County & State Non-Compliance Board — County Detail
● Currently marked — marked November 4, 2026. Investigative alert, not a finding and not a court conclusion.
A mark is an investigative alert — a place for the investigations team and auditors to look. It is not a finding and not a court conclusion. Citizens report. An unapproved report does not go up.
Each item below is shown in three tiers, kept distinct:
An audit finding at the end of each item measures it against its law code. "Non-compliant in part" means it does not meet the standard on the current record; "compliant in form" means it does; "cannot determine" means the record is incomplete. No audit finding draws a fault conclusion beyond what it states. Liability is an attorney question.
Audit tally (29 items): 4 non-compliant in part — A1 (Brady), A4 (outside investigation), A13 (nepotism), A20 (file requests). 2 compliant in form — A9 (protective orders), A11 (penalty lien). All others: cannot determine on the current record.
Verified: Two December 18, 2002 entries for Sheriff Dave Kain on the private Brady/Giglio registry, backed by a November 18, 2002 letter from Senior Assistant AG Jo Graves to then-DA Gregg Cohen: as a TAGMET agent, Kain (with Corning PD Officer David Pryatel) fabricated the basis for a stop — "irresponsible and unethical." The 2025–26 civil grand jury report states the DOJ referred the matter to the DA with a Brady referral for both men, and "the District Attorney did not make the Brady List referral concerning the Sheriff." Counter-record: DA Rogers wrote June 1, 2022 that Kain "was never listed," and County Counsel Long sent a May 17, 2022 cease-and-desist about publishing his name on a Brady list. The DA's office and the private registry do not agree on what "listed" means.
Josh's account: The DA's office covered up Kain's Brady listing from the public, and the matter is before a grand jury. (Grand-jury deliberations are sealed, so that part cannot be corroborated.)
Still to verify: Whether the DA disclosed the 2002 material to defense counsel in any case where Kain testified. Lead: People v. Prather (Tehama No. NCR79236).
Law: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150; Pen. Code § 1054.1(e).
Verified: The Board commissioned an outside law firm (begun October 1, 2024) to investigate dueling complaints between Sheriff Kain and Chief Administrator Gabriel Hydrick. Findings released October 28–29, 2026: 13 of 17 complaints against Kain sustained in full or in part, 9 policy violations including nepotism (his children in his chain of command). The full report was withheld as a personnel matter; only a six-page summary was released. Kain disputes every finding and calls for another independent investigation. The 2025–26 civil grand jury report (June 2026) separately found a toxic workplace and 26 related employees.
Josh's account: The pattern is the same record-control mechanism as the Brady matter — the agency controlling the record withholds the pattern evidence.
Still to verify: The law firm's name; the investigation cost (reported $250,000–$280,000 by one opinion columnist — lead only); the six-page summary; whether POST was notified; the Board's decision on the recommendations.
Law: Pen. Code §§ 13510.8–13510.9 (POST reporting — open question).
Verified: The 2025–26 civil grand jury found the Sheriff's Office employs 26 related individuals, including two from Sheriff Kain's immediate family, and recommended uniform nepotism policies. The outside investigation sustained nepotism violations for Kain's children in his chain of command. A county nepotism policy exists on paper (Tehama County Personnel Rules § 1308, current version August 18, 2026), stating it applies to all county employees including elected officials — whether it binds an elected sheriff is disputed.
Josh's account: Nepotism is practiced across the county offices, not only the Sheriff's Office. The DA's-office, courts, and Board portions are his account only; no public evidence for them was found.
Still to verify: The grand jury report text and the six-page summary in full; whether the county has adopted or enforced uniform nepotism policies; any specific instance in the DA's office, courts, or Board (none found).
Law: Tehama County Personnel Rules § 1308. Note: no California statute makes family hiring itself unlawful; Gov. Code §§ 12940 and 8314 do not prohibit nepotism as such.
Verified: No search warrant, affidavit, inventory, or suppression ruling in Josh's four Tehama cases is on file. Two documented property events: the May 2019 CHP 180 storage of his F-150 (see A27) and the stolen Harley (a theft report, not a seizure). A published opinion (Murchison v. County of Tehama, 69 Cal.App.5th 867 (2021)) shows judicial scrutiny of a TCSO warrantless operation — in a different person's case, not Josh's.
Josh's account: Searches and seizures were conducted against him based on false allegations; repeated sheriff/probation contacts, impounds, and arrests kept him from his property.
Still to verify: Any warrant, affidavit, or suppression motion/ruling in his cases; the factual basis for each search or seizure he describes.
