Disclaimer: The following is information I have compiled for many years from various sources. I am NOT giving legal advice. I am
providing entertainment in hopes that folks do their own research using various court case websites, and other
resources, to find precedents and Supreme Court Decisions that will support the Jurisdiction that their private land
falls under. Original Jurisdiction, if granted from an independent foreign government, OR, under the laws of the land in
force and effect when the land was granted in their State. It is your duty to perform your due diligence and research
your rights as they apply to your land, conveyance, your title and your status. I hate to be a bearer of bad tidings,
but if you are listed as a tenant, you are subject to the laws of your municipality, county and state, unless
and until you own your property with Allodia rights. The last time I checked many states are over 160 billion in debt with no chance of paying that off under the current legislature. They are seriously talking about selling off state landmarks, public roads, bridges, ports of call, and mass sections of property- just to pay the interest on the debt. When the economy collapses, it will have a cascade effect on other states, and those who do not have their economic house in order will collapse also. I see fifteen to twenty states ultimately crashing, and it will take a better fiscal manager than our Commander-in-Chief to save the nation.
The time is now, to perfect your rights conveyed with your land deed back to the original, common source root title, nunc pro tunc, as the assignee of the original patent or grant, with only the reservations, restrictions, exceptions existing as expressed in writing on the original grant contract at the time of the original conveyance. (Doctrine of Relation Back)
Note that many of the following court case cites originate in California.
Trespass Cases 1 (.doc) Trespass Statutes (.pdf) Trespass by a Public Servant (.doc) Trespass Signs to Post Private Land:
Purple Paint in Texas (.pdf)
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO AND OWN
California Penal Code ß 1548(d): Laws of the United States means (1) those laws of the United States passed by Congress pursuant to authority given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States where the laws of the United States are controlling, and (2) those laws of the United States not controlling the several states of the United States but which are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. CONGRESS makes laws, NOT counties, cities, code enforcement, or dog-catchers.
Schad v. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 L.Ed.2d 671, 101 S.Ct. 2176:
Convictions, pursuant to zoning ordinance prohibiting live entertain men live nude dancing, held invalid under First and Fourteenth Amendments. A town or county may not legislatively prevent its citizens from engaging in or having access to forms of protective expression that are incompatible with its majority is conception of indecent life solely because these activities are sufficiently available in other locales. If the Supreme Court said that the city and county cannot dictate against live nude dancing, they certainly cannot dictate raising small or large animals or owning old cars either. Property ownership, and especially farming, are forms of expression. Farmers, like painters, actors, musicians, writers, dancers, etc., use their experience, imagination, and skill to produce something from nothing. The Supreme Court said this is PROTECTED.
West Virginia State Board of Education et al. v. Barnett et al., 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178 The United States Government was set up by the consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. The Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the states protects the citizen against the state itself and all of its creatures. One’s right to life, liberty and property and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote, and they depend on the outcome of no election The Supreme Court said that if the STATE cannot take away any inalienable right, the CITY or COUNTY cannot, either!
DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN
U.S. CONSTITUTION Amendment 5. Self-Incrimination; Double Jeopardy; Due process. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. If any city or county wants to regulate, restrict or eliminate ANY private property, or restrict any right, it must PAY for it out of its General Fund. Regulations and restrictions are TAKINGS, and must be compensated. So POST your property No Trespassing to show that it belongs to YOU.
Protection; California Constitution Article 1, section 9 Due Process; Equal Privileges and Immunities: (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. Due process means that anybody wishing to restrain property or file a protest against property of another, be it land, livestock, etc. must first put up a Bond to indemnify the lawful owner(s) for the takings, THEN go through the process of having the matter decided by a jury. THAT is Due Process.
Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S.__, 143 L Ed 2d 882, 119 S.Ct.___ (1999): [T]he District Court’s jury instructions directed the jury that (1) it should find for the landowner if the jury found that (a) the landowner had been denied all economically viable use of its property, or (b) the city’s decision did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose (the jury awarded the landowner $8 million for the takings’ and $1.45 million for the city’s unlawful acts -no just compensation or providing an adequate post deprivation remedy for the loss). The County is liable for any city employee violating the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The property owner owns all bundle of rights that come with his Deed, as he bought it ‘as is’ and nobody can convert, alter, change or amend his deed except him. The law forbids the City or County to amend any deed, steal any deed, restrict its use, or to use deceit, extortion, fear, and threats to get the owner to amend it by restricting his ownership and use of livestock, property, or his land. Post-deprivation loss also attaches to the sale of any agriculture or other commodity in interstate OR intrastate commerce, which sales were diminished by the takings/restriction. This includes anything the landowner would buy for his use and enjoyment of his property ñ building materials, landscaping/gardening supplies, animal feed, livestock, pets, vehicles, etc. Damages for the takings without just compensation and for the extortion will be decided by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
California Constitution Article 1, section 19 Eminent Domain: Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. In an unpublished court order in the Daily Appellate, the Sierra Club was ordered to post a Bond of $250,000 for a takings because it didn’t want some logger to cut down his own trees. If private corporations or individuals such as the Humane Society wish to get rid of all roosters and restrict ownership of other pets and livestock in the County, they must likewise pay for it by putting up a Bond.
California Civil Code Title 1 Nature of Property, section 654 Ownership defined: The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others. In this code, the thing of which there may [be] ownership is called property. You own all your property to the exclusion of all others. Nobody can tell you how to care for your own property, and nobody can rescue property from you unless they BUY it, first.
