RESTRICTIONS
ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE
DISTRICT
COURT CLERK’S MANUAL
Overton
v. Ohio, 151 L.Ed 2d 317 (October 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 ëto
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.íî If there is
no victim, there is no crime. This
case makes it clear there shall be NO anonymous
complaints, and it is the courtís duty to interpose a neutral and detached
judicial officer between the complaining parties to determine if a PUBLIC
offense has been committed. In
California, a warrant can only be issued on a FELONY.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT TELL YOU
WHAT
YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO AND OWN
California
Penal Code ß 1548(d):
Laws of the United States means (1) those laws of the United States
passed by Congress pursuant to authority given to Congress by the Constitution
of the United States where the laws of the United States are controlling, and
(2) those laws of the United States not controlling the several states of the
United States but which are not in conflict with the provisions of this
chapter. CONGRESS makes laws, NOT
counties, cities, code enforcement, or dog-catchers.
Schad
v. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 L.Ed.2d 671, 101 S.Ct. 2176:
Convictions, pursuant to zoning ordinance prohibiting live entertainmen
live nude dancing, held invalid under First and Fourteenth Amendments. A town
or county may not legislatively prevent its citizens from engaging in or
having access to forms of protective expression that are incompatible with its
majorityís conception of ìdecent life solely because these activities are
sufficiently available in other locales.
If the Supreme Court said that the city and county cannot dictate
against live nude dancing, they
certainly cannot dictate raising small or large animals or owning old cars
either. Property ownership, and
especially farming, are forms of expression.
Farmers, like painters, actors, musicians, writers, dancers, etc., use
their experience, imagination, and skill to produce something from nothing.
The Supreme Court said this is PROTECTED.
West
Virginia State Board of Education et al. v. Barnett et al., 319 U.S. 624, 63
S.Ct. 1178
The United States Government was set up by the consent of the governed, and
the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that
consent. The Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the states protects the
citizen against the state itself and all of its creatures. One’s right to
life, liberty and property and other fundamental rights may not be submitted
to vote, and they depend on the outcome of no election The Supreme Court said
that if the STATE cannot take away any inalienable right, the CITY or COUNTY
cannot, either!
DUE
PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN
U.S.
CONSTITUTION Amendment 5.
Self-Incrimination;
Double Jeopardy; Due process. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation. If any city or county wants to
regulate, restrict or eliminate ANY private property, or restrict any right,
it must PAY for it out of its General Fund. Regulations and restrictionsî are
TAKINGS, and must be compensated. So
POST your property No Trespassingî to show that it belongs to YOU.
Protection;
California Constitution Article 1, section 9 Due Process; Equal Privileges and
Immunities:
(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. Due process means
that anybody wishing to restrain property or file a protest against property
of another, be it land, livestock, etc. must first put up a Bond to indemnify
the lawful owner(s) for the takings, THEN go through the process of having the
matter decided by a jury. THAT is
Due Process.
Monterey
v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S.__, 143 L Ed 2d 882, 119 S.Ct.___ (1999):
[T]he District Court’s jury instructions directed the jury that (1)
it should find for the landowner if the jury found that (a) the landowner had
been denied all economically viable use of its property, or (b) the cityís
decision did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose (the jury
awarded the landowner $8 million for the takingsî and $1.45 million for the
cityís unlawful acts -no just compensation or providing an adequate post
deprivation remedy for the loss). The
County is liable for any city employee violating the takings clause of the
Fifth Amendment. The property
owner owns all bundle of rights that come with his Deed, as he bought it ìas
is and nobody can convert, alter,
change or amend his deed except him. The
law forbids the City or County to amend any deed, steal any deed, restrict its
use, or to use deceit, extortion, fear, and threats to get the owner to amend
it by restricting his ownership and use of livestock, property, or his land.
Post-deprivation loss also attaches to the sale of any agriculture or
other commodity in interstate OR intrastate commerce, which sales were
diminished by the takings/restriction. This
includes anything the landowner would buy for his use and enjoyment of his
property ñ building materials, landscaping/gardening supplies, animal feed,
livestock, pets, vehicles, etc. Damages
for the takings without just compensation and for the extortion will be
decided by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
California
Constitution Article 1, section 19 Eminent Domain:
Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just
compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or
into court for, the owner.î 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 didnít 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 animalsÖ Animals, land,
junk cars, etc., are PROPERTY.
Lucas
v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d 798:
There are a number of non-economic interests in land, such as interest in
excluding strangers from oneís 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 governmentís 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, ìwhile property may be regulated to a certain extent, if
regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.
Where permanent physical occupati on 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 ìacts
of ownership or controlî 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): ìPetitioners
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 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 ìregulatory taking, it
cannot get away with failing to reimburse the PRESENT owner.
That is FRAUD. If it
isn’t listed in the Deed, IT IS NOT RESTRICTED.
And if the city or county still wants to impose any restriction, they
have to lawfully acquire the property by
justly compensating the owner/buying the land.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT DO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Steagald v. United States, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 Held: 2. The search in question violated the Fourth Amendment, where it took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. (a) Absent exigent circumstances or consent, a home may not be searched without a warrant (c) A search warrant requirement will not significantly impede effective law enforcement effortsno 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 individualís interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home. Warrantless search or arrest can ONLY occur IN A PUBLIC PLACE during ìhot pursuit.î In all other cases, a fair, neutral and detached judicial officer determines FROM THE COMPLAINT that a warrant should issue based upon the commission OF A FELONY. This is where the public’s ignorance is used by robbers posing as code enforcement, etc.,
THERE
ARE NO FISHING EXPEDITIONS TO SEIZE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT REPORTED AS STOLEN!!!
Carrera v. Bertaini, 63 C.A. 3d 721; 134 Cal.Rptr. 14: [I]mpoundment of an owner’s farm animals without prior notice or hearing, and without a hearing in the superior court was unlawful and the owner was entitled either to have animals returned or their reasonable value the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires some form of notice and hearing the hearing must take place before the property is taken. Cities try to wriggle around this one, by holding public hearings. These hearings, however, are NOT proper hearings with the property owner or his counsel present in superior court with the value of all property and bundle of rights tallied and presented for just compensation by the city or county out of the General Fund. The County is liable for the city using fraud and deceit to try to con the public into believing that public hearings take the place of ìa notice and hearing in superior court.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
U.S.
CONSTITUTION Amendment 4. Search
and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized. We
have forgotten that this was drafted to correct the evils of swarms of the
King’s officers barging in, and arbitrarily confiscating seditious material,
which was determined by them to be seditious, without benefit of a judge or a
public trial. Today, we see the
same set of circumstances ñ invasion and terrorism because somebody else
invaded our privacy and did a bench trial because they determined that our
lifestyle was seditious.
People
v. Camacho, 23 Cal.4th 824; 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 232; 3 P.3d 878 (2000):
Police observation from
non-public area constitutes unlawful search.
The County is liable for Fourth Amendment violations, and has no
immunity when its employees trespass upon areas that ìmembers of the public
cannot be said to have been implicitly invited.
No such implicit public invitation exists in a side yard, back yard, or
neighborís yard for county employees or anybody else to conduct invasion of
privacy and/or pretextual search without probable cause to inventory livestock
or other property by peeking over or through fences, even chain-link fences,
which are there to exclude the eyes of strangers and trespassers.
U.S.
v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998).
To comply with Fourth Amendment, anticipatory search warrant must
either on its face or on the face of the accompanying affidavit clearly,
expressly, and narrowly specify the triggering event
Consent to search that is given after illegal entry is tainted and
invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Plain-view doctrine did not apply to
seizure of evidence from defendants residence after officers conducted initial
search based on invalid anticipatory search warrant Plain-view doctrine does
not apply unless the initial entry is lawful pursuant to a valid warrant
The county is liable for its agents/employees stealing anything without
probable cause on a tainted warrant that fails to narrowly list things with
particularity that are connected with a crime, and that fails to have an
attached affidavit from a victim injured in his or her business or property.
State and federal law protects the unalienable right to own property /
livestock, so the county is liable for its employees fabricated charges and
pretextual search without probable cause.
See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S.Ct. 1737: [I]t was held that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless inspections of commercial structures as well as of private residences. The search of private commercial property, as well as the search of private houses, is presumptively unreasonable if conducted without a warrant. Again, if there is no victim, there is no crime. The county would be liable for violating the Fourth Amendment in allowing any of its agents or employees to conduct ìwarrantless inspectionsî to search for livestock and other property on residences.
U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972): The Government’s duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression [t]he freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic surveillances are conducted [violates] the citizens right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion. The city and county is liable for conducting illegal surveillance on private citizens to see who might be keeping or raising livestock. Violation of the Fourth Amendment strips public employees of all immunity. NOTE: U.S. v. U.S. District Court was about protecting the rights of persons who actually blew up federal property and conspired to blow up some more. It appears that terrorist bombers have more constitutional protections than a livestock owners today.
Camara
v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523, 18 L.ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727:
The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard the privacy and
security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials;
the Amendment thus gives concrete expression to a right of the people which is
basic to a free society. The
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth
Amendment is applicable to the states by reason of the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. The
protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures
is not limited to a situation in which an individual is suspected of criminal
behavior. The County is liable
for violations of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by their agents
/ employees for suspecting that a citizen is a criminal because he or she
happens to own and raise livestock for their own use.
The County needs to remember the hundreds of innocent citizens who were
released in the Rampart scandal, because corrupt city and county employees
fabricated charges and committed perjury.
Hanlon
v. Berger, 526 U.S.___, 143 L.Ed 2d 978, 119 S. Ct.__:
It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for media to be present
during the execution of a search warrant.
The County is liable and has no immunity for using the local media to
invade the privacy of, and slander fowl and livestock owners while falsely
representing the County’s racketeering enterprise is lawful to facilitate
raids on other livestock owners for the proceeds of the specified unlawful
activity prohibited under Title 18 ß 1962 Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
CITES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS
Title
42 Section 1983: Every person
who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress... The County would be
liable for discrimination against ìlivestock owners, 4-H, FFA, feed stores,
and feed mills.
Title
28 United States Code ñ Section 1343 Civil rights and elective franchise.
(a) The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be
commenced by any person:
(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.î 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):
Öther district court began its analysis by setting forth the elements
of a ß 1983 claim against an individual state actor as follows:
[the
plaintiff(s)] possessed a constitutional right of which [they were] deprived;
the
acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;
the
defendant acted under color of law; and
the
acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional deprivation.
The
court also stated that, to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must
show that:
[the
plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which [he/she] was deprived;
the
municipality had a policy or custom;
this
policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to [the plaintiffís]
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 ëa direct causal link between the personal
conduct of Deputy Lopez or the municipal conduct of Sonoma County and the
alleged constitutional deprivation, in this case the murder of Maria Teresa
Macias. In each of these cases, the Supreme Court and this court treated the
deprivation of a constitutional right as the alleged injury.
See Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 435 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), 436
U.S. at 692 (holding that a ß 1983 ìplainly imposes liability on a
government that, under color of some official policy, causes an employee to
violate another’s constitutional rights); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S.
378 (1989) at 385 (stating that our first inquiry in any case alleging
municipal liability under ß 1983 is the question whether there is a direct
causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged
constitutional deprivationî); City of Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 378
(1987) at 267 (stating that ìthe Court repeatedly has stressed the need to
find a direct causal connection between municipal conduct and the
constitutional deprivationî); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121 (9th
Cir. 1981) at 1125 (liability under ß 1983 can be established by showing that
the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the
plaintiffís rights, or caused such a deprivation to occur).
There is a constitutional right, however, to have police services
administered in a nondiscriminatory manner ñ 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 ß 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 ìkeeping any property the city doesnít
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 citizensí unalienable rights of property ownership, equal
protection, and benefit of honest government services before the citizen gets
robbed.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT ENGAGE IN
EXTORTIONATE
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
Title
18 USC sections 891-896. Section
891 Definition and rules of construction: (7) An extortionate means is any
means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of
violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or
property. This applies to bogus
utility liens or attorney’s fees, which sanctions are only for licensed
attorneys, and only for DEFENDANTS for causing undue delay and needlessly
increasing the cost of litigation. Private
attorneys conspiring with private corporations / Humane Societies to bribe
federal or state judges, etc. to get rulings/judgments favorable to the
robbers fits these rules of construction, as only Hitler punished those who
sued and confiscated their property. The
county is not immune for cities criminal profiteering within the county, when
they are paid to protect and serve, NOT to rob and do these white-collar con
games.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT IMPERSONATE
FEDERAL
AUTHORITY
Under
Title 7 section 2159,
Congress restrains all states subject to Public Law regarding animals and
livestock. All investigations for
ìalleged animal neglectî 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, 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.
TERRORISM
IS AGAINST THE LAW - FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:
Title
18 USC CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM,
Section 2331. Definitions. As
used in this chapter ñ (1) the term ìinternational terrorismî 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 victimsí
freedoms and put them out of business. That
is what cities and counties do if they come to your door (trespass,
impersonate an officer), and tell you that you cannot own over x number of
dogs, roosters, or junk cars (regulatory takings in violation of due process).
If they issue a citation, it’s filing a false complaint,î because 1)
they are not a victim of a public offense
and 2) they cannot enforce city and county codes on PRIVATELY owned
land ñ even if it is in the MIDDLE of the city, and even though you are
RENTING! THEN it also becomes ìinterference
with contract. City and County
Codes and Ordinances are ONLY for city and county-owned property!
The punishment for terrorism is imprisonment for 25 years.
If they come to my door, I ask them where is the copy of the
cancelled check, where they BOUGHT my property FIRST.
Because my place is PRIVATE, and, just like Disneyland which is ALSO
private, and which has its own rules and regulations, MY rule is, if the city
or county want to LOOK at my property, they must PAY me first.
That’s the law, and my admission fee to them is $5 million.
Title
18 CHAPTER 105 ñ 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 premisesí include all buildings,
grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced
Livestock are second in importance as war materials and defense materials only
to guns and ammo, and the places where chickens are raised are war premisesî
and national defense premises. All
those men on aircraft carriers eat eggs every morning.
Anybody who interferes with the raising of livestock is sabotaging
national defense materials. And
anybody who restricts or prevents one American citizen from spending one
dollar on one dog, cat, chicken, or pigeon is committing domestic terrorism,
as nobody has the power to regulate these Title 7 sec. 2 agricultural
commodities except Congress.
The
President has declared WAR on terrorism.
After September 11, 2001, ANYBODY who conspires to interfere with lands
for growing livestock gets 30 years in jail and a fine for committing SABOTAGE
against the United States. Anonymous
complaints were abolished over 200 years ago.
Title
18 CHAPTER 113 STOLEN PROPERTY,
Section 2311
Definitions: As used in this
chapter: aircraft means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used,
or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air; cattle means one or
more bulls, steers, oxen, cows, heifers, or calves, or the carcass or
carcasses thereof; livestock means any domestic animals raised for home use,
consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep,
buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof; money means the legal tender;
motor vehicles includes an automobile truck wagon, motorcycle, or any other
self-propelled vehicle; securities includes any note, stock certificate, bond
check, draft, warrant, travelerís 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; ëvalueí means the face, par, or market value, whichever
is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, and merchandise,
securities, and money referred to in a single indictment shall constitute the
value thereof. The first capital offense prosecuted in this nation was for
stealing chickens and eggs. Chickens
and eggs were used as currency during the Depression, and are still on the
books as valuable property, more important than stolen money or stolen car.
Owning and raising cats, dogs, livestock, pigeons, etc. is an
unalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and anybody stealing or
conspiring to steal small animals or livestock gets 10 years in jail.
Title
18 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
enterpriseí means-(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals
for food or fiber production, agriculture (B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo,
or lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended
to advance agriculture arts and sciences (b) Aggravated offense
Whoever causes serious bodily injury shall be fined or imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both. The
County is liable for their or cities employees taking anonymous complaints and
using threats, fear, and intimidation (animal terrorism) to restrict federally
protected ìevents 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 organizationî in 1993, and they use bribe/protection
money to void judgments against them in court.
See
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE EXTENT OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ON
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE online at Department of Justice Reports at
findlaw.com or first gov.gov.
Title
18 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, 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 sec. 43 Animal enterprise
terrorism is adopted and perpetrated by county employees.
The County is liable for any of its agents or employees taking
anonymous complaintsî and illegally imposing limits or restrictions on
livestock and property ownership without just compensation, and who threaten
food supplies through regulation and control of all wealth with the aid of
private vigilantes to enforce a no ownership policy upon citizens to the point
where they can no longer keep and raise livestock, food or pets.
The County would be liable for its agents threatening national
security/food supply.
CITIES
& COUNTIES CANNOT LEGISLATE EXCEPT AS TO LANDS THEY OWN.
UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION Article 6, Cl.2
Supremacy of Constitution. This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
We have three separate branches of government
legislative, administrative, and judicial - set up this way to ensure
we would not become a dictatorship. Dictatorship
means that one branch assumes all control, takes over the other branches, and
becomes a legislator who makes its own laws, administrates to set up its own
and country prosecutes its own laws. Under
a dictatorship, citizens have no rights, and property ownership is eliminated,
as the dictatorship assumes regulation and control over all private property.
The penalty for conspiring to overthrow the government of the United
States is death or life imprisonment.
Schulz
v. Milne, 849 F.Supp. 708 (N.D.Cal. 1994:
[D]efendants fail to apprehend basic constitutional tenets restricting the
extent to which state power may be delegated to private parties.
See also page 6694, footnotes 1 & 5: 1.
It appears to the court that the City may have improperly contracted
away its legislative and governmental functions to the Board and Milne, both
of whom are private parties.The Ninth Circuit clearly held that a municipality
may not surrenderî its control of a municipal function to a private party.
Cities and Counties are private municipalities; they CANNOT assume
legislative powers without the Governors signature, or without it going
through the State Legislature. Only
the Governor can sign laws against consumer goods.
If any city or county does this, itís racketeering, fraud,
embezzlement, extortion, and impersonating an officer; in this case, a State
Legislator or the Governor.
In
re Ellett,
254 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2001): Under Ex Parte Young and its
progeny, a suit seeking prospective equitable relief against a state official
who has engaged in a continuing violation of federal law is not deemed to be a
suit against the State for purposes of state sovereign immunity; Ex Parte
Young, 209 U.S. at 159-160, 28 S.Ct. 441; Will v. Mich. Depít of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (stating
that ìofficial-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as
actions against the State.). Since
the State cannot authorize its officers to violate federal law, such officers
are stripped of [their] official or representative character and [are]
subjected in [their] person to the consequences of [their] individual conduct.
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 160, 28 S.Ct. 441ÖEx Parte Young gives life to
the Supremacy Clause, as remedies designed to end a continuing violation of
federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the
supremacy of that law. Cities and Counties are private municipalities; they
CANNOT assume legislative powers to regulate federally protected articles
livestock (including dogs, cats and pigeons) and feeds in commerce.