Law: U.S. Const. amend. IV; Cal. Const. art. I, § 13; Pen. Code § 1538.5; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Verified: Two documented events. May 2019: CHP 180 file 19-00943, storage authority Veh. Code § 22651(o) (expired registration), Hill Towing Enterprise, 20795 Dalby Rd, Red Bluff; stored May 11, released May 14. August 8, 2019: J&L Towing report, $125 paid tow FROM the Dalby Ln yard TO ████████████, Gerber — a recovery tow to his address, not a taking. Josh wrote to Deputy Richard Knox May 20, 2019 ("Predatory towing") and sent a $9,000 demand letter to Steve Hill June 15, 2019 (his demand, not a verified loss; no reply on file).
Josh's account: The Sheriff's Department and Hill Enterprise together took the truck from a private driveway they claimed was an easement, which it was not. He states the August 8 tow was forced by the truck breaking while in Hill's custody, and the Corning Ford repair (August 26, 2019, $3,066.62 estimate) is the repair of that breakdown.
Still to verify: Any easement record; any TCSO tow log or Knox reply; whether the truck broke in Hill's custody; any Hill reply to the June 15 demand.
Law: Veh. Code §§ 22651(o), 22658; Pen. Code §§ 484, 487.
Verified: Matthew D. Rogers is the Tehama County DA (since 2019). No Brady list is published by his office. The private registry rates the Tehama DA "not in compliance" with Brady disclosure (the registry's own rating, not a government finding). A federal civil-rights case now tests claims against the Sheriff and the DA together (see A6).
Josh's account: The DA's office covered up Kain's Brady listing from the public, and the grand jury is debating the matter. He states there is no direct access to the DA below the Attorney General, and at the AG level there is "dead silence, no return."
Still to verify: Any written DA policy on Brady disclosure; whether any defendant raised a Brady claim based on the 2002 Kain material.
Law: Brady; Pen. Code § 1054.1(e); § 141(c).
Verified: Bline et al v. Rogers et al, No. 2:2025cv02318 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 14, 2025, Judge John A. Mendez. Plaintiff Yvette Fortier Bline sues DA Matthew D. Rogers, Sheriff Dave Kain, Jeff Patrick Garrett, Eric Clay, and Tehama County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Per Josh's files, Judge Mendez ruled April 7, 2026 that malicious-prosecution and fabrication-of-evidence claims can proceed.
Josh's account: The ruling is precedent for his pattern thesis — conspiracy claims against the Sheriff and DA proceeding in federal court.
Still to verify: The complaint's factual claims (unread); the exact text and scope of the April 7, 2026 ruling (pull from PACER/ECF); the roles of Garrett and Clay; current case status.
Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Verified: Gov. Code § 26500 gives the DA discretion to initiate prosecutions — it does not create a duty to prosecute a particular case for a particular person. Marsy's Law (Cal. Const. art. I, § 28(b)) gives victims rights to notice, to be heard, and to confer — not a right to compel prosecution. The Harley non-referral was by RPD (the police agency), not the DA — the DA cannot refer a case it never received.
Josh's account: The Tehama DA's office failed to protect him and failed to advocate for him as a victim/witness, in connection with the Brady cover-up and the Shasta non-referral pattern.
Still to verify: Any specific request by Josh to the Tehama DA as a victim/witness, and any response.
Law: Gov. Code § 26500; Marsy's Law.
Verified: No plea form, plea transcript, advisement form, or minute order for any plea is on file. No disclosure record is on file. No exculpatory item has been identified.
Josh's account: Prosecutors intentionally covered up his innocence to obtain a coerced guilty plea.
Still to verify: The plea forms/transcripts; the discovery record in each case; the identity of any exculpatory item.
Law: Brady; Giglio; Pen. Code § 1054.1; Rule of Prof. Conduct 3.8.
Verified: Five members: Rob Burroughs (District 1), Tom Walker (District 2, Chair), Steve Zane (District 3), Matt Hansen (District 4), Greg Jones (District 5, Vice Chair). October 27, 2026: the Board discussed progress on grand-jury recommendations (mediator identified; trainings underway on intimidation, communication, and nepotism; ombudsman and fraud-hotline options discussed). October 28, 2026: the Board received and released the investigation summary. The Board cannot remove an elected sheriff — removal runs through recall, a grand-jury accusation (Gov. Code §§ 3060–3075), or the voters. Related: former Supervisor Pati Nolen — grand-jury accusation (3 charges), not-guilty plea September 16, 2025, resigned October 2025 after a settlement (DA agreed not to file criminal charges; county paid her attorney's fees over $137,000; she agreed never to run for Supervisor again). Date sequence needs confirmation.
