POLITICALLY CHARGED SENIOR CITIZEN EVICTION BY PREDATORY LANDLORD IN NEW RIVER

Categories :

DESALOJO DE PERSONA MAYOR EN NEW RIVER CON CARGA POLÍTICA

EVICTION

THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY’S EVICTION CLAIMRECLAMO DE DESALOJO DE LA EMPRESA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN DE PROPIEDADES
(A) FOR MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE AFFECTING HEALTH & SAFETY.

(B) TENANT’S FAILURE TO REMOVE “JUNK, TRASH & DEBRIS” FROM THE GROUNDS AT 1514 E WILD FIELD DR IN NEW RIVER [THE PROPERTY], ACCORDING TO ALOE MANAGEMENT COMPANY’S [ALOE] TIMETABLE

(C) ALOE ASSERTS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR DIRECTIVE WILL BE SEVERELY PUNISHED WITH A $10,000 PER DAY FINE AND EVICTION.
POR INCUMPLIMIENTO MATERIAL QUE AFECTE LA SALUD Y SEGURIDAD.

NO SE ELIMINÓ LA “BASURA, BASURA Y ESCOMBROS” DE ACUERDO CON EL CALENDARIO DE LA COMPAÑÍA ADMINISTRATIVA ALOE [ALOE].

EL CASTIGO POR INCUMPLIMIENTO DE LAS DEMANDAS DE ALOE RESULTARÁ EN UNA MULTA DE $10,000 POR DÍA Y EL DESALOJO.
TENANT INTENDS TO COUNTER-SUE FOR THE MAXIMUM AWARD ALLOWABLE BY LAW; ON THE GROUNDS THAT TENANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND HAS BEEN LIBELED AND DEFAMED. HE’LL BE SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND INVITES ANY ATTORNEY LICENSED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR TIME ON A CONTINGENCY BASIS TO SERVE JUSTICE AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS BEING HARASSED FOR THEIR BELIEFS IN ALL CORNERS OF OUR GREAT NATION.EL INQUILINO TIENE LA INTENCIÓN DE PRESENTAR UNA CONTRADEMANDA PARA RECIBIR LA MÁXIMA COMPENSACIÓN PERMITIDA POR LA LEY; CON LA CONSIDERACIÓN DE QUE SE LE HAN NEGADO SUS DERECHOS CONSTITUCIONALES Y HA SIDO DIFAMADO Y CALIFICADO. SOLICITARÁ DAÑOS PUNITIVOS E INVITA A CUALQUIER ABOGADO CON LICENCIA EN EL ESTADO DE ARIZONA A CONTRIBUIR CON SU TIEMPO EN BASE A CONTINGENCIA PARA SERVIR JUSTICIA Y PROTEGER LOS DERECHOS CONSTITUCIONALES DE LOS CIUDADANOS QUE SON ACOSADOS POR SUS CREENCIAS EN TODOS LOS RINCONES DE NUESTRA GRAN NACIÓN.

THE DEFENSE

1. THE EVICTION PROCEEDING IS ILLEGAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONING:

2. WITH THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING, ALOE HAS CIRCUMVENTED THE TENANT’S RIGHT TO LEGAL DUE PROCESS WITHIN THE MARICOPA COUNTY ORDINANCE VIOLATION ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM.

3. THE LANDLORD REFUSES TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY GROUNDS, ACCESS ROAD OR TREAT FOR PESTS. THE PROPERTY WAS 85% COVERED WITH HIP-HIGH DEAD, DRIED WEEDS, BRUSH AND BRANCHES MOSTLY DUE TO THE HEAVY STORMS IN THE WINTER OF 2023; AND WAS A SOURCE OF FUEL FOR THE SPREAD OF POTENTIAL WILDFIRES. TENANT HAS COLLECTED DIGITAL EVIDENCE THAT WILL BEAR OUT THIS FACT. THERE IS CURRENTLY A WILDFIRE BURNING (THE POINT FIRE IN NEW RIVER) MERELY FIVE MILES NORTH OF LANDLORD’S PROPERTY. THE TENANT ALONE, BY HAND, OVER THE COURSE OF MORE THAN A YEAR GATHERED THE DRIED WILDFIRE VEGETATION AND CONTAINED IT INTO FOUR NEAT PILES STAGED MANY YARDS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER ON THIS OVER ONE ACRE PARCEL OF LAND. THEREBY PREVENTING ANY POSSIBLE WILD SPREAD OF FIRE RESULTING IN CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE TO THE LANDLORD’S PROPERTY.

