Details

Written by: ken

Category: Uncategorised

Published: 11 June 2024

Hits: 181

6/10/2024 Our ethics decision was predetermined by a flawed and biased opinion of the 'neutral' compliance officer - read here in full.

The highlights - violation of the constitution, violation of state law are not unethical according to the ethics ordinance.

The ethics ordinance is limited to making sure no one steals from the county kitty - but by all means squeeze the citizens for as much as they can get - that's not unethical...just saying.

 

 

Details

Written by: ken

Category: Uncategorised

Published: 07 April 2024

Hits: 309

From:

Kenneth DeHoff

66 Bad Coyote Place, Corrales New Mexico

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.          

505-867-6236

To:

New Mexico Tax and Revenue Secretary Stephanie Shardin Clarke

CC:

New Mexico State House Representative Alan Martinez District 23

New Mexico State Senator Brenda McKenna District 9

New Mexico Property Tax Division Director Ira Pearson

Sandoval County Commission Member Jay Block

Sandoval County Commission Member Katherine Bruch

Sandoval County Commission Member Dave Heil

Sandoval County Commission Member Michael Meek

Sandoval County Commission Member Joshua Jones

New Mexico State Attorney General Raul Torrez

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury

Senator Martin Heinrich

Senator Ben Ray Lujan

 

Regarding:  Meeting Request:  Follow up from December email to investigate Sandoval County Assessor for illegal and unconstitutional taxation practices in Corrales

 

Madam Secretary:

As I hope you recall, I raised an issue regarding the unconstitutional flat rate land valuations in Corrales on December 21.  I appreciate your very quick response and commitment to investigate and hope that the investigation is continuing.  I write to update you on additional factors regarding both our just released and yet-again illegal 2024 valuations as well as illegal actions by Linda Gallegos that I believe obligate a response from you in the near term under NMSA 7-35-6.  I provide specifics that I hope enable you to complete your investigation and take appropriate action.  I will also ask for you to work with the Sandoval County Commission to correct what I believe to be improper public intimidation established by public comments made by Linda Gallegos and her Senior Assessor Ed Olona.  As concerning as this email should be to you, it does not capture the full scope of illegality I am facing.  I ask that you organize a meeting with me and my wife at your earliest convenience so we may discuss more fully our circumstances face to face.  We will accommodate your schedule.

 

First, as to our 2024 valuation.

As you recall, I protested in 2023 for our farm’s properties at the North end of Corrales; 4 adjacent 1 acre lots; 3 vacant for crops and 1 with our home on it.  I received a favorable judgement against the Sandoval County Assessor in my 2023 protest with Finding #22:

“ The Property Owner’s evidence and testimony convinced the Board that the land values in south Corrales are not comparable to north Corrales.  Thus for the three vacant parcels, the Board finds the property owner met and overcame the statutory presumption of correctness as to value.”

This hard-fought and won Finding in my favor prevents my property valuations from being based on the 2022 property sales introduced by the assessor as comparables for my properties.  This order has not been adhered to by the county assessor.  For the fourth year in a row, my property has been revalued, the 27% increase identical to last year’s attempted increase and obviously based on the use of the 2022 property sales the board rejected as comparables.

In my community there were only two validated land sales in 2023 as you can see from the attached Assessor’s IPRA response to my question – “what properties did you compare mine to for valuation purposes in 2024”.  The valuation method applied uniformly to the rest of my community is based on 2023 comparable sales – of which there were only two which the assessor noted in the IPRA response as “not enough new sales” resulting in no valuation changes for my neighbors.  But for my property valuation method the assessor has obviously applied 2022 comparable sales – those same comparable sales that VPB Finding #22 prevents the assessor from using in their valuation methods of my properties.  The lawlessness in this action is breathtaking.  Not only does the assessor flout the direct orders of the VPB by revaluing my property based on those sales the board explicitly ordered the assessor not to use, the assessor does this non-uniformly to my properties in blatant violation of 7-36-15(A) and NM Const Art VIII Sec 1.

The Assessor’s valuation method in my community is trivial.  Calculate the median value from a list of 3 sales anywhere within the entire 6 square mile, 2500 lot area and then apply this single value per square foot to every other targetable square foot of land across the entire 6 square mile area.  This trivial one-rate policy provides no consideration of the usual property characteristics such as market, location, access and public services as required by the tax code NMSA 7-36-15(B).   This establishes a structurally guaranteed discount of 30% or more BELOW fair market value for the most valuable lands’ owners and a structurally guaranteed penalty of 27% or more ABOVE fair market value for the least valuable lands’ owners. The assessor’s one-rate policy continues in 2024 to be a regressive tax upon me and my community, it continues to be unconscionable and it continues to be unconstitutional.

