Lawsuit filed over Solano County's ro...

Lawsuit filed over Solano County's rooster rule

There are 44 comments on the The Reporter story from Apr 25, 2012, titled Lawsuit filed over Solano County's rooster rule. In it, The Reporter reports that:

A Solano County ordinance enacted last year to limit the number of roosters property owners can keep has drawn another civil rights violation lawsuit.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Reporter.


San Mateo, CA

#43 Jul 23, 2013

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Is A Federal Law
Get Informed and Find Out Why!
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a United States federal law (Pub.L. 109-374; 18 U.S.C.§
43) that prohibits any person from using force, violence, or threats “for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise.” The bill is described by the author as being intended to
"provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror."
The law gives the U.S. Department of Justice stronger tools to respond to threats posed by animal rights
extremists. The AETA does so by broadening the definition of “animal enterprise” to include academic and
commercial enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products. In addition, the AETA specifically
addresses the "tertiary targeting" system used by animal rights activists by prohibiting any person from
intentional damaging the property of a person or entity having a connection to an animal enterprise. It also
increases the existing penalties for intentionally causing a person bodily injury or intentionally placing a
person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; includes penalties based on the amount of economic
damage caused; and allows animal enterprises to seek restitution. For example, under the law, a research
facility could seek restitution for the cost of repeating an experiment. The AETA's Rules of Construction
also expressly state that the Act is not to be construed as prohibiting any lawful First Amendment activity
such as peaceful picketing or peaceful demonstrating.
Animal rights activists have criticized the bill on the grounds that it does not provide explicit protection for
“whistleblowing” and undercover investigations. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claimed that
"no other industrial sector in U.S. history has ever been given such legal protections against people's
exercising of their First Amendment free-speech rights.
According to PETA, this bill is an attempt by corporations to manipulate people's fear of terrorism in an
effort to stop the peaceful animal protection movement". The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
believes the law's language is overly broad and vague, the current law is satisfactory, and that the AETA
could be interpreted to protect unlawful animal enterprises. Alliance for Animals director Lori Nitzel
suggested "it heavily criminalizes civil disobedience, and just for animal rights activists." However, Jerry
Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, suggested the bill would have
little impact on the movement because underground activists "don't really care about those laws" and law
enforcement agencies had already "gone after" effective above-ground activists.
Remember – The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a FEDERAL LAW enforced by the Federal Government. Knowing that HSUS has impersonated various law enforcement agencies before, it is entirely
possible that when someone with a “Badge” shows up as your kennel claiming that they are doing an
investigation, they could be breaking a Federal Law and infringing on your rights.
No matter what, as a civil servant, they are in place to serve the people. Be sure to request positive proof
that the subjects are real Law Enforcement Officers and are there for legitimate reasons. If you are not
satisfied, call 911 and report trespassers. This is also enforced by the United States Marshals Office.

San Mateo, CA

#44 Jul 31, 2013

“Once Upon a Time” the Humane Society of the United States was organized for a noble purpose. However, in recent years the Humane Society of the U.S. appears to have lost its way, and has actively demonized so many decent and caring individuals who have anything to do with Animals. Consequently, the fundamental Principles and Rights of Humans that our Forefathers set out in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, are being desecrated by those who believe the Rights of Animals are greater than the Rights of Humans. And yet, a review of the words set out in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution reveals no mention of "Animal Rights."

Human Rights are sacrosanct, as well they should be, and no person and no organization have an absolute right to desecrate the God-Given Rights of Humans. That is why I believe that all who believe in the Guiding Principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution need to work in concert to "Right the Unrightable Wrongs" of the Humane Society of the U.S.

Each of us represents the "Power of One." And each of us has the "Power" to communicate with others, and to share with others how best to "Right the Unrightable Wrongs" of the Humane Society of the U. S. If each of us exercises the "Power of One," the multiplier effect of our cumulative actions will become an insurmountable force that will ensure that our God-Given Rights are once again restored, revered and protected. Let us all work together as "One" in order to restore the integrity of our Rights as so eloquently summarized by the immortal words of "One Nation, Under God!"

San Mateo, CA

#47 Nov 30, 2013
stop corruption

San Mateo, CA

#51 Dec 13, 2014
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#53 Jan 3, 2015
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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#54 Jan 3, 2015
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.
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 it
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#55 Jan 3, 2015
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.


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.