4. TENANT ASSERTS THAT THE REMOVAL AND SAFE CONTAINMENT OF THIS HAZARDOUS FUEL WAS MERE MINUTES AWAY FROM COMPLETION AND IS A COMMUNITY SERVICE, PROTECTING LIFE AND STRUCTURES OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY BY INGENIOUSLY CREATING OVER AN ACRE OF DEFENSIBLE SPACE.

4a. UNFORTUNATELY, THE SHARED WATER SOURCE HAS RUN DRY DUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WELL CONSORTIUM’S MISMANAGEMENT. THE LANDLORD BEING PART OF THAT CONSORTIUM; THEY OUTRIGHT DENIED TENANT’S REQUEST FOR THE VIABILITY OF THE WELL TO BE TESTED TWO YEARS AGO WHEN TENANT SIGNED THE LEASE THAT GOVERNS THIS CLAIM. MEANING THERE IS NO SOURCE OF WATER ON SITE LARGE ENOUGH TO BATTLE A FAST MOVING FIRE, OR EVEN WET DOWN A STRUCTURE. AS ONE SMALL WATER TANK NOW SERVES FIVE HOUSEHOLDS, WITH A LOAD OF WATER BEING HAULED IN MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK.

5. TENANT MAINTAINS THAT PART OF THE REASON FOR CLEARING MORE THAN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RECOMMENDED 30 FOOT DEFENSIBLE SPACE AROUND THE STRUCTURE WAS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST INSTALLED A FENCE IN THE CUL-DE-SAC, THEREBY CREATING A NARROW PATH OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO LANDLORD’S PROPERTY. WHEREAS LARGE EMERGENCY VEHICLES LIKE FIRE TRUCKS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY REACH, OR EASILY RETREAT, AND BATTLE A WILDFIRE AS IT MOVED SOUTH. THIS CREATED AN EXTREME DANGER, TO BOTH LIFE AND PROPERTY, NOT ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE RESIDENTS BUT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS AS WELL.

6. WHILE THE LEASE CALLS FOR TENANT TO MAINTAIN “LANDSCAPING”, THIS PROPERTY IS LEASED WITH NO LANDLORD PROVIDED LANDSCAPING OTHER THAN A BLOCK PATIO AND DRIVEWAY PAD. ONLY NATURAL DESERT VEGETATION EXISTS.

6a. LANDSCAPING IS DEFINED IN BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY AS:

“The arrangement and planting of trees, grass, shrubs and flowers, and the placement of fountains, patios, street furniture and ornamental concrete or stonework and artificial turf.”

7. THE ONLY THING ON THE PROPERTY THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE CONSIDERED LANDSCAPING OTHER THAN THE BUILDER INSTALLED PATIO & DRIVEWAY IS A SMALL SECTION OF THE FRONT YARD WHERE TENANT COLLECTED FROM THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTED A LOOSELY FIT ROCK GARDEN; PLANTED AND HAS IMPECCABLY MAINTAINED INDIGENOUS XERISCAPE. TENANT ARGUES HE OTHERWISE IS IN NO WAY OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN LANDLORD’S DIRT.

8. THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUCCUMBED TO NEIGHBORHOOD PRESSURE AND DIDN’T TAKE ACTION WITH A NOTICE OF VIOLATION UNTIL THE COMPLAINT REACHED TRIPLICATE. TENANT CONFIDENTLY ASSERTS BASED ON HIS DOCUMENTED COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT THE COUNTY DIDN’T BELIEVE THE COMPLAINTS TO BE ACTIONABLE AS IT IS APPARENT TO ANY REASONABLE NON-BLIND PERSON THAT THIS WAS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY. NOT JUST FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY, BUT AESTHETIC REASONS AS WELL.

