Law Suit against the Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County, Oregon

Part I of III

Part II of III

Part III of III

Part IV of IV

 

 

Subj: Bruce Wayne Henion, a C5/C6 Quadriplegic of 30 years Revised Complaint for a Civil Case in the case of Marion County code Enforcement allegedly violating Plaintiffs Civil Rights and or Disabilities Act Violation.

 

Summary Facts

 

PHYSICANS CERTIFICATE

 

As set forth below, the Marion County Rural Zone Code provides for the placement of an additional homesite when certain hardship conditions exist.

 

TEMPORARY USE OF MOBILE HOMES DURING CERTAIN HARDSHIP CONDITIONS.  The use of a mobile home on a temporary basis during a family hardship condition may be approved as a Conditional Use.  A permit may be granted for a period of not more than one year and may be renewed for successive periods of one year if evidence is provided that the hardship condition continues to exist.  In considering the request, it must be found that the hardship condition relates to the aged, the infirm, or to persons otherwise incapable of maintaining a complete, separate and detached residence apart from their family, and also whether the requested use will be relatively temporary in nature.  It is not the intent of this provision to subvert the intent of the single-family zone or of any other zones by permitting more than one permanent residence on each property.  The following Physician’s Certificate must be completed and submitted with the hardship conditional use application.

 

A doctor of medicine or licensed psychologist shall sign a statement indicating the physical or mental condition that prevents the person(s) with the hardship from providing the basic self care needed to live on a separate lot.  The statement shall also attest that the physician or licensed psychologist is convinced the person(s) with the hardship must be provided the care so frequently or in such a manner that the caretaker must reside on the same premises.

 

Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County was told by David Henion, that his son needed 24 hour care when he returned home from the Veterans Hospital and even though Laura Pekerek knew of my condition, to include annual Renewals of the Conditional Use Hardship Claus by doctors like Patrick Heart, verifying my Qquadriplegia C5 Status, Laura made it clear to my father that time spent in a Veterans Hospital did not qualify to allow care givers in my residence in my absence.

 

Tetraplegia, also known as quadriplegia C5 Status, a paralysis caused by illness or injury that results in the partial or total loss of use of all four limbs and torso; paraplegia is similar but does not affect the arms. The loss is usually sensory and motor, which means that both sensation and control are lost. Tetraparesis or quadriparesis, on the other hand, means muscle weakness affecting all four limbs” (Ref. [1]). It may be flaccid or spastic.

 

Ref. 1 - "quadriparesis". Merriam-Webster.

Ref. 2 - Veterans Administration Diagnosis of Tetraplegia, also known as quadriplegia C5/C6 Status.

 

Tetraplegic since February 5, 1985 and I’m recovering from a TURRP Spectrometry operation, my third surgery this year. In May my father visited me after my kidney stone removal operation, to tell me I couldn’t come home because he was forced to evict two care givers or loose the hardship clause. I’m a disabled veteran who has 100% care at the VA and workers compensation that pays for my 24 hour care annually, barely enough for three care givers, I  must make deals with live in care givers working 8 to 12 to 24 hour shifts.

 

I arrived home in May 2014, as I had been living in Mexico under going treatment at the VA Hospital since 2013. I remained in Oregon until December 2015 when got ill. My  Mexican Care Manager and Attendant came to Oregon and helped me until I could locate three care givers which took a year of interviews and several months of training as I cannot afford to pay $15.00 an hour, yet my Mexican employee stayed as a visitor because I was deathly ill during 2015. My Mexican Care Giver and two other Americans drove me to the emergency room in La Jolla in December 2015 and I left two trained care givers in my home so when I returned I would have care by Americans, during which time a third care giver would also be employed.

 

One care giver living in a fifth wheel trailer was not allowed to live on the property (Trailer using house septic); making it clear no additional dwellings will be allowed for care givers, so David Sanchevs departed and plaintiff moved into the double wide mobile home living room to accommodate a third care giver, but before plaintiff could find a third care giver to live in with two other care givers, so Plaintiff’s Mexican Care Manger and Care Attendant could go home, plaintiff got deathly ill again and split to plaintiff’s primary Spinal Cord Injury Unit Veteran Hospital, Jolla, San Diego, Ca. with Plaintiff’s Mexican Care Manger and Care Attendant and two American friends other then plaintiff’s two care givers left living in plaintiff’s home with no drivers license until plaintiff’s return.

 

When my father went to the VA Spinal Cord Injury Unit in La Jolla in May 2016, explaining to me why he evicted my two trained care givers, I made arrangements to stay in Mexico, with my Mexican Care Manger and Care Attendant to care for me until something could be done, that would make it possible for me to return home. Jose agreed to care for me and former Mexican employees when I was there last in April 2015 in Jose’s house 72.5 km from San Diego, Ca. Jose is still caring for my me but won’t return to America to care for me until I can acquire a work visa rather then Jose’s Tourist Visa only good for six months at a time. When Jose was here on my fathers farm living with me he liked to grow tomatoes to juice and give away from May 2014 to December 2015, and he went to Mexico to visit with his family and renew his visa twice, staying over 45 days both times in Tijuana, Mexico, during which time David Seadore, Sharon, David Sancheves and several other part time guys helped me.

 

Property at 3339 Jefferson Scio Drive S. E., Jefferson, Oregon 97352 is zoned one dwelling and without the Conditional Use Hardship Claus, a double wide mobile home would not be allowed on the property.

 

Doctor Patrick Heart signed the current Physicians Certificate November 17, 2016 and the year before on January 1, 2015. At no time was the Conditional Use Hardship Claus in valid since the placing of my mobile home in 1990 on my grand parent’s farm at the time, presently held in trust, with my sister, Judy the Chief Executor and Administrator of the farm and my father is the Manager.

 

Bruce hospitalization dates reflect one visit to La Jolla, San Diego, Ca. during 2015, extending into 2016 and three extended visits for both operations and infection (UTI).

 

At no time did Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County notify the recipient and tenant in possession of the mobile home that was granted a Conditional Use Hardship Claus, do to Tetraplegia, also known as quadriplegia C5/C6 Status, either on the phone or in writing, that any such law exist, that prevented care givers to stay in my residence to await my arrival from the Hospitals.

 

The actions of Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County, affected the recipient and tenant in possession of the mobile home that was granted a Conditional Use Hardship Claus financially and two dislocated care givers not even given a 30 day eviction notice.

 

Bruce Wayne Henion

 

Marion County Board of Commissioners                                                        July, 14 2016

PO Box 14500

Salem, OR 97309

 

Marion County Legal Counsel

Attention: Gloria M Roy

PO Box 14500

Salem OR  97309

 

Ref.: Code Enforcement Officers conversation with David C. Henion, plaintiff’s father

 

Encl (1): Letter from David C. Henion’s statement sent to an attorney at law

 

Encl (2): Letter Bruce Wayne Henion posted on the Governor of Oregon’s facebook and posted on various facebook sites within the GOP and Donald Trumps facebook on May 6, 2016, Plaintiff’s web site at Presidential Material http://www.usscoralseacvb-cva-cv-43ppt.us/index_files/Page5304.htm and R. Lee Ermey's SOUND OFF Forum at Baman47 Health 2016 http://rleeermey.org/viewtopic.php?t=30014

 

Subj: Notification of Law Suit for violation of Bruce Wayne Henion’s Civil Rights in regards to the Disabilities Act.

 

Dear Gloria M Roy and Marion County Board of Commissioners:

 

This letter serves as the formal notice of my intent to file a lawsuit against you in court, due to your Code Enforcement Agent violating my Civil Liberties in regards to the Disabilities Act.

 

In December 2015, I arrived at the emergency room at the La Jolla, Veterans Hospital, California.

