Larmour’s Latest Legal Mess: Shasta County Counsel’s Pattern of Costly Overreach and Alleged Ethical Lapses Exposed in New Whistleblower Suit
- Rex Ballard
- 3 days ago
- 5 min read
Shasta County taxpayers are once again footing the bill for County Counsel Joseph Larmour’s questionable legal maneuvers — and this time, fresh allegations in a high-profile wrongful termination lawsuit paint an even darker picture of what’s happening inside the County Counsel’s office.
It started with a citizen-led push for basic election integrity. In early 2025, a group of Shasta County residents (the “Shasta Five”) proposed a charter amendment initiative — later known as Measure B — that would require voter ID, limit absentee ballots, mandate same-day in-person voting, and require hand-counting of ballots at the precinct level. Before petitions could even circulate, Larmour took the extraordinary step of filing a lawsuit against the citizen proponents themselves. His goal? To dodge his ministerial duty required under state law and avoid issuing an impartial title and summary for the measure.
Larmour argued the initiative violated state and federal election laws and would “mislead the public.” He asked the court for a preliminary injunction to let him off the hook entirely. Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna wasn’t impressed. He denied the expedited relief, calling the request deficient. Facing that ruling, the Board of Supervisors quickly dropped the county’s own lawsuit in March 2025. Larmour was forced to do his job and issue the title and summary. The initiative moved forward, gathered the required signatures, and qualified for the June 2026 ballot.
But the interference didn’t stop there.
When an anonymous “Jane Doe” (later revealed as Jennifer Katske) filed a separate lawsuit challenging the measure’s placement on the ballot in February 2026, Larmour and the Board of Supervisors again took a hands-off approach. Supervisors voted 4-1 to take no position and provide no defense of the county or the initiative. That left the citizen proponents — and apparently Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis — to defend the measure themselves in court. The challenge was ultimately dismissed by the judge, who ruled that pre-election review of the measure’s legality was inappropriate. The initiative survived, but only because private citizens and supporters stepped up where county leadership refused to.
Now, because the County of Shasta was named as a defendant in the Jane Doe lawsuit, the county will likely be required to reimburse the Measure B proponents for the legal expenses they incurred defending not only the measure but the county itself.
It should also be noted that the current Registrar of Voters, Clint Curtis, has filed multiple California State Bar complaints against Larmour for dereliction of duty.
Now comes the latest chapter — and it’s potentially the most damaging.
In a civil complaint filed May 5, 2026 (Shasta County Superior Court Case No. 26CV-0210602), former Senior Deputy County Counsel Alan B. Cox accuses Larmour (along with supervising attorney Patricia Weber) of ordering him to commit serious ethical and legal violations in two separate probate/estate matters. Cox, a 16-year veteran deputy county counsel with an unblemished reputation for integrity, claims he was directed to:
File a motion to set aside a default judgment in the Towd Point Mortgage Trust v. Estate of Melvin Dean Frisbee case that would have required him to submit a false affidavit taking responsibility for a missed filing deadline — when Larmour himself was allegedly the attorney at fault. Cox refused, warning that it would constitute perjury and that it would make materially false statements to the court.
In the Estate of Dorothy P. Scholl (and related adverse possession case), Cox was ordered to abandon valuable county-held estate real property worth approximately $179,000 to an adverse possessor without proper court authority, file a false Amended Inventory and Appraisal listing the property value at zero (instead of its actual appraised value), and contact opposing counsel to drop the defense. Doing so, Cox warned, would breach fiduciary duties to estate beneficiaries and Medi-Cal, expose the county to liability, and involve filing documents under penalty of perjury that he believed were false.
When Cox repeatedly refused and blew the whistle internally on what he saw as violations of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, criminal and civil statutes, and his ethical obligations as an attorney, he alleges he faced retaliation: false counseling statements, heightened scrutiny, monitoring of his movements, removal of responsibilities, ostracization, and ultimately termination.
Here’s the part that should give every Shasta County resident pause: Public court records show the County ultimately handled both matters in exactly the manner Cox insisted was legally and ethically required.
In the Towd Point case, no false-affidavit motion appears to have been pursued after Cox’s refusal. In the Scholl estate, the Public Administrator continued to defend the valuable real property assets rather than abandoning them improperly. No false zero-value inventory was filed. The probate moved forward toward a proper final accounting and distribution — the very path Cox had advocated.
Cox’s detailed whistleblower lawsuit under California Labor Code § 1102.5 (retaliation for refusing illegal activity and reporting violations) now sits in Department 64 before Judge Ryan H. Birss, with a mandatory settlement conference set for February 2027 and trial in April 2027. The complaint seeks damages, attorney's fees, and broad injunctive relief to reform county practices regarding retaliation and whistleblower protections.
This isn’t just one disgruntled former employee. When viewed alongside Larmour’s aggressive (and ultimately unsuccessful) legal campaign against a citizen election integrity initiative — followed by his office’s refusal to defend that same measure when challenged — a troubling pattern emerges: a County Counsel who appears more interested in picking fights with citizens and pressuring his own staff than in providing competent, ethical legal guidance to the county he serves.
Each one of these episodes has cost Shasta County taxpayers money in legal fees, staff time, reputational damage, and now a very public lawsuit that could result in a substantial payout. More importantly, it erodes public trust in an office that is supposed to uphold the rule of law, not bend or evade it.
These missteps have Shasta County residents asking, " Is it time for Joseph Larmour to go?"
The Board of Supervisors needs to take a hard look at whether this level of controversy, alleged ethical pressure, and repeated taxpayer-funded missteps is truly serving the people of Shasta County. Strong, ethical county counsel should protect the public’s interests — not create unnecessary lawsuits against citizens or allegedly retaliate against whistleblowers who insist on following the law.
Does Shasta County deserve better, as the evidence keeps piling up? The question now is whether county leadership will finally act.
What do you think? Should the Board of Supervisors hold Larmour accountable? Drop your comments by emailing us at contact@shastaunfiltered.com