9. TENANT ALLEGES THAT THE OWNERS OF MOST SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEW RIVER PROPERTIES IN GENERAL HAVE COLLECTED, STORED AND/OR STAGED SOME TYPE OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. WHETHER IT BE PILES OF WOOD FROM PALLETS, UNREGISTERED VEHICLES CONTAINING GASOLINE, UNKEMPT YARDS OR HAZARDOUS GAS FOR A WELDING BUSINESS; MOST HAVE SOMETHING STORED OR STAGED. TENANT DOESN’T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BEHAVIOR IS ACTIONABLE, AS IT IS A WAY-OF-LIFE IN A RURAL AREA. TENANT ASSERTS HE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE STRONG-ARMED TO TAKE ACTION ACCORDING TO THE NEIGHBOR’S TIMETABLE.

10. TENANT REFUSES TO RETALIATE BY ALSO WEAPONIZING THE COUNTY RESOURCES. TENANT BELIEVES THIS WOULD NOT ONLY STRAIN COUNTY RESOURCES BUT MORE-SO WOULD SET A BAD PRECEDENT BY TURNING NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR AND PUT THE COUNTY IN THE MIDDLE, OF WHAT TENANT BELIEVES IS A WAR AGAINST HIM BENT ON POLITICAL REVENGE AND RETRIBUTION IN A HOT BED OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY DURING A CONTESTED ELECTION YEAR.

11. TENANT ASSERTS HE HAS BEEN UNFAIRLY TARGETED FOR HIS POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT DO NOT NECESSARILY CONCUR WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND GENERAL LEANINGS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY. THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE WEAPONIZED THE COUNTY TO CIRCUMVENT TENANT’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND CAUSE HIM EMOTIONAL PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FINANCIAL LOSS.

12. ALOE ALSO ALLEGES IN DOCUMENTATION TO THE TENANT THAT THE LANDLORD WOULD FACE A FINE OF $10,000 PER DAY IF THE DRIED BRUSH WASN’T CLEARED BY THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER. ON THE 6TH OF SEPTEMBER, TENANT PAID NEARLY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT OF POCKET TO HAVE THE BRUSH HAULED AWAY TO THE LANDFILL. TENANT ASSERTS THAT LANDLORD SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HAUL AWAY COST AS IT REQUIRED MANY TENANT MAN HOURS TO COLLECT IT. TENANT TRIED TO COMPROMISE WITH ALOE BY OFFERING TO PUT TENANT’S $1795 SECURITY DEPOSIT TOWARDS REMOVAL. ALOE REFUSED AND STARTED THE EVICTION PROCESS SAYING THEY HAVE TO PROTECT THE LANDLORD AT ALL COSTS FROM A $10,000 A DAY FINE.

13. TENANT ASSERTS THAT ALOE HAS TAKEN AN UNREASONABLE POSITION; AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SIMPLY AVOID A $10,000 FINE BY PAYING THE $2000 TO HAUL AWAY THE MATERIAL BEFORE ANY FINE TAKE AFFECT. THIS FALSE NARRATIVE THAT ALOE HAS CREATED IS MERELY INTENDED TO HARASS TENANT AND DENY HIM OF HIS FIRST, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AMONG OTHERS.

13a. TENANT SEES THIS AS A FEDERAL CASE DUE TO THE MOTIVATION BEING SUPPRESSING TENANTS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY AND OPENLY ABOUT THE UPCOMING FEDERAL ELECTION.