 

I was to be seen for my annual at the Spinal Cord Injury Unit at the La Jolla VA Center in January, so when I got sick again, two friends and my Care Manager and Care Attendant, leaving two Care Attendants at my residence until I returned, as my Mexican Care Manager and Care Attendant only wanted to go home and would not be able to supervise my care in America anymore.

 

I arrived my Oregon residence in May 2014 to attend my grandmother’s funeral. My home had set idle for many years in my absence. In May 2014, I began searching for care attendants but was unable to locate anyone for a long time, so my father and friend, David Seadore helped my Mexican Care Manger.

 

In November 2014, I found several dug addicts to help me, but they didn’t last long, so my Mexican Care Manager flew back to Oregon early 2015 to help my father and David Seadore.

 

By May 2015, I found two Care Attendants to help David Seadore and my Mexican Care Manager.

 

David Sanchez, his wife and two kids stayed in the fifth wheel, Sharron stayed in one room of my house, David Seadore stayed in my back bed room of my house and my Care Manger stayed in the small bed room, while I stayed in the living room.

 

During 2015, I went to the emergency rooms a lot do to bladder infections, so my Mexican Care Manger could not go home.

 

In addition, David Sanchez turned out to be a man with to many problems and in September he left. His fifth wheel stayed on the property until November 2014.

 

My father was on a five month vacation and returned to Oregon in late November 2014.

 

While he was gone, the police brought a Child Services agent to the farm to speak to David Sanchez twice but both times David was gone. The fifth wheel was used as a bed room, as all services were provided in my residence.

 

Yet, David emptied his septic at a RV Service locally and three times used my septic tank.

 

On the last visit of a child services officer to see David Sanchez, one of the police officers with her arrested one of our guests because he would not give him his name.

 

Once the second officer got involved, the hand cuffs were removed and they left.

 

Once the police came to see about fire works one tonight, as our guest helping me watch the farm while my father was gone thought it cool to let off some fire crackers. No citations were issued. The last time police came to the farm while I was there, they entered the farm walking around a cabled entrance with no trespassing signs posted, with no warrant, and no prior notification.

 

The Code Enforcement Officer was with the police this time, and they entered my house while I was in bed, exclaiming to me all scrap metal, pvc pipes, tires, construction material and equipment, two farm trucks, one registered with tags and one not, a school bus used as storage not currently registered with tags, one semi trailer used for storage with no current DOT operating license, flatbed trailers registered with current permanent plates, trailers and vehicles to include classic Trans Ams’ not registered, one a parts car had to be moved inside buildings or removed from the property.

 

Also our guest Motor Home and Trailer had to be removed from the farm. Since they were guest helping me watch the farm, they went back from hence they came.

 

Before my father returned, I had cleaned up the farm, moved the motor home, my guest had left, and I hauled the trash to the dump left in the north part of the farm.

 

Without my knowledge, one night folks from town made an entrance to the farm and dropped on a huge amount of trash.

 

I bought a farm truck and filled it up with useable farm parts and metal materials, fencing, pvc pipes, scrap metal, tractor parts, etc., in order to obey this Code Enforcement Officer.

 

When my father got home he refused to throw good useable farm stuff away. So after he removed what he wanted I had my licensed farm truck removed from the farm as the Code Enforcement Officer said no trucks or flatbed or irrigation pipe trailers could remain.

 

My father brought back my licensed and registered farm truck to the farm and it will not be removed until I can sell it. Why a farm truck or farm trucks in our case had to be removed from a zoned farm is beyond my understanding.

 

My father informed me that our farm is still a farm and not residential property.

 

I’m not aware that zoning has changed making our farm into residential property, yet I chose to obey this Code Enforcement Officer as I was to sick to argue or fight her verbally and since she was determined to walk around the farm taking pictures all I could do was tell my Mexican Care Manager to go with them.

 

When a police officer tells you their going to do something or tells you to raise your hands, fighting them or being an obstacle to them could get you killed, so obeying law officials I think is best.

 

My father informed me the Code Enforcement Officer has continual demands in regards to removing storage and chicken coup trailers and recently entered the property without permission again to take pictures of our farm.

 

Now, I’ve gone out of my way and spent several thousands of dollars cleaning the farm to its near present condition and in addition my father also continued this effort to its present condition.

 

Yet the Code Enforcement Officer ordered my father to evict David Seadore and Sharon from my house or loose my hardship clause.

 

After my two week stay at the SCI Unit, La Jolla, Veterans Hospital, it was determined that three 1cm kidney stones were causing me bacterial infections, while one was logged in between my bladder and kidney on my right side.

 

At this time, an operation was scheduled to remove them from my back and other studies, x-rays, cat scans were also ordered to determine whether my prostate was enlarged making it difficult to urinate.

 

Having lived in Mexico before at my Care Mangers residence, he agreed to take me back to his beach house and two other Mexicans, former employees began caring for me, and along with my Care Manger I would go through a period of waiting for my kidney operation.

 

The Veterans Hospital can not provide immediate medical service for non life threatening operations, so they put a Foley Cather in me and told me to return in April 2016.

 

I spent nearly a month in the SCI Unit and was released in May, during witch time my father was scheduled to help me return home.

 

After my father arrived at the SCI Unit, I under went my last test using a scope that determined my prostate was also enlarged.

 

I was going to return home and thought my father was going to take me home with my Care Mangers help, then my Care Manager would return to Mexico so he could continue is university schooling as he desires to advance his degrees to be a Civil engineer.

 

Yet this was not possible because my father informed me he was ordered to evict my two American Care Givers in order to keep the hardship clause.

 

In my view, the Marion County Code Enforcement Officer intimidated my father, by ordering him to evict my care givers, whom together with one other care giver I would hire from an agency at $15.00 an hour to do my morning shift so my Care Manger could go back home swiftly.

 

The Code Enforcement Officer told my father that being in a Veterans Hospital is no grounds for leaving care providers in your home until you’re released from the hospital.

 

I have no control over the VA scheduling of neither operations nor the length of time to heal between operations.

 

I cannot afford to travel back and forth from Oregon to California for as many times as I have had to visit the emergency room or the SCI Unit of the La Jolla Veterans Hospital.

 

Yet I was going to go back home in May and return in August for my final operation, yet not having care providers in my residence anymore made that impossible since it takes a long time to locate in home care givers.

 

Had my Care Manager been willing to stay with me, with my fathers help and at least one other care provider living in my home, then I could have returned in May.

 

Since care providers were ordered removed from my residence by the Code Enforcement Officer, in essence, Marion County evicted me from my home.

 

I have never faced such an incident in my 30 plus years as being a QUAD, nor have I had any problem with Marion Count since my home was brought on the farm in 1990 at my expense.

 

In my view, if Marion County wants to suspend my hardship clause then there are legal ways to do so, although my doctors will testify that I’m a QUAD, so it makes no sense why this Code Enforcement Officer ordered my father to evict my care providers, nor claim being in a Veterans Hospital is not a legitimate cause to allow care providers to stay in a residence that has a hardship clause until the QUAD is released from the Veterans Hospital under going three operations in another state.

 

Therefore, I’m left with no other course but to sue Marion County for violating my Civil Rights in regards to the Disability Acts.

 

I will be suing Marion County in both State and Federal Courts. This letter and all filings will be made public on Encl: (2) facebook, forum and web site owned by plaintiff.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

Bruce Wayne Henion

http://www.eqneedinc.com

http://www.uscarrierhistory.com

3339 Jefferson Scio Drive S.E., Jefferson, Oregon 97352

 

Marion County Rural Zone Codes

Chapter 17.120
SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16

 

17.120.040 - Temporary use of mobile home or recreational vehicle during certain hardship conditions.

