Certainly! Here’s a rewritten version of your letter with fresh wording, while maintaining your intent and tone:

⸻

To the Board of Supervisors,

As a mother, small business owner, and resident of Mendocino County with no personal stake in the cannabis industry, but with personal knowledge of Justin, Sky, and John, I am writing to voice my strong support for Pillsbury Family Farms and to oppose the recommendation to deny their permit.

This issue extends beyond a single farm. It raises important questions about fairness, accountability, and whether we truly uphold the ideals of second chances and restorative justice. Legalizing cannabis was intended, in part, to correct historic harms. Yet the system continues to place barriers in front of those it was meant to empower. As someone active in my community, I see how these policies continue to punish people who have made real efforts to change and contribute.

Justin Quayle is a clear example of someone who has done the work. He complied with the law, had his record expunged, and helped build a business grounded in ethics, compliance, and care for the community. Though he has since resigned from his official roles at Pillsbury Family Farms, his past continues to be unfairly used as a reason to deny this permit. It’s deeply troubling. Pillsbury Family Farms has held a county cultivation permit since 2022 and has been state-licensed since 2023. They’ve operated with transparency and integrity under California’s strict regulatory framework.

This is not simply about a cannabis license, it’s about transformation, perseverance, and supporting community-minded individuals who are trying to do the right thing. I’ve watched Justin, Sky, and John pour their energy into learning the rules, engaging with local government, and building something legitimate from the ground up. These are responsible, principled people committed to doing things right.

I know Justin as a kind, generous, and dependable friend. He’s worked hard to move beyond his past and contribute something positive. That deserves recognition, not rejection. Sky and John share that same spirit of hard work and integrity. Pillsbury Family Farms represents a shared vision of renewal, family, and purpose.

Rejecting their permit at this stage would not only send the wrong message, it would undermine the very values that cannabis reform was meant to uphold. I urge you to reconsider the recommendation and allow Pillsbury Family Farms to continue operating. Their commitment, integrity, and compliance with the law should be met with support, not denial.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

Erin Orth

Willits, Ca

I am writing in support of the Pillsbury Family Farms, Inc. regarding the MUP appeal that is before the Board. I urge the Board to review its position on this matter. A great part of the issue on whether to revoke the cannabis use permit is focused on Justin Quayle's eligibility to participate in his roles as an officer and a director of the Farm. He has resigned those positions on the Farm so I do not understand why Justin's distant past record is salient to any decision the Board makes regarding the Use Permit. He has nearly cleared his record of all these old charges and is currently in the process of having his final outstanding violation expunged. He is a great guy and a valuable member of the community that anyone would love to have as a friend and neighbor. He has had a county grow permit since 2022 and has been state licensed since 2023. Please allow the continued operation of Pillsbury Family Farm. They have consistently put out a monitored and California regulated legal product. Please allow the Use Permit. Justin has already resigned his positions with the Farm. Let this business continue,
Thank you for your consideration.

To Whom It May Concern,

I’m writing this letter with a heavy heart, in support of my dear friends Sky, Justin, and John—people I’ve come to love and admire over the last nine years. The County’s recommendation to deny their permit feels deeply unfair, especially when I think about how hard they’ve worked and the kind of people they are.

These are not careless or irresponsible individuals. They are passionate, community-oriented, and deeply committed to doing things the right way. I’ve seen them stay up late researching compliance rules, attending county meetings, and putting everything on the line for their dream of operating a legal cannabis farm. This is not just about business—it’s about healing, growth, and building a future rooted in accountability and care.

I also know what Justin has overcome personally. The past doesn't define him. He’s taken responsibility, done the work to legally expunge his record, and stayed focused on building something positive and lawful. That should matter.

Denying their permit after all they’ve done is not just a policy decision—it’s a personal blow to people who have already been through so much and have kept showing up anyway.

I hope the County can see the humanity in this situation and do what’s right. Pillsbury Family Farms deserves a chance to continue their work and be part of this community’s future.

With hope and sincerity,
Areon Mosley

I am submitting this comment to formally object to the pattern of retaliation, legal misrepresentation, and procedural violations committed by Community Development Director Mireya Turner and her staff in connection with the cannabis land use permit for Pillsbury Family Farms, Inc. (UP20-50).

Recent internal communications, obtained through public records, reveal alarming conduct that not only violates California’s Fair Chance Act and Penal Codes § 17(b) and § 1203.4, but also strips permittees of their due process rights under California and federal law.

Misuse of Criminal Backgrounds & Prejudicial Bias

On March 29, 2024, Director Turner circulated an internal email claiming that both myself, Sky Laiwa, and my then buisness partner, Justin Quayle, “have extensive criminal backgrounds not related to cannabis” — even though the County staff report from January 27, 2022 stated all owners and employees passed live scans by then Community Development Director Darby.

Subsequent emails from October 1, 2024, confirm that Turner and Mary Claybon were still attempting to confirm background check results, proving that Turner made premature, speculative, and defamatory assertions prior to having the legal basis to do so.

Despite this lack of evidence, Director Turner initiated revocation proceedings against UP20-50 based largely on these unconfirmed claims — showing clear bias and retaliatory motive, not lawful oversight.

This violates:

Fair Chance Act (Gov. Code § 12952): Requires individualized review of criminal records only after a conditional process and prohibits blanket disqualifications.

Penal Code § 17(b): Allows felony offenses to be reduced to misdemeanors, a step never evaluated or considered.

Penal Code § 1203.4: Bars expunged convictions from being used against applicants or licensees — yet Turner proceeded with full knowledge that Justin was still in the process of expungement.

These legal protections exist to prevent exactly this kind of misuse of criminal records. Director Turner’s internal emails demonstrate not just procedural failure, but willful circumvention of state law designed to promote rehabilitation and equity.

County Staff False Narrative About “Self-Requested Revocation”

In a further display of misconduct, Turner falsely stated that the “permittee requested their own revocation.” This narrative is factually and procedurally untrue.

In 2022, I inquired with County staff (Linda) about how to appeal a self-abatement notice and was told no appeal process existed. No request for revocation was ever submitted by the landowner or Pillsbury Family Farms, Inc.

To now claim that we “requested” revocation suggests intentional misrepresentation and an effort to fabricate justification for retroactive enforcement.

Despite being informed that Justin Quayle was actively pursuing expungement, Director Turner chose to move forward prematurely, disregarding the standard set by the California Department of Justice, which explicitly states that agencies must allow time for expungement results before taking punitive action based on criminal background information.

This rush to revoke—before due process could unfold—is a clear violation of both state policy and fundamental fairness. The County’s refusal to wait for court outcomes reflects a predetermined agenda to revoke this permit at all costs. This was made painfully clear during the March 27th 2025 Planning Commission hearing, where only a denial was presented as an option. No approval. No modification. No postponement. Just denial.

Now, in her official staff memo, Director Turner falsely claims that “all proper process was followed” and that nothing was done wrong — despite ample evidence to the contrary.

This is not just administrative error. It is a deliberate act of procedural manipulation designed to ensure an outcome that staff had decided long before the facts were in.

We see this pattern repeated yet again in the staff materials provided to the Board of Supervisors, where once more, the only option presented is “denial.” This selective framing deprives decision-makers of the full scope of legal remedies and ignores the possibility of compliance-based solutions.

Planning Commission: Denial-Only = No Due Process

At the March 27, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, I requested a modification or postponement of any action on our permit, pending the outcome of Justin’s expungement process.

Instead, the Commission responded:

“We can only go off of staff’s recommendation.”

The staff report listed only one option: Denial.

There was no pathway presented for approval, modification, or delay — violating basic tenets of due process:

No Notice of Abatement

No Order to Abate

No individualized assessment

No opportunity to be heard on alternatives

This is a procedural failure under:

California Constitution, Article I, § 7

U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment

These laws require that individuals facing loss of property rights (such as land use permits) receive notice, a hearing, and a fair range of remedies — none of which were provided.

Who Holds the Permit? Selective Enforcement

The land use permit (UP20-50) is not in Justin’s name — it is assigned to Pillsbury Family Farms, Inc., and the property owner of record is John Evans, who is legally qualified under California DCC standards and has no disqualifying criminal background.

Yet, the County continues to target Justin — an individual — in contradiction to:

The permit’s legal ownership structure.

California corporations code

The intent of MAUCRSA and Prop 64, which aim to support, not punish, individuals with past convictions.

California’s equity-focused cannabis laws that demand individualized, non-discriminatory assessments.

This raises serious questions of selective enforcement, bias, and bad faith governance.

This is not just administrative error. It is a deliberate act of procedural manipulation designed to ensure an outcome that staff had decided long before the facts were in.

We are of the firm belief that These actions taken by Director Turner reveal her misuse of criminal records in violation of state law. Her procedural manipulation to deny lawful permit holders their rights and her intentional misrepresentation of facts to justify retroactive punishment.