Josh's account: The Board is a subject of his two-county corruption investigation; he asked September 28, 2026 for a full public-records dossier on all five members.
Still to verify: Official minutes for October 27–28, 2026; the Board's formal response to the 2025–26 grand jury report and any vote on the investigation's recommendations; the six-page summary PDF; the Nolen plea/settlement date sequence.
Law: Gov. Code §§ 3060–3075; § 53069.4.
Verified: Penalty-lien hearing April 21, 2026; owner ██████████████████, █████████████, Gerber (███████████████, District 5); officers Clint Weston and Ron Robbins; $100/day × 30 days (June 20–July 19, 2025) = $3,000; invoice IN0013260 dated 7/29/2025; hearing notice dated 3/24/2026; BOS File 26-0548; Resolution 2026-046, adopted 5–0. NOT a tax lien. The lien was NOT placed by Eric Patterson (nuisance case opened ~June 2025, after Patterson's July 2024 retirement). No later Board action on the property was found.
Josh's account: Squatters have occupied the property since he was jailed/imprisoned; he came home to a ransacked house. Officials knew he was absent and squatters were there and did nothing. CE-25-75 penalized him for conditions created in his absence by squatters he could not remove.
Still to verify: Occupant identities; whether the October 21, 2026 notice-to-vacate was served; a deed copy; condition photos; the court filing for removal (no case number on file).
Law: Tehama County Code Ch. 10.16; Gov. Code § 53069.4; Pen. Code § 602; Code Civ. Proc. § 1161 et seq.
Verified: Four Tehama County criminal cases, verified from photographed court records, with a 2022 appeal (C095430): 19CR000316, 19CR002530, 21CR000691, 21CR001901. CE-25-75 lien verified (see A11).
Josh's account: He has 20 cases overall across a 23-year timeline; the charges were based on false reports to build a record and gain custody.
Still to verify: The older arrest-record entries (2006–2012) in the timeline file are asserted, not independently verified — the underlying PDF/inmate listing was not retrieved. Whether the October 7, 2026 clerk records request was sent, and what came back.
Law: Case numbers as listed; appeal C095430.
Verified: Four orders on the Shasta record (Odyssey pull, October 3, 2026): Jenna's 2019 DVRO (CVDV19-0192987, granted); Hill v. █████ (24CH-0206447, filed 11/14/2024, restraining order denied after trial, dismissed without prejudice 12/19/2024); Keys v. █████ (25CH-0209249, filed 11/20/2025, dismissed after court trial 1/5/2026, Judge McKee); Jenna's 2025 DVRO (25DV-0209339, granted after trial 1/14/2026, Judge Gibson; order 2/25/2026, CLETS). The CH-130 (Case No. 209174) protects █████████████, ███████████████, ██████████████, and Josh from Travis Keys (expires midnight December 11, 2028) — Josh is a protected person there, not the restrained person.
Josh's account: The orders against him were false — the petitions rested on false statements; the four attempts form a coordinated pattern.
Still to verify: The petitions and declarations behind each order; any court finding on the truth or falsity of any petition's statements; the relationship of case 209839 to 25DV-0209339.
Law: Fam. Code § 6200 et seq.; Pen. Code § 118.
Verified: Tehama County has no broad public portal for civil and criminal case searches — access is by the court's online calendar (hearing dates only), a payment search (payable criminal/traffic cases only), Odyssey eFileCA (filing only), or the clerk at 1740 Walnut St, Red Bluff. The statutory fee schedule: copies $0.50/page, $15/search over 10 minutes, $40 certification. No receipt, invoice, or fee quote for Josh's own requests is on file.
Josh's account: The court is non-compliant in two ways — no open portal, and it charges too much for records.
Still to verify: Any fee quote, receipt, or invoice showing what Tehama actually charged; whether Josh sought a fee waiver; whether a public-access kiosk exists at the courthouse.
Law: Rules of Court, rule 2.500 et seq.; Gov. Code §§ 70626–70628. Note: the law requires records to be open for inspection at the clerk's office; it does not require a court to run an online portal. The portal gap is an access gap, not a statutory violation. The CPRA generally does not govern court case records.
Verified: The four Tehama criminal cases went through the courts and a 2022 appeal (C095430) — an appeal is itself a due-process mechanism that was used. Protective-order matters each had hearings/trials. CE-25-75: notice dated March 24, 2026; hearing held April 21, 2026; resolution adopted 5–0. No court file, minute order, or transcript on file shows a hearing denied, a notice not given, or an opportunity to be heard refused.
Josh's account: He was prevented from receiving due process in his Tehama cases.
Still to verify: Whether Josh received the CE-25-75 notice or could attend while incarcerated; the hearing records/minute orders in the four criminal cases and the appeal; Brief Links #9 applied step-by-step to each case.
Law: U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; Cal. Const. art. I, § 7; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Verified: Henry William Lane, 42, of Red Bluff, was shot and killed by RBPD Cpl. Stephen Harper just after midnight April 14, 2019, on Antelope Blvd. The Tehama County DA found the shooting legally justified (reported October 2020). Body-worn camera exists. RBPD official video on YouTube. Justice Wall Case 001.
Josh's account: Lane was harassed by police in the weeks before the shooting. The family's video caption supports a prior use-of-force encounter three weeks before, but the specific incidents, dates, officers, and witnesses are not on file.
Still to verify: The harassment claim — dates, incidents, witnesses, complaints filed. A CPRA draft exists (unsent) requesting RBPD dispatch logs February 1–April 14, 2019 (RBPD case 19-1240).
Law: U.S. Const. amend. IV; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386; Pen. Code § 196.
Verified: Ken Miller is a criminal defense attorney in Red Bluff (former CHP officer ~20 years; ran for DA in 2010, lost to Gregg Cohen). A client-file demand was sent October 1, 2026 (bounced once, resent); no reply and no files as of October 18, 2026; the 15-day clock expired October 17 silent.
Josh's account: Miller talked him into a guilty plea on a drug-possession charge for drugs he says he did not possess; he refused four times; Miller promised a felony reduction that never came — "100 percent coercion of a client." The plea created the prohibited-person status behind the later felon-in-possession cases (21CR000691, 21CR001901).
Still to verify: The court file/minute order naming Miller as counsel, and the plea itself (case number, date, charge, terms); whether the plea was the predicate for the felon-in-possession charges (read appeal C095430).
Law: Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668; Pen. Code §§ 1018, 1473.
Verified: The Tehama matters went through a 2022 appeal; the public record then shows Shasta civil actions against Josh (2024–2026). The stolen-Harley report (RPD25-013423-1, November 17, 2025) was never forwarded to the Shasta DA — confirmed in writing October 12, 2026.
Josh's account: After his release from prison, the effort against him continued in Shasta County as a favor for the Tehama collaboration — the Shasta actions were a continuation of the Tehama effort, arranged between the counties.
Still to verify: Josh's prison release date; any document, communication, or witness linking Tehama actors to the Shasta filings.
Law: No standalone "cross-county favor" statute; the claim stands or falls on the specific acts (see A9, A14).
Verified: Odeh Emad Hijazeen, Law Office of Odeh E. Hijazeen, 334 Washington St, Red Bluff; licensed in California since 2012; listed among Tehama County public defenders. A client-file demand was sent October 1, 2026; he replied the same day (asked for a case number; office policy: in-person pickup with ID, no emailing of material). Josh's October 9 follow-up with the case numbers went unanswered; the deadline passed October 16 silent.
Josh's account: Hijazeen was also coerced into allowing him to take yet another guilty plea; there was a failure of discovery — Brady-listed officers not listed.
Still to verify: Which case(s) Hijazeen handled and which plea, if any; whether his file was produced (in-person pickup route open); what discovery was or was not provided.
Law: Brady and Pen. Code § 1054.1 bind the prosecution, not defense counsel. A defense-side discovery failure maps to ineffective assistance (Strickland) and the plea-remedy statutes (§§ 1018, 1473), not to Brady.
Verified: The public-record facts in this thread are the ones in A1–A14. No additional freestanding public record establishes the offices as a single coordinated operation.
Josh's account: The Sheriff's, DA's, and related offices functioned together as a known and harmful operation, criminally and financially.
Still to verify: Any document, communication, or witness showing coordination between offices as a single operation; any financial record showing money moved as described; specific predicate acts (dates, actors, acts).
Law: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1962; Pen. Code § 182; Gov. Code §§ 8314, 1090. Note: § 1090 does not fit without an identified contract and financial interest; § 8314 needs a specific misuse.
This thread adds no new facts. It maps each civil-rights claim in the dossier to its law code and says where a code does not fit — including that there is no general constitutional right to police protection (DeShaney v. Winnebago County), no Eighth Amendment claim by Josh is documented here, and reputation alone is not a liberty interest (Paul v. Davis — "stigma-plus" required). The underlying facts and tiers are in the threads cited. Audit findings are those of the threads it cites.
Verified: A 19-minute-28-second voice-call recording dated March 29, 2026 is on file and transcribed. The CH-130 (Case No. 209174) protects █████████████, ███████████████, ██████████████, and Josh from Travis Keys (expires midnight December 11, 2028). Threat screenshots attributed to Ally Marie (February 2026) were viewed but could not be filed; the attribution is Josh's.
Josh's account: He has been harassed and stalked online and in day-to-day life — repeated sheriff/probation contacts, impounds, three arrests that kept him from his property.
Still to verify: A dated incident list (dates, officers, witnesses, reports filed); the Ally Marie screenshots (obtain and file, or record that they cannot be obtained); any police response record for March 29, 2026.
Law: Pen. Code §§ 646.9, 653.2, 422.
Verified: No agency post matching Josh's description was found in the public sources searched (Sheriff's press-release page, Sheriff's Facebook, web results). The closest public items are ordinary arrest/case reporting.
Josh's account: Law enforcement or probation misused social media to broadcast that his home was vacated by his arrest and firearms were found — and those posts were fraudulent.
Still to verify: The post(s) themselves — platform, account, date, exact text, screenshot or archive; which office posted them; whether the statements were false.
Law: Civ. Code §§ 44–46; New York Times v. Sullivan (actual malice); Civ. Code § 47 (privilege). Note: reputation alone is not a liberty interest (Paul v. Davis).
Verified: Four attorneys were contacted October 1, 2026 with client-file requests (15-day deadline October 16, 2026). Two requests went entirely unanswered past their deadlines (Ken Miller; Diane Martin / Logan and Logan). One was answered without files (Odeh Hijazeen — replied October 1, asked for a case number; in-person pickup policy; follow-up unanswered). Second-round drafts were prepared October 29, 2026 (drafts only, not sent).
Josh's account: In numerous cases, several people have all failed to send him copies of his records.
Still to verify: Whether the October 29 second-round drafts were ever sent; whether any attorney produced a file after October 18, 2026.
Law: Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(d), (e)(1). Note: whether non-production amounts to a violation is a State Bar question, not a finding here.
Verified: The four Tehama criminal cases (2019–2021) and the 2022 appeal show prosecutions that resulted in judgments; the sentences themselves are not on file. Josh states he served a prison term and was paroled as a certified wildland firefighter after completing the fire camp program. No booking record, confinement order, or release record for any imprisonment is on file.
Josh's account: He was intentionally imprisoned, which amounts to false imprisonment.
Still to verify: Booking records, charging documents, judgments/sentences, and release records for each imprisonment.
Law: Pen. Code § 236; Civ. Code § 43; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Note: a lawful arrest and detention on a valid charge is not false imprisonment.
Verified: Counsel Josh received is documented (Miller, Hijazeen, Martin/Logan, McIver). No period without counsel is shown. No document, communication, or witness on file shows an agreement between the Sheriff's Office, the DA's office, the courts, or any other office to deprive Josh of rights or counsel. What the record shows is sequential counsel and parallel adverse outcomes, not an agreement.
Josh's account: There was a conspiracy to prevent him, a U.S. citizen, from his rights and from proper counsel.
Still to verify: Appellate counsel for C095430; the full counsel history; any document showing coordination or agreement.
Law: 18 U.S.C. § 241; Pen. Code § 182; U.S. Const. amend. VI.
Verified: Documented uses of government resources are ordinary operations (the CE-25-75 process, the Board-commissioned investigation, the civil grand jury, the prosecutions). No specific government property, amount, or act of conversion is documented; no recipient is identified.
Josh's account: Government property (resources, offices, authority) was converted for the purpose of illegally depriving him of his rights.
Still to verify: Any specific property or resource allegedly converted (what, how much, by whom, to whom); any financial record showing diversion.
Law: 18 U.S.C. § 641 (does not fit — federal property only); Gov. Code § 8314 (fits only if a specific misuse is identified).
Verified: Losses documented on the loss side — the $3,000 CE-25-75 lien (A11); the $3,000 stolen Harley, unrecovered (RPD25-013423-1); the 2019 tows (amounts claimed, not receipted); the Corning Ford August 26, 2019 invoice ($100 inspection paid; $3,066.62 repair estimate — an estimate, not a paid bill, and it attributes the damage to no tow company).
Josh's account: He is indigent — living on $280/month in county assistance; no vehicle and no work capability since the stolen Harley; recurring false fees; he was intentionally deprived of financial gains and made destitute.
Still to verify: A county-assistance letter confirming the $280/month figure; an itemized list of the "recurring false fees"; any document showing an official obtaining money/property or a scheme to defraud; employment details (dates, role, how long the job was held).
Law: 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1951, 1341/1343; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Note: § 872 does not fit (federal officers only); §§ 1951, 1341/1343 need an obtaining or a scheme that is not on file.
Verified: No civil rights complaint filed by Josh, denied by an agency, with a verification or confirmation number, was found after searching workspace files, Drive, and all 8 Gmail accounts (November 6, 2026).
Josh's account: His civil rights complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Justice and denied shortly afterward — filed digitally through the DOJ Civil Rights Division portal (civilrights.justice.gov).
Still to verify: The filing date, the verification/confirmation number, and the denial notice. Josh states the number is in his Drive files or phone files, he has it, and it is not mandatory for the dossier.
Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 18 U.S.C. § 242. Note: an agency's decision to decline a complaint is not itself a violation — agencies have discretion over which complaints to investigate.
Criteria: Failure to investigate a citizen complaint; failure to produce records after a CPRA request.
Verified: On March 31, 2009, Melissa Lynn Jones — then a Tehama County Mental Health nurse and counselor at the Juvenile Justice Center — pointed a .45-caliber handgun at freelance reporter Barry Clausen during an interview about alleged misconduct at the facility. She was arrested that day. (Chico News & Review, Nov 19, 2009; Red Bluff Daily News, May 27, 2010.) Jones was convicted in April 2010 of issuing terrorist threats with a firearm and sentenced May 24, 2010 to 90 days in Tehama County Jail. (Red Bluff Daily News, May 27, 2010.) The Chico News & Review published a cover investigation ("Sex, drugs and guns," Meredith J. Cooper, Oct 8, 2009) reporting allegations of inappropriate conduct between adult staff and underage wards at the facility. The Tehama County Sheriff's Department then opened an investigation of the Juvenile Justice Center. (CN&R, Nov 12, 2009.) The District Attorney's office investigated for about a year (March 2009–March 2010) and closed it with no charges against any Juvenile Justice Center employee. DA Gregg Cohen said Department of Justice lab/test results returned March 2, 2010 "did not substantiate" the allegations. (Red Bluff Daily News, Mar 10, 2010.) Probation Officer Alicia Allen, Counselor Melissa Lynn Jones, and Chief Probation Officer Dan Emry all resigned in 2009. Emry was never investigated for criminal wrongdoing. (Red Bluff Daily News, Mar 10, 2010.) The contents of the DOJ report were never made public. The Daily News's own editorial (Mar 15, 2010) said the DA's and Sheriff's conclusions were "specious unless buttressed with facts."
Still to verify / not established: Whether the underlying abuse allegations were true. They were never proven in court and never disproven in public; the DOJ report has never been released. Whether there was a cover-up. That is Clausen's stated belief, not an official finding. The text of the 2008–09 Grand Jury report on its September 24, 2008 visit to the Juvenile Hall. The court file for the Jones case. The full text of the CN&R's October 8, 2009 article.
Board note: The one conviction in this matter is Jones's, for terrorist threats with a firearm — a matter of court record, not an abuse finding. No minor victim is named. The board-relevant finding is the transparency gap: a year-long investigation into alleged abuse of wards, closed with no charges and no public report.
This page is the public detail file for Tehama County's mark on the Non-Compliance Board. It is built from the Tehama County dossier (draft, compiled November 5–6, 2026), which is a report and an audit — not a filing. Nothing here has been filed with or sent to any agency. No person named here has been found liable for anything. The mark means: investigate here.
Most items return "cannot determine" because the underlying records — plea transcripts, disclosure logs, warrants, the Bline order text, attorney files, the full investigation report — are not on file. The items with documented substance are A1, A4, A13, and A20 (non-compliant in part) and A9 and A11 (compliant in form).
To report a county, or to check a county, use the Non-Compliance Board. Reporting is members-only. Send copies, never originals.
← Back to the County & State Non-Compliance Board
The United Citizens of America — thecitizenmovement.com — County detail compiled November 6, 2026 from the Tehama County dossier (draft). Updated November 6, 2026 — Juvenile Hall historical item added.