California Civil Code Title 1 Nature of Property, Section 655 Things Subject to ownership: There may be ownership of all inanimate things [there may be ownership] of all domestic animals, land, junk cars, etc., are PROPERTY.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 There are a number of non-economic interests in land, such as interest in excluding strangers from one’s land, the impairment of which will invite exceedingly close scrutiny under takings clause (5th Amend.) if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government’s power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property has disappeared. These considerations gave birth to the oft cited maxim that, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. Where permanent physical occupation of land is concerned, we have refused to allow the government to decree it anew without compensation no matter how weighty the asserted public interests involved Unless just compensation is offered, the city or county is committing fraud, theft, racketeering and terrorism if it wants to exert ‘acts of ownership or control’ private property and livestock ownership rights. It is illegal to impose public policy upon private land; to do so constitute a taking for which the City and County are liable for compensating the owner for his loss, no matter how small the intrusion.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S.__, 150 L.E.d.2d 592, 121 S.Ct.__ (2001) (quoting both Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council): Petitioners acquisition of title after the regulations effective date did not bar his takings claims. This Court rejects the State Supreme Courts sweeping rule that a purchaser or a successive title holder like petitioner is deemed to have notice of an earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it affects a taking. Were the Court to accept that rule, the post enactment transfer of title would absolve the State of its obligation to defend any action restricting land use, no matter how extreme or unreasonable. A State would be allowed, in effect, to put an expiration date on the Takings Clause. This ought not to be the rule. Future generations, too, have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B.&Q. R.Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), Justice Holmes well-known formulation, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. (To quote Justice Stevens) It is wrong for the government to take property, even for public use, without tendering just compensation The Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago that it is wrong for government to steal. If the restriction is not listed in the Deed, the city or county cannot come in AFTER the fact and say it’s restricted, even if the restriction occurred before the property was purchased. If the city did not reimburse the FORMER owner for the regulatory taking, it cannot get away with failing to reimburse the PRESENT owner. That is FRAUD. If it isn’t listed in the Deed, IT IS NOT RESTRICTED. And if the city or county still wants to impose any restriction, they have to lawfully acquire the property by justly compensating the owner/buying the land.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT DO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Steagald v. United States, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 Held: 2. The search in question violated the Fourth Amendment, where it took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. (a) Absent exigent circumstances or consent, a home may not be searched without a warrant (c) A search warrant requirement will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place. Moreover, the exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant is needed. And in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is generally insignificant. In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring a search warrant they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest at stake in protecting the right of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the government The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral judicial officer to assess whether the police have probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search. As we have often explained, the placement of this checkpoint between the Government and the citizen implicitly acknowledges that an officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-15 (1948), at 14, may lack sufficient objectivity to weigh correctly the strength of the evidence supporting the contemplated action against the individual’s interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home. Warrantless search or arrest can ONLY occur IN A PUBLIC PLACE during ‘hot pursuit.’ In all other cases, a fair, neutral and detached judicial officer determines FROM THE COMPLAINT that a warrant should issue based upon the commission OF A FELONY. This is where the public’s ignorance is used by robbers posing as code enforcement, etc.
DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN
Ask the code enforcement officer what interest does the County have in your property, I have no evidence in my possession that the CITY OF (your city) has any interest in my property or (name) the living sentient being.
I told them I had owned the house and land for thirty years; that I had seen an abstract of title for the land and that as far as I knew I was the only one in the chain of title with a claim to it. All mortgages had been paid off years ago. I told them I was puzzled. I just didn’t understand. Their claims made it sound as though they owned the property, and I was only a tenant. I demanded that they disclose any right, title, or interest the City might have in my property. Do you have an equitable interest in this property?
The City responded within a few days, with a letter, which made reference to the specific zoning ordinances they had cited. They enclosed copies of the relevant ordinances, and I think they even highlighted certain passages. Then they repeated their threats, but extended the time before they would start assessing the fine until June 1st. Already, we’d bought some time. When I wrote back I was a little more pert. I told them that nowhere in their letter had they claimed any right, title, or interest in my property, and thanked them for admitting by their silence that it was mine. I asked them for the implementing regulation, which made my property subject to their zoning ordinance.
Their next response didn’t come so quickly. I think maybe they consulted an attorney this time. They responded with a letter including a copy from another page of their zoning plan. The gist of their response was that all “city property” was covered by the zoning ordinance, and that all “city residents” were subject to the ordinance. By now it was already the first week of April. They extended our time to July 1st.
In my response, I told them it appeared to me that “city property” was simply property, which the City owned, and that they had already admitted they didn’t own my property. As for “city residents,” weren’t they people who lived on city property?
I told them I had been giving this a good deal of thought, and the only way I knew of that they could claim that I, as a person, was subject to their ordinance would be if they owned some right, title, or interest in me. I asked them to please send me any evidence of their ownership in me, if any such evidence existed.
I asked them to please send me any evidence of their ownership in my private property, if any such evidence existed.
MORRIS V. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER, & GROUP V. FINLETTER
Defendant is likely to be the only individual, now or in the future, who is willing and able to place a sworn affidavit affirming the herein disclosed facts under penalties of perjury, into the record of this case and as such, in absence of sworn counter-affidavit signed under the penalties of perjury regarding these same facts, laws, case laws and evidence, Defendant should be the only prevailing party. Morris v. National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433, clearly states at point #4 that “uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as true.”, and the Federal case of Group v. Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 states, “Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit.”
U.S. CONSTITUTION Amendment 5. Self-Incrimination; Double Jeopardy; Due process. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. If any city or county wants to regulate, restrict or eliminate ANY private property, or restrict any right, it must PAY for it out of its General Fund. Regulations and restrictions are TAKINGS, and must be compensated. So POST your property No Trespassing to show that it belongs to YOU.
Protection; California Constitution Article 1, section 9 Due Process; Equal Privileges and Immunities: (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. Due process means that anybody wishing to restrain property or file a protest against property of another, be it land, livestock, etc. must first put up a Bond to indemnify the lawful owner(s) for the takings, THEN go through the process of having the matter decided by a jury. THAT is Due Process.
Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S.__, 143 L Ed 2d 882, 119 S.Ct.___ (1999): [T]he District Court’s jury instructions directed the jury that (1) it should find for the landowner if the jury found that (a) the landowner had been denied all economically viable use of its property, or (b) the city’s decision did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose (the jury awarded the landowner $8 million for the takings’ and $1.45 million for the city’s unlawful acts -no just compensation or providing an adequate post deprivation remedy for the loss). The County is liable for any city employee violating the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The property owner owns all bundle of rights that come with his Deed, as he bought it ‘as is’ and nobody can convert, alter, change or amend his deed except him. The law forbids the City or County to amend any deed, steal any deed, restrict its use, or to use deceit, extortion, fear, and threats to get the owner to amend it by restricting his ownership and use of livestock, property, or his land. Post-deprivation loss also attaches to the sale of any agriculture or other commodity in interstate OR intrastate commerce, which sales were diminished by the takings/restriction. This includes anything the landowner would buy for his use and enjoyment of his property ñ building materials, landscaping/gardening supplies, animal feed, livestock, pets, vehicles, etc. Damages for the takings without just compensation and for the extortion will be decided by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
California Constitution Article 1, section 19 Eminent Domain: Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. In an unpublished court order in the Daily Appellate, the Sierra Club was ordered to post a Bond of $250,000 for a takings because it didn’t want some logger to cut down his own trees. If private corporations or individuals such as the Humane Society wish to get rid of all roosters and restrict ownership of other pets and livestock in the County, they must likewise pay for it by putting up a Bond.
California Civil Code Title 1 Nature of Property, section 654 Ownership defined: The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others. In this code, the thing of which there may [be] ownership is called property. You own all your property to the exclusion of all others. Nobody can tell you how to care for your own property, and nobody can rescue property from you unless they BUY it, first.
California Civil Code Title 1 Nature of Property, Section 655 Things Subject to ownership: There may be ownership of all inanimate things [there may be ownership] of all domestic animals, land, junk cars, etc., are PROPERTY.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d 798: There are a number of non-economic interests in land, such as interest in excluding strangers from one’s land, the impairment of which will invite exceedingly close scrutiny under takings clause (5th Amend.) if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government’s power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappeared. These considerations gave birth to the oft cited maxim that, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. Where permanent physical occupation of land is concerned, we have refused to allow the government to decree it anew without compensation no matter how weighty the asserted public interests involved Unless just compensation is offered, the city or county is committing fraud, theft, racketeering and terrorism if it wants to exert ‘acts of ownership or control’ private property and livestock ownership rights. It is illegal to impose public policy upon private land; to do so constitute a taking for which the City and County are liable for compensating the owner for his loss, no matter how small the intrusion.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S.__, 150 L.E.d.2d 592, 121 S.Ct.__ (2001) (quoting both Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council): Petitioners acquisition of title after the regulations effective date did not bar his takings claims. This Court rejects the State Supreme Courts sweeping rule that a purchaser or a successive title holder like petitioner is deemed to have notice of an earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it affects a taking. Were the Court to accept that rule, the post enactment transfer of title would absolve the State of its obligation to defend any action restricting land use, no matter how extreme or unreasonable. A State would be allowed, in effect, to put an expiration date on the Takings Clause. This ought not to be the rule. Future generations, too, have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B.&Q. R.Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), Justice Holmes well-known formulation, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. (To quote Justice Stevens) It is wrong for the government to take property, even for public use, without tendering just compensation The Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago that it is wrong for government to steal. If the restriction is not listed in the Deed, the city or county cannot come in AFTER the fact and say it’s restricted, even if the restriction occurred before the property was purchased. If the city did not reimburse the FORMER owner for the regulatory taking, it cannot get away with failing to reimburse the PRESENT owner. That is FRAUD. If it isn’t listed in the Deed, IT IS NOT RESTRICTED. And if the city or county still wants to impose any restriction, they have to lawfully acquire the property by justly compensating the owner/buying the land.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT DO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Steagald v. United States, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 Held: 2. The search in question violated the Fourth Amendment, where it took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. (a) Absent exigent circumstances or consent, a home may not be searched without a warrant (c) A search warrant requirement will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place. Moreover, the exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant is needed. And in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is generally insignificant. In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring a search warrant they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest at stake in protecting the right of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the government The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral judicial officer to assess whether the police have probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search. As we have often explained, the placement of this checkpoint between the Government and the citizen implicitly acknowledges that an officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-15 (1948), at 14, may lack sufficient objectivity to weigh correctly the strength of the evidence supporting the contemplated action against the individual’s interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home. Warrantless search or arrest can ONLY occur IN A PUBLIC PLACE during ‘hot pursuit.’ In all other cases, a fair, neutral and detached judicial officer determines FROM THE COMPLAINT that a warrant should issue based upon the commission OF A FELONY. This is where the public’s ignorance is used by robbers posing as code enforcement, etc.,
THERE ARE NO FISHING EXPEDITIONS TO SEIZE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT REPORTED AS STOLEN!!!
Carrera v. Bertaini, 63 C.A. 3d 721; 134 Cal.Rptr. 14: [I]mpoundment of an owner’s farm animals without prior notice or hearing, and without a hearing in the superior court was unlawful and the owner was entitled either to have animals returned or their reasonable value the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires some form of notice and hearing the hearing must take place before the property is taken. Cities try to wriggle around this one, by holding public hearings. These hearings, however, are NOT proper hearings with the property owner or his counsel present in superior court with the value of all property and bundle of rights tallied and presented for just compensation by the city or county out of the General Fund. The County is liable for the city using fraud and deceit to try to con the public into believing that public hearings take the place of a notice and hearing in superior court.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
U.S. CONSTITUTION Amendment 4. Search and Seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. We have forgotten that this was drafted to correct the evils of swarms of the King’s officers barging in, and arbitrarily confiscating seditious material, which was determined by them to be seditious, without benefit of a judge or a public trial. Today, we see the same set of circumstances ñ invasion and terrorism because somebody else invaded our privacy and did a bench trial because they determined that our lifestyle was seditious.