I ask you to intervene on mine as well as your board’s behalf to enforce VPB finding #22, correct my 2024 property tax valuations and ensure I am treated uniformly under the law by leaving my valuation where it is due to insufficient contemporary 2023 comparable sales data near me.  I find myself in a groundhog day loop having to reargue that which I believe has already been decided.  I believe your role as defined by NMSA 7-35-3 (A) establishes that you are my ‘go to’ person to get this fixed in your supervisory role over the Sandoval County Assessor.  I would very much like to work with you to get this resolved permanently and am happy to provide any additional information you may need – but the lawlessness of the Sandoval County Assessor needs to stop.  If you need to review the data, it is all available on my website and due to the lack of sales in 2023 it is still up to date http://corraleslandrights.org/

 

Second as to your obligation to act under NMSA 7-35-6 (B)

Linda Gallegos’ blatant disregard of the law and constitution does not stop with my 2024 valuations.  I ask you to read the entire recent Rio Rancho Observer article https://rrobserver.com/what-does-the-sandoval-county-assessors-office-do-and-why-is-it-important-for-residents/ .  Within the article, Senior Assessor Ed Olona and Linda Gallegos both are quoted, bragging about appealing to district court - and winning - against RR Premiere Realty, LP.

I am confident you are familiar with the text of NMSA 7-38-28(A) “A property owner may appeal an order made by the director or a county valuation protests board by filing an appeal pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.” And I trust you are also familiar with the long-established Addis precedent:  “The county assessor may not appeal the order of the VPB; only the property owner may appeal.”

How can an Appeal the county has no statutory right to pursue have happened? 

Consider also Giddings v. SRT-Mountain Vista, LLC 2019-NMCA-025 “In the absence of a direct right to appeal from an adverse valuation protests board determination, or other mode of review on behalf of a county assessor, we agree with the Assessor that certiorari is the appropriate means of determining whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded illegally in the underlying agency proceedings.”.  I could go on with precedent.  Are you able to identify a single precedent that states that an assessor has the statutory right of appeal of the orders from a valuation protests board decision?   The answer is no.  And yet Linda Gallegos is quoted in the paper bragging about bringing this very action against a private citizen and depriving that citizen of $60,000 in the process (Their case is D-1329-CV-2022-01364 if you need to look it up, where Linda Gallegos illegally claimed the statutory right of appeal under NMSA 7-38-28, NMSA 39-3-1.1 and 1-074 NMRA).

Quoted from the Rio Rancho Observer Article:

“Do you have an example of a type of protest?

In 2022 Rio Rancho Premiere Realty LP protested their property tax in April, which is timely for the year, and they consequently said that their value should be at $4.5 million,” Olona said. “We assessed the property at approximately $9.3 million. It went through the protest board, and the board ruled not necessarily in favor of the county or the property owner. They came to their own conclusion as to the appropriate value. We appealed the decision in order by the property valuation board to district court. Ultimately district court found error with that decision and re-instituted our approximate $9.3 million valuation

….

“That’s $60,000 additional dollars. If we would have just said OK, we didn’t fight the lower amount, but we said no, we can defend our value, we know we have the right valuation,” Gallegos said. “So again, it’s about doing our job and making sure we’ve got the correct assessment and then be able to defend that. It’s an extra $60,000 for the people of Sandoval County.”

How can an Appeal the county has no statutory right to pursue have happened!?

Deceit.

In my case Linda Gallegos and her lawyer have lied by providing a deceptively edited version of NMSA 39-3-1.1(C) to Judge Martinez of the 13^th District Court in their cross appeal filing against me, defrauding the court into considering that any aggrieved person has the right of appeal.  I include the associated ethics complaint I have recently filed with the Sandoval County Commission as the factual basis for your further action in this matter, including Linda Gallegos’ relevant legal filings but it is public record if you want to pull the papers for yourself, D-1329-CV-2023-01382.   

I ask you, based on your duty under the law NMSA 7-35-6 to Issue an order to the Sandoval County Assessor and Commission as required by NMSA 7-35-6(B) to show cause as to why the county assessor’s functions should not be suspended due to her deliberate and repeated violations of the property tax code and the state constitution.  I’ll start the list:  Two Violations of NMSA 7-38-28, two violations of NMSA 39-3-1.1, two violations of 1-074 NMRA and one violation of 1-074(H) NMRA in cases D-1329-CV-2023-01382 and D-1329-CV-2022-01364, an uncountable number of violations of NMSA 7-36-15 (B) and NM Const Art 8 sec 1 and at least one count of violation of NM Const Art 2 Sec 18 .  NMSA 7-35-3 requires you to complete this list on your own.  Who else has she illegally appealed against?  Where else in Sandoval County are unconstitutional valuation practices being used? 

