As of July 1, 2024, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) will no longer accept electronic checks, or e-checks, as a form of electronic payment.  DCC will continue to accept electronic payments using a credit card or debit card.  Electronic payments are subject to a 2.99% third-party convenience fee.

Please note, there is no third-party convenience fee applied to payments that are made using cash, cashier’s check, money orders, personal check, or business check.

To schedule an in-person payment appointment:

To mail a cashier’s check, money orders, personal check, or a business check, use one of the following mailing addresses:  

• U.S. Postal Service: P.O. Box 419106, Rancho Cordova, CA 95741, or
• FedEx or UPS: 2920 Kilgore Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

For more information, visit the DCC’s website:  Make a payment.

If indeed all these stories are true one has to wonder at the level of  stupidity/ plain nastiness of enforcement agents at the county offices.

The Mail writes

• Humboldt County is accused in a lawsuit of a ‘dragnet’ approach to enforcement
• Officials allegedly profiting from legalization at expense of innocent residents
• Meanwhile, the real black market continues to grow since decriminalization

Retired couple Corrine and Doug Thomas thought they had found their ‘forever’ home when they bought a rustic property nestled in the middle of a redwood forest in Humboldt County, California.

It put an end to their three-year stint living in a motorhome, forced upon them after their previous home in Los Angeles was destroyed in the Woolsey Fire of 2018.

Instead, they had simply opened the next chapter in an ongoing nightmare.

Less than a week after moving in, Corinne, 70, and Doug, 74, who are both disabled and on fixed incomes, were slapped with fines that eventually grew to more than $1million because the previous owner had used the property for an illegal cannabis grow.

Astonishingly, they are among dozens of unwitting homeowners to have been targeted by Humboldt County, whose officials have been accused in a class action lawsuit of trying to ‘squeeze every dollar’ it can out of legalized marijuana ‘at the expense of innocent people’.

+7

View gallery

Retired couple Corrine and Doug Thomas are facing fines of more than $1million because the property they bought in 2021 was used by the previous owner to grow weed illegally

+7

View gallery

Likewise, Rhonda Olson, 64, has been hit with a fine of more than $7million because of an illegal cannabis grow operated by the previous owners of her property

+7

View gallery

Blu Graham, 51, faced fines of around $900,000 after Humboldt County accused him of using a greenhouse to grow cannabis without a permit, whereas he was actually using it to grow vegetables for his restaurant

Retiree Rhonda Olson, 64, faces fines of more than $7million because someone else grew weed on her property before she bought it.

And Blu Graham, 51, was hit with penalties of around $900,000 based on ‘unfounded and uninvestigated allegations’ that he was growing cannabis in his greenhouses, whereas in reality he was growing vegetables for his restaurant.

Similarly, a chicken farmer was prosecuted by the county for growing cannabis in a greenhouse in which he was in fact rearing chicks.

The extraordinary claims are laid bare in a lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice (IfJ).

Attorney Jared McClain told DailyMail.com that officials were ‘lashing out’ in an attempt to reap the promised financial rewards of legalization, which are yet to materialize.

But while law-abiding citizens are being caught out by this avaricious approach, the real black market in California continues to boom, with unlicensed grows now believed to outnumber legitimate farms by tenfold.

The county even acknowledges that homeowners such as Corrine, Doug and Rhonda have never grown cannabis.

But, according to McClain, the county position is that the current occupants are somehow responsible for any past violations at their property.

‘It’s obvious that we aren’t involved with cannabis,’ Doug told DailyMail.com ‘We don’t even drink alcohol. We’re just old senior citizens. The county knows it, but they’re still coming after us.

‘They are at war with the community.’

He and and his wife, who run the non-profit Miracle Run Foundation for Autism, used insurance money from the 2018 fire to buy their new home in Humboldt, which sits on top of a ridge above the Avenue of the Giants.

Behind the home, there is a detached garage alongside a three-story building that the listing referred to as a workshop.

When the couple purchased the property, the workshop was empty and the electrical wiring inside had all been cut.

It is in this ramshackle barn that the county says was used to illegally grow cannabis two years earlier.

Read more

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13453619/California-retirees-cannabis-fines.html

On Tuesday, the Oakley City Council will look to approve its ordinance to address indoor and outdoor marijuana cultivation which also increases fines.

The proposed ordinance will clarify that each and every marijuana plant cultivated outdoors, or indoors in excess of six plants allowed by State law, is a separate offense and each will be subject to a separate administrative citation under Sections 1.5.002(e) and 4.41.108(b) added to the Oakley Municipal Code in March of this year. These sections allow for an administrative fine for unlicensed commercial

cannabis activity not to exceed $1,000 per violation or $10,000 per day. The proposed ordinance would allow each and every marijuana plant cultivated outdoors, or indoors in excess of six plants allowed by State law, to be treated as a separate offense and subject to an administrative citation of $1,000 per plant or $10,000 per day.

In a separate item, the council will also introduce an ordinance to include an Administrative Hearing Requirements Related to Unlawful Commercial Cannabis Activity.

According to the Staff Report,  California Government Code Section 53069.4(a)(2)(E)(i, ii, iii) provides that if such an ordinance is adopted that it provide for a reasonable period of time for the correction or remedy of the violation prior to the administrative fines that are imposed after notice and a reasonable time to correct only when the property owner can substantiate all of the following:

1. a tenant is in possession of the property that is the subject matter of the administrative action,
2. the rental property owner or agent can provide evidence that the rental or lease agreement prohibits the commercial cannabis activity,
3. the rental property owner or agent did not know the tenant was engaging in unlawful commercial cannabis activity and no complaint, property inspection, or other information caused the rental property owner or agent to have actual notice of the unlawful commercial cannabis activity.

If an administrative violation is found for unlawful commercial cannabis activity, the property owner is mailed a Notice of Violation and/or administrative fine imposed by the City. The property owner has the right to appeal administrative fines to an administrative hearing officer.

Back in March, the Oakley City Council voted 5-0 to approve an updated cannabis ordinance to increase fines.

Oakley to Finalize Cannabis Ordinance to Increase Fines