Kimi Peck and Susan Marlowe will hopefully be behind bars SOON…just like their poor rescue animals. However, until this happens, animal ‘rescuers’ Kimi Peck and Susan Marlowe will continue to claim their apparent fraudulent activities and well, animal cruelty is something ‘made up’ because these two animal ‘rescuers’, claim they are victims of a witch hunt. They made this ‘witch hunt’ clear in the County Board of Supervisors and avoided questions about their illegal activities… Read James Burger’s blog

Peck at Supervisors Kern County Supervisors will hear the case of animal rescuer Kimi Peck in just a bit here. Kimi Peck and her attorney and a supporter are here for the hearing. Leave Comment Subscribe to comments Posted in these Groups: Topics: posted by Jburger on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 02:26 PM Report a Violation Viewed 23 times 7 comments from 1 users <Reverse Sort Order> 1 posted by Jburger on Jan 5, 2010 at 02:38 PM The hearing on Peck has begun. Engineering and Survey Services Director Chuck Lackey is making his report to the board. "We have determined that the keeping of approximately 170 dogs is not incidental to the use of the residential site," Lackey said. That means, basically, that the dogs aren’t there because Peck lives there but Peck lives there so she can keep the dogs there. That, Lackey said, is a violation of county ordinances. "She was informed that she could not keep the animals on the property unless she got a conditional use permit," Lackey said. Report Violation posted by Jburger on Jan 5, 2010 at 02:43 PM Peck told the county this morning that she removed around 40 dogs At the previous hearing Peck argued that the pets are her personal property, Lackey said, and that she is keeping old, injured and unwanted animals to live out their lives. That is, Lackey said, the definition of an animal shelter according to county law. "The housing of the animals has become the primary use of the property," Lackey said. To maintain a shelter on the property, Lackey said, Peck has to have a conditional use permit. But she has refused to apply for one. Even if the license issue is resolved that does not resolve the land use problems on the property, Lackey said. Report Violation posted by Jburger on Jan 5, 2010 at 02:58 PM Peck is arguing that county ordinances "Stop this witch hunt. Don’t make me sue you. Stop these fines now," Peck said. "How much did Michael Goland pay you." (Michael Goland is Susan Marlowe’s ex-husband and Peck has repeatedly accused county officials of being paid off by Goland to harass her.) Pecks calling the board corrupt and "unbelieveably cruel." "Just try and fine me," she dared supervisors. "try." Property owner Susan Marlowe up to speak. She said the ordinance allows the breeding and raising of animals is allowed on the property. Note: Peck said in the hearing that the animals are old and unlovely and are just on the property to live out their lives. Report Violation posted by Jburger on Jan 5, 2010 at 03:01 PM Marlowe said she has eviction proceedings started against Peck. Janet Wingfield, Kimi Peck’s supporter, is speaking. "I think she has been chased down like a rabid dog," Wingfield said. Report Violation posted by Jburger on Jan 5, 2010 at 03:07 PM "There is conspiracy against Ms. Peck," Wingfield said. Wingfield is accusing the county of conspiring with people who destroyed a water tank on Peck’s Water Canyon Road property. She’s accusing county animal control officers of falsifying court documents to try and get Kimi Peck. She and Peck both acused Supervisor Don Maben of vowing to get Kimi Peck in any way possible. Report Violation posted by Jburger on Jan 5, 2010 at 03:14 PM It’s back to staff. Ted James is speaking. He said Marlowe’s comments about animal breeding is in ordinances Before Peck left the Water Canyon Road property, James said, he and Lackey made it very clear that zone "She acknowledged that she needed to get a conditional use permit," James said. "There is no witch hunt. There is no sidestepping." Lackey said Peck is arguing that animal control regulations allow her to choose between licensing her dogs and getting a conditional use permit. But the county is arguing that she is violating land use laws — not animal control laws. They brought action against Peck, Lackey said, because "It appeared that Ms. Peck was ignoring our requirements to comply." "She moved to another piece of property and we started all over again," he said. He said they want Peck to keep the animals. But they also want her to comply with county zoning laws. Report Violation posted by Jburger on Jan 5, 2010 at 03:26 PM "We wouldn’t be here today if you had listened to staff and applied for a conditional use permit," Maben told Peck. "You picked a good location to move your dogs to." He called for a $5,000 fine against both Peck and Marlowe and an ongoing $500 fine against both – but freeze the penalty for 30 days to give Peck a chance to apply for a conditional use permit. "Why would I get a permit on a house I don’t own," Peck shouted from the audience. She said the house she lives in was sold at auction Tuesday morning. But Maben said he does not have that fact in evidence and can’t rely on it to make a decision today. County lawyer Bruce Divelbiss recommended that the supervisors might push back action on the issue until more information is produced. Peck just about got removed from the building by the Sheriff’s deputy in the back because she talked over supervisors and refused to leave the podium. There should be due notice for any buyer of the property, Lackey said. Supervisors delayed the issue until Feb. 9.