The Catastrophic Consequences of “Queen Carrie” Violating her Oath of Office

A Sonoran Truth Guest Editorial by Arek R. Fressadi, September 1, 2017.

On August 1, 2017, Cave Creek’s longstanding Town Clerk Carrie Dyrek was unanimously selected to be Cave Creek’s Town Manager. Carrie’s passive/aggressive personality is perfect for Town Manager because she knows where all the bones are buried. Former Town Council members Shea Stanfield and Grace Meeth acknowledged that Carrie tampered with Town Council minutes and agendas. Tampering with public records is a Class 6 Felony. A.R.S. § 13-2407. The presumptive term for a Class 6 felony is one year in prison. The aggravated term in Carrie’s case should be two years but government criminals have to be timely prosecuted or the claim is time barred by Arizona’s Statute of Limitations. Carrie relies on Cave Creek’s attorneys to keep her out of jail.

According to the Sonoran News: “Planning Commissioner Reg Monachino said the town manager has two duties, articulating the policies set by council and managing staff.” Regretfully, Reg Monachino is painfully ignorant of the duties of public office.

The first duty of every Cave Creek elected official or employee is to “support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona;” to “faithfully and impartially discharge [their] duties.” The second duty is to serve the citizens of Cave Creek. For decades, Cave Creek’s Town Manager, town employees, and Town Councils have not upheld their Oaths of Office.
A core tenant of town governance is providing due process and respecting property rights embedded in the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Every elected official and employee in Cave Creek must strictly comply with these rights to uphold their Oath of Office. Carrie Dyrek did not.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act “FOIA” request, Carrie admitted on August 29, 2016 that “she was told” not to comply with Federal law as codified in A.R.S. § 9-500.12 in October 2001 as the Town’s Official Policy.
A.R.S. § 9-500.12 requires municipalities like Cave Creek to notify property owners that they have a right to appeal Town requirements to approve entitlements. It was Carrie’s duty to provide notice to property owners. By failing to abide by A.R.S. § 9-500.12 and evading the Town’s burden of proof for compliance per A.R.S. § 9-500.13, she denied property owners procedural due process. A.R.S. § 9-500.12 dovetails nicely into A.R.S. § 12-821.01(C):
“Notwithstanding subsection A, any claim that must be submitted to a binding or nonbinding dispute resolution process or an administrative claims process or review process pursuant to a statute, ordinance, resolution, administrative or governmental rule or regulation, or contractual term shall not accrue for the purposes of this section until all such procedures, processes or remedies have been exhausted.  The time in which to give notice of a potential claim and to sue on the claim shall run from the date on which a final decision or notice of disposition is issued in an alternative dispute resolution procedure, administrative claim process or review process.  This subsection does not prevent the parties to any contract from agreeing to extend the time for filing such notice of claim.”

Instead, by failing to provide notice, Carrie and Cave Creek denied property and due process rights of hundreds of citizens in Cave Creek for over 16 years to smugly win favorable court rulings that claims against Cave Creek and its officials are time barred. By “doing what she was told,” Carrie violated her Oath of Office. A preponderance of evidence suggests that Carrie is complicit in a conspiracy to deny Cave Creek citizens due process so that Cave Creek can steal property and call it “civic pride.”  

In 2001, shortly after I spoke at a Town Council meeting regarding the creation of a town center disfavored by Don Sorchych and Usama Abujbarah, Ian Cordwell instructed me to develop my two parcels into an adobe enclave through a series of lot splits rather than a subdivision. According to Carrie, “she was told” to stop providing mandatory notice as required by A.R.S. § 9-500.12 when I applied for my first lot split in October 2001. By violating the mandatory notice provisions of A.R.S. § 9-500.12, Cave Creek transformed my lot split into a wildcat subdivision. Bentley could write about it in the Sonoran News and not be liable for defamation. I was denied due process– the basic right of notice and a hearing, where a hearing officer would vet the lawfulness of the Town’s “requirements.” In fact, Cave Creek got rid of their Hearing Officer earlier in 2001. Without notice of my rights per A.R.S. §§ 9-500.12 & 9-500.13,  Cave Creek required a 25’ x 440’ strip of land to approve my lot split. Cordwell lied to me at the time, claiming that a subdivision is 5 maybe 6 or more lots. In reality, the strip of land that Cave Creek required converted my “metes and bounds” lot split survey into a non-conforming subdivision that is unlawful to sell without a final plat map per A.R.S. §9-463.03 and §1.1(A)(2) of the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance because according to §6.3 of the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance, failure to comply with the Town’s subdivision ordinance renders the lots unsuitable for building and not entitled to permits. According to § 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, any permit issued in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance is void. The Subdivision Ordinance is incorporated into the Town Zoning Ordinance. §1.1(B).

