PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS
This compilation came about in
response to demands for information due to increasing public awareness that
United States’ citizens are being robbed of their rights and property by
white-collar criminals, who use the courts to steal. These very sophisticated con games rely upon public ignorance
about “due process” to get away with trespassing, stealing, and using
corrupt court employees to issue “judgments” to
give these fake things the appearance of “legally valid,” when they
are as criminal and phony as a $3 bill. The
cure to this problem, is to know what you own, and know the “bundle of
rights” that comes along with owning anything from a chicken or a telephone,
to a mansion or a Lear jet. “If
you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any” is as true today as it was
during the American Revolution. By
knowing your rights, knowing what you own, and by knowing our beautiful laws,
nobody can bluff or con you out of your rights or property. We are a capitalistic society – all our laws are designed
to protect our enterprises, and give us total freedom to spend all the money we
want on as much stuff or property as we want.
“Personal use” means that you acquire pottery, cars, poodles, golf
balls, cookbooks, chickens, etc. for your pleasure, because that’s what
gives YOU that “zip” or “inspiration” in life.
A free society protects this uniqueness, and no man can infringe on your
lifestyle, property, or self expression unless he first PAYS you for it.
Rights have value, and all property has value.
Only socialist dictatorships restrict lifestyle and property ownership.
NOTE: All
references are taken directly from the 2001 editions of West Group’s
federal civil and criminal codes, and Matthew-Bender’s California civil and
penal codes. My comments are in
italic. Exact cites are given, so
the reader may look them up and decide for himself. Omitted portions are dotted…
“U.S.C.” means United States Code as written by Congress.
Remember: All tyrannies have used information control and propaganda to
enslave and rob their own people – the first thing Hitler did was to burn all
the books, and take over the courts. A
free nation cannot be enslaved by propaganda and revisionism as long as its
citizens know their own laws:
RESTRICTIONS ON SEARCH AND
SEIZURE
DISTRICT
COURT CLERK’S MANUAL Chapter 3 section 3.01. Search Warrants
(a) Introduction. The
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
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. (b)
History of the Search Warrant: The
concept of unreasonable search and seizure was an 18th century reaction
regarding two separate evils, one on each side of the Atlantic Ocean. The
general warrant and writ of assistance were instruments which provided the
authorities the power to enter anywhere and seize any persons or things, at
anytime, with little or no regard to any expectation of privacy.
In England, general warrants were used by the King in an attempt to stop
the publishing of what was then referred to as seditious libel (e.g., documents
that incited rebellion against the authority of the state). In the colonies,
writs of assistance were used, again by the King of England, to enforce customs
and tax laws. Taxes on wine, tea, and stamps were assessed by the British
Parliament in an attempt to retire a portion of the French and Indian war debt.
These taxes, of course, were met with great resistance by the colonists. It was
this resistance that led, in part, to the American Revolution in 1775.
In England, the battle against the general warrant was being fought in
the courts. Cases such as Huckel
v. Money (Chief Justice Charles Pratt, Lord Camden, 1763); Leach v. Money (Chief Justice William Murray, Lord Mansfield,
1765); and Entick v. Carrington
(Chief Justice Charles Pratt, Lord Camden, 1765) laid the foundation of one of
the most exciting chapters of legal history.
In what was an incredible triumph for the absolute impartiality of
British justice, aristocratic judges returned verdicts against members of their
own class, condemning the use of general warrants.
The search and seizure of an individual's personal property cannot extend
beyond the intent of the Constitution and federal laws. The most important
consideration underlying the Fourth Amendment's protection is the reasonable
expectation of privacy and security on the part of every citizen, against
arbitrary intrusions and seizures by governmental authorities.
(c) Search and Seizure Rule.
Search and seizure is governed by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. The rule
specifies who has the authority to issue warrants.
It states, in part: “Upon
the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the
government, a search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued (1) by a
federal magistrate, or a state court of record within the federal district, for
a search of property or for a person within the district, and (2) by a federal
magistrate for a search of property or for a person either within or outside the
district if the property or person is within the district when the warrant is
sought but might move outside the district before the warrant is executed.” Fed.R.Crim.P.
41(a).
Overton v. Ohio, 151 L.Ed 2d 317 (October 16, 2001):
“The Fourth Amendment provides that ‘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.’
U.S. Const., Amdt. 4. The
probable-cause determination must be made by a neutral magistrate in order ‘to
insure that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer will be
interposed between the citizen and the police, to assess the weight and
credibility of the information which the complaining officer adduces as probable
cause.’ This case makes it
very clear that there shall be NO “anonymous complaints,” and that the duty
of the court is to interpose a “neutral and detached” judicial officer
between the complaining party in order to see if an offense truly has been
committed. In California, warrants
can only be issued on a FELONY. And
if there is no victim, then there is no crime.
NO
“SECRET DECISIONS” IN A FREE SOCIETY
The
Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code, sections 54950-54962 “Brown Act”) – Excerpted from Opinion of Bill
Lockyear, 2001 DJDAR 12289 (Nov. 26, 2001):
“The
Brown Act (§ 54950 et seq.), adopted
in 1953, is intended to ensure the public’s right to attend the meetings of
public agencies. [Citation.]
To achieve this aim, the Act requires, inter alia, that an agenda be
posted at least 72 hours before a regular meeting and forbids action on any item
not on that agenda. [Citation.]
The Act thus serves to facilitate public participation in all phases of
local government decisionmaking and to curb misuse of the democratic process by
secret legislation of public bodies. [Citation.]
The
Act’s statement of intent provides: “In enacting this chapter, the
Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils
and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the
people’s business. It is the
intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly. The
people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve
them. The people, in delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good
for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.
The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control
over the instruments they have created. [Citation.]
The Brown Act dictates that “[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of
a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to
attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as
otherwise provided in this chapter. [Citation.]”
This is designed to eliminate “special interests” from commandeering
civic institutions and processes. Unfortunately,
bribery is such great a temptation that often “private policy” ends up
getting shoved down the public’s throat to the detriment of unalienable
rights. INSIST that city council,
etc. meetings disclose ALL “interested parties” AND their agendas.
If some private entity wants to regulate and/or restrict your ownership
of chickens, dogs, or junk cars, DEMAND that the district attorney make them
post a Bond, FIRST. The District
Attorney is paid by you to protect YOUR property rights.
Demand he do his job.
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, 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.
California
Constitution Article 1, section 9 Due Process; Equal Protection; 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 the property
of another, be it land, livestock, etc. must first put up a Bond to indemnify
the lawful owner(s), 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
postdeprivation remedy for the loss). The
County is liable for any city employee violating the takings clause of the Fifth
Amendment by trespassing. 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. Cities and
Counties are forbidden by law 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 – building materials, landscaping/gardening supplies, animal
feed, livestock, pets, vehicles, etc. Damages
for the takings without just compensation and for the extortion are 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…” Animals,
land, junk cars, etc. are PROPERTY.
California Evidence Code section 811 Value of
property defined: “As used in this
article, ‘value of property’ means market value of any of the following: (a)
real property or any interest therein; (b) real property or any interest therein
and tangible personal property valued as
a unit.” “Unit”
could be one chicken. Its genetic
composition could have great value just as other strains of livestock such as
racehorses and beef cattle. “Interest”
in that chicken could be anything from future profits from sale of its offspring
to “intellectual property,” such as photographs, movies, books, articles,
fine art paintings, funny stories, videotapes, educational seminars, wearable
art, sculptures, black velvet paintings, etc. of that chicken.
California Food and Agriculture Code section
30651: As used in this chapter, “livestock” includes domestic
fowls and rabbits. The
City and County are liable for “takings” of property/livestock units known
as “birds and poultry, cattle, crowing fowl, pigeons, fish, frogs,
chinchillas, guinea pigs, rabbits, parakeets, peafowl, guineas, goats, horses,
pigs, sheep, and other small farm animals” and could not convince a jury it
was “immune from liability” after proving both its
indifference to clearly established law and its intent to steal under false
pretenses, and for perpetrating domestic terrorism and crime against its own
citizens.
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 constitutes a
“takings,” 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 effects a taking.
Were the Court to accept that rule, the postenactment 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 the 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.
DOMESTIC
TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW
California
Constitution, Article 1, section 1. Inalienable
Rights. “All
people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.
Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety,
happiness, and privacy. On
September 11, 2001, the American people were given new meanings for the word
“terrorism” when four stolen passenger planes loaded with jet fuel were used
as “smart bombs” to kill over 5,000 innocent and unsuspecting civilians, and
cause untold destruction and fear. Feelings
of patriotism were immediately aroused coast-to coast.
Waving a flag is one thing, understanding what it really stands for is
another. The best way to eliminate
ALL terrorism, is to regain an understanding of our own laws, and understand how
and why CONGRESS defines terrorism. ALL
terrorism takes away our freedoms, and shuts down our businesses and lives.
Domestic terrorism takes many forms - racketeering, extortion, false
liens, false personations and cheats, animal enterprise terrorism, and theft
under color of law. This problem is
not new; the Colonists were plagued by cringing Attorneys-General and
Solicitors-General of the Crown and the arbitrary Justices of the King's Court,
all bent on the conviction of those who opposed the King's prerogatives, and who
twisted the law to secure convictions. Rights
have VALUE. Anybody wishing to
restrict the use of any private property or ownership right, including rental
agreement, must PAY the owner or occupant for that right.
A property is bought or rented “as is.”
Nobody can come along later and restrict its use except if they BUY IT,
first. For example, the Title to
your car doesn’t say, “This car may be driven every day except on
Wednesdays.” Likewise, a property
Deed does not say, “This land may be owned and used to the exclusion of all
others for 10 years, after which it becomes City property, which the City can
regulate and control." City or
county codes are for CITY or COUNTY property – they do not apply to any
private property, unless the city or county lawfully acquires the
property by BUYING it, first. Only then
can they “regulate” it.
Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331.
Definitions. “As used in this chapter – (1) the term “international
terrorism” means activities that - (A) involve violent acts…; (B) appear to
be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (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 victims’ freedoms and put them out of
business. The punishment is
imprisonment for 25 years.
Title 18 U.S.C. 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 in war materials and defense
materials, and the places where they are raised are war premises and national
defense premises. All those men on
aircraft carriers eat eggs every morning. Anybody
interfering 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
authority to regulate these Title 7 U.S.C. section 2 “agricultural
commodities” except Congress.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2153 Destruction of war
material, war premises, or war utilities “(a)
Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national
emergency…with intent to injure, interfere with…willfully injures,
destroys…or attempts to so injure, destroy…any war material, war
premises…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty
years, or both. (b) If any
two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties
to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this
section.” 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 U.S.C. 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 vehicle’ 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.” Congress
revised this on June 25, 1948 after the Peal Harbor attack, as the whole nation
figured out that a stolen “airplane” could severely affect national security
and economic stability. It was
already established for more than 200 years that the most important things that
could be stolen that would destroy national security and economic stability were
“cattle” and “livestock” including chickens.
Anybody who steals a dog, cat, goat, pigeon, horse or chicken, or who
trespasses on lands for their production with intent to steal is a domestic
terrorist. 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 them will get
the thief 10 years in jail.
Title 18 U.S.C. 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 ’illegally taking “anonymous complaints” and use of
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, yet they not shut down thanks to bribe money used to
void judgments against them in court. See
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE EXTENT OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ON
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE online under Department of Justice or DOJ reports.
Title 18 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. section 43 Animal enterprise terrorism is adopted and perpetrated
by county employees. The County is
liable for any of its agents or employees taking “anonymous complaints” 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.
LAW FORBIDS GIVING AID TO ENEMIES OF THE U.S.
Animal terrorism: FBI
Report: “The Animal Enterprise Protection Act…codified as Title
18 section 43, makes it a federal offense…to cause physical disruption to the
functioning of an animal enterprise resulting in economic damage exceeding
$10,000…While the Act characterizes terrorism
as physical disruption…(including stealing…or causing the loss of
property), the FBI defines terrorism
as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate
or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment
thereof, in furtherance of political
or social objectives.” The
County would be liable for its agents furthering political or social objectives
of “domestic terrorism,” “takings without just compensation,” use of the
courts to give “legally void” judgments the appearance of “legally
valid” for the purpose of property confiscation; and other crimes described in
“racketeering enterprises to steal property,” which is what will happen when
the “chicken and livestock police terrorists” are loosed upon the County’s
citizens.
Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 2381 Treason:
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States,
levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer
death…” Title 18 U.S.C. section 2383 Rebellion or insurrection:
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or
insurrection against the authority of the United States or the law thereof, or
gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than ten years, or both, and shall be incapable of holding any office . .
.” The
Humane Society puts in a strong presence at many public hearings.
The Board illegally adopts their policy of making laws against
property/chicken ownership under the guise of “stamping out cock fighting.”
The County is liable for adopting Humane Society objectives, which amount
to a covert operation to steal property, livestock, and real estate without
just compensation by using criminals in government positions to give it the
appearance of a legitimate operation.
CITIES
& COUNTIES CANNOT LEGISLATE EXCEPT AS TO LANDS THEY OWN
WARRANTS
ONLY ISSUED THROUGH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
California Penal Code Chapter 9
CRIMINAL PROFITEERING section 186.2 Definitions:
“(c) “Prosecuting agency” means the Attorney
General or the district attorney of any county.”
The following CANNOT file charges
or prosecute in the name of the People: city attorneys, police officers, code
enforcement, other private attorneys, animal control officers, etc.
All they can do, is take a complaint from an injured citizen, and turn it
over to the district attorney for prosecution.
If any of them do violate this procedure, they are guilty of filing a
false report, fraud, swindles, racketeering, extortion, and impersonating an
officer.
California Penal Code section 813 Issuance
of Warrants or Summons; Form and Content of Summons:
1995 Note: “[A]n
arrest warrant shall issue on a complaint if, and only if, the magistrate is
satisfied from the complaint that the offense complained of has been committed
and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person named in the
warrant has committed the offense.” Only a victim
or injured party can file a
complaint, which can only go through the district attorney’s office.
Then, it goes through a neutral and detached magistrate, who determines
from the reports that the person named in the complaint has committed
a crime. By law, police
officers cannot file charges; they can only take reports from a victim. By
law, dog-catchers are only contracted with the county to get rid of nuisance
wildlife and unwanted pets.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT ISSUE CITATIONS
California Penal Code, Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES.
Sections 853.1 through 853.4. Enacted 1955. Repealed
1967. It has been illegal since 1967 for city or county ordinances to be
enforced on private property. County
employees are committing domestic terrorism if they issue “citations”
for “code violations” on private property.
“Repealed” means CANCELLED SINCE 1967.
Twelve years of lawsuits between the years 1955 and 1967 clearly
established the unconstitutionality of “city and county CITATIONS,” so they
were ABOLISHED. Any city or county
employee writing one after 1967 is guilty of racketeering, extortion, and
terrorism. The penalty is four
years in prison.
California
Civil Code section 669. Seisin or
Ownership.
“All property has an owner, whether that owner is the state, and the
property public, or the owner an individual, and the property private.”
The County is liable for illegal
and wrongful presumption that its agents/employees are the lawful owners of all
those guinea pigs, pigeons, chickens, pigs, horses, fish, frogs, goats, rabbits,
sheep, crowing fowl, turkeys, ducks, geese, and chinchillas that belong to “an
individual,” who is an owner other than the city, county or the state.
This applies to ALL property. If
the county does not own it, the county cannot restrict it.
If the city doesn’t own it, the city cannot regulate or restrict its
use. And if the city wants to exert
acts of ownership or control over any part of another man'’ property, the city
must PAY for it. Rights have VALUE.
California
Civil Code section 670 Lands owned
by State.
“The state is the owner of all land below tide-water, and below
ordinary high-water mark, bordering upon tide-water within the state; of all
land below the water of a navigable lake or stream; of all property lawfully
appropriated by it to its own use; of all property
dedicated to the state; and of all property of which there is no other owner.”
The County is liable for its
agents/employees’ unlawful appropriation of property owned by private
individuals, when they commit stalking, criminal trespass to inventory livestock
and other property. In order to
place a restriction upon any property, the county must first “lawfully
appropriate” the property by buying it.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT FABRICATE CHARGES
California
PenalCode section 526 Imitation or Pretended Process – Delivery
“Any person, who, with intent to obtain from another person any money,
article of personal property or other thing of value, causes to be delivered to
the other person any paper, document or written, typed or printed for purporting
to be an order or other process…calculated by its writing…to cause or lead
the other person to believe it to be an order…is guilty of a misdemeanor…”
Citations for CITY or COUNTY “violations” have been void since 1967;
and anybody purporting to steal property/livestock by “pretended service”
gets one year in prison.
California
PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 518 Defined.
“Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent,
or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful
use of force or fear, or under color of official right.”
It is a wrongful and terrorist act to deprive one American citizen of
the ability or freedom to spend one dollar on one rooster, small animal, dog,
cat, pigeon, or other livestock, or any animal feed. The penalty is four years in prison.
California
PenalCode CHAPTER 8 FALSE PERSONATIONS AND CHEATS section 531 Conveyance to
Defraud Creditors and Others.
“Every person who is a party to any fraudulent conveyance of any lands,
tenements, or hereditaments, goods or chattels, or any right or interest issuing
out of the same…had, made, or contrived with intent to deceive and defraud
others, or to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors or others of their just
debts…is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Livestock
is classified as “property having value” which can be used as collateral.
Any city or county which restricts or eliminates livestock ownership, and
anybody such as “humane” Society or veterinarians who conspire with them
violates contract and debt obligation laws.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT INDUCE FEAR
California
PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 519 Fear Induced by Threat.
“Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat,
either: 1. To do an unlawful injury
to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his
family, of any crime; or, 3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any
deformity, disgrace or crime…” Threats
by the city or county to turn “ownership of livestock” into a “crime” is
EXTORTION, TERRORISM, and COMMODITIES’ TAMPERING. The penalty is four years in prison.
California
PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 521 When Under Color of Office, section
522 Extorting Signature to Transfer of Property, section 523 Written threat Made
to Extort. “Every
person who commits any extortion under color of official right…Every person
who, by any extortionate means, obtains from another his signature to any paper
or instrument, whereby, if such signature were freely given, any property would
be transferred…Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other
property from another, send or delivers to any person any letter or other
writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying…any threat…is
punishable in the same manner as if the actual delivery of such debt, demand,
charge, or right of action were obtained.”
This section was enacted to
prosecute and incarcerate corrupt government employees using threats and fear to
terrorize innocent property owners, elderly, and other citizens into giving up
any right or any property without due process. The penalty is four years in prison.
California
Penal Code, Title 11.6 CIVIL RIGHTS. Section
422.6 Use of Force, Threats, or Destruction of Property to Interfere With
Another’s Exercise of Civil Rights - Punishment. “(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with,
oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this
state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States…”
Acquiring and owning livestock is
an unalienable right secured by Congress. Nobody
can take that right away, unless they PAY you for it.
Rights have VALUE. The owner
must be paid, and all moving expenses reimbursed for being relocated
to some area where there is no domestic terrorism, the Constitution is the law
of the land, and the owner is free to acquire and own property for personal
enjoyment and use to the exclusion of all others. City or county employees are stripped of all immunity for
attempting vigilante action against property owners.
CITES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT TAX PROPERTY TWICE
California
Civil Code section 732. Right to
Accessions and Increase.
“The owner of a thing owns also all its products and accessions.”
The State, directly or indirectly
through their agents, cannot tax future profits.
So if the STATE cannot do this, how can a municipal corporation CITY do
it, by requiring “permits” or “fees” for “private property
ownership?” How can a non-profit
corporation such as the “Humane” Society do it by requiring “licensing”
of all dogs, or “conditional use permits” for dogs or livestock?
By law, dogs and livestock are property, and, once purchased or acquired,
are never taxed again except in socialist dictatorships, which punish property
ownership. Besides, how can a
non-profit corporation be “damaged” by somebody else raising dogs or
livestock for profit, unless their real agenda is domestic terrorism, introduce
socialism, take away all property rights, and regulate and control all wealth.
California
Food and Agriculture Code section 30951. “It
is unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or keep any dog over the age of four
months, or to permit such a dog which is owned, harbored, or controlled by him
to run at large, unless the dog has attached to its neck or leg a substantial
collar on which one of the following is fastened: (a) A metallic tag which gives the name and post office
address of the owner. (b) A
metal license tag which is issued by the authority of a county, city and county,
or any municipal corporation for the purpose of identifying the dog and
designating the owner.” Notice the “either/or” – enacted to protect the property owner if
his dog gets lost or stolen so that it can be returned to him.
Working dogs taken off the property can be registered with the County
Recorder for cheap. It is illegal
for a private corporation such as the Humane Society to require “fees” or
“taxes” on private property “dog,” as this constitutes “taxation
without representation.” California
is the only state in the union that has stalking laws, and where it is a felony
to steal a dog. These laws are to
PROTECT the owner of a dog, so that he can recover it for FREE if it gets lost
or stolen.
CITY AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES CANNOT VIOLATE THEIR OATHS
Indebtedness: California
Constitution Article XX section 3 Oath of Office:
All public officers and employees, executive, legislative and
judicial…shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices,
take and subscribe the following Oath or affirmation:
“I, __________, do solemnly swear [affirm] that I will support and
defend the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state
of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United Sates and the
Constitution of the state of California; that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. And
I do further swear [affirm] that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any
party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow
of the government of the United States or of the State of California by force or
violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately
proceeding the taking of this oath [affirmation] I have not been a member of any
party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of
the government of the united states or the state of California by force or
violence or other unlawful means except as follows: _______________ (if no
affiliations, write in the words “no exceptions”) and that during such time
as I hold the office of
(name of office) ,
I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political
or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United
States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful
means.” And no other oath,
declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification for any public office
or employment. “Public officer or
employee” includes every officer and employee of the state, including the
University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and
authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission,
agency, or instrumentality of any of the forgoing.
[adopted May 1879. Amended Nov. 1952]. City
and County employees are indebted to fulfill their Oaths, which forbids
them to overthrow the government by means of adopting the policies of
non-governmental organizations/corporations, animal terrorists, or criminals
masquerading as government employees that steal property under false pretenses.
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: “2. 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 judgement 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 § 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. § 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.
Under subdivision (b), the County is immune from liability if, and only if,
[the employee] is immune.”).
The County would not be immune, as
their employees and cities are not
immune for Title 42 section 1983 discrimination against disenfranchised
livestock owners, 4-Hers, FFA, pigeon clubs, feed stores, and feed mill owners.
There is no immunity for domestic terrorism, sabotage, extortion, theft
and racketeering under color of state and federal law, and no immunity for
failing to provide equal protection at the point of threat, in this case, conspiracy by public
employees to restrict commerce, and commit takings without just compensation by
means of using threats, fear, intimidation, and fraud to coerce a civilian
population to amend their Deeds and give up property rights or else face
“charges” for
owning property/agricultural commodities.
This only happens in third-world socialist dictatorships.
Title 18 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. § 1962(c). . . . Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy conviction does not
require overt or specific act. 18
U.S.C. § 1962(d). . . . 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 distinct evil, dangerous to public,
and so 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
1692e(2)(A) and 1681s-2,
and became “principals” in a “pattern of racketeering” by putting
“false liens or debts” on “court or credit records” without
“verifying” that the liens or debts were “legally 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 –
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 compensable “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.
California Civil Code section 3482.5 Preexisting Agricultural Uses Not
Nuisance.
“(a)(1) No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or
appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a
manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established
and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be
or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or
about the locality, after it has been in operation for more than three years if
it was not a nuisance at the time it began.”
County is liable for their agents’ “racketeering and extortion” in
using threats, fear and intimidation by going door-to-door issuing citations for
having too many parakeets, fish, frogs, goats, guinea pigs, fowl, pigeons, pigs,
horses, etc., which information they obtained illegally through criminal
trespass or violation of property owners’ Fourth Amendment.
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, and admitted 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 preanswer 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
owner’s deed, illegally convert the title, and get rid of the Prop 13 tax
break.
Jones v. United States, 529 U.S.__, 146 L Ed 2d 902, 120 S.Ct___ (May 22, 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
U.S.C.S §§ 1961 et seq.) provides that (1) it is unlawful to conduct an
enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. §
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 § 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.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs
receiving Federal funds. “Whoever…being an
agent of…a State, or local…government, or any agency thereof-(A) 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.
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 is 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., WHO DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
ANYTHING.
California Penal Code Chapter 3 SEARCH
WARRANTS section 1523
Definition: “A search warrant is an order in writing, in the
name of the people, signed by a magistrate, directed to a peace officer,
commanding him or her to search for a person or persons, a thing or things, or
personal property, and, in the case of a thing or things or personal property,
bring the same before the magistrate. 1996
Notes: (a) the purpose of the amendment to Section 1523 of the Penal Code is
to provide a mechanism for compliance with Steagald
v. United States, , 68 L.Ed.2d 38”
No VICTIM equals NO CRIME.
And search warrants cannot be issued willy-nilly – see Steagald, above.
Warrants are only issued IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE by going through the
DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the MAGISTRATE. The
reference to Steagald was a warning: Cities have been caught issuing
bullshit warrants BEFORE. The ONLY
person who can issue ANY warrant in the NAME OF THE PEOPLE is the district
attorney, and he can ONLY do this from a report taken by a police officer from a
VICTIM that goes through HIS office, then through the scrutiny of a neutral and
detached MAGISTRATE.
California Penal Code Chapter 3 SEARCH
WARRANTS section 1524
Ground for Issuance: “(a) A search warrant may be issued upon any of the
following grounds: (1) When the
property was stolen or embezzled. (2)
When the property or things were used as the means of committing a felony….”
There’s more to this section, but it is very clear:
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.”
Apartment
Association of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8951:
“Fee imposed upon residential rental properties that wasn’t adopted
pursuant to Proposition 218 is void. In
1996, California adopted Proposition 218 (the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act”),
thereby adding Article XIIID to the California Constitution (1) to limit “the
methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their
consent”…Section 6 obligates an agency to follow specified procedures before
imposing or increasing any…fee…including notice to identified property
owners who would be subject to the proposed new fee…”
The County is liable for its
employees/Planning Department/Supervisors/Cities’ illegal imposition of
“conditional use permit/tax/fee” on property (livestock) in violation of
Proposition 218.
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 his 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 – invasion and terrorism
because somebody else invaded our privacy, and did a “bench trial” because
they determined that our lifestyle was “seditious.”
California Penal Code SECTION 602.2. “Any
ordinance or resolution adopted by a county which requires written permission to
enter vacant or unimproved private land from either the owner, the owner’s
agent, or the person in lawful possession of private land, shall not apply
unless the land is immediately adjacent and contiguous to residential property,
or enclosed by fence, or under cultivation, or posted with signs forbidding
trespass, displayed at intervals of not less than three to a mile, along all
exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the private land.”
County is liable for its agents/employees illegally entering fenced,
posted, under cultivation, adjacent to residential, private property without
written permission of the owner, owner’s agent, or person in lawful possession
of the property.
The
People v. Camacho, 1998
Daily Journal D.A.R. 12105:
“Police observation through bedroom window 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 defendant’s 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 citizen’s
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 § 1962 Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
U.S.
Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” The County is liable for
“failure to provide equal protection” to all citizens owning property, as
the County is not a separate country, it falls within the State of California
within the United States, and its employees do not get to make up their own laws
intended to steal property and disenfranchise and discriminate against citizens
for owning chickens, pigeons, parakeets, guinea pigs, goats, ducks, turkeys,
cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, fish, chinchillas, frogs, etc.
(1)
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;
(2)
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;
(3) 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;
(4)
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.
Cities and counties cannot set themselves up as heads of vigilante
organizations. The County is liable
to provide redress for the deprivation, under color, of the rights secured by
the Constitution of the United States and Acts of Congress providing for equal
rights of citizens to have just compensation for any County “takings;” and
is liable to pay damages or to secure equitable or other relief providing for
the protection of civil rights, including the right to own and raise pigeons,
cats, dogs, large or small livestock, chickens whether they be hens or roosters,
and to buy and sell livestock feed.
Estate
of Macias v. Lopez,
42 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D.Cal. 1999): “…the
district court began its analysis by setting forth the elements of a § 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 § 1983 “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 § 1983 is the question whether there is a direct
causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional
deprivation”); City of Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 378 (1987) at 267
(stating that “the Court repeatedly has stressed the need to find a direct
causal connection between municipal conduct and the constitutional
deprivation”); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir.
1981) at 1125 (…liability under § 1983 can be established by showing that the
defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiff’s
rights, or caused such a deprivation to occur).
There is a constitutional right, however, to have police services
administered in a nondiscriminatory manner – a right that is violated when a
state actor denies such protection to disfavored persons.
See Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d
712, 715-17 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing a cause of action under §
1983 based upon the discriminatory denial of police services); Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)
(same); see also Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1406 (10th Cir.
1996) (stating that “[a]n equal protection violation occurs when the
government treats someone differently [from] another who is similarly
situated”). The alleged
constitutional deprivation in this matter was the alleged denial of equal police
protection to Mrs. Macias.”
There became a direct causal link between the city and the constitutional
deprivation of its citizens under “equal protection” when the city, through
its agents and employees, showed indifference to the rights of its residents and
businessmen (feed mills) and adopted a custom or policy to discriminate against
disfavored individuals, who were disenfranchised because they “owned or raised
livestock” or were “keeping any property the city doesn’t like;” this
policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to injured citizens’
constitutional rights. Any
hearings done in conspiracy with other private individuals to restrict commerce
and deprive citizens of equal protection constitutes the cause/point of threat
to citizens’ unalienable rights of property ownership, equal protection, and
benefit of honest government services before
the citizen gets robbed.
Under
Title 7 U.S.C. section 2159,
Congress restrains all states subject to Public Law regarding animals and
livestock. All investigations for
“alleged animal neglect” fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture, NOT the County. The
United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, sends a request to the United
States Attorney General, now John Ashcroft, to request of a United States
District Court Judge to issue a “restraining order or injunction” pursuant
to section 2159 of Title 7 United States Code, whenever
the Secretary has reason to believe…the health of any animal [is] in serious
danger…”
The County employees and agents are
not the United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, and The County
Board of Supervisors are not United States District Court judges,
therefore, they conspired to intentionally and willfully “impersonate federal
authority,” restricted since 1966 under the following “explicit” statute:
Title
7 U.S.C. Section 2159. Authority to
Apply for Injunctions.- (a) Request.
– Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any dealer, carrier,
exhibitor, or intermediate handler is dealing in stolen animals, or is placing the
health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act or the
regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, the Secretary shall notify
the Attorney General who may apply to the United States district court in which
such dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or
intermediate handler resides or conducts business for a temporary
restraining order or injunction to prevent any such person from operating in
violation of this Act or the regulations and standards prescribed under this
Act. The County is not immune from city’s criminal conduct, and
“impersonating federal authority” in order to commit terrorism and theft
under color.
HISTORY
LESSON ON ANIMAL RIGHTS AND TYRANNY
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Hitler's
Nazi Germany was marked by a preoccupation with "animal rights."
Hitler's Third Reich passed numerous animal protection laws, such as
declaring that shoeing a horse was cruel, and declared an end to dissection.
This reduced Man’s status to that of animals, and justified treating
men as animals. Before the war was
ended, the Nazis stepped up experiments on the best way to castrate a Jew
without anesthesia, and turned countless men, women and children into lampshades
and soap. These Nazi actions were
justifiable by their belief that it was possible to "...increase the moral
standing of animals and decrease the moral standing of people, thus integrating
human characteristics to animals... elevating animal life to the level of cult
worship...which would lead to the spiritual and ideological changes necessary...
for a new national identity."
The
real political objective of “animal rights” is to eliminate
"unalienable rights," and to make way for all these other supposed
rights and pervert our Bill of Rights to the point where only the perverted are
protected. A favored socialist
strategy is to separate the population from common sense and its own laws by
bringing about chaos, clouding real issues, then bring about “change”
through gradual “legislation from within.”
Ruling by planned crisis is the favored method, as this short-circuits
the brain’s ability to think and reason clearly about true issues.
This planned chaos (such as “animal cruelty,” “puppy mills” and
“cock fighting”) is designed to rob the nation of its creativity and life
force, degrade human existence, make everything seem uncontrollable and bad,
which then allows the introduction of a tyrannical form of government.
The
Gestapo was first used by Goring to do away with political opponents.
A "temporary" state of emergency was declared after the
Reichstag fire, but was never rescinded. This
allowed the Gestapo to enforce conformity at every level of society.
Block wardens monitored their neighbors, and children were recruited to
inform on their teachers and parents. The
Gestapo was authorized to hold people in "protective custody" which
was really arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
At first, only political prisoners were taken under the guise of
"preventive protective custody" and placed in SS-controlled
concentration camps; later, anyone was hunted down and taken who was deemed to
not fit in with SS and Gestapo vision of a perfect Aryan society.
("SS" came from Schutzstaffel
which means "elite guard").
Today
we see this same conduct and set of circumstances appearing in some of our civic
institutions. The only way for one man to achieve dominion and control over
another is through the darkness of IGNORANCE.
Let’s get educated about our own laws, so that tyranny cannot gain a
foothold in America, and so that we can once again have “happiness and good
government flowing forth” as paraphrased by all our early education laws.
We do have some beautiful laws. Let’s
learn them, and insist that our civic institutions obey them for the good of our
nation. God Bless America.
17954-A S. Euclid Ave.