1. THE EVICTION PROCEEDING IS ILLEGAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONING:1. EL PROCEDIMIENTO DE DESALOJO ES ILEGAL POR LOS SIGUIENTES MOTIVOS:
2. WITH THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING, ALOE HAS CIRCUMVENTED THE TENANT’S RIGHT TO LEGAL DUE PROCESS WITHIN THE MARICOPA COUNTY ORDINANCE VIOLATION ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM. 2. CON ESTE PROCEDIMIENTO DE DESALOJO, ALOE HA EVITAR EL DERECHO DEL INQUILINO AL DEBIDO PROCESO LEGAL DENTRO DEL SISTEMA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN DE VIOLACIONES DE ORDENANZAS DEL CONDADO DE MARICOPA.
3. THE LANDLORD REFUSES TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY GROUNDS, ACCESS ROAD OR TREAT FOR PESTS. THE PROPERTY WAS 85% COVERED WITH HIP-HIGH DEAD, DRIED WEEDS, BRUSH AND BRANCHES DUE TO THE HEAVY STORMS IN THE WINTER OF 2023; AND WAS A SOURCE OF FUEL FOR THE SPREAD OF POTENTIAL WILDFIRES. TENANT HAS COLLECTED DIGITAL EVIDENCE THAT WILL BEAR OUT THIS FACT. THERE IS CURRENTLY A WILDFIRE BURNING (THE POINT FIRE IN NEW RIVER) MERELY FIVE MILES NORTH OF LANDLORD’S PROPERTY. THE TENANT ALONE, BY HAND, OVER THE COURSE OF MORE THAN A YEAR GATHERED THE DRIED WILDFIRE VEGETATION AND CONTAINED IT INTO FOUR NEAT PILES STAGED MANY YARDS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER ON THIS OVER ONE ACRE PARCEL OF LAND. THEREBY PREVENTING ANY POSSIBLE WILD SPREAD OF FIRE RESULTING IN CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE TO THE LANDLORD’S PROPERTY.3. EL PROPIETARIO SE NIEGA A MANTENER LOS TERRENOS DE LA PROPIEDAD, EL CAMINO DE ACCESO O A TRATAR LAS PLAGAS. LA PROPIEDAD ESTABA CUBIERTA EN UN 85 % CON MALEZAS, MATERIA SECA Y MUERTA, RAMAS Y MACHOS QUE LLEGABAN A LA CINTURA DEBIDO A LAS FUERTES TORMENTAS DEL INVIERNO DE 2023; Y FUE UNA FUENTE DE COMBUSTIBLE PARA LA PROPAGACIÓN DE POSIBLES INCENDIOS FORESTALES. EL INQUILINO HA RECOPILADO EVIDENCIA DIGITAL QUE CONFIRMARÁ ESTE HECHO. ACTUALMENTE HAY UN INCENDIO FORESTAL (EL INCENDIO POINT EN NEW RIVER) A MENOS CINCO MILLAS AL NORTE DE LA PROPIEDAD DEL PROPIETARIO. EL INQUILINO SOLO, A MANO, DURANTE MÁS DE UN AÑO, REUNIÓ LA VEGETACIÓN SECA CAUSADA POR EL INCENDIO FORESTAL Y LA CONTENIÓ EN CUATRO PILAS ORDENADAS DISPUESTAS A VARIOS MILLONES DE DISTANCIA UNA DE OTRA EN ESTA PARCELA DE MÁS DE UN ACRE DE TERRENO. EVITANDO ASÍ CUALQUIER POSIBLE PROPAGACIÓN DEScontrolada DEL INCENDIO QUE RESULTARA EN DAÑOS CATASTRÓFICOS A LA PROPIEDAD DEL ARRENDADOR.
4. TENANT ASSERTS THAT THE REMOVAL AND SAFE CONTAINMENT OF THIS HAZARDOUS FUEL WAS MERE MINUTES AWAY FROM COMPLETION AND IS A COMMUNITY SERVICE, PROTECTING LIFE AND STRUCTURES OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY BY INGENIOUSLY CREATING OVER AN ACRE OF DEFENSIBLE SPACE.