 

Third, as to a partnership with Sandoval County Commission

Consider the chilling nature of Linda’s public message in the newspaper as The Assessor – that she will spare no taxpayer’s expense to sue anyone - from a church to a farmer - if she does not like the outcome of the valuation protests board, the very body that is charged with the final say over the assessor’s office to prevent errors and malicious overreach.  The complexity and cost of valuation protests is already outrageous, an industry unto itself – and her message only serves to frighten and intimidate the public into now having to consider a never ending legal fight, having to hire and indefinitely retain a lawyer to defend against an assessor who will never abide by the valuation protest board orders because she will always have them under appeal, year after year because she can do so without any financial or personal investment or consequences to herself.  This is precisely the grinding wheel I find myself against, four years running, a farmer once again having to respond to 2024’s illegal and unconstitutional valuations of my property while still prosecuting 2023’s illegal and unconstitutional valuations instead of planting my corn - and dreading 2025. 

I ask you to publish in a timely fashion a public declaration and correction from your office in partnership with the Sandoval County Commission, who are direct financial beneficiaries of the unlawful methods and actions of Linda Gallegos, to be sent to the Rio Rancho Observer and other local papers, that directly addresses and corrects the improper threat of appeals upon the public attributed to Ed Olona and Linda Gallegos.  The public is currently ‘doing their calculus’ as to whether it is worth it to protest and have but 30 days to decide so time is of the essence.  It is in the public’s interest to know unambiguously that the assessor CAN NOT EVER and WILL NOT EVER appeal decisions of the VPB.

Finally, as to your difficult job ahead

As you consider your duty under the law which I suspect will not be easy, also consider the impact of Linda Gallegos’ actions – the irreversible damage already done to the Corrales property tax base; the publically observable malfeasance of Linda Gallegos and its impact on the entire county.  Also consider the impact this ongoing malfeasance has had upon my wife and me – thousands of hours of grief and anger while I pour over opaque tax policy and legal documents and theories; lost crops while my wife struggles to run the farm on her own while I struggle to understand the law to defend ourselves against our government.  We argue constantly over our options to get out of this mess, including leaving the state we have loved for 40 years.  Sandoval County is the only home we have ever known together.  As hard as this might be for you, this has been hell on earth for us for the past 3 years and it still is. 

My complaints are based on obvious observable facts, not opinion, not inference, not speculation.  I am but a single data point and I ask you to do everything possible under your authority to comprehend the full scope and breadth of the misdeeds and unjust enrichment within the assessor’s office.  We allege and document additional egregious illegal behaviors on the part of the Sandoval County Assessor within our district court appeal and are confident these will be publically proven and disclosed by the court at which time you will have to consider them as additional facts.  Please ensure that someone like me who is expected to follow the law will be able to observe the government hold itself to that same standard.

I would finally ask for your assistance by having the assessor’s illegal appeal against me dismissed along with the other dozen related, frivolous and harassing actions filed by Linda Gallegos – I look forward to seeing an appropriate filing on our case in the 13^th District Court to this effect, Case # D-1329-CV-2023-01382.

 

 

 

Details

Written by: ken

Category: Uncategorised

Published: 21 December 2023

Hits: 296

Madam Secretary and Mr Martinez:

 

Summary:

My wife and I are writing to you to ask for your attention to actions by the Sandoval County Assessor, Linda Gallegos, that are unconstitutional and ask that you take action under your supervisory rule as defined by NMSA §7-35-3 to correct the problems we have identified and ask that you do so prior to 2024’s valuation notice production.  The unconstitutional act we ask to be corrected is the implementation of a flat rate valuation scheme for land across Corrales, of either 2.87/square foot west of Loma Larga or 4.68/square foot east of Loma Larga. 

 

Background:

In December of 2022 a 1.05 acre plot of vacant land was sold 4 miles south of us for $295,000/acre and the Sandoval County Assessor valued that land a month later at $204,000/acre.  A parcel of land that sold 3 miles south of us in 2022 for $172,000/acre was also valued at $204,000/acre as were all four of our properties – valued at $204,000/acre – as was every square foot of dirt in the 6 square miles east of Loma Larga road that was subject to full valuation which also included all 2022 residential property sales.  This is not an isolated incident, it is a consistent, deliberate, systematic, discriminatory choice that has been in place for at least the three years we have been taxpayers in Corrales.  The result of this discriminatory valuation practice is the ‘gift’ in excess of 30% below actual market value to the wealthiest property owners within Corrales and an attempted outrageous 27% ‘penalty’ upon our property.