People v. Camacho, 23 Cal.4th 824; 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 232; 3 P.3d 878 (2000): Police observation from non-public area constitutes unlawful search. The County is liable for Fourth Amendment violations, and has no immunity when its employees trespass upon areas that members of the public cannot be said to have been implicitly invited. No such implicit public invitation exists in a side yard, back yard, or neighbor’s yard for county employees or anybody else to conduct invasion of privacy and/or pretextual search without probable cause to inventory livestock or other property by peeking over or through fences, even chain-link fences, which are there to exclude the eyes of strangers and trespassers.
U.S. v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998). To comply with Fourth Amendment, anticipatory search warrant must either on its face or on the face of the accompanying affidavit clearly, expressly, and narrowly specify the triggering event Consent to search that is given after illegal entry is tainted and invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Plain-view doctrine did not apply to seizure of evidence from defendants residence after officers conducted initial search based on invalid anticipatory search warrant Plain-view doctrine does not apply unless the initial entry is lawful pursuant to a valid warrant The county is liable for its agents/employees stealing anything without probable cause on a tainted warrant that fails to narrowly list things with particularity that are connected with a crime, and that fails to have an attached affidavit from a victim injured in his or her business or property. State and federal law protects the unalienable right to own property / livestock, so the county is liable for its employees fabricated charges and pretextual search without probable cause.
See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S.Ct. 1737: [I]t was held that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless inspections of commercial structures as well as of private residences. The search of private commercial property, as well as the search of private houses, is presumptively unreasonable if conducted without a warrant. Again, if there is no victim, there is no crime. The county would be liable for violating the Fourth Amendment in allowing any of its agents or employees to conduct warrantless inspections to search for livestock and other property on residences.
U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972): The Government’s duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression [t]he freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic surveillances are conducted [violates] the citizens right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion. The city and county is liable for conducting illegal surveillance on private citizens to see who might be keeping or raising livestock. Violation of the Fourth Amendment strips public employees of all immunity. NOTE: U.S. v. U.S. District Court was about protecting the rights of persons who actually blew up federal property and conspired to blow up some more. It appears that terrorist bombers have more constitutional protections than a livestock owners today.
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523, 18 L.ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727: The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials; the Amendment thus gives concrete expression to a right of the people which is basic to a free society. The guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the states by reason of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited to a situation in which an individual is suspected of criminal behavior. The County is liable for violations of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by their agents / employees for suspecting that a citizen is a criminal because he or she happens to own and raise livestock for their own use. The County needs to remember the hundreds of innocent citizens who were released in the Rampart scandal, because corrupt city and county employees fabricated charges and committed perjury.
Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S.___, 143 L.Ed 2d 978, 119 S. Ct__: It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for media to be present during the execution of a search warrant. The County is liable and has no immunity for using the local media to invade the privacy of, and slander fowl and livestock owners while falsely representing the County’s racketeering enterprise is lawful to facilitate raids on other livestock owners for the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity prohibited under Title 18 ß United States Code 1962 Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
CITES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS
Title 42 United States Code - Section 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress... The County would be liable for discrimination against livestock owners, 4-H, FFA, feed stores, and feed mills.
Title 28 United States Code - Section 1343 Civil rights and elective franchise. (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
- To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;
- To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;
- To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
- To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the ‘right to vote.’ The County is liable to reimburse disenfranchised livestock owners for property loss without just compensation and deprivation of the right to own all livestock both large and small for personal use, food, or profit.
Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D.Cal. 1999): Other district court began its analysis by setting forth the elements of a ß 1983 claim against an individual state actor as follows:
[the plaintiff(s)] possessed a constitutional right of which [they were] deprived;
the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;
the defendant acted under color of law; and
the acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional deprivation.
The court also stated that, to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that:
[the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which [he/she] was deprived;
the municipality had a policy or custom;
this policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff’s] constitutional right; and the policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.
The district court then stated, however, that [b]efore there can be any liability under section 1983, there must be a direct causal link
between the personal conduct of Deputy Lopez or the municipal conduct of Sonoma County and the alleged
constitutional deprivation, in this case the murder of Maria Teresa Macias. In each of these cases, the Supreme
Court and this court treated the deprivation of a constitutional right as the alleged injury. See Monell v.
Dept. of Social Services, 435 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), 436 U.S. at 692 (holding that a ß 1983 it plainly imposes
liability on a government that, under color of some official policy, causes an employee to violate another’s
constitutional rights); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) at 385 (stating that our first
inquiry in any case alleging municipal liability under ß 1983 is the question whether there...
Specifically, In The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot
exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___ (2001)
(no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes
on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina
Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot
restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with
binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882
S.Ct.____ (1998).
In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code
Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.
Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see
Title 18 U.S.C. § § 891-896, quoting Section 891 … "An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or
implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property.
7.64.070 Right to enter on private property.
When the city council has contracted with or
granted a franchise to any person or persons, such person or persons shall be authorized to enter upon private
property or public property to remove or cause the removal of a vehicle or parts thereof declared to be a nuisance
pursuant to this chapter.
The government can make all the assumptions they want, which stand, until they are rebutted by an affidavit signed by you.
Basically, I would send whatever entity has contacted you a letter that basically goes like this:
NOTICE AND MANDATE
_
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS, NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
CERTIFIED MAIL #_____-_____-_____-_____-_____ RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Thank you for your letter, but I do not understand the content of it, nor its relationship to me. Specifically, you quote California Statute 7.64.070.
I hereby Notice the Department of Code Enforcement that I have not contracted with any entity regarding this statute, and if I had, I hereby rescind any agreement based on the fact that all terms of the contract were not disclosed to me prior to my agreement to this alleged contract. I have not been presented with any proof that the city council has granted a franchise to KATE DOE. If this is the case, I hereby waive any benefits associated with this alleged grant. I am returning your original communication because it clearly was not intended for me, since I am not a person. I am a living woman, one of the People of the California Republic, created by God.