4a. UNFORTUNATELY, THE SHARED WATER SOURCE HAS RUN DRY DUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WELL CONSORTIUM’S MISMANAGEMENT. THE LANDLORD BEING PART OF THAT CONSORTIUM; THEY OUTRIGHT DENIED TENANT’S REQUEST FOR THE VIABILITY OF THE WELL TO BE TESTED TWO YEARS AGO WHEN TENANT SIGNED THE LEASE THAT GOVERNS THIS CLAIM. MEANING THERE IS NO SOURCE OF WATER ON SITE LARGE ENOUGH TO BATTLE A FAST MOVING FIRE, OR EVEN WET DOWN A STRUCTURE. AS ONE SMALL WATER TANK NOW SERVES FIVE HOUSEHOLDS, WITH A LOAD OF WATER BEING HAULED IN MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK.
EL INQUILINO AFIRMA QUE LA ELIMINACIÓN Y CONTENCIÓN SEGURA DE ESTE COMBUSTIBLE PELIGROSO FUE A POCOS MINUTOS DE TERMINARSE Y ES UN SERVICIO COMUNITARIO, QUE PROTEGE LA VIDA Y LAS ESTRUCTURAS DE TODA LA COMUNIDAD AL CREAR INGENIOSAMENTE MÁS DE UN ACRE DE ESPACIO DEFENSIBLE.
4a. DESAFORTUNADAMENTE, LA FUENTE DE AGUA COMPARTIDA SE HA SECADO DEBIDO A LA MALA ADMINISTRACIÓN DEL CONSORCIO DE POZOS DEL VECINDARIO. EL PROPIETARIO, AL SER PARTE DE ESE CONSORCIO, NEGÓ TOTALMENTE LA SOLICITUD DEL INQUILINO DE QUE SE PROBARA LA VIABILIDAD DEL POZO HACE DOS AÑOS, CUANDO EL INQUILINO FIRMÓ EL CONTRATO DE ARRENDAMIENTO QUE RIGE ESTA RECLAMACIÓN. LO QUE SIGNIFICA QUE NO HAY FUENTE DE AGUA EN EL SITIO LO SUFICIENTEMENTE GRANDE PARA COMBATIR UN INCENDIO QUE SE PROPAGA RÁPIDAMENTE, O INCLUSO MOJAR UNA ESTRUCTURA. YA QUE UN PEQUEÑO TANQUE DE AGUA AHORA SERVIRÁ A CINCO HOGARES, Y SE TRANSPORTA UNA CARGA DE AGUA VARIAS VECES A LA SEMANA.
5. TENANT MAINTAINS THAT PART OF THE REASON FOR CLEARING MORE THAN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RECOMMENDED 30 FOOT DEFENSIBLE SPACE AROUND THE STRUCTURE WAS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST INSTALLED A FENCE IN THE CUL-DE-SAC, THEREBY CREATING A NARROW PATH OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO LANDLORD’S PROPERTY. WHEREAS LARGE EMERGENCY VEHICLES LIKE FIRE TRUCKS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY REACH, OR EASILY RETREAT, AND BATTLE A WILDFIRE AS IT MOVED SOUTH. THIS CREATED AN EXTREME DANGER, TO BOTH LIFE AND PROPERTY, NOT ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE RESIDENTS BUT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS AS WELL. 5. EL INQUILINO SOSTIENE QUE PARTE DE LA RAZÓN PARA DESPEJAR MÁS DE LOS 30 PIES DE ESPACIO DEFENSIBLE RECOMENDADOS POR EL DEPARTAMENTO DE BOMBEROS ALREDEDOR DE LA ESTRUCTURA FUE PORQUE EL VECINO INMEDIATAMENTE AL ESTE INSTALÓ UNA VALLA EN EL CALLEJÓN SIN SALIDA, CREANDO ASÍ UN CAMINO ESTRECHO DE ENTRADA Y SALIDA A LA PROPIEDAD DEL PROPIETARIO. CONSIDERANDO QUE LOS VEHÍCULOS DE EMERGENCIA DE GRAN TAMAÑO, COMO LOS CAMIONES DE BOMBEROS, NO PODRÍAN LLEGAR RÁPIDAMENTE, O RETIRARSE FÁCILMENTE, Y COMBATIR UN INCENDIO FORESTAL A MEDIDA QUE SE DESPLAZA HACIA EL SUR. ESTO CREÓ UN PELIGRO EXTREMO, TANTO PARA LA VIDA COMO PARA LA PROPIEDAD, NO SÓLO PARA LOS RESIDENTES INMEDIATOS, SINO TAMBIÉN PARA LA SALUD, LA SEGURIDAD Y LA PROTECCIÓN DE NUESTROS BOMBEROS.
6. WHILE THE LEASE CALLS FOR TENANT TO MAINTAIN “LANDSCAPING”, THIS PROPERTY IS LEASED WITH NO LANDLORD PROVIDED LANDSCAPING OTHER THAN A BLOCK PATIO AND DRIVEWAY PAD. ONLY NATURAL DESERT VEGETATION EXISTS.

6a. LANDSCAPING IS DEFINED IN BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY AS:

“The arrangement and planting of trees, grass, shrubs and flowers, and the placement of fountains, patios, street furniture and ornamental concrete or stonework and artificial turf.”
6. SI BIEN EL CONTRATO DE ALQUILER ESTABLECE QUE EL INQUILINO DEBE MANTENER EL “PAISAJISMO”, ESTA PROPIEDAD SE ALQUILA SIN QUE EL PROPIETARIO PROPORCIONE NINGÚN PAISAJISMO, EXCEPTO UN PATIO DE BLOQUES Y UNA PLATAFORMA DE ENTRADA PARA VEHÍCULOS. SOLO EXISTE VEGETACIÓN NATURAL DEL DESIERTO.

6a. EL PAISAJISMO SE DEFINE EN EL DICCIONARIO DE DERECHO DE BLACK COMO:

“La disposición y plantación de árboles, césped, arbustos y flores, y la colocación de fuentes, patios, mobiliario urbano y hormigón ornamental o mampostería y césped artificial”.
7. THE ONLY THING ON THE PROPERTY THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE CONSIDERED LANDSCAPING OTHER THAN THE BUILDER INSTALLED PATIO & DRIVEWAY IS A SMALL SECTION OF THE FRONT YARD WHERE TENANT COLLECTED FROM THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTED A LOOSELY FIT ROCK GARDEN; PLANTED AND HAS IMPECCABLY MAINTAINED INDIGENOUS XERISCAPE. TENANT ARGUES HE OTHERWISE IS IN NO WAY OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN LANDLORD’S DIRT.7. LO ÚNICO QUE PODRÍA CONSIDERARSE PAISAJISMO EN LA PROPIEDAD, A PARTIR DEL PATIO Y LA ENTRADA PARA VEHÍCULOS INSTALADOS POR EL CONSTRUCTOR, ES UNA PEQUEÑA SECCIÓN DEL PATIO DELANTERO, DONDE EL INQUILINO CONSTRUYÓ UN JARDÍN DE ROCAS DE AJUSTE LIBRE, PLANTÓ Y MANTUVO IMPECABLEMENTE UN JARDÍN DE XERIPASIS INDÍGENA. EL INQUILINO ARGUMENTA QUE NO ESTÁ OBLIGADO DE MANTENIMIENTO DE LA TIERRA, LOS MUEBLES, EL HORMIGÓN O LA PIEDRA O EL CÉSPED ARTIFICIAL DEL PROPIETARIO.
8. THE MARICOPA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUCCUMBED TO NEIGHBORHOOD PRESSURE AND DIDN’T TAKE ACTION WITH A NOTICE OF VIOLATION UNTIL THE COMPLAINT REACHED TRIPLICATE. TENANT CONFIDENTLY ASSERTS BASED ON HIS DOCUMENTED COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT THE COUNTY DIDN’T BELIEVE THE COMPLAINTS TO BE ACTIONABLE AS IT IS APPARENT TO ANY REASONABLE NON-BLIND PERSON THAT THIS WAS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY. NOT JUST FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY, BUT AESTHETIC REASONS AS WELL.8. EL DEPARTAMENTO DE PLANEAMIENTO DEL CONDADO DE MARICOPA SUCUMBIO ANTE LA PRESIÓN DEL VECINDARIO Y NO TOMÓ MEDIDAS CON UN AVISO DE INFRACCIÓN HASTA QUE LA QUEJA LLEGÓ AL TRIPLICATIVO. EL INQUILINO AFIRMA CON CONFIANZA, BASÁNDOSE EN SU COMUNICACIÓN DOCUMENTADA CON EL DEPARTAMENTO DE PLANEAMIENTO DEL CONDADO, QUE EL CONDADO NO CREÍA QUE LAS QUEJAS SEAN PROCESABLES, YA QUE ES EVIDENTE PARA CUALQUIER PERSONA RAZONABLE QUE NO SEA CIEGA QUE ESTO ERA UN TRABAJO EN PROGRESO Y BENEFICIOSO PARA LA COMUNIDAD. NO SOLO POR RAZONES DE SALUD Y SEGURIDAD, SINO TAMBIÉN POR RAZONES ESTÉTICAS.
9. TENANT ALLEGES THAT THE OWNERS OF MOST SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEW RIVER PROPERTIES IN GENERAL HAVE COLLECTED, STORED AND/OR STAGED SOME TYPE OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. WHETHER IT BE PILES OF WOOD FROM PALLETS, UNREGISTERED VEHICLES CONTAINING GASOLINE, UNKEMPT YARDS OR HAZARDOUS GAS FOR A WELDING BUSINESS; MOST HAVE SOMETHING STORED OR STAGED. TENANT DOESN’T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BEHAVIOR IS ACTIONABLE, AS IT IS A WAY-OF-LIFE IN A RURAL AREA. TENANT ASSERTS HE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE STRONG-ARMED TO TAKE ACTION ACCORDING TO THE NEIGHBOR’S TIMETABLE. 9. EL INQUILINO ALEGA QUE LOS PROPIETARIOS DE LA MAYORÍA DE LAS PROPIEDADES ALREDEDOR Y DE LAS PROPIEDADES DE NEW RIVER EN GENERAL HAN RECOLECTADO, ALMACENADO Y/O PREPARADO ALGÚN TIPO DE MATERIAL COMBUSTIBLE. YA SEA PILAS DE MADERA DE PALETS, VEHÍCULOS NO REGISTRADOS QUE CONTIENEN GASOLINA, PATIOS DESCUIDADOS O GAS PELIGROSO PARA UN NEGOCIO DE SOLDADURA; LA MAYORÍA TIENE ALGO ALMACENADO O PREPARADO. EL INQUILINO NO CREE QUE NINGUNA DE ESTAS CONDUCTAS SEA PROCESABLE, YA QUE ES UNA FORMA DE VIDA EN UNA ZONA RURAL. EL INQUILINO AFIRMA QUE NO DEBERÍA TENER QUE SER FUERTE PARA TOMAR MEDIDAS DE ACUERDO CON EL HORARIO DEL VECINO.