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 “court,” and “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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#56 Jan 3, 2015
Schulz v. Milne, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6688 (1994) at 9989,“[D]efendants fail to apprehend basic constitutional tenets restricting the extent to which state power may be delegated to private parties. See also page 6694, footnotes 1 & 5: 1. It appears to the court that the City may have improperly contracted away its legislative and governmental functions to the Board and Milne, both of whom are private parties….the Ninth Circuit…clearly held that a municipality may not “surrender” its control of a municipal function to a private party. Cities and Counties are “private municipalities;” they CANNOT assume legislative powers without the Governor’s signature, or without it going through the State Legislature. Only the Governor can sign laws against “consumer goods.” If any city or county does this, it’s racketeering, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, and impersonating an officer; in this case, a State Legislator or the Governor.
People v. Parmar, 86 Cal.App.4th 781; __Cal.Rptr.2d__(Jan. 2001):“To establish a conflict of interest, it must be shown that the district attorney’s discretionary decisionmaking has been placed with the influence and control of a private party with a particular interest in the prosecution of the defendant…With respect to nuisance abatement, the district attorney is subject to a greater direction from the county than he or she is in other respects.” In plain language, ALL complaints must go through the district attorney. We have the three separate branches of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – to preserve freedom, as any one of them taking over brings about a DICTATORSHIP. The city (administrative) CANNOT set up its own “court” to “prosecute” and “fine” its own citizens just to raise revenue or because some other private party doesn’t like them. Any city committing this conduct is “impersonating an officer” and committing “treason” against the Constitution of the United States.
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. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)(stating that “official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.”). Since the State cannot authorize its officers to violate federal law, such officers are “stripped of [their] official or representative character and [are] subjected in [their] person to the consequences of [their] individual conduct.” Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 160, 28 S.Ct. 441…Ex Parte Young gives life to the Supremacy Clause, as remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law.” Cities and Counties are “private municipalities;” they CANNOT assume legislative powers to regulate federally protected articles “livestock (including dogs, cats and pigeons) and feeds” in commerce. Cities and counties have NO IMMUNITY for legislating away ANY property rights and/or ownership rights without the Governor’s signature, or without it going through the State Legislature. If they do, it’s “impersonating an officer” and “treason” against the United States.
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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#57 Jan 3, 2015
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.


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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#58 Jan 3, 2015
Title 18 U.S.C. Federal Criminal Codes Chapter 42 EXTORTIONATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS, section 891 (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 of any person.” It is TERRORISM and threat of violence when code enforcement shows up – if you don’t let them in, or refuse to sign a citation, or argue in defense of your right to acquire, own, and enjoy property to the exclusion of all others, it is an implicit threat that they can call for back up, haul you to jail, or shoot you on the spot. It is terrorism and white-collar CRIME for any citation to be issued against property or property use, as history has shown that this has been used as a bogus excuse to bring in private city attorneys to lien the property. Just like Al Capone, and just like any other terrorist eliminating freedom.
California Penal Code section 487. Grand Theft.“Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases:(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400)…(1)(A) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives…or other farm crops are taken of a value exceeding one hundred dollars ($100)…(d) When the property taken is an automobile, firearm, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any caprine animal (goat), mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt, barrow, or pig.” In light of the World Trade Center destruction, it is domestic terrorism and sabotage to steal or conspire to attempt to steal any of these items or land for their use. The penalty is 3 years in prison.
California Penal Code section 487a. Animal; Theft Feloniously; Grand Theft.“Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, transport or carry the carcass of any bovine [cattle], caprine [goat], equine [horse], ovine [sheep], or suine [pig] animal or any mule, jack or jenny, which is the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate such property…[or…any portion of the carcass…which has been killed without consent of the owner] is guilty of grand theft.” The County is liable for any of its employees/agents’ theft of live or dead animals, or any part of their carcasses, and is liable for employees’ killing of any livestock without consent of the owner – which is terrorism. The penalty for terrorism is death or life imprisonment, the penalty for theft is three years in prison.

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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#59 Jan 3, 2015
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.
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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#60 Jan 3, 2015
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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#61 Jan 3, 2015

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.


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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#62 Jan 3, 2015
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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#64 Jan 3, 2015
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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#65 Jan 3, 2015
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
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#66 Jan 3, 2015
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.


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.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#67 Jan 3, 2015
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
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#68 Jan 3, 2015
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
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#69 Jan 3, 2015
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.

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S.___, 145 L.Ed 2d 1060, 120 S.Ct.___(Feb. 2000):“Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause held to give rise to cause of action on behalf of ‘class of one’ where property owner’s equal protection claim…did not allege membership in class or group.” The County is liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for each claim by each feed store, feed mill, and livestock owner for property loss without the necessity of a class action suit, and without being in any particular group. All that is necessary, under this Supreme Court decision, is for one person to be denied equal protection.
Equal protection: If the city or County restricts “crowing fowl,” it must also restrict all other vehicles, machinery, etc. whose noise levels exceed the decibel level of crowing fowl. This means restricted use of all sirens, construction equipment, aircraft, motorcycles, stereos, 18-wheel trucks, etc. within the county. Under the laws they ordain, city and county employees including the Board of Supervisors must open their homes for public inspection. If the public finds any property that is abused, neglected, abandoned or in excess of acceptable numbers, the public shall rescue the property and adopt it out to a new owner. Given the county’s code enforcement officers’ past practices and precedents, this inspection shall include living conditions and all other personal property, which can likewise be rescued and adopted out. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983:“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...” The County would be liable for discrimination against “livestock owners, 4-H, FFA, feed stores, and feed mills.”
Title 28 U.S.C.– 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:

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vacaville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Vacaville officials say no to chair a oeplace s... Sat A Thought 2
News Vacaville Unified School District teachers to g... May 23 Birds Landing Bob 6
B M Appointed Secty of Whatever May 22 sarah s trailer s... 1
News Solano prosecutor says suspected abuse of child... May 15 thanks democrats 2
Phuong Le Murder Case Update 3/3/11 (Mar '11) May 12 stephen_e_hansen 20
Urine Hair Rinse Trump Favors May 4 jared4presdents4ever 1
News Area crime: Sunday, Monday in Vallejo May 1 they vote democrat 8

Vacaville Jobs

Personal Finance

Vacaville Mortgages