Per Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition, "The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived." (Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva). Therefore, a dead statute cannot be greater than the living men/women who created it. Additionally, per Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983)."
First, the state regulation must not substantially impair a contractual relationship.
Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." Id. at 411-13.
Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. This test is similar to rational basis review."
Therefore, I do not consent to any contract with your corporation, I do not consent to be granted any franchise by the city council or any other entity without my full and prior knowledge of any grant, and I do not consent for any person to enter my private property. All government agents, regardless of association, are hereby notified DO NOT TRESSPASS at xxx Lover's Lane, Sacramento, California Republic. Any violations will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I hereby demand that any actions regarding KATE DOE are immediately removed from your records, and a copy of this removal is sent to me immediately.
Thank you,
……………………………………………………………….
Kate Doe
All Unalienable Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice
State of California
County of _______________
Before me, (insert the name and character of the officer), on this day personally appeared _Kate Jane Doe__, a living woman known to me whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same of her own free will for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.
Given under my hand and seal of office this __________ day of __________, (year).
(Personalized Seal)
Notary Public Signature
I have also attached a document (Not mine, found through research) that has several good points for California which you
may find good information in. Hope this helps.
See AFF City of Eureka
Schad v. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 L.Ed.2d 671, 101 S.Ct. 2176:
Convictions, pursuant to zoning ordinance prohibiting live entertainment live nude dancing, held invalid under
First and Fourteenth Amendments. A town or county may not legislatively prevent its citizens from engaging in or
having access to forms of protective expression that are incompatible with its majority- ís conception of indecent
life solely because these activities are sufficiently available in other locales. If the Supreme Court said that
the city and county cannot dictate against live nude dancing, they certainly cannot dictate raising small or large
animals or owning old cars either. Property ownership, and especially farming, are forms of expression. Farmers,
like painters, actors, musicians, writers, dancers, etc., use their experience, imagination, and skill to produce
something from nothing. The Supreme Court said this is PROTECTED.
TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW - FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:
Title 18 USC CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331.
Definitions. As used in this chapter: the term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;If they issue a citation, it’s filing a false complaint, because 1) they are not a victim of a public offense and 2) they cannot enforce city and county codes on PRIVATELY owned land - even if it is in the MIDDLE of the city, and even though you are RENTING! THEN, it also becomes interference with contract. City and County Codes and Ordinances are ONLY for city and county-owned property! The punishment for terrorism is imprisonment for 25 years. If they come to my door, I ask them where is the copy of the cancelled check, where they BOUGHT my property FIRST. Because my place is PRIVATE, and, just like Disneyland which is ALSO private, and which has its own rules and regulations, MY rule is, if the city or county want to LOOK at my property, they must PAY me first. That’s the law, and my admission fee to them is $5 million.
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. The end results of all terrorist acts are to restrict the victim’s freedoms and put them out of business. That is what cities and counties do if they come to your door (trespass, impersonate an officer), and tell you that you cannot own over x number of dogs, roosters, or junk cars (regulatory takings in violation of due process).
Title 18 USC CHAPTER 105 - SABOTAGE, Section 2152: Definitions As used in this chapter: The words war material include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food. The words war premises include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced. The words national-defense material include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food. The words national-defense premises include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced. Livestock are second in importance as war materials and defense materials only to guns and ammo, and the places where chickens are raised are war premises and national defense premises. All those men on aircraft carriers eat eggs every morning. Anybody who interferes with the raising of livestock is sabotaging national defense materials. And anybody who restricts or prevents one American citizen from spending one dollar on one dog, cat, chicken, or pigeon is committing domestic terrorism, as nobody has the power to regulate these Title 7 sec. 2 agricultural commodities except Congress.
The President has declared WAR on terrorism. After September 11, 2001, ANYBODY who conspires to interfere with lands for growing livestock gets 30 years in jail and a fine for committing SABOTAGE against the United States. Anonymous complaints were abolished over 200 years ago.
Title 18 USC CHAPTER 113 STOLEN PROPERTY, Section 2311 Definitions: As used in this chapter: aircraft means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air; cattle means one or more bulls, steers, oxen, cows, heifers, or calves, or the carcass or carcasses thereof; livestock means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof; money means the legal tender; motor vehicles includes an automobile, truck, wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle; securities includes any note, stock certificate, bond check, draft, warrant, traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt bill of lading valid or blank motor vehicle title; certificate of interest in property, tangible or intangible; tax stamp includes any tax stamp, tax token, tax meter imprint; ‘value’ means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, and merchandise, securities, and money referred to in a single indictment shall constitute the value thereof. The first capital offense prosecuted in this nation was for stealing chickens and eggs. Chickens and eggs were used as currency during the Depression, and are still on the books as valuable property, more important than stolen money or stolen car. Owning and raising cats, dogs, livestock, pigeons, etc. is an unalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and anybody stealing or conspiring to steal small animals or livestock gets 10 years in jail.