According to §1.7(B) of the Town Zoning Ordinance, it is unlawful to construct or use and building or land, or permit the same in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
According to §1.7(A) of the Town Zoning Ordinance, any person (to include Cave Creek, its employees and officials) who violates ANY provision of the Zoning Ordinance shall be guilty of a Class One Misdemeanor punishable as provided by Cave Creek Town Code and state law; “and each day of continued violation shall be a separate offense, punishable as described.”
According to §1.7(C) of the Town Zoning Ordinance, when a building or parcel of land regulated by the Zoning Ordinance is being used contrary to the Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator, Ian Cordwell, shall order the use discontinued and the structure, parcel of land, or portion thereof vacated.

According to well-established law, Cave Creek, its employees or officials are not prevented from correcting mistakes of law. “The government ordinarily is neither estopped by `the casual acts, advice, or instructions issued by nonsupervisory employees,’ nor estopped `from correcting a mistake of law.'” Thomas & King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 208 Ariz. 203, ¶ 27, 92 P.3d 429, 436 (App.2004) (internal citation omitted), quoting Valencia Energy, 191 Ariz. 565, ¶¶ 36, 41, 959 P.2d at 1268, 1270.
Cordwell has no discretion to violate “shall” provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Cave Creek issued permits to conceal that the Town’s exaction of a strip of land converted my lot split into a non-conforming subdivision. Cordwell, Francia, Dyrek & Cave Creek did the same thing to adjacent parcel 211-10-003– they required a strip of land which became a 4th lot to convert a lot split into a wildcat subdivision.
It seems that Cave Creek required a 4th lot in order to classify my property as a subdivision to renege on its promise to reimburse me for repairing and extending the sewer to serve the entire area at the base of Black Mountain in violation of the 5th Amendment.

Cave Creek’s attorneys committed fraud on the court by failing to disclose that Cave Creek did not comply with Federal due process protection to obtain favorable rulings in violation of the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause states that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As such, my rights to due process, equal protection, and just compensation for taking of property take precedence over state and municipal laws, such as the State’s statutes of limitations or Town Codes to steal sewer infrastructure. 

Sorchych says Washington is a “sewer,” run by an all-powerful “Establishment” such that federal government cannot be trusted. Cave Creek is run by the Sorchych Junta such that Cave Creek government cannot be trusted.  “In local elections 80-90% of the candidates for local office Sonoran News endorses win.”  Cave Creek employees and elected officials do Don’s bidding to keep their jobs, which is why the Sonoran News falsely claims: “There has been a steady improvement in the quality and integrity of Cave Creek town staff, councils, and commissions.” Sorchych claims that his paper is “dedicated to exposing corrupt and unethical local… business and political practices,” but it is Don and his Junta that is corrupt and unethical.

The Sonoran News claims that it successfully fought two projects in Cave Creek, “Park West and Southwest Sands, that would have changed the face of this desert rural community.” But Sonoran News’ heavy handedness almost caused Cave Creek to go bankrupt—the Town had to rezone residential property in order to obtain tax revenues from Walmart. As to Park West: In 2012, Planning Commissioner Ray Fontaine “claimed 99 percent of Cave Creek residents are retired and on fixed incomes and he felt residents wanted more businesses close in.” I said the same thing on May 29, 2001; better to concentrate business in the Town Core instead of converting Cave Creek into a sprawling suburban community. “Johnny come lately” Sorchych called me a “high-priced consultant” to “tell Creekers how to live” even though I was hiking Spur Cross in the 70’s and moved here to raise a family a decade before Don showed up. When I corrected Don’s false facts, you could hear a pin drop. In the Meeting Minutes, Carrie Dyrek misspelled my name, misstated my residence as Desert Hills when I lived in Carefree, and misstated my comments even though I gave her written copy. As a consequence of expressing my views based on years of sustainable building experience, Don and his Junta conspired to wipe out my family business and investment-backed expectations by a pattern of racketeering as a 1st Amendment retaliation vendetta. We sought to support Cave Creek as a vibrant community. Instead, we got disparaging press and a litany of litigation over 16 years.

As such, Don’s gestalt Queen Carrie 9/11 editorial makes sense. By violating her Oath of Office, Queen Carrie, as part of the Cave Creek “Establishment,” destroyed the twin towers of Federal and State Laws in our Town, with rampant residual effects of continuing zoning violations. 



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.