 

 Use of a temporary mobile home or recreational vehicle for the care of someone with a hardship may be approved as a conditional use subject to meeting the following criteria:

 

A. For the purposes of this section “hardship” means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or infirm person or persons.

 

B. A doctor of medicine or licensed psychologist shall sign a statement indicating the physical or mental condition that prevents the person(s) with the hardship from providing the basic self-care needed to live on a separate lot. The statement shall also attest that the physician or licensed psychologist is convinced the person(s) with the hardship must be provided the care so frequently or in such a manner that the caretaker must reside on the same premises.

 

C. Those providing the needed assistance shall be related by blood, marriage or legal guardianship and reside in another residence on the property. If evidence is presented that there is no family member able to provide the needed care the caretaker may be someone else provided the property is located in a zone other than the EFU, SA, FT or TC zones. In the EFU, SA, FT and TC zones, occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html

 

D. Those providing the care must show that they will be available and have the skills to provide the primary care required by the doctor or psychologist.

 

E. One of the residences shall be removed from the property within 90 days of the date the person(s) with the hardship or the care provider no longer reside on the property. In the case of a recreational vehicle it shall be rendered uninhabitable by disconnection from services. An agreement to comply with this requirement shall be signed by the property owner and the care providers. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality removal requirements also apply.


F. The mobile home or recreational vehicle shall to the extent permitted by the nature of the property and existing development:

 

1. Be located as near as possible to other residences on the property;

 

2. On EFU, SA, FT and TC zoned property, be located on the portion of the property that is least suitable for farm or forest use, if it is not feasible to locate it near an existing residence;

 

3. Not require new driveway access to the street;

 

4. Be connected to the existing wastewater disposal system if feasible. The disposal system shall be approved by the county sanitarian.

 

G. The use is intended to be temporary, shall be subject to review every year, and shall continue to meet the above criteria in order to qualify for renewal”(Ref. ([Ord. 1271 § 5, 2008; Ord. 1204 § 4, 2004; Ord. 1180 § 4, 2004; Ord. 1168 § 5, 2002; Ord. 1125 § 5, 2000. RZ Ord. § 120.040.]). http://www.codepublishing.com/OR/MarionCounty/#!/MarionCounty17/MarionCounty17120.html#17.120.040

 

To: The United States District Court                                                                  11/23/16

       For the District of Oregon

       Eugene Division

 

After reading the letter from the Judge that is presiding over my tetraplegic son, Bruce Henion’s case, I was compelled to write this letter.

 

This is a written statement of truth by Bruce Henion’s father, David Henion.  This is concerning what Laura Pekerek (Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County in the State of Oregon) told me on the phone.  She emphatically said Bruce Henion (my only son whom I love very much) could not allow his caregivers to live in his house while he was gone. Bruce’s house is a double wide mobile home which was established under the Handicap Hardship Clause and is on private farmland. 

 

When Bruce was taken to the Veterans’ Hospital in San Diego, California on December of 2015 by his primary caregiver, it was very important that his two live-in caregivers remain in his home till he returned so they would be available to care for him immediately.  I will be very clear that it takes specially trained and qualified help who understands and is able to perform all the duties needed to care for Bruce 24/7.  It is almost impossible to find the right kind of help needed for his care.  He must have at least 2 and preferably 3 to 4 caregivers for 3 eight hour shifts and a 4th for backup in the event that one gets sick or quits, etc.  His previous caregivers were very familiar with his needs, and the financial arrangements (live-in) worked out well for Bruce. 

 

When my wife and I went to the VA hospital’s SCI unit in La Jolla (a suburb of San Diego) in May of 2016 to be with Bruce after his kidney stone surgery, we had considered bringing him back home but were unable to because his caregivers were not available to care for him upon his arrival.  This was due to my following the verbal demand of the code enforcer, Laura Pekerek who emphatically stated “that if the caregivers did not leave we would lose the Conditional Use Hardship Clause” and Bruce would be without a home when he returned.  So I complied with her demand and had the caregivers leave Bruce’s home and our property.  Since the two trained caregivers are gone and we don’t know where they went, we have no one to care for Bruce at this time.

 

This places a very extreme hardship on Bruce both physically and financially.  I want to make it known that the cost of retraining new caregivers is going to take time and money that Bruce does not have.  So at this present time Bruce cannot come back to his home in Oregon and must stay in Mexico with his primary Mexican caregiver until this major dilemma is resolved.  The dilemma is finding people who would fit into the program and the time and money needed to train them.  What makes the dilemma even worse is that Bruce cannot stay in Mexico indefinitely. 

 

My son, Bruce has been a tetraplegic since February 5, 1985 and as I write this notarized statement, Bruce is in the VA hospital at La Jolla recovering from a TURRP Spectrometry operation; his third surgery this year.  Since I was forced to evict his 2 caregivers earlier this year my son is still unable to come home.  Surely any law (if it even exists) that gives Marion County the right to do what they did to my son is, in itself, a violation of my son’s civil rights.  The integrity of Laura Pekerek and/or Marion County should be questioned as I told her in the beginning it was absolutely necessary to have caregivers for Bruce to come back to for his immediate care upon arrival.

 

I would like to end with my strong feelings regarding this matter.  I believe the Marion County code enforcer Laura Pekerek is wrong for demanding that Bruce’s caregivers leave Bruce’s house while he is gone.  It is my understanding that the laws of the land should protect the handicap people and put their needs first above all else.  The Court should require Marion County to compensate Bruce for the tremendous hardship this has caused.  Would anyone like to live in a body that cannot walk and must be confined to a wheelchair, depending on others to care for them 24/7 for the rest of their life?  Bruce has lived this way for 31 years and will for the remainder of his life.

 

Very respectfully,

 

David Henion

11/23/16

 

Notary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE OREGON

 

 

1.  The Parties to This Complaint                         REVISED

                                                                              Complaint for a Civil Case

                                                                              Case No. 6:2016cv01918

      A. Plaintiff                                                      Filed: September 30, 2016

 

             Bruce Wayne Henion

            3339 Jefferson, Scio, Dr. S. E.,

            Jefferson and Marion

            Oregon 97352

            Phone No. 541-327-2985

 

      B. Defendant(s)

 

          Marion County Code Enforcement,

          Marion County Board of Commissioners                                  

          Marion County Legal Counsel

          Attention: Gloria M Roy

          555 Court St., N.E. 2nd Floor

          Salem and Marion

          Oregon 97352 - 503-588-5041

 

3.  Reference:

 

(1). Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

 

(2). Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Alken; requesting an amended Complaint by December 12, 2016 (former order (4) and reference order (4); requesting clarification of Title II allegations in regards to Desperate treatment, Impact treatment, or both; while at the same time plainly state the facts supporting the ADA claim. Address: 405 E 8th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401 - Phone: (541) 431-4100.

 

Evidences

 

(1). Summary Facts.

 

(2). David C. Henions revised statement, submitted as evidence of the alleged Civil Rights and Disabilities Act violation aforementioned here to attached.

 

(3). Conditional Use Hardship Clause Applications and Physicians Certificate of disability as a quadriplegia C5 Status, to include a blank application.

 

(4). Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 – Section 17.120.040.

 

(5). Letters from the SCI Unit Veteran Hospital, Jolla, San Diego, Ca., verifying treatment dates and notes for October to November 2016 treatment.

 

(6). Letters from the SCI Unit Veteran Hospital, Jolla, San Diego, Ca., verifying my disability as a revised Tetraplegia, also known as quadriplegia C5 Status.

 

(7). Letters from the SCI Unit Veteran Hospital, Jolla, San Diego, Ca., verifying my disabilities on going equipment and home modifications.

 

2.  Basis for Jurisdiction (Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case.)

 

Specific federal statute: Title II of the Americans Disability Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, was enacted with the

purpose of eliminating discrimination against persons with disabilities.

 

3.  Laws entitled under 2.2.1 Constitutional Law – U.S. Constitution – Procedural Issues. Where a local government has no procedures governing a particular type of decision, it is consistent with the federal due process clause to adopt a written set of procedures and standards that significantly cabin the local government’s discretion and that offer all participants a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument. That such procedures being one-time and temporary in nature, rather than permanent code provisions does not offend the due process clause. Emami v. City of Lake Oswego, 52 Or LUBA 18 (2006).

 

4. Marion County Jurisdiction over Care Givers - There are no cited Marion County Rural Zone Codes that govern the forced eviction of care giver(s) from a home that has a valid and current Physicians Certificate, whether the care givers can remain in the residence while the recipient and tenant in possession of a Conditional Use Hardship Clause for a double wide mobile home is in a Veterans Hospital, receiving treatment in order to live. The law is clear that it didn’t want county agents to assume the role of being a doctor when Physician Certificates are required for a Conditional Use Hardship Clause. Once Laura Pekerek took it upon herself to disregard the doctor’s Physicians Certificate, while, mind you, she is obligated to know the needs of a Tetraplegia, also known as quadriplegia C5 Status, she not only made it impossible for plaintiff to return home, she never gave plaintiff the opportunity to present proof of necessity, by not making available to father or plaintiff, Marion County process of citations and or plaintiff’s rights to a hearing, prior to addressing plaintiff’s father with official communication of termination of Conditional Use Hardship Clause or fines.

 

A "dependent person" is any person who suffers from a mental or physical disability so that on-site assistance is required to establish a non-institutional residence. A “care provider” is any person or persons who agree to assist a dependent person in residential living. The care provider may be the owner, a renter, or the applicant for the second dwelling if the family member can’t care for a severely disabled person. If the care provider or applicant is someone other than the owner, the owner must also sign the application.

 

Physicians Certificate - Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 - 17.120.040 B states “A doctor of medicine or licensed psychologist shall sign a statement indicating the physical or mental condition that prevents the person(s) with the hardship from providing the basic self-care needed to live on a separate lot. The statement shall also attest that the physician or licensed psychologist is convinced the person(s) with the hardship must be provided the care so frequently or in such a manner that the caretaker must reside on the same premises.

 

“A physician's statement establishing the disability and the need for on-site care is an absolute requirement for the permit.”

 

PHYSICANS CERTIFICATE

 

“As set forth below, the Marion County Rural Zone Code provides for the placement of an additional home site when certain hardship conditions exist.

 

TEMPORARY USE OF MOBILE HOMES DURING CERTAIN HARDSHIP CONDITIONS.  The use of a mobile home on a temporary basis during a family hardship condition may be approved as a Conditional Use.  A permit may be granted for a period of not more than one year and may be renewed for successive periods of one year if evidence is provided that the hardship condition continues to exist.  In considering the request, it must be found that the hardship condition relates to the aged, the infirm, or to persons otherwise incapable of maintaining a complete, separate and detached residence apart from their family, and also whether the requested use will be relatively temporary in nature.  It is not the intent of this provision to subvert the intent of the single-family zone or of any other zones by permitting more than one permanent residence on each property.  The following Physician’s Certificate must be completed and submitted with the hardship conditional use application.

 

A doctor of medicine or licensed psychologist shall sign a statement indicating the physical or mental condition that prevents the persons) with the hardship from providing the basic self care needed to live on a separate lot.  The statement shall also attest that the physician or licensed psychologist is convinced the person(s) with the hardship must be provided the care so frequently or in such a manner that the caretaker must reside on the same premises.”

 

Plaintiff is “a qualified individual with a disability; was discriminated against by the public entity; and the discrimination was by reason of plaintiff’s disability,” as knowledge of plaintiff’s condition has been known since 1990 and annual renewals have been accepted by Marion County.

 

As a result of Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County making an official verbal warning that frighten David Henion into obeying Laura Pekerek, warning that the outcome of not evicting the care givers would result in suspension of the Conditional Use Hardship Clause and/or fines; a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument,” was denied plaintiff, the affected party.

 

A. Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 – Section 17.120.040 D states. “Those providing the care must show that they will be available and have the skills to provide the primary care required by the doctor or psychologist.”

 

Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 - 17.120.040 A states “For the purposes of this section “hardship” means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or infirm person or persons.”

Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 - 17.120.040 C states “Those providing the needed assistance shall be related by blood, marriage or legal guardianship and reside in another residence on the property. If evidence is presented that there is no family member able to provide the needed care the caretaker may be someone else provided the property is located in a zone other than the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), SA, FT or TC zones. In the EFU, SA, FT and TC zones, occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283.” https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html

 

5. Recipient and tenant in possession of the mobile

 

At no time did Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County notify the recipient and tenant in possession of the mobile home that was granted a Conditional Use Hardship Clause, due to Tetraplegia, also known as quadriplegia C5/C6 Status, either on the phone or in writing, that any such law exists, that prevented care givers from staying in my residence to await my arrival from the Hospital.

 

Plaintiff bought the double wide mobile home and plaintiff’s father placed it on a concrete slab on the farm. In 2001 the mobile home had fire damage and was rebuilt. In 2014 Plaintiff insurance company repaired the double wide mobile home’s roll in shower, roll under sink, ramps, wider doors, hot water heater, etc., under Doctor Orders.

 

Mobile home was placed in the Trust, in order not to have conflicting assets of the trust, once the trust went into effect, when Plaintiff’s grandmother made the trust many years ago, but Plaintiff is responsible for all cost related to the home. Mobile home is located in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), . . . . . . . zone, occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283” (Ref. Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 - 17.120.040).

 

6. Plaintiff denied due process - Marion County by their own Codes may pursue, investigate, visit the residence with notification, cite, suspend a Conditional Use Hardship Clause, and or levy fine(s), notifying in writing all parties concerned, any alleged violations that may not be consistent with a Conditional Use Hardship Clause permit; but when verbal communication is official, it’s impact in causing a manipulated result, often denies folks their rights under several U. S. laws or Marion County Codes.

 

The alleged violation was never presented to the plaintiff, nor were citations issued, preceded by an inspection of the residence, which never occurred, for if it had; and if being treated at a VA Hospital wasn’t accepted as a good enough reason to have care givers or spouse (who might be a care giver as well) reside in the home, then Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 - 17.120.040 C would state: “In the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), SA, FT and TC zones, occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283 trumps 17.120.040 E.”

 

Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 215.213. (1) (B) (i) states “One manufactured dwelling or recreational vehicle, or the temporary residential use of an existing building, in conjunction with an existing dwelling as a temporary use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative of the resident. Within three months of the end of the hardship, the manufactured dwelling or recreational vehicle shall be removed or demolished or, in the case of an existing building, the building shall be removed, demolished or returned to an allowed nonresidential use. The governing body or its designee shall provide for periodic review of the hardship claimed under this paragraph. A temporary residence approved under this paragraph is not eligible for replacement under paragraph (q) of this subsection.”

 

A. It’s true that the plaintiff, due to medical treatment, was not residing at the double wide mobile home that has always had a current Conditional Use Hardship Clause since 1990. It’s also true, that in May 2015, when plaintiff was scheduled to return from the SCI Unit Veteran Hospital, Jolla, San Diego, Ca. there were no care givers at plaintiff’s residence to provide care, so plaintiff wasn’t able to return home.

 

Section 17.120.040 E in itself is a hardship for any disabled person that will require more hospitalization in the future due to a severe disability and/or takes extended vacations, traveling.  Simply, any action that finds an individual away from a residence with a Conditional Use Hardship Clause in Marion County, for a period longer then (unknown), the home is subject to removal and because it’s a double wide mobile, no permit would be issued to allow it to remain as a storage building!  Such issues of removal are customary after the death of the severely disabled person occupying a residence with a Conditional Use Hardship Clause. Yet Section 17.120.040 C addressed the hardship of Section 17.120.040 E and recognized “the term of the hardship suffered” rather then 90 days and dispose of the residence because the tenant isn’t at home past 90 days?!

 

So as long as plaintiff is paying property taxes, electricity, water, septic, maintenance, repair, remolding and workers compensation invested $36,000.00 in May 2015, the mobile home in its present location can remain by law until plaintiff dies in the mobile home on EFU property, provided annual renewals are submitted.  Section 17.120.040 E is biased against all reasons that a resident may need to remain away from a residence, based on “the term of the hardship suffered” by the severely disabled person, yet Laws entitled under 2.2.1 Constitutional Law – U.S. Constitution – Procedural Issues do apply, as does informing plaintiff through written notification of any alleged Violations, Citation, Summons, Hearing, Judgment, etc., as outlined in Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 1.25, ENFORCEMENT, and for Laura Pekerek not to follow enforcement laws is nothing less then circumvention of said same.

 

Enforcement laws give all “participants a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument,” when there followed by agents of the law, so in argument, there has been no official citation for care givers to leave the mobile home, no law that said they had to, no law that gives a county agent the official duty to communicate officially, verbally warning of an outcome that would result in the suspension or termination of a Conditional Use Hardship Clause, if the care givers are not evicted in the absence of the severely disabled person, that, along with the care givers can be the owner, a renter, or the applicant for the second dwelling, if the family member can’t care for the disabled family member. After Laura Pekerek convinced plaintiff's father to evict two care providers from plaintiff's home, while plaintiff was in a hospital under Doctors Care, even though plaintiff's father, David Henion told Laura Pekerek, that it would create a medical hardship for his son not to have trained live in 24 hour care givers when the plaintiff returned home, Laura Pekerek assumed the role of a judge, even after a father, exclaiming the health concerns of a son, verified by a Physicians Certificate, did his best to address the plaintiff’s medical condition.

 

Without conferring with Plaintiff’s Doctor, who signed the Physicians Certificate, Doctors at the SCI Unit Veterans Hospital and/or notify in writing, owner or recipient and tenant in possession of the Conditional Use Hardship Clause and the double wide mobile at 3339 Jefferson Scio Drive, S. E., Jefferson, Oregon 97352, Bruce Wayne Henion; Laura Pekerek took it upon herself to tell plaintiff’s father, that being in a Veterans Hospital made no difference and unless the care givers left the plaintiff’s house, which could have been owner(s), a renter, or the applicant for the second dwelling, the Conditional Use Hardship Clause would be suspended or fines would follow.

 

Chapter 17.120.040 C basically means as long as the Conditional Use Hardship Clause is in effect and a current Physicians Certificate is on file with Marion County for a living severely disabled person, whom is the recipient and tenant in possession of both the Conditional Use Hardship Clause and double wide mobile home; no code violations occurred as a result of care givers remaining on an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned area, where “occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283 trumps 17.120.040 E.”

 

The law dependant upon zoning area of Marion County Codes, has two ways to deal with a recipient and tenant in possession of a dwelling in the absence of the severely disabled person longer then 90 days or a year, with 90 days leading up to the end of the year to renew and after that, a new application would have to be submitted. If the severely disabled person passed away, there would be no renewal.  While I live a person can renew; and if Marion County felt there were persons living in the double wide mobile home that were not care givers, they have only to inspect the residence with phone notice or in writing, cite, suspend, fine or not renew the Conditional Use Hardship Clause at the end of the year.

 

Chapter 17.120.040 E makes no designation as to whether a severely disabled person can be away from their residence longer then 90 days for any reason, that would result in a suspension of a Conditional Use Hardship Clause in some areas of Marion County, where “occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283 trumps 17.120.040 E.”

 

An inspection of the residence would have been necessary to verify any alleged violations. As the Plaintiff was in the Hospital at the time, the Plaintiff would have delegated to his father to be at the residence for Marion County Planning and Zoning Official to inspect the residence and/or Code Enforcement as it turns out, but no inspection was requested, nor notification of any violations other then what was said to Plaintiff’s Father.

 

Marion County Rural Zone Code 215.080 Power to enter upon land – “The commission, and any of its members, officers and employees, in the performance of their functions, may enter upon any land and make examinations and surveys and place and maintain the necessary monuments and markers thereon.”

 

Laura Pekerek’s official remarks to plaintiff’s father,” if plaintiff didn’t evict two care givers”, was the deciding factor why plaintiff’s father evicted plaintiff’s two care givers at the time of the alleged incident as testified by David Henion. Laura Pekerek decided not to inform plaintiff that plaintiff was in violation of any code in writing, preceded by an inspection to address any violations perceived by the County Agent; granted the recipient (owner or tenant in possession) by law is given notice of inspection so as to have care givers present in the house.

 

No doctor would order care givers from the house of a severely disabled person or disabled veteran under treatment at a VA SCI Hospital, awaiting his return. Would you evict the wife of a solider, living with him in a Conditional Use Hardship Clause Dwelling, healing from wounds in battle, if he spent a year in treatment at a special hospital due to complications? In the military, if your spouse is killed you have thirty days to leave government housing. One sore on my buttocks that was open to the bone would take six months in a VA Bed to heal.

 

NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS

 

215.503     Legislative act by ordinance; mailed notice to individual property owners required by county for land use actions

 

7. Two principles that are fundamental to Title II of the ADA and Section 504 are: (1) individualized treatment; and (2) full and equal opportunity.

 

Individualized treatment: “Individuals with disabilities must be treated on a case-by-case basis consistent with facts and objective evidence” (Ref. 20 - See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. ~ 35.130(b); see also 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. B (explaining in 1991 Section-by-Section guidance to the Title II regulation, “ that, taken together, the provisions ((in 28 C.F.R. ~ 35.130(b)) are intended to prohibit exclusion . . . of individuals with disabilities and denial of equal opportunities enjoyed by others, based on, among other things, presumptions, patronizing attitudes, fears, and stereotypes about individuals with disabilities.”

 

Consistent with these standards, public entities are required to ensure that their actions are based on facts applicable to individuals and not presumptions as to what a class of individuals with disabilities can or cannot do. (Ref.  School Bd. of Nasssan County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 285 (1987) of U. S. Department of Health And Human Services, U. S. Department of Justice, and Civil Rights Section).

 

Equal Opportunity: Persons with disabilities may not be treated on the basis of generalization or stereotypes” (Ref. e.g, i.d. of U. S. Department of Health And Human Services, U. S. Department of Justice, and Civil Rights Section).

https://secure.in.gov/gpcpd/files/Powell_1_DOJ_Technical_Assistance_Parents.pdf

 

At no time was the Conditional Use Hardship Clause invalid from 1990 to present, while the attached Physicians Certificates and Marion County Conditional Use Hardship Clauses for 2015 and 2016 illustrate compliance. Both annual reports were processed in November, 2015 and 2016.

 

Plaintiff is to be penalized for being ill, requiring several operations at a Veterans Hospital Specialty Unit and now plaintiff cant go home and has occurred hardship as well as financial difficulties as a result of injuries, to include not being able to manage his care.

 

8.  Plaintiff alleges:

 

A.  Disparate treatment - “Intentionally took action against Plaintiff because of his disability,” when Plaintiff was not given notification in writing of any alleged violation to correct after inspection of my residence took place, before termination of the Conditional Use Hardship Clause would ever take place, yet through verbal warning to Plaintiff‘s Father to evict Plaintiff’s two care givers, Plaintiff was never given the opportunity to show proof of necessity to keep care givers in Plaintiff’s residence.

 

The actions of Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County, affected the recipient and tenant in possession of the mobile home, that was granted a Conditional Use Hardship Clause, financially, as well as leaving me with no caregivers as the two dislocated care givers were not even given a 30 day eviction notice.  Plaintiff was “excluded from participation in or was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” ADA Title II, Id. [42 U.S.C.] §12132 (2000 ed).

 

"Title II of the [Americans with Disabilities Act] provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." [42 U.S.C.] §12132 (2000 ed.).

 

A "'qualified individual with a disability'" is defined as "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." [42 U.S.C.] §12131(2). The Act defines "'public entity'" to include "any State or local government" and "any department, agency, … or other instrumentality of a State," §12131(1). We have previously held that this term includes state prisons. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). Title II authorizes suits by private citizens for money damages against public entities that violate §12132. See 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (incorporating by reference 29 U.S.C. § 794a)."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quotation/%5Bfield_short_title-raw%5D_201

 

Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County, even after knowing of the hardship of the plaintiff, from both plaintiff’s father and the Physicians Certificate, chose to verbally warn plaintiff’s father plaintiff was in violation of a law that addresses jurisdiction over care givers, and/or Laura Pekerek was acting alone in her decision that care givers can’t remain in a Conditional Use Hardship Clause Dwelling in the absence of the recipient and tenant in possession of the mobile home, while care givers await their client’s return from a SCI Unit VA Hospital; and had plaintiff’s  father not obeyed Laura Pekerek, the Conditional Use Hardship Clause would be withdrawn by Marion County and/or fines.

 

B. Disparate Impact (i.e. defendants were enforcing a neutral law or policy that disproportionately burdens individuals with disabilities).”

 

Plaintiff was denied “participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity,” when the option of defending the reason of necessity of having care givers remain in a dwelling while the plaintiff went to a hospital, was lost as a result of the manner Laura Pekerek went about code enforcement, denying plaintiff due process of law declared in Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 1.25, ENFORCEMENT. As it turns out, through discovery of laws, Marion County has nothing to say about anything unless they follow enforcement Sections of the MCRC.

 

While plaintiff may not expect laws to always be compassionate, plaintiff does expect procedures set forth for county officials to be followed, otherwise representation for the recipient and tenant in possession of the Conditional Use Hardship Clause Dwelling, is directly affected as a result of deliberate action taken by Laura Pekerek.

 

Nowhere in the Conditional Use Hardship Clause renewal applications attached does it specify the role of the county agent to determine anything other then implement the code enforcement of the law, that doesn’t include forcing a concerned father into a corner without notifying his son and father in writing of a violation that has never been presented to either party, other then an official phone conversation to plaintiff’s father, causing plaintiff’s father to act under pressure, thinking he had no other choice but to follow instructions, or else.

 

What Section was plaintiff violating?  Where does it say care givers/wife care giver, etc., can’t wait for the return of the one they were caring for until they return from the hospital. Clearly decisions of care givers and medical treatment is best managed outside the jurisdiction of county, state and federal governments, yet the Affordable Care Act crosses this barrier of patient and doctor relationship, by not allowing the choice of a doctor, yet the ACA administered by Oregon and/or the Oregon Health Program after review, does not give county officials the right to persuade, pressure or warn the outcome of not evicting care givers without offering remedies or procedures to follow if you don’t agree with what was said.

 

Individualized treatment for the disabled is one of the underlining principles that are fundamental to Title II of the ADA and Section 504.

 

A review of doctor notes and operations, a person’s health, and their needs due to a disability or illness, to determine whether persons in the residence are care givers for plaintiff, should as the law intended, go through a process of inspection and case review, so as to keep decisions between the Doctor(s), as to whether the recipient and/or tenant in possession of the Conditional Use Hardship Clause Dwelling, requires care giver(s) to be available when the severely disabled person and disabled veteran returns home from an extended period in a SCI Unit VA Hospital, and whether it would be a hardship for either parties concerned and/or if care givers can immediately leave the residence, which, say as a result of the death of a person like me, care givers may only be given 90 days until the Conditional Use Hardship Clause would be invalid.

 

When a Code Enforcement Officer tells you the way it is, but doesn’t tell you there is a review board or consideration for the disabled person’s needs, either the agent through malice, discrimination or non cited rule of law that overturns procedures for verifying any particular violation of a current Conditional Use Hardship Clause, to include notification in writing and inspection of dwelling, clearly illustrates the Code Enforcement Officer did not follow procedural law. This can be referred to as negligence with extreme provocation, knowing very well such actions would result in hardship for plaintiff, a severely disabled person and disabled veteran.

 

The Annual Conditional Use Hardship Clause Renewals for 2014 and 2015 constitutes the agreement to continue the Conditional Use Hardship Clause and the attached Conditional Use Marion County Application with less printed text, is a binding agreement which Laura Pekerek, Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County violated when she didn’t abide by the Physicians Certificate or inform David Henion his son’s rights, nor informed plaintiff, citing Sections of the Law that pertained to alleged violations of any such laws governing care givers of a severely disabled person.

 

Plaintiff’s feelings and/or plaintiff’s father’s, although rather emotional, with revised statements, clearly illustrates plaintiff’s and father’s feelings, viewing Laura Pekerek’s actions as discriminative, while plaintiff in this revised Complaint has illustrated the harm in the 90 day rule which has most likely affected many in other county areas, while an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), . . . . . . . zone, occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283” (Ref. Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 - 17.120.040).

 

Plaintiff believes discrimination occurred, because there is no law that gives Laura Pekerek the official right to do anything but notify in writing any alleged violation, preceded by a phone call and home inspection, followed by a Hearing if necessary, not  back door tough tactics outside the procedural law. The basis for which Laura Pekerek made her decision to not notify in writing any alleged violations of the recipient and tenant in possession of the double wide mobile home, while it may not entirely be known to plaintiff, the plaintiff’s civil rights were violated by the action taken in enforcing a law that does not exist in regards to the 90 day termination rule of Conditional Use Hardship Clause and residence in the absence of recipient and tenant from said premise longer then 90 days; yet Marion County officials must notify participants’ of a Conditional Use Hardship Clause in writing of any violations or citations for noncompliance.

 

Plaintiff believes his father to be a credible witness, and with the evidences provided in  this revised Complaint as well as referenced laws protecting the disabled or negligence of the county agent in performing the duties of her office, plaintiff concludes that to the best of his ability, he has presented the facts, in an effort to illustrate by a "preponderance of the evidence" (that it is more likely than not) that the defendant is legally responsible for the demands and/or damages alleged by the Plaintiff, based on official spoken words to Plaintiffs father by Laura Pekerek, that made plaintiffs father react to save the hardship clause on Plaintiffs primary residence, which based on the 90 day rule and absence of recipient and tenant in possession of double wide mobile home longer then 90 days has no jurisdiction, nor does Marion County have any business involving themselves with business of plaintiffs care or care givers unless it is the position of Marion County that they were not care givers.

 

9. Present Care and Care Givers - Plaintiff was able to negotiate another year of care here in Mexico, with plaintiff’s Mexican Care Manager and Care Attendant and three other Mexicans and one American who has a family in Mexico doing shifts.