 

Unconstitutionality:

The Assessor’s choice of a flat rate tax in Corrales is in violation of Article VIII Section 1 A of our constitution that states “taxes levied upon tangible property shall be in proportion to the value thereof, and taxes shall be equal and uniform upon subjects of taxation of the same class”.  This valuation practice additionally establishes a violation of our equal rights protections under both the US and New Mexico Constitution, as well as the rights of many of my neighbors, who may not yet be aware of the specifics of this issue.

 

Our Personal Situation:

Our awareness of this practice was driven through gathering the facts for our 2023 valuations protest, our third protest in three years.  On August 8 we protested the improper valuation of our 4 adjacent lots in Corrales, which were valued identically (per square foot) to lots as far away as 5.5 miles.  An unlikely circumstance anywhere, but especially in Corrales which I’m sure you know is a very non-homogeneous environment.  We have established the website http://corraleslandrights.org where you and our neighbors are able to review for yourselves the data that proves the unconstitutional acts.  There are two documents you should review, our argument, a prima facie discussion of the specific violations of the law; and the evidence, based both on data provided by the Sandoval County Assessor as well as our own research into local sales.   Based on these two documents the Sandoval County Protests Board found in our favor for our three vacant lots, but then inconsistently ruled against us for the fourth lot with our home on it, resulting in one of our four adjacent lots being valued 27% higher than its obvious, direct comparables.

While we pursue justice for our fourth lot (D-1329-CV-2023-01382), being heard by Judge Allison Martinez in the 13^th District Court, the truth of the unconstitutional nature of land valuations and its impacts across the entirety of Corrales needs to be addressed and you are the only individual that has the authority to do so.  We ask you to initiate an action under NMSA §7-35-6(A) which provides a reasonable 60 day window for Sandoval County to respond to you, at which time we would ask for the courtesy of a reply based on the results of your efforts.

We are pursuing this effort on our own, with no lawyer.  As such we are tremendously disadvantaged against the three lawyers Sandoval County has assigned to defend Linda Gallegos’ actions.  The county committed perjury during our protest hearing in their attempt to hide the truth of their actions and the county lawyers have now chosen to pursue frivolous procedural shenanigans in an attempt to avoid a review on the merits.  We ask you to do the right thing under the constitution as well as state law - and we ask you to do this soon.

We provide below a summary from our protest, based on the data that was provided by the Sandoval County Assessor’s office (comp1,comp2,comp3 on the chart) as well as our own MLS data that was successfully used to challenge our 2023 valuations based on the proven truth of the unconstitutional flat rate method being applied in Corrales.

 

Details

Published: 13 October 2023

Hits: 350

Linda Gallegos, the Sandoval County Assessor is represented by three tax-payer funded lawyers, trying desperately to maintain the county's unjust unconstitutional enrichment scheme.  Perhaps they are afraid of whom else may decide to really dive into their taxes.  I've only looked at my community.  Sandoval County has executed an assault of frivolous legal actions upon us in order to attempt to avoid a review of our appeal on the merits.  They have complained about scandalous language, font size, line spacing, page numbering and missing signatures and follow this up with an illegal cross-appeal and delaying tactics - oh and they never served the record to us as required by law - nice guys - all paid for by MY OWN TAX DOLLARS.

Here are the legal filings so far.  Keep in mind that in a 'normal' appeal there should be very little back-and-forth....perhaps 6 events.  The specific documents are in the table after my coloured commentary of events

March 7 - Another hearing request filed.  This one was filed as a pretrial conference.  How can there be a pretrial conference with no 'trial' set?  Obviously another delay attempt by the county

December 18 - Our completion of briefing got filed today - it rolls up our initial motion to enforce the rules and disregard the hearing request and the county's response into a motion packet - motion packets are a requirement of LR13-118.

December 14 - The county responded with their opposition to our motion to enforce the rules - claiming there are no rules to violate!

December 5 - Our response to the request for hearing is that it is untimely and improper since it requests hearings on matters they themselves have already told the court require no hearing.  We consider this a significant enough violation of the rules that we requested the court to apply the sterner disciplinary rules available to the court.