Title 18 USC section 43. Animal enterprise terrorism. Whoever (2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both... (d) Definitions: the term animal enterprise means - (A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture (B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agriculture arts and sciences (b) Aggravated offense Whoever causes serious bodily injury shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. The County is liable for their or cities employees taking anonymous complaints and using threats, fear, and intimidation (animal terrorism) to restrict federally protected events intended to advance agriculture arts and sciences, namely, all 4H and FFA projects, all hobbyists who raise livestock and small animals and birds including pigeons for shows and competitions, and anybody who raises an animal for food. NOTE: The Humane Society is a private corporation, contracted with the County to get rid of unwanted pets and nuisance wildlife. They are NOT contracted to violate the Fourth Amendment in order to inventory and steal dogs, cats, chickens, horses, etc. under ANY pretext, or to conspire with corrupt judges, lawyers and court clerks to use the courts as a racketeering enterprise. The Humane Society was declared by the FBI to be an animal terrorist organization in 1993, and they use bribe/protection money to void judgments against them in court. See REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE EXTENT OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ON ANIMAL ENTERPRISE online at Department of Justice Reports at findlaw.com or FirstGov.gov
Title 18 USC section 3112. Repealed November 16, 1981. This federal law used to provide for the issuance of search warrants for seizure of animals, birds, and eggs, but it was repealed, which means that it has been illegal since 1981 for anybody to issue a warrant to seize an animal, a bird, or an egg. The County is liable for any of its cities, agents or employees acting outside the law to restrict ownership of livestock, and using fear, threat, intimidation, and fraud to coerce citizens to give up their property rights.
THREAT TO DOMESTIC & NATIONAL SECURITY
Title 18, USC section 3592. Mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in determining whether a sentence of death is justified: (b) Aggravating factors for espionage and treason. In determining whether a sentence of death is justified for an offense the court shall consider each of the following aggravating factors for which notice has been given and determine which, if any, exist: (2) Grave risk to national security. In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of danger to the national security. Our dwindling resource of farmers is being wiped out by vigilantes in government and private sectors committing terrorism, racketeering and theft under color of law. Farmers, by their own hard work, produce something out of nothing to feed our nation. The 3 million farmers left in the United States today are under threat of dwindling down to zero, because Title 18 USC sec. 43 Animal enterprise terrorism is adopted and perpetrated by county employees. The County is liable for any of its agents or employees taking anonymous complaint’s and illegally imposing limits or restrictions on livestock and property ownership without just compensation, and who threaten food supplies through regulation and control of all wealth with the aid of private vigilantes to enforce a no ownership policy upon citizens to the point where they can no longer keep and raise livestock, food or pets. The County would be liable for its agents threatening national security/food supply.
CITIES & COUNTIES CANNOT LEGISLATE EXCEPT AS TO LANDS THEY OWN
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article 6, Cl.2 Supremacy of Constitution. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. We have three separate branches of government legislative, administrative, and judicial - set up this way to ensure we would not become a dictatorship. Dictatorship means that one branch assumes all control, takes over the other branches, and becomes a legislator who makes its own laws, administrates to set up its own and country prosecutes its own laws. Under a dictatorship, citizens have no rights, and property ownership is eliminated, as the dictatorship assumes regulation and control over all private property. The penalty for conspiring to overthrow the government of the United States is death or life imprisonment.
Schulz v. Milne, 849 F.Supp. 708 (N.D.Cal. 1994: [D]efendants fail to apprehend basic constitutional tenets restricting the extent to which state power may be delegated to private parties. See also page 6694, footnotes 1 & 5: 1. It appears to the court that the City may have improperly contracted away its legislative and governmental functions to the Board and Milne, both of whom are private parties. The Ninth Circuit clearly held that a municipality may not surrender its control of a municipal function to a private party. Cities and Counties are private municipalities; they CANNOT assume legislative powers without the Governor's signature, or without it going through the State Legislature. Only the Governor can sign laws against consumer goods. If any city or county does this, it’s racketeering, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, and impersonating an officer; in this case, a State Legislator or the Governor.
In re Ellett, 254 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2001): Under Ex Parte Young and its progeny, a suit seeking prospective equitable relief against a state official who has engaged in a continuing violation of federal law is not deemed to be a suit against the State for purposes of state sovereign immunity; Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 159-160, 28 S.Ct. 441; Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (stating that official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.). Since the State cannot authorize its officers to violate federal law, such officers are stripped of [their] official or representative character and [are] subjected in [their] person to the consequences of [their] individual conduct. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 160, 28 S.Ct. 441 Ex Parte Young gives life to the Supremacy Clause, as remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law. Cities and Counties are private municipalities; they CANNOT assume legislative powers to regulate federally protected articles livestock (including dogs, cats and pigeons) and feeds in commerce. Cities and counties have NO IMMUNITY for legislating away ANY property rights and/or ownership rights without the Governor’s signature, or without it going through the State Legislature. If they do, it’s impersonating an officer and treason against the United States.
THE COUNTY CANNOT SHIRK ITS LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS, OR ANY CITY EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS
Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3rd, 232 (9th Cir. 1995): By definition, probable cause to arrest can only exist in relation to criminal conduct; civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause contract dispute cannot give rise to probable cause to arrest. Cities or counties CANNOT butt in on any civil dispute between neighbors, or presume there is any criminal activity related to ownership of livestock, fowl or other property. Civil disputes go through the DISTRICT ATTORNEY. If the city gets involved, it commits domestic terrorism.
Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1998) at 1088: 6. Civil Rights 214(4) Municipality is not entitled to the shield of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983. Discrimination against disenfranchised citizens because they own fowl (roosters) and/or other livestock, and/or are Latinos, strips the County of immunity.
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991): [T]he law requires that the official seeking immunity to bear the burden of demonstrating that immunity attaches to the particular function. County or city employees could not bear the burden of demonstrating that sabotage, terrorism, extortion, theft under color of law, discrimination, racketeering, violation of due process, and takings without compensation attaches to their particular function of upholding the Constitution and protecting the property and rights of tax-paying citizens and property owners; therefore, the County would not be immune, either for the conduct of criminals posing as city or county employees.
Brandon v. Holt, 105 S.Ct. 873 (1985) at pp. 873, 874: ì2. Civil Rights 13.16 - In cases arising under section 1983, judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity imposes liability on the entity that he represents provided the public entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond. 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983. Held: 2. In cases under section 1983, a judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity imposes liability on the entity that he represents. This rule was plainly implied in Monell, supra; Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522; and Owen v. City of Independence, 455 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673. Cities and counties cannot take anonymous complaints. The Supreme Court says that the County is the municipality upon which liability is imposed for civil rights claims against city employees within its jurisdiction. Any County Claim Form filed regarding these terrorist acts, frauds and swindles will be the County’s Notice and Opportunity to be heard regarding city or county employees criminal conduct/conspiring to steal property.
Lalonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000): If, however, there is a material dispute as to the facts regarding what the officer or the plaintiff actually did, the case must proceed to trial, before a jury if requested10 even when immunity from suit was an issue. Issues of credibility belong to the trier of fact. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution so requires See also Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 317-318 (1995) (holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pre-trial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity) [O]nce the plaintiff established that material issues of fact existed, the court was required to submit the factual dispute to a jury. Thomson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1997) ([W]here there is a genuine issue of fact on a substantive issue of qualified immunity, ordinarily the controlling principles of summary judgment and, if there is a jury demand and a material issue of fact, the Seventh Amendment, require submission to a jury.). It would be impossible for the County to prove any immunity, when, after receiving a Claim or civil RICO suit with additional charges of terrorism and sabotage, it automatically rejects it in order to play the odds that the Claimant would be too ignorant to follow up where these issues would be taken to trial. The rejected Claim would become Exhibit A.
Robinson v. Solano County, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7643: [T]he court awarded partial summary judgment after Robinson filed both state and federal claims in federal court. As to the county, the court found that Robinson had failed to provide evidence to support municipal liability under the rule set out in Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 435 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, California has rejected the Monell rule, under which a county may be held liable in a ß 1983 suit only if it has adopted an illegal or unconstitutional policy or custom. California holds counties liable for acts of their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and grants immunity to counties only where the public employee would also be immune from liability. See C.G.C. ß 815.2; see also Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 643, 650 (Ct. App. 1994) (Under Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a), the County is liable for acts and omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a private employer.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE RACKETEERING LAWS
Title 18 USC section 1951 Interference with Commerce: Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so shall be fined or imprisoned not more than twenty years (2) the term extortion means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. Title 7, section 2 [Agricultural commodities] Definitions: The word person shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts. The word commodity shall mean wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs, [Irish potatoes], wool, wool tops, fats and oils cottonseed meal, cottonseed, peanuts, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, livestock products, and frozen concentrated orange juice, and all other goods and articles. Title 7 section 2131 The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effectively regulate such commerce, in order. (3) to protect the owners of animals from theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen. Title 18 section 1962. Prohibited activities: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. Title 18 Stolen Property, section 2311 Definitions: As used in this chapter livestock means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof. Title 7 Agriculture section 601: No state can restrict the raising of any commodity (chicken - hen or cock, other poultry, cattle, horse, goat, pig, sheep, parakeet, frog, fish, chinchilla, guinea pig, rabbit, etc.) for personal use. If the state is forbidden to restrict commodities, neither can the city or county. City or county employees get 20 years in prison for conspiring to restrict the free flow of commerce and agricultural commodities known as chickens (roosters and hens), birds and poultry, cattle, crowing fowl, pigeons, goats, horses, pigs, sheep, other small farm animals (rabbits, fish, chinchillas, frogs, parakeets, guinea pigs, etc.), and animal/livestock feed consisting of mill feeds: rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, and grain sorghums. The penalty is 20 years imprisonment or $250,000 fine.
Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997): [I]nterprative canon is not license for judiciary to rewrite language enacted by legislature Predominant elements in substantive Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations are (1) conduct (2) of enterprise (3) through pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. ß 1962(c). Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. ß 1962(d)Ö. (RICO) conspiracy conviction does not require overt or specific act. If conspirators have plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate crime and others to provide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators. Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues, for conspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and punishable in itself. Judges and cities are forbidden to rewrite language enacted by legislature. They are forbidden to even think about using the courts to uphold bogus, fabricated charges for hot pursuit of revenue. By their conduct of falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, participants violate 15 U.S.C. sections 1681s-2 and 1692(e), and become principles in a pattern of racketeering by putting false liens or debts on court or credit records without verifying that the liens or debts were illegally valid as the result of having the matter determined by a jury prior to having an abstract of judgment entered. The fraud continues when these bogus judgments are used for collection of unlawful debt. The language of 15 U.S.C. section 1681s-2 is particularly clear: a person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.
Amortization: The World Book Dictionary defines amortize as:
1. To set money aside regularly in a special fund for future wiping out of (a debt);
2. Law. To convey (property) to a body, especially an ecclesiastical body, which does not have the right to sell or give it away.
Amortization is:
1. The act of amortizing a debt;
2. The money set aside for this purpose. The County is liable for cities fraudulent misuse of the word amortization to mean an 18-month grace period before county agents crack down on all livestock and other small farm animal owners, 4-H, and FFA. The correct definition of amortization means that the county and cities need to set money aside right now for conveying property (deeds/bundle of rights chickens/chicken feed/livestock) to a body, (city or county agents), which does not have the right to sell or give it away. This is hard evidence of County’s liability for fraud and they know they have no right to con citizens into amending their own Deeds by giving up their property, but count on the public being too ignorant to look up the real definition of amortize.
CIVIL RICO by DAVID B. SMITH and TERRANCE G. REED. 1999 Edition published by MATTHEW BENDER, publication update September 1999, front page: Injuries to Business or Property: Interpreting the scope of compensatable business or property injuries under section 1964(c), THE Sixth Circuit recently held in Isaak v. Trumble Savings & Loan Co., 169 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 1999), that the use and enjoyment of real estate constitutes property within the meaning of RICO so as to trigger the accrual of a RICO claim. The county and its cities are liable for racketeering conduct of its employees/agents use of fear, threats, and intimidation to interfere with the use and enjoyment of property by citizens who pay city and county employees to protect and serve their property rights.