10. TENANT REFUSES TO RETALIATE BY ALSO WEAPONIZING THE COUNTY RESOURCES. TENANT BELIEVES THIS WOULD NOT ONLY STRAIN COUNTY RESOURCES BUT MORE-SO WOULD SET A BAD PRECEDENT BY TURNING NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR AND PUT THE COUNTY IN THE MIDDLE, OF WHAT TENANT BELIEVES IS A WAR AGAINST HIM BENT ON POLITICAL REVENGE AND RETRIBUTION IN A HOT BED OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY DURING A CONTESTED ELECTION YEAR.10. EL INQUILINO SE NIEGA A TOMAR REPRESALIAS UTILIZANDO TAMBIÉN LOS RECURSOS DEL CONDADO COMO UN ARMA. EL INQUILINO CREE QUE ESTO NO SOLO TENSARÁ LOS RECURSOS DEL CONDADO, SINO QUE, MÁS AÚN, SENTARÍA UN MAL PRECEDENTE AL PONER A LOS VECINOS CONTRA LOS VECINOS Y PONER AL CONDADO EN EL MEDIO DE LO QUE EL INQUILINO CREE QUE ES UNA GUERRA CONTRA ÉL, DECIDIDA A LA VENGANZA Y LA RETRIBUCIÓN POLÍTICAS EN UN FOCO DE ACTIVIDAD POLÍTICA DURANTE UN AÑO ELECTORAL DISPUTABLE.
11. TENANT ASSERTS HE HAS BEEN UNFAIRLY TARGETED FOR HIS POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT DO NOT NECESSARILY CONCUR WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND GENERAL LEANINGS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY. THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE WEAPONIZED THE COUNTY TO CIRCUMVENT TENANT’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND CAUSE HIM EMOTIONAL PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FINANCIAL LOSS.11. EL INQUILINO AFIRMA QUE HA SIDO OBJETIVO INJUSTO POR SUS CREENCIAS POLÍTICAS Y RELIGIOSAS QUE NO NECESARIAMENTE COINCIDEN CON LAS DE LOS VECINOS Y LAS INTENCIONES GENERALES DE LA MAYORÍA DE LA COMUNIDAD. ESTOS VECINOS HAN UTILIZADO EL CONDADO COMO UN ARMA PARA EVITAR LOS DERECHOS DEL INQUILINO BAJO LA PRIMERA ENMIENDA Y CAUSARLE DOLOR Y SUFRIMIENTO EMOCIONAL Y PÉRDIDAS ECONÓMICAS.
12. ALOE ALSO ALLEGES IN DOCUMENTATION TO THE TENANT THAT THE LANDLORD WOULD FACE A FINE OF $10,000 PER DAY IF THE DRIED BRUSH WASN’T CLEARED BY THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER. ON THE 6TH OF SEPTEMBER, TENANT PAID NEARLY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT OF POCKET TO HAVE THE BRUSH HAULED AWAY TO THE LANDFILL. TENANT ASSERTS THAT LANDLORD SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HAUL AWAY COST AS IT REQUIRED MANY TENANT MAN HOURS TO COLLECT IT. TENANT TRIED TO COMPROMISE WITH ALOE BY OFFERING TO PUT TENANT’S $1795 SECURITY DEPOSIT TOWARDS REMOVAL. ALOE REFUSED AND STARTED THE EVICTION PROCESS SAYING THEY HAVE TO PROTECT THE LANDLORD AT ALL COSTS FROM A $10,000 A DAY FINE. 12. ALOE TAMBIÉN ALEGA EN LA DOCUMENTACIÓN AL INQUILINO QUE EL PROPIETARIO ENFRENTARÍA UNA MULTA DE $10,000 POR DÍA SI LA MAZORCA SECA NO SE RETIRABA ANTES DEL 16 DE SEPTIEMBRE. EL 6 DE SEPTIEMBRE, EL INQUILINO PAGÓ CASI DOS MIL DÓLARES DE SU BOLSILLO PARA QUE LA MAZORCA SE LLEVARA AL VERTEDERO. EL INQUILINO AFIRMA QUE EL PROPIETARIO DEBERÍA SER RESPONSABLE DEL COSTO DE LA RETIRADA, YA QUE SE NECESITARON MUCHAS HORAS DE TRABAJO DEL INQUILINO PARA RECOGERLA. EL INQUILINO TRATÓ DE LLEGAR A UN ACUERDO CON ALOE OFRECIÉNDOSE A DESTINAR EL DEPÓSITO DE SEGURIDAD DE $1795 DEL INQUILINO PARA LA ELIMINACIÓN. ALOE SE NEGÓ E INICIÓ EL PROCESO DE DESALOJO DICIENDO QUE TIENEN QUE PROTEGER AL PROPIETARIO A TODA COSTA DE UNA MULTA DE $10,000 POR DÍA.
13. TENANT ASSERTS THAT ALOE HAS TAKEN AN UNREASONABLE POSITION; AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SIMPLY AVOID A $10,000 FINE BY PAYING THE $2000 TO HAUL AWAY THE MATERIAL BEFORE ANY FINE TAKE AFFECT. THIS FALSE NARRATIVE THAT ALOE HAS CREATED IS MERELY INTENDED TO HARASS TENANT AND DENY HIM OF HIS FIRST, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AMONG OTHERS.

13a. TENANT SEES THIS AS A FEDERAL CASE DUE TO THE MOTIVATION BEING SUPPRESSING TENANTS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY AND OPENLY ABOUT THE UPCOMING FEDERAL ELECTION.
13. EL INQUILINO AFIRMA QUE ALOE HA TOMADO UNA POSICIÓN IRRAZONABLE, YA QUE CUALQUIER PERSONA RAZONABLE SIMPLEMENTE EVITARIA UNA MULTA DE $10,000 PAGANDO LOS $2000 PARA LLEVARSE EL MATERIAL ANTES DE QUE LA MULTA ENTRARA EN VIGOR. ESTA FALSA NARRATIVA QUE ALOE HA CREADO SOLO TIENE LA INTENCIÓN DE ACOSAR AL INQUILINO Y NEGARLE SUS DERECHOS DE LA PRIMERA, QUINTA Y DECIMOCUARTA ENMIENDA, ENTRE OTROS.

13a. EL INQUILINO VE ESTO COMO UN CASO FEDERAL DEBIDO A QUE LA MOTIVACIÓN ES SUPRIMIR EL DERECHO DE LOS INQUILINOS DE LA PRIMERA ENMIENDA A HABLAR LIBRE Y ABIERTAMENTE SOBRE LAS PRÓXIMAS ELECCIONES FEDERALES.
TRANSLATION FROM ENGLISH TO SPANISH

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *