Ten Returned Penalty Mailings

Case 23-009185 | Card 17 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City's activity log records ten returned administrative-penalty or monitoring-fee mailings between 02/01/2024 [M004] and 11/05/2025 [M010]. The densest cluster is 06/19/2025: four "LETTER RETURNED" entries [M008], all certified penalty mail, all dispositioned "RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD" [M008]. Two name "JACKIE BARITELL TRUST" [M008]; two name "JACQUELINE M. BARTITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL" [M008]. The returns fall on six dates - 02/01/2024 [M004], 03/07/2025 [M007], 06/19/2025 [M008], 08/07/2025 [M009], 09/26/2025 [M009], and 11/05/2025 [M010] - and the mailings carried the penalties and fees that continued to accrue while the penalty-instrument cycle [Card 15] and the rate doubling [Card 14] continued.

The City's own case record names the responsible party twice, both times spelled correctly: the owner, "JACKIE BARITELL TRUST" [M001], and the billing contact, "JACQUELINE M. BARITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL" [M001]. The name "BARTITELL" appears in the 631-page case file [R.26-1965.2] three times, and all three are the inspector's own returned-mail entries: 02/01/2024 [M004] and twice on 06/19/2025 [M008]. All ten returned-mail entries are his. No returned envelope is in the file: the log records "Uploaded copy to the documents tab" [M027] thirty-four times [R.26-1965.2] - for signed green cards, hearing-packet receipts, and documents received - and never for a returned mail piece. The City's rule for serving a penalty order, SCC.1.28.010(D)(2)(c), provides for service "either by personal delivery or by certified mail, return receipt requested" and, in lieu of those, "by posting the property with the administrative penalty order and mailing a copy of the order to the responsible party in violation". The log's posting entries say, on eleven dates from 09/11/2024 [M006] to 03/04/2026 [M011], "The Declaration of Posting is in the case file. Photos taken." [M008] Each order packet in the 631-page file [R.26-1965.2] also carries a printed "PROOF OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL" [R.26-1965.2] and "PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL" [R.26-1965.2] - 214 such pages, the 01/19/2024 pair at pp. 237-238 - each naming the addressee as "JACQUELINE M. BARITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL" [R.26-1965.2] and each printing an execution date above an empty signature line. The same file carries a "DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE" [M151] form on forty-nine pages [R.26-1965.2]. Forty-eight read "On__________________________ I posted a copy of:" [M151] and "Executed in Sacramento, California on _________________________________." [M151] under the words "I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." [M151]; the forty-ninth, p. 133, the 04/12/2023 Notice and Order posting, prints an execution date but leaves the posting-date line and the signature line empty. Not one of the forty-nine is signed. The log says the sworn Declaration of Posting is in the case file; the file holds forty-nine of them, unsigned; its 214 proofs of service print a date and no signature; the returned envelopes are not in the file; and three of the returned orders were logged to a party the City's record contains only in those three entries. Where in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] is a signed proof of service, or a signed Declaration of Posting, for any of the ten returned orders?

IN PLAIN TERMS

Between February 2024 and November 2025, ten of the City's penalty and fee letters came back undelivered while the fines kept accruing. The City's rule lets it serve a penalty order by certified mail with a return receipt, or by posting the property and mailing a copy. The produced file holds the paperwork for both, and none of it is signed: 214 proof-of-service pages with a printed date over an empty signature line, and forty-nine Declaration of Posting forms, forty-eight undated, all unsigned. Three of the returned orders were logged to "BARTITELL" [M008], a name found nowhere else in the City's record, and the envelopes were not kept. The question for the City: where in the file it produced under Request 26-1965 is a signed proof of service, or a signed Declaration of Posting, for any of the ten returned orders?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The City's record spells the responsible party correctly, twice. The case summary lists the owner as "JACKIE BARITELL TRUST" [M001] and the billing contact as "JACQUELINE M. BARITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL" [M001]. The activity log carries correct BARITELL or JACKIE BARITELL addressing before and after the misnamed entries, on page 4 [M004], page 5 [M005], page 7 [M007], and page 8 [M008].
  2. The activity log records each return in a dated "LETTER RETURNED" entry. The ten entries fall on 02/01/2024 [M004], 03/07/2025 [M007], 06/19/2025 (four entries) [M008], 08/07/2025 (two entries) [M009] and 09/26/2025 [M009], and 11/05/2025 [M010]; each is an administrative-penalty or monitoring-fee mailing dispositioned "RETURN TO SENDER" by the log, and each entry is authored by the inspector.
  3. Three of the ten entries name a party that does not exist in the record. The entries read "JACQUELINE M. BARTITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL" [M008] on 02/01/2024 [M004] and 06/19/2025 [M008]. The 631-page file [R.26-1965.2] contains "BARTITELL" nowhere else - not on an order, an invoice, a packet, or a contact record. The 02/01/2024 first-class piece is dispositioned "RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERED AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD" [M004]; the two 06/19/2025 certified pieces are dispositioned "RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD" [M008].
  4. The envelopes were not kept. The log records "Uploaded copy to the documents tab" [M027] thirty-four times [R.26-1965.2], for signed green cards, hearing-packet receipts, and documents received from the owner's side. It records no upload of any returned mail piece. Each order packet in the file does carry a printed "PROOF OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL" [R.26-1965.2] and "PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL" [R.26-1965.2] - 214 pages, dated from the 04/12/2023 pair at pp. 131-132 onward; the 01/19/2024 pair is at pp. 237-238 - each naming the addressee as "JACQUELINE M. BARITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL" [R.26-1965.2] and each ending "this declaration was executed at Sacramento, California, on" [R.26-1965.2] a printed date, above an empty signature line. So the record of the addressee on the three misnamed pieces is two City documents that disagree - the inspector's typed log entry and an unsigned proof of service - and no returned envelope in the file settles which is right.
  5. The posting the City relies on is sworn to on blank forms. SCC.1.28.010(D)(2)(c) allows substituted service "by posting the property with the administrative penalty order and mailing a copy of the order to the responsible party in violation". The log's posting entries on eleven dates - 09/11/2024 [M006], 10/14/2024 [M006], 01/31/2025 [M007], 04/23/2025 [M008], 05/19/2025 [M008], 06/24/2025 [M008], 07/24/2025 [M009], 09/02/2025 [M009], 10/17/2025 [M010], 11/24/2025 [M010], and 03/04/2026 [M011] - each end "The Declaration of Posting is in the case file. Photos taken." [M008] The produced file carries the "DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE" [M151] form on forty-nine pages [R.26-1965.2]; the administrative-penalty form [M151] is pre-printed "I, Paul Lovato," [M151] and the monitoring-fee form [M138] is pre-printed "I,________________________________," [M138]; on forty-eight of the forty-nine the posting date reads "On__________________________ I posted a copy of:" [M151], the location reads "on the _______________________ of the property located at:" [M151], and the execution line reads "Executed in Sacramento, California on _________________________________." [M151] The forty-ninth, p. 133 (the 04/12/2023 Notice and Order posting), prints "this declaration was executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/12/2023" [R.26-1965.2] but leaves the posting-date line and the signature line blank. Not one of the forty-nine is signed. Where a monitoring-fee order is printed beneath the form, as on M151, that order carries the inspector's signature and the declaration above it does not; where a Notice of Hearing is printed beneath it, as on M138, nothing on the page is signed.
  6. The file's own index lists executed declarations it does not reproduce. The documents index on pp. 13-21 of the produced file [R.26-1965.2] lists forty-four entries titled Declaration of Posting, dated by upload from 04/22/2023 to 07/28/2025, each "Document added through batch scanning process" [R.26-1965.2], and forty-three posting photographs, thirty-three of them captioned "Post Notice" [R.26-1965.2]. None of those scans or photographs appears among the 631 pages the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1]; the only Declaration of Posting pages in it are the forty-nine unsigned forms.
  7. Penalties continued to accrue across the same period. The undelivered mailings carried the administrative penalties and monitoring fees that the City continued to assess in successive cycles, logged on page 4 [M004], page 7 [M007], page 8 [M008], page 9 [M009], and page 10 [M010]. The same rule provides that "Service by certified mail in the manner herein provided shall be effective on the date of mailing." The file the City produced for this case and closed as complete [R.26-1965.1] holds no remail, address correction, or re-service entry for any of the ten returns.
  8. The log entries verbatim. The paragraphs below reproduce the City's activity-log text as produced:

The four 06/19/2025 returned-mail entries [M008]: "CERTIFIED ADMPEN JACKIE BARITELL TRUST 4880 T ST SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 *RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M008]; "CERTIFIED HDBMONFEE JACKIE BARITELL TRUST 4880 T ST SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 *RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M008]; "CERTIFIED HDBMONFEE JACQUELINE M. BARTITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL 4880 T ST SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 *RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M008]; "CERTIFIED ADMPEN JACQUELINE M. BARTITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL 4880 T ST SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 *RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M008]

The 02/01/2024 LETTER RETURNED entry [M004] - the misnamed form on first-class mail, sixteen months before the June cluster: "FIRST CLASS MAIL HDBMONFEE JACQUELINE M. BARTITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL 4880 T ST SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERED AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD" [M004]

The 03/07/2025 LETTER RETURNED entry [M007], one entry for a mailing sent both ways: "CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS ADMIN PENALTY AND MONITORING FEE JACKIE BARITELL TRUST 4880 T ST SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 *RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M007]

The 08/07/2025 (two entries) [M009], 09/26/2025 [M009], and 11/05/2025 [M010] LETTER RETURNED entries: "CERTIFIED MAIL HSG ADMPEN JACKIE BARITELL TRUST … *RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M009]; "CERTIFIED MAIL HSG HDB MONFEE JACKIE BARITELL TRUST … *RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M009]; "CERTIFIED ADMPEN JACKIE BARITELL TRUST … *RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M009]; "CERTIFIED HDBMONFEE JACKIE BARITELL TRUST 4880 T ST SACRAMENTO CA 95819 *RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD*" [M010]

The record also shows formal notice was received on other cycles: "GREEN CARD RECEIVED" delivery confirmations for penalty/monitoring-fee mail on 02/15/2024 [M004], 03/20/2024 [M004] (×2), and 07/09/2024 [M005], and at least one later signed certified green card for the 07/16/2025 hearing packet, logged as received 06/11/2025 with a signature (a first name) dated 06/05/2025 [M033]. Notice on this case was intermittent, not absent. Those confirmations sit on other cycles; for the ten returned mailings, the file the City closed as complete [R.26-1965.1] carries no page resolving the return.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's strongest answer is that service was complete when the envelopes were mailed and, in any event, that it posted. Its own rule says both: "Service by certified mail in the manner herein provided shall be effective on the date of mailing.", and substituted service may be made "by posting the property with the administrative penalty order and mailing a copy of the order to the responsible party in violation". The log shows postings, in entries such as 06/24/2025 [M008]: "I posted property with a $1,000.00 Administrative Penalty and Monitoring Fee. The Declaration of Posting is in the case file. Photos taken." [M008] The City can add two more pages: every order packet carries a "PROOF OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL" [R.26-1965.2] naming "JACQUELINE M. BARITELL TRUST C/O JACQUELINE BARITELL" [R.26-1965.2] with a printed execution date, so the log's "BARTITELL" [M008] is a typing slip; and the documents index lists forty-four Declaration of Posting scans, each "Document added through batch scanning process" [R.26-1965.2], so the executed declarations exist as scans the print export did not reproduce.

The pages the City produced close each of those answers. First, the Declaration of Posting the log points to is a sworn form, and of the forty-nine [R.26-1965.2] in the file forty-eight are blank - "On__________________________ I posted a copy of:" [M151], "Executed in Sacramento, California on _________________________________." [M151] - and the forty-ninth (p. 133) prints a date over an empty signature line; the posting the City relies on was never signed in the file it produced. Second, the 214 proofs of service are in the same condition: a printed date, an empty signature line (pp. 237-238). An unsigned proof of service that names BARITELL and a typed log entry that names "JACQUELINE M. BARTITELL TRUST" [M008] are two City records that disagree, and the envelope that would settle it was never uploaded, while thirty-four [R.26-1965.2] green cards and receipts were. Third, the rule's posting route requires "mailing a copy of the order to the responsible party in violation", and one of the three misnamed copies came back "NOT DELIVERED AS ADDRESSED" [M004]. Fourth, the index entries are the City's own list of what its file holds: forty-four Declaration of Posting scans and forty-three posting photographs, listed and not produced, in a file the City closed with "All responsive records have been provided" [R.26-1965.1]. A listing is not a signature.

What would defeat this card is one page in the file the City produced for this case under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1]: a signed proof of service or a signed and dated Declaration of Posting for any one of the ten returned orders, a returned envelope showing the addressee as printed, or one of the forty-four batch-scanned declarations the index lists. None appears in the 631 pages the City closed with "All responsive records have been provided" [R.26-1965.1]. On 08/25/2026 Request 26-3521 (local rendering [R.26-3521.1]) asked the City for exactly those records - the ten returned mail pieces and their certified-article numbers, the addressee name as printed on the three misnamed pieces, the executed Declaration of Posting behind each posting entry, the posting photographs, and the documents-tab index. The City's response to that request is the City's answer to this card, and it will be added here when it arrives. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES