meth lab was found. The meth cooker was a tenant of the same landlord. The cooker served 9 years in the state penitentiary and was released. In 2004 he showed up looking for a place to live. He was allowed in against objections from all tenants, employees etc. of the landlord. By 2006 he was ejected after a county building and safety raid found him sleeping on a couch on the path to the landlords office surrounded with clutter and filth. Around this time a group formed in the neighborhood, hired a private detective and started delivering letters to people seeking plaintiffs to sue the county for secretly re zoning the area for apartment houses! The drug dealing was fairly obvious and increased steadily. Arrests for warrants and probation violations of tenants was routine as well as public disturbance and assault calls during conflicts were weekly.

In 2009 he returned. In the late summer of 2011 I saw the cooker with empty 5 gallon cans of acetone and knew he was starting to manufacture meth again. I mentioned this to sheriffs that know the house/area. Four months later, in the evening, a number of times, there was an intense vapor of acetone. I called the Sherrifs department and reported the solvent vapor related to a meth lab, they suggested the fire department. It seems that the cooker might have been ready for that and had decoy acetone spots that they would find legitimate and leave. Then after about 4 times they switched to the iodine phosporus method (after research I determined this), which required a hot plate.

On a sunday afternoon I entered the kitchen to find a fan on, a ladder, a light removed from the cieling. I was told by one of the meth users that there had been an electrical fire.I looked at the wires on the light and nothing was burned. The vapor was acrid and did smell like a electrical fire, but one of the meth users had investigated the attic over the light reported no fire. I was told by another potential user that a plate had been left in the oven during the cleaning cycle making the smell. Why 2 different sources for the intense acrid smell? I again called the Sherrif, once more they said call the fire department, but there was no fire and I knew it. Curiouisly, there were smoke detectors sounding and no one could find them! I located them by their sound in the attic near where I later found an electrical outlet and red stains on the inside of the roof.

I told the landlord I wasn't paying rent until he served me with an unlawful detainer. The idea was that at the very least no judge would consider an eviction with habitability as bad as it was.

Here is the summons. Notice the last scan. It is a classic example of a retaliatory eviction. My filed answer was enough to cause immediate dismissal because of that, particuarly with the witnesses because with chemical vapors, habitability is badly compromised. The case was immediately assigned to a judge I know to be prejudice against me. Rather than only disqualify her, I decided to use a California Code of Civil Procedure stipulated agreement upon a judge between parties in the hope of getting a good judge.

170.3 (c)(2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement may request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her place.

The stipulation was ignored by the presiding judge because the stipulation was not requested and the judge agreed upon was of the criminal court, not civil, per the clerks info. Still, the stipulation and the potential criminality evidenced in the answer dictates a proper review in the public interest and a criminal court judge is merited. The case was assigned to Judge Donna Geck (see bottom of page), appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.

I filed an answer to the unlawful detainer complaint which had two declarations from tenants to extreme chemical vapors. One also describes a fire in the back of the meth cookers pickup truck around the time of the acetone vapors. This, I learned after research is a mobile meth lab technique using the "shake & bake" method or the "nazi method" which is a chemical reaction between lithium and anhydrous ammonia which causes heat that separates other chemicals in the cook causing layers which are carefully removed then washed in acetone. The chemical reaction phase produces very toxic, noxious vapors and could not be done in the conditions at the property. Basically, if the judge was not open to circumstantial proof of meth manufacture, then the sherrifs call log, backed with habitability issues from the vapors proven beyond any doubt, justified dismissal.

Two other tenants were subpoenaed for the trial.

At trial the judge denied the fact it was a retaliatory eviction (See Three Day Notice at bottom). Then refused to recognize my documented disability which was a part of the answer. The landlord introduced new evidence and broadened the complaint on the morning of the trial. New allegations in complaints are not allowed because parties cannot reasonably be prepared to defend themselves with no specific notice and time. I objected and the judge should have told the landlord to amend his complaint, but did not. When a defendant in an unlawful detainer has a disability, a continuance to an amended complaint is mandatory for justice. PTSD disoriented me badly as a result of these deprivations of right.

I pointed out the Declaration stating the cooker had a fire in the back of his truck, and the plaintiff asked the judge to listen to the cookers explanation. The explanatikon that a battery in the back had a wire connected to one terminal and had shorted out starting a fire. The Declaration and one other both stated extreme chemical vapors in the the house. Two witness and two Declarations are ignored when there are about 80 sherrifs calls to the house in 2 years.

Below is the minute order with a decision in the landlords favor, which I sought to amend because it does not state my witnesses were subpoenaed. It also lumps 2 declarations into 1 exhibit. In a tenant landlord situation, other tenants, fearing retaliation, will not willingly testify and must be subpoenaed. The landlord had his son and the meth cooker testify with no subpoena. At the point where the landlord was on the stand and the judge asked him what his complaint was, he basically described what was an eviction that was retaliatory, then the judge asked "Is that all?" The landlord started a 45 minute session of nonsense, a story telling environment for the meth cooker, not related to the case, all designed to make the judge prejudice.

The meth cooker admitted to manufacturing at the property in 1993 and being convicted then serving 9 years. He stated he did not use meth any longer. I forgot to ask one witness/tenant who had heard him admit to recent meth use when the witness was on the stand. My ADHD is also undiagnosed PTSD from legal abuse. As soon as the judge refused to recognized the documented ADHD, the PTSD raged again and I forgot how to question effectively.

Notice near the bottom that the minute order states "a writ of possession will issue in 120 days". That means "IF" it is filed immediately. This is a normal period for an occupancy over 10 years. NOTE: Herein is a minor education into some very shady areas of law relating to who handles what documents and how the courts know of them.

The judge was expecting the landlord to file the writ of possession immediately, whereupon it would be signed and the 120 days would start to run. The landlord did not. He waited until August 15 and obtained a notice to vacate for August 31 which violates the minute orders 120 days, which would fall at the end of October. The implication of law is that the eviction is 120 days after the writ of possession is filed and the judge assumed the plaintiff would do that.

What the landlord did to try and fouled any appeal was send a NOTICE OF FILING, which starts the clock ticking on Appeal. This is tricky. The notice of filing is not filed! The party receiving it is supposed to know what is filed and begin counting. If they do not, they file an appeal late and do not know it, the appellee sends the proof of service for the NOTICE to the appeals court and the Appeal is rejected if the statute of limitations is passed for the appeal from the date of NOTICE OF FILING. The NOTICE OF FILING is not filed with the court clerk!

Okay, if you think that is bizarre check this. Had I tried to appeal within the statute of limitations of being served the NOTICE OF FILING, because the "WRIT OF POSSESSION" was unfiled, there was no final judgment to appeal! A minute order is a military court concept and not considered a final judgment. What I did is file for an appeal anyway and I learned the fact a minute order is not appealable.

Then it turns out I went through that without being told that the appeals court I was appealing to (Appellate Division 6, Ventura) was not the one I thought it was. This Appeals court sent a notice to the landlord telling him he had not filed a brief and that a decision would be made anyway. Basically the Appeals judges were going to plead on the landlords behalf with their decision. Santa Barbara Superior Court, since I had last made an appeal, had created its own appeals division for limited civil cases consisting of mostly the same judges that sat in the trial courts. I filed an appeal there still without being told that my case was staying, basically, in the same court. .

The Appeals court mailed a notice stating they were going to make their decision underlining the fact the plaintiff/landlord had never answered the appeal brief.

After the decision I called the clerk and learned these things, because the 6 page decision actually has the judges pleading for the plaintiff who never filed an appeal brief! Keep in mind the free lawyer at the court house basically approved the first appeal to the Ventura court which is ONLY unlimited civil in the new structure. Otherwise he provide excellent advice.

Back to the "Secrets of media"

Back to Case 209449 Index

Return to Federal Action CV06-2085

The Purpose of Law