Cities and counties have NO IMMUNITY for legislating away ANY property
rights and/or ownership rights without the Governorís signature, or without
it going through the State Legislature. If
they do, it’s impersonating an officer and treason against the United
States.
THE
COUNTY CANNOT SHIRK ITS LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS, OR
ANY CITY EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS
Allen
v. City of Portland, 73 F.3rd, 232 (9th Cir. 1995):
By definition, probable cause to arrest can only exist in relation to
criminal conduct; civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause contract
dispute cannot give rise to probable cause to arrest.
Cities or counties CANNOT butt
in on any civil dispute between neighbors, or presume there is any criminal
activity related to ownership of livestock, fowl or other property.
Civil disputes go through the DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
If the city gets involved, it commits domestic terrorism.
Watkins
v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1998) at 1088:
6. Civil Rights 214(4) Municipality
is not entitled to the shield of qualified immunity from liability under 42
U.S.C.A. section 1983. Discrimination
against disenfranchised citizens because they own fowl (roosters) and/or other
livestock, and/or are Latinos, strips the County of immunity.
Burns
v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991):
[T]he law requires that the official seeking immunity to bear the
burden of demonstrating that immunity attaches to the particular function.
County or city employees could not bear the burden of demonstrating
that sabotage, terrorism, extortion, theft under color of law, discrimination,
racketeering, violation of due process, and takings without compensation
attaches to their particular function of upholding the Constitution and
protecting the property and rights of tax-paying citizens and property owners;
therefore, the County would not be immune, either for the conduct of criminals
posing as city or county employees.
Brandon
v. Holt, 105 S.Ct. 873 (1985) at pp. 873, 874:
ì2.
Civil Rights 13.16 - In cases arising under section 1983, judgment against a
public servant ëin his official capacityí 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 ëin
his official capacityí 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 ìplay 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 ß 1983 suit only if it has adopted an illegal or
unconstitutional policy or custom. California
holds counties liable for acts of their employees under the doctrine of
respondeat superior, and grants immunity to counties only where the public
employee would also be immune from liability.
See C.G.C. ß 815.2; see also Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 643, 650 (Ct. App. 1994) (Under Government Code section 815.2,
subdivision (a), the County is liable for acts and omissions of its employees
under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a private
employer.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE RACKETEERING LAWS
Title
18 section 1951 Interference with Commerce:
Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce or
the movement of any article or commodity by robbery or extortion or attempts
or conspires to do so shall be fined or imprisoned not more than twenty years
(2) the term extortion means the obtaining of property from another, with his
consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or
fear, or under color of official right. Title
7, section 2 [Agricultural commodities] Definitions: The word person shall
include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts.
The word commodity shall mean wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley,
rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs, [Irish potatoes],
wool, wool tops, fats and oils cottonseed meal, cottonseed, peanuts,
soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, livestock products, and frozen concentrated
orange juice, and all other goods
and articles. Title 7 section
2131 The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under
this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially
affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals
and activities as provided in this chapter
is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to
effectively regulate such commerce, in order. (3) to protect the owners of
animals from theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals
which have been stolen. Title 18
section 1962. Prohibited activities: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person
through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an
unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in
or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which
affect, interstate or foreign commerce (d) It shall be unlawful for any person
to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of
this section. Title 18 Stolen
Property, section 2311 Definitions: As
used in this chapter livestock means any domestic animals raised for home use,
consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep,
buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof. Title 7 Agriculture section
601: No state can restrict the
raising of any commodity (chicken - hen or cock, other poultry, cattle, horse,
goat, pig, sheep, parakeet, frog, fish, chinchilla, guinea pig, rabbit, etc.)
for personal use. If the state is
forbidden to restrict commodities, neither can the city or county.
City or county employees get 20 years in prison for conspiring to
restrict the free flow of commerce and agricultural commodities known as
chickens (roosters and hens), birds and poultry, cattle, crowing fowl,
pigeons, goats, horses, pigs, sheep, other small farm animals (rabbits, fish,
chinchillas, frogs, parakeets, guinea pigs, etc.), and animal/livestock feed
consisting of mill feeds: rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, and grain
sorghums. The penalty is 20 years
imprisonment or $250,000 fine.
Salinas
v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997):
[I]nterprative canon is not license for judiciary to rewrite language
enacted by legislature Predominant elements in substantive Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations are (1) conduct (2)
of enterprise (3) through pattern of racketeering activity.
18 U.S.C. ß 1962(c). Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. 18 U.S.C. ß 1962(d)Ö.
(RICO) conspiracy conviction does not require overt or specific act. If
conspirators have plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate crime
and others to provide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators.
Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues,
for conspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and punishable in
itself. Judges and cities are
forbidden to rewrite language enacted by legislature.
They are forbidden to even think about using the courts to uphold
bogus, fabricated charges for hot pursuit of revenue.
By their conduct of falsely representing the character, amount, or
legal status of any debt, participants violate 15 U.S.C. sections 1681s-2 and
1692(e), and become principles in a pattern of racketeering by putting false
liens or debts on court or credit records without verifying that the liens or
debts were illegally valid as the result of having the matter determined by a
jury prior to having an abstract of judgment entered. The fraud continues when
these bogus judgments are used for collection of unlawful debt.
The language of 15 U.S.C. section 1681s-2 is particularly clear: a
person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any
consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing
that the information is inaccurate.
Amortization:
The World Book Dictionary defines amortize as:
1. To set money aside regularly in a special fund for future wiping out
of (a debt); 2. Law. To convey (property) to a body, especially an
ecclesiastical body, which does not have the right to sell or give it away.
Amortizationí 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 ñ 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.
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 ìtakingsî
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.î City and
county employees are liable for conspiring to restrict property (including old
cars) and agricultural commodities (Title 7, section 2) without just
compensation, and conspiring to target disenfranchised livestock owners and
feed mills in violation of Title 42 section 1983, when they admit to having
met (conspired) with code enforcement and private persons in violation of the
Brown Act in order to steal. The
county is liable for its employeesí 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 clientís ongoing or planned illicit
activity for crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege to apply.
The County is liable for city employees ìplanned illicit activityî 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 plaintiffís 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 plaintiffís claims if the
plaintiffís 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 Depít., 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: ìExisting 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 ìamendî the owners deed,
illegally convert the title, and get rid of the Prop 13 tax break.
Dewey
J. Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. __, 146 L.Ed.2d 902, 120 S.Ct. __ (2000):
Held: Because an
owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify
as property used in commerce or commerce-affecting activity, arson of such a
dwelling is not subject to prosecution. The
Supreme Court says that you cannot be prosecuted by anybody for damaging your
own property. The county is
liable for its employees/agents fraud, perjury, and extortion to steal
property under the guise of rescuing it from its lawful owner.
PROPERTY
OWNERíS STANDING TO SUE UNDER RICO
Rotella
v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 SCt.__, at pg. 1047:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 USCS
ßß 1961 et seq.) provides that (1) it is unlawful to conduct an enterpriseís
affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (18 USCS ß 1962(c), (2) a
pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which
occurs within 10 years after the commission of a prior act (18 USCS ß
1962(c), (3) a person injured by a RICO violation can bring a civil RICO
action (18 USCS 1964(c)). Any
person injured by racketeering activity can file a civil RICO
lawsuit.Racketeering activity is anything which interferes with land use and
property rights ñ threats, fear, false process, false liens, etc.
CITIES
AND COUNTIES ARE FORBIDDEN TO INTERFERE WITH FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND FUNDED
PROGRAMS FFA and 4H
Title
18 section 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds.
Whoever being an agent of a State, or local government, or any agency
thereof-(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 ìanimal 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.