UPDATED: April 21, 2002

EXHIBIT #4
Note - this was filed with our First Amended Cross Complaint for Indemnification, dated 9/8/2000.

This tape recording was at a session of the Board of Supervisors, taken 12/7/99, some 13 days prior to our "Emergency" hearing.

Originally transcribed by Bill Phillips, Esq., Geoffrey and Barbara Gould

Voice # 1:

I'm going to raise this as an off agenda item if I may, (Shoemaker?) It has to do with the turkey parrot issue and I have talked to people about this and I have talked to Irv Grant about this we are trying to figure out how we can get an appeal or hearing before the board we spent some time talking about this two weeks ago trying to figure out where we could get this in to this meeting or the 13th or the 14th none of those dates were good for the turkey people who were appealing the cease and desist order…

Voice # 2:

The turkey or the parrot people

Voice #1:

Talking to Mr. Klein I was of the feeling that he supported if we went ahead with the hearing and simply specified the date and their attorneys could not make it we would be leaving ourselves open and vulnerable to challenges and so forth. One of the problems in trying to get this on fast track is that according to Mr. Stornetta and his attorneys that his tenant needs a decision by 12/31/(99) or they are out of there. Now Mr. Klein appropriately said that is between them. We have to be careful about due process. The other side of this that I have come to think of since then is that they have a cease and desist order they have been told that what they are doing is illegal and they now say they cannot be available until the end of January. And it is my feeling on this that if this results in irreparable damage to the county, if we lose 10 jobs down there, then we find ourselves in a situation that we don't like, or if there are issues that come up later it may end up being completely moot. If the turkey people are out of there. Uh, we may get the parrots out of there or we may not get the parrots out of there. I know it's a long shot but what I am proposing is that we hold a special meeting of the BOS and the first date I can see is the 20th and we request that the turkey people be there and the parrot people be there and proceed on the grounds that this is something we are prepared to deal with so that we have a decision by the 31 so we cannot be accused of allowing one party to delay the situation by a period of 6-8 weeks uh I throw that out there off agenda item so we can see how to proceed I know already that Richard cannot be there I don't know about the rest of you - Tom's smiling so Toms says its an effort, and Kristy is not going to be there.

Voice # 3

Is this appropriate as a schedule issue as an off agenda item

Voice #4

Yes……..
Motion by Colfax second by Lucier. Vote please.
Vote is unanimous
Now we can talk about it…

It has been expressed by both parties that is the level we find ourselves in the parrot people say they cannot be here before the 24th that is the date they threw out, my point being here it will become essentially moot and if in fact if the turkeys are out of there, and the jobs are gone, then we say its too bad we did not make that decision back in December in this case we should be addressing it…………I know Peter and Irv and Mike and I and some others will try to deal with this but the uh..it's not going to be its almost…..not worth doing come January unless we want to talk about whether turkeys or exotic birds are agricultural products at that point Chuck brought it out as kind of a desperate effort here to try and resolve this in a timely fashion.

My question is, a decision has been made and this is an appeal process so in an appeal process the burden is on the appellant, is that not correct…

Correct….

So unless they come up with something overwhelming, I still am all in favor of the turkey people. So what I am getting as it I mean they've got a decision already I thought. (right - yeah - uh)

So why is it they are looking at this, what else do they need?

They need the fact that no body can appeal this or what?

Counsel?

Then I would like to ask David, David we had this discussion a while ago and you've had a discussion with Irv Grant -yeah- and Tim Morrison.,

(David) ways no I haven't talked to Tim Morrison.

And maybe I am not up to date now it was my understand that County Counsel and the attorney for the Stornettas are willing to go into court and enforce the restraining order and that this was going to be acceptable to Mr. Stornetta in terms of the and to the turkey people in terms of extending the lease beyond the drop dead date. Because it was definite protection in place. I don't know what happened since then I knew that you were informed of that….

Yes (Colfax) if I may, Irv said that was what recommended, Mr. Vogel was here, I mentioned to him and he said because of his connections with some of this Mr. Vogel said this was not something they were looking at either. Those two matters…..he was just conveying information because he was here.

And that's the only reason I mentioned it, and Irv said it was his interpretation that it might not be all that unusual, but we did talk about it and I agree completely with the fact here that the parrot people (laughter) have agreed to send it to the board and to fast track it we are fast tracking it in the sense that this otherwise would not be heard until February the point here is that also that the uh people who filed the appeal, who are now saying we cant make it in December and cant make it in January and because they cannot make it by accommodating them we are perhaps assisting in the demise of a particular industry.

(Campbell) … and what is to say that they are not dragging their feet and…..

That's the concern…That's not right…so that's why I bring it up because I feel that the threat of litigation or whatever may result form this uh is uh less of a risk than losing jobs or finding ourselves in a situation down there where we pay an advantage to one party who may or may not be dragging their feet…..

Ok, Shoemaker….Delbar or Campbell, take your pick.

Campbell…..I'll make a commitment for the 20th, I really hate the 20th as you can imagine but I'll tell you if you had something the afternoon of the 17th, uh that would be my first choice, and then uh whatever happens on Monday the 20, if that works better for others um, as long as I'm a driving over here it doesn't mater when it is. That would be my only drive over. So I think the question is then do a proper noticing …..discussion of dates ensues….blah blah blah…so the immediate deadlines have already passed…something about 10 business days…do we have the vote for it. The 20th is the earliest possible on the calendar,…first priority being the 17th.

I would vote to direct staff to do all that is possible to notice a special meeting of the board for Dec. 20, preferable in the morning. No further discussion please vote…motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Ok I think that clears the agenda…discuss the meeting on the 20th, I'll take it back to.

ANDERSON VALLEY ADVERTISER
February 20, 2002

A READER WRITES:

THE PARROT PEOPLE will be in court again on March 8th, as the county tries for the fourth time to dismiss the Gould's counter suit. This will be the tenth appearance in Ukiah for them, as the county keeps trying to shelter the supervisors and other persons from court proceedings.

The hearing this time will also center on a motion by the Goulds to dismiss the county's case against them. Apparently, after the board of supervisors voted to throw the Goulds off their own farm, for the crime of raising various endangered tropical birds , the supervisors FAILED to comply with the laws which require them to serve a formal written decision on the Goulds, and other interested parties. By law, the supervisors were required to state the reasons for their decision and adopt findings specifying the facts they relied upon in deciding the appeal. Notice of the written decision, together with a copy of the findings , should have been mailed within ten 10 days following the date of the oral decision. This is required not only in the Mendocino Codes, but also by the California Codes and Constitution. The Goulds would have had 90 days to appeal the supes decision to the courts. Ignoring the law, in its rush to judgment, the county, FAILED to even wait 90 days. They rammed the case into court just 84 days after the hearing.

The Goulds motion centers on the county not following its own legal procedure, favoring one party over another, voting to advance the board hearing so that the Gould’s witness could not be there, and denying the Goulds their rights to a judicial review of the supervisors decision.

For more information, visit the Gould’s website at www.parrotpro.com the link is “Banish Our Parrots”. The Goulds are setting up a legal defense fund, information about which will be on the website. The county has free unlimited money to fight people like the Goulds (by using our tax dollars); the Goulds must use their own money to fight the county.