U.S. v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) at 793: To establish conspiracy under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not require proof that individual defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses; rather, the conspiracy must contemplate the commission of two predicate acts by one or more of its members. 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d). More than two predicate acts occur when private individuals conspire with public employees to violate state and federal law by restricting property ownership without just compensation in furtherance of a racketeering scheme or artifice (denial of honest government services and theft under color of law); therefore, the County is the municipality upon which the liability is imposed for conduct constituting RICO conspiracy through fraud and deceit to effect ‘takings’ without due process and without just compensation, which is theft under color. The county needs to remember the judicial officers who went to jail in this Frega case for operating the courts as a racketeering enterprise, the $42 million that went back into Uncle Sam’s Treasury as fruits of a racketeering enterprise, and needs to remember the 1,500 crooked employees who used to work for the DMV and who took bribes to do favors and manufacture fake licenses for their friends. In the Frega case, the feds only collected $42 million, because it was pled improperly and a lot more big fish escaped the net.
Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997): [C]onspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and punishable in itself. City and county employees are liable for conspiring to restrict property (including old cars) and agricultural commodities (Title 7, section 2) without just compensation, and conspiring to target disenfranchised livestock owners and feed mills in violation of Title 42 section 1983, when they admit to having met (conspired) with code enforcement and private persons in violation of the Brown Act in order to steal. The county is liable for its employees intent (conspiracy) to conduct city and county business as a racketeering enterprise.
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 1996) at 378: Attorney need know nothing about client’s ongoing or planned illicit activity for crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege to apply. The County is liable for city employees ‘planned illicit activity to turn property ownership into a crime, and any attorney representing the city or county agents in a lawsuit is liable under crime-fraud exception, and their malpractice insurance will not cover RICO allegations; nor can any of their clients recover ANY attorney fees (this notion was rejected by the full House in 1970 see CIVIL RICO, footnote 25)
Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1995): A pre-answer Motion to Dismiss action for failure to state a claim admits facts alleged in complaint but challenges plaintiff’s right to relief based upon those facts. The County would have no hope of using a 12(b)(6) motion to deny the fact that any of its citizens exists, and that one citizen was subjected to Animal Enterprise Terrorism, threats, fear, intimidation, trespass, and robbery by city employees.
Guerrero v. Gates, et al, CV 00-7165, WILLIAM J. REA, August 28, 2000, United States District Court for the Central District of California, quoting pertinent parts relating to nationwide news the LAPD CONDUCT SUBJECT TO CIVIL RICO: DISCUSSION: Legal Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): A party may bring a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims if the plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Generally, [a] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
Thus, dismissal is proper where the complaint lacks either a cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must construe all allegations contained in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738 (1976). Thus, no matter how improbable the alleged facts are, the court must accept them as true for the purposes of the action. See Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989). The first amended complaint alleges planting evidence and extortion by Rampart police, which are both racketeering violations under Title 18. Attorneys for the defendant police made a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim. The court recommended that this motion be denied, and encouraged the plaintiff to pursue his racketeering claims. Likewise, it would be very easy to prove the set of facts that the city and county employees aided and abetted racketeering activity by restricting property use, and by conspiring with private individuals and corporations to terrorize tax-paying citizens.
AR zoning: Existing animal keeping uses in the AR Agricultural-Residential District which become nonconforming by reason of development on an adjoining site which was vacant when the animal keeping use was established may be continued indefinitely; provided, however, if the animal keeping use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of eighteen (18) months, it shall not be resumed except in conformity with the provisions of Section 9-3.420 of this article. The County is liable for illegally proposing (extortion) that citizens be given 18 months to get rid of chickens or face charges in order to threaten and intimidate citizens to give up their property rights, which is a scheme or artifice to defraud under color of official right. The County is liable for any of its employees/agents using extortion, threats, fear and intimidation to coerce citizens to amend their Deeds and give up their property rights without just compensation or due process, and for falsely purporting that if the chickens or other livestock/small farm animals are gone for 18 months, the County can then fraudulently ‘amend’ the owners deed, illegally convert the title, and get rid of the Prop 13 tax break.
Dewey J. Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. __, 146 L.Ed.2d 902, 120 S.Ct. _ (2000): Held: Because an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property used in commerce or commerce-affecting activity, arson of such a dwelling is not subject to prosecution. The Supreme Court says that you cannot be prosecuted by anybody for damaging your own property. The county is liable for its employees/agents fraud, perjury, and extortion to steal property under the guise of rescuing it from its lawful owner.
PROPERTY OWNER'S STANDING TO SUE UNDER RICO
Rotella v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 SCt.__, at pg. 1047: The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 USCS ßß 1961 et seq.) provides that
(1) it is unlawful to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (18 USCS ß 1962(c),
(2) a pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which occurs within 10 years after the commission of a prior act (18 USCS ß 1962(c),
(3) a person injured by a RICO violation can bring a civil RICO action (18 USCS 1964(c)). Any person injured by racketeering activity can file a civil RICO lawsuit. Racketeering activity is anything which interferes with land use and property rights, threats, fear, false process, false liens, etc.
CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE FORBIDDEN TO INTERFERE WITH FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND FUNDED PROGRAMS FFA and 4H
Title USC 18 section 666.Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds. Whoever being an agent of a State, or local government, or any agency thereof - embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. The circumstances referred to is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance As used in this section -
(1) the term agent means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or government and includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative;
(2) the term government agency means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a governmental or intergovernmental program. The County is liable for its servants or employees, boards, etc. embezzlement of federal funds in excess of $10,000 for restricting federally funded and protected animal enterprises including hobbyists, petting zoos, fairs, aquariums, 4H and FFA, pigeon shows, etc. by stealing, obtaining by fraud, or otherwise convert to the use of any person other than the rightful owner livestock and small animals lawfully owned within the County.
The county does not get to receive federal funds for protected 4H and FFA programs, then turn around and restrict them. Not only is this a crime against the tax-paying citizens in the County, it is a crime against the United States. Anything which interferes with land use is racketeering.