 

Plaintiff’s Mexican Care Manager and Care Attendant, Jose Heberto Gutierrez Castro, postponed University study for Civil Engineer having already acquired his Political Account degree and trades in electricity, air conditioning, heating, propane refrigeration, heavy equipment operator (owns Backhoe and Dump Truck), electronics specialist, fabricator, owner of a Pet Crematory Business, contractor in construction and transportation, having built many houses to include the one plaintiff is living in, paying rent at Guadarrama Carretera Esenica Cuota Kilometro 74.5 Ejido Ursulo Galvan, Ensenada, BaJa, Norte, Mexico. Jose now attends school on Saturday as a compromise and will commence on line classes next year in order to remain as plaintiff’s Mexican Care Manager and Care Attendant during 2017.

 

Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 215.213. (1) (B) (t) Room and board arrangements for a maximum of five unrelated persons in existing residences.

 

10. Summary of Expenses and Cost as a result of the alleged incident - As plaintiff stated in the original Complaint, plaintiff’s care program is back to February 2008 to May 2014 levels of manning, with an increase in one employee, while additional expenses are equal to $10,000.00 a year, based on what plaintiff had arranged in Oregon before plaintiff left, that would have had plaintiff home by May 2016, when plaintiff’s father and step mother visited plaintiff at the SCI Unit.

 

At that time, Plaintiff’s Mexican Care Manager and Care Attendant would have brought plaintiff home with plaintiff’s father tagging along and when plaintiff’s next operation came ready, Jose would have returned to Jefferson, Oregon to transport plaintiff to the SCI Unit VA Hospital, La Jolla, San Diego, Ca. providing plaintiff care until healed enough for travel to return home. As it turned out, plaintiff stayed in the area, and plaintiff’s expenses grew, yet plaintiff did save $1,200.00 by not going home, a plane ticket for Jose to fly to Portland, Oregon, higher wages and a trip back to the SCI Unit VA Hospital, La Jolla, San Diego, Ca. estimated at $2,800.00.

 

In terms of expenses during 2016, May to December prorated monthly from the annual increase in wages, rent and expenses, totals $883.00 monthly, equaling 8 months, totally $6,664.00, less plaintiffs savings for not going home to Jefferson, Oregon and returning to the SCI Unit Veteran Hospital, Jolla, San Diego, Ca. in the amount of $2,800.00, equaling $3,854.00, plus the $800.00 a month as credit against wages to plaintiff for two care givers living in plaintiff’s residence, toward labor that included all utilities and private rooms totaling eight months at $6,400.00, making a combined total of increased expenses and/or loss of income due to the actions of Laura Pekerek, totaling $10,264.00 for 2016.

 

In addition, plaintiff’s second year in Mexico will cost an additional $10,000.00, something plaintiff is now prepared for and have budgeted for from the $65,000.00 plaintiff’s workers compensation insurance provides for plaintiff’s attendant care and related expense, that now includes $500.00 monthly house rent and higher wages then what plaintiff had arranged by being more independent and requiring minimum care but consistent, requiring 24 hour care, in plaintiff’s Jefferson home, mostly at plaintiff’s desk or visiting with plaintiff‘s father on the farm or in the shop, thereby utilizing care givers when needed rather then every minute of the day, yet there was always a care giver available 24/7.

 

During 2017 their will be the loss of 800.00 a month as credit against wages to plaintiff for two care givers living in plaintiff’s residence, toward labor that included all utilities and private rooms totaling 12 months at $9,600.00, a loss that went toward wages in America, as plaintiff never actually got any money from care givers, just credit for hourly wages owed the increase of expenses and loss of income versus wages for 2017 of care givers, contracting all care out to Jose, under a contract with Jose and others, plaintiff sacrificed all debts old and current, as a result of being forced to the curb, and living abroad for a year, plaintiff intends to file bankruptcy proceedings following decision of this revised Complaint in attempt to at least stay afloat.

 

11. Demands/damages, and determination Request - The Plaintiff seeks a determination by a Magistrate Judge after examining the evidence to decide whether, by a "preponderance of the evidence," the Defendant should be held legally responsible for the demands/damages Plaintiff has presented totaling $10,264.00 for 2016 and during 2017 their will be an additional $10,000.00 in cost to plaintiff and the $800.00 a month as credit against wages to plaintiff for two care givers no longer living in plaintiff’s residence providing care, toward labor that included all utilities and private rooms totaling 12 months at $9,600.00, a combined total of $29,864.00 (hiring from an agency will be expensive for several months until live-in care givers can be found) by the end of 2017, there by increasing the cost of care and loss of revenue for two years, the first year now behind plaintiff.

 

Yet in the end its up to the plaintiff to manage care, travel, and lodging and return two America. Plaintiff plans were altered and cost during 2006 increased. Plaintiff cant return home until care givers are relocated, interviewed and trained. To do that, plaintiff would need to be in Jefferson, Oregon with at least one care giver willing to stay in plaintiffs house until other care givers can be found. Often displaced or homeless respond to live-in care positions, but plaintiff must be careful as not to bring onboard individuals with bad habits. Its difficult to find care givers in Oregon, while living in Mexico, and unless plaintiff does, when plaintiff returns home, employment agencies will be contacted to locate care givers (CNAs or CMAs) for in-home care.

 

Plaintiff feels the offense was cold and calculating, as any educated person would know of the hardship to a severely disabled person without care givers at his residence upon return from medical treatment. To know you cant return home when you want to is one thing, as there could have been a flood or the house could have burned down. Acts of nature or fire are part of the elements of life everyone faces. There are those that are compassionate in their work and others that are not, yet those that effectively perform their duties have the best performance of the law.

 

The official communication of a Marion County Code Enforcement Officer to the Plaintiffs Father and not the Plaintiff, resulted in Hardship for the Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs rights were of little importance to the county agent, nor was the plaintiffs medical and health conditions of any consideration to the county agent, illuminating the lack of concern the Marion County Code Enforcement Officer has for the severely disabled, Physicians Certificate and due process of the law for all participants involved, while the disabled are to be dealt with on a case by case basis,” speaks of behavior associated with discrimination and denial of services and programs offered by a public entity from a public official in the manner alleged, is nothing less then the “unequal treatment of an individual based on that individual's real or perceived disability,” resulting in grievances due to injustice; wrong; injury; ill; unfairness; affront; insult and indignity treatment, by an agent of Marion County; alleged by the Plaintiff, with knowledge of the severalty of the plaintiff’s medical condition, county agent chose to circumvent MCRC’s by a more direct approach, denying Plaintiff participation of the law.

 

Plaintiff feels a law should be enacted clarifying the Conditional Use Hardship Clause Physicians Certificate as the resulting order and/or other doctors when determining care giver status in a severely disabled spinal cord injured person residence that has a current Conditional Use Hardship Clause on an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), . . . . . . . zone, occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283” (Ref. Marion County Rural Zone Codes, Chapter 17.120 - SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES Revised 8/16 - 17.120.040).

 

Damages aforementioned of $29,864.00 is partially sought and is based on a return to Oregon in 2018, as Plaintiff is now under care contract for 2017 with Mexican Care Manager and Care Attendant, Jose Heberto Gutierrez Castro; Circuito Del Arbol, Fobiste No. 5, No. 63, Mesa Otay, BA JA Tijuana 22510

 

CONSTRUCTORA IMPERIAL - FABRICACION DE METAL, REFRIGERATION, AIRE CONDICIONADO, ELECTRICIDAD, PLOMERIA CEMENTO, CONTRACTADOR GENERAL, EQUIPO MAQUINARIA PESADA-OPERACIÓN Y TRANSPORTACION, DOMPE, RETRO Y SERVICIOS AUTO TRANSPORTE - JOSE HEBERTO GUITERREZ CASTRO, R.F.C. GUCH640829R411 - C.U.R.P. - GUCH640829HCHTSVC9, CIRCUITO DEL ARBOL NO. 63, FOBISTE 5, MESA DE OTAT, TIJUANA B.C.