December 1 - No suprise the county's lawyer filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss - this one came by us mail though, not email.  And he included a bonus move - a request for a hearing.  Unfortunately appeal rules don't permit them to submit a standalone request for hearing after my completion of briefing was filed - and LR13-122 that doesn't allow them to change their completions of briefings after the fact - all issues they want to talk about had already completed briefing and their request for hearing was required to be submitted at the time they completed briefing.

November 22 - Due to the professional county lawyer's failure to abide by the basic rule for serving documents we have asked that everything filed on November 17 be dismissed.  We have followed that back to the beginning and have asked to court to determine whether everything they've filed with us is improperly served and hence invalid.  We also pointed out their lack of candor in the text of their motions - this one is worth a read imo.

November 17 - was a very busy day.  It is 31 days after we filed our statement of the issues so we filed our completion of briefing, telling the court the appeal is ripe for review, without the response from the Assessor.  And BOOM!  The county filed three things.  First they filed their completion of briefings for the motion to strike our statement, as well as for more time and then they filed an objection to our completion of briefing.  Color:  Regarding our opposition to their request for more time, they used the 'not my fault' excuse - blaming the failure to produce the record on time on the state - LOL weak.  On the opposition to our completion of briefing, they basically said 'just because....' and provided no justification.  As to their response on our opposition to striking our statement, they said that 'we arent allowed to file electronically' and here's the money quote 'There is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally'.  FFS

November 10 - We have filed our opposition to both the motion for more time and the motion to strike our statement of the issues.  Both of these are simply frivolous wastes of time by our tax dollars.

October 26 - Another busy day for the county.  They requested more time, a total of about 75 days to respond to our statement of the issues - because they are travelling and are busy - FFS!  They also filed another meritless motion to strike, this time against our statement of the issues, claiming it was hard to read, did not follow a law that only applies to hard copy filings (we always file electronically), and expressed incoherently that our statement of the issues was scandalous.

October 19 - We filed our completion of briefing on the motion to dismiss the cross appeal

October 17 - We filed our statement of the issues, which set the clock running - they have 30 days (nov 16) to file their reply.  Also, they responded to our opposition to their writ - by requesting more time and a chance to fix the shortcomings we had pointed out to them

October 16 - 36 days after we filed, the lawyers had not produced the record to us.  And when we retrieved the record from the state, turns out they only included half of our evidence.  We pointed out both failings.  In response on October 17th they 'let us' set the clock to October 16th which is when the state sent an updated version of the record to the court.  Our main appeal, the statement of the issues had been ready for days, just waiting to link it to the record

October 11 - We pointed out how their petition for a writ of certiorari was logically incontinent and asked for it to be denied by the court.

October 4 - They were busy.  They provided meritless arguments as to why they should be allowed to cross appeal with a filing I describe as logically incontinent.  And just to be safe they also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which is a extraordinary request to the court on constitutional grounds to review a decision.  The actual petition was a joke, no detail whatsoever AND requested they be allowed to appeal - which they can't have because the text of the law is clear....more logical incontinence.

September 26 - The lawyer filed a claim to cross appeal. The text of the law allows only property owners to appeal so that led to our motion to dismiss on October 2

 

 

Date	Our Filing	Sandoval County Lawyer Filing
March 4		Pretrial Conference request
December 18	Completion of Briefing, Motion to Enforce
December 15		Opposition to Motion to Enforce
December 5	Motion to Enforce 1-074 and disregard hearing
December 1		Opposition to Dismiss and Hearing Request
November 27		Completion of Briefing, Motion to Strike Appeal
November 22	Motion to Dismiss all November 17 filings
November 17		Opposition to Completion of Briefing of Statement
		Completion of Briefing, motion for more time
		Completion of Briefing, motion to strike document
	Completion of Briefing, Statement of the Issues
November 10	Opposition to Appellee Motion to Strike Statement
November 9	Opposition to Appellee Motion for more time
October 26		Motion to strike October 17 Statement of the Issues
October 26		Motion for more time to file Response to October 17 Statement
October 19	Completion of Briefing:  Motion to Dismiss Cross Appeal
October 17		Completion of Briefing: Petition of Writ with motion to amend
October 17	Statement of the Issues
October 17		Response to October 16 Failure to Produce the Record
October 16	Failure to Produce the Record
October 11	Opposition to October 3 Petition for Writ
October 6	Response to October 4 Response wrt dismissing cross appeal
October 4		Response to October 2 Motion to Dismiss
October 3		Petition for Writ of Certiorari
October 2	Motion to Dismiss Cross Appeal for Lack of Standing
September 26		Motion to Strike Appeal
September 26		Notice of Cross Appeal
September 11	Notice of Appeal