 

The only available residence and care program available to plaintiff at the time of not being able to return home was through Jose Heberto Gutierrez Castro.


It will take an estimated time of three to six months until care givers are located, a huge expense going through agencies that charge $5.00 an hour for their services. The unknown amount of agency cost for CNA
s or CMAs is beyond plaintiffs ability to pay.

Allocating $20.00 an hour x 24 hours a day, equals: $480.00 a day x 31 days, totaling $14,880.00 a month. Plaintiff is not demanding Marion County owes plaintiff anything more then the cost of the financial hardship resulting from the actions of a county agent.

Plaintiff would expect, if verdict was in favor of the evidences aforementioned and enclosures presented, and if plaintiff is entitled to a decision of value, it would be equal to the financial hardship presented, looking forward one year, while having in trust $14,880.00 or more a month, whatever the agency may charge for CNAs or CMAs for 3 to 6 months, during which time Plaintiff begins interviewing and or training live-in care givers once located. In consideration of the grievances Plaintiff is suffering and has suffered financially, $29,864.00 by 2017 years end is the total that includes 2016. Three to six months agency wages and cost would be from $45,000.00 to $90,000.00. Its possible 3 live in care givers might be found in three months. Plaintiff was hoping for one more care giver within a month of arrival at home to work with two care givers left in the residence.  Plaintiff’s emotions run high and cannot set in a neutral position, therefore plaintiff’s determination of a set amount to be awarded plaintiff, especially when plaintiff has only common sense to guide his thought and research and discovery of laws, as set forth here with, Plaintiff feels the offense is sufficient to the minimum amount equal to a Disabilities Act violation of between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00, as stated on the Title II of the Americans Disability Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Web Site.

 

12. Certification and Closing - The Defendant may call its own witnesses and can present its own independent evidence in an effort to refute or downplay the key elements of the Plaintiff's allegations, and the Plaintiff petitions this court to make Marion County’s Code Enforcement Officer, give good cause for their actions, sighting any particular statute or law they may choose to not be legally responsible for the Plaintiff's demands/damages, or that judgment for the Plaintiff is warranted under the circumstances, worthily of the courts attention.

 

13. For Parties without an Attorney - I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to my address where case-related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the dismissal of my case.

 

Date of signing: November 29, 2016.

Signature of Plaintiff ________________________________________________________

Printed Name of Plaintiff:  Bruce Wayne Henion

 

 

 

2006 were submitted by my father. One day I’ll post them once their sent to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Suit against the Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County, Oregon

Part I of III

Part II of III

Part III of III

 

 

Law Suit against the Community Resource Officer of the Code Enforcement of Marion County, Oregon

Part II of IV

 USS CORAL SEA (CV 43)

Operations Evening Light and Eagle Claw, A Sailors tale of his Tour of duty in the U.S. Navy (August 1977 to February 1983)

 

A Sailors tale of his Tour of duty in the U.S. Navy (August 1977 to February 1983) - Operation Evening Light and Eagle Claw - (24 April 1980)

 

Book - ISBN NO.

978-1-4276-0454-5

EBook - ISBN NO.

978-1-329-15473-5

 

Operations Evening Light and Eagle Claw (24 April 1980) Iran and Air Arm History (1941 to Present)

 

Operations Evening Light and Eagle Claw (24 April 1980) Iran and Air Arm History (1941 to 2016)

 

Book ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook ISBN NO.

978-1-329-19945-3

 

USS CORAL SEA CV-42, CVB-43, CVA-43 & CV-43 HISTORY, AND THOSE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OPERATING WITH CORAL SEA  Vol. I (10 July 1944 to 31 December 1975)

 

USS CORAL SEA CV-42, CVB-43, CVA-43 & CV-43 HISTORY, AND THOSE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OPERATING WITH CORAL SEA Vol. I

(10 July 1944 to 31 December 1975)

 

Book ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook ISBN NO.

978-1-329-54596-0

 

USS CORAL SEA CV-42, CVB-43, CVA-43 & CV-43 HISTORY, AND THOSE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OPERATING WITH CORAL SEA DURING HER TOUR OF SERVICE Vol. II (1 January 1976 to 25 August 1981)

 

USS CORAL SEA CV-42, CVB-43, CVA-43 & CV-43 HISTORY, AND THOSE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OPERATING WITH CORAL SEA DURING HER TOUR OF SERVICE Vol. II

(1 January 1976 to 25 August 1981)

 

Book ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook ISBN NO.

978-1-329-54790-2

 

USS CORAL SEA CV-42, CVB-43, CVA-43 & CV-43 HISTORY, AND THOSE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OPERATING WITH CORAL SEA DURING HER TOUR OF SERVICE Vol. III (20 August 1981 to 26 April 1990)

 

USS CORAL SEA CV-42, CVB-43, CVA-43 & CV-43 HISTORY, AND THOSE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OPERATING WITH CORAL SEA DURING HER TOUR OF SERVICE Vol. III

(20 August 1981 to 26 April 1990)

 

Book ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook ISBN NO.

978-1-329-55111-4

 

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) History Vol. I (27 December 1982 to 6 May 2003)

 

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) History Vol. I  (27 December 1982 to 6 May 2003)

 

Book - ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook - ISBN No.

978-1-365-73794-7

 

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) History Vol. II (7 May 2003 to 13 January 2010)

 

USS Abraham Lincoln

(CVN-72) History Vol. II

(7 May 2003 to 13 January 2010)

 

Book - ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook - ISBN NO.

978-1-365-74027-5

 

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) History Vol. III (14 January 2010 to 31 December 2012)

 

 

USS Abraham Lincoln

(CVN-72) History Vol. III

(14 January 2010 to 31

December 2012)

 

Book - ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook - ISBN No.

978-1-365-74145-6

 

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) History of Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)  (1 January 2013 to 2017)

 

USS Abraham Lincoln

(CVN-72) History of

Refueling and Complex

Overhaul (RCOH)

(1 January 2013 to 2017

Sea Trials) Volume IV

 

Book - ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook - ISBN No.

978-1-365-74587-4

 

U. S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER SHIP HISTORY (1920 to 2016)

 

U. S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER SHIP HISTORY (1920 to 2016)

 

Book - ISBN NO.

978-1-4276-0465-1

EBook - ISBN NO.

978-1-365-25019-4

Library of Congress

Control Number: 

2008901616

(Book Version)

 

U. S. AIRCRAFT CARRIERS REDESIGNATED AND OR RECLASSIFIED (1953 to 2016)

 

U. S. AIRCRAFT

CARRIERS

REDESIGNATED

AND OR

RECLASSIFIED

(1953 to 2016)

 

BOOK - ISBN NO.

978-1-4276-0452-1

EBook - ISBN NO.

978-1-365-25041-5

Library of Congress

(Book Version)

2008901619

 

ENERGY QUEST AND U. S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER DEPLOYMENT HISTORY INVESTMENT CAPITAL REQUIRED TO PUBLISH 55 EIGHTH HUNNDRED PAGE BOOKS AND EBOOKS (48 Navy Books)

 

ENERGY QUEST AND U. S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER DEPLOY. HISTORY INVESTMENT CAPITAL REQUIRED TO PUBLISH 55 EIGHTH HUNNDRED PAGE BOOKS, EBOOKS & CD’s

(48 Navy Books)

 

Book - ISBN NO.

To Be Announced

EBook - ISBN No.

978-1-365-26038-4