Cops Offer Closer Look at Cockfight Farm

Cops Offer Closer Look at Cockfight Farm

There are 23 comments on the News10 Sacramento story from Jul 5, 2007, titled Cops Offer Closer Look at Cockfight Farm. In it, News10 Sacramento reports that:

Sacramento law enforcement said a cockfighting ring busted Wednesday was one of the largest such operations ever discovered in Sacramento County.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News10 Sacramento.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
its me

Sacramento, CA

#1 Jul 5, 2007
How cruel, how would they like to be put in a ring to fight until one of them are dead? That is so cruel.
grissino

United States

#2 Jul 5, 2007
The California legislature should upgrade cockfighting to a felony and deport all illegal
aliens participating!
art

Alhambra, CA

#3 Jul 5, 2007
It's a cultural thing. California is a melting pot, and a lot of folks who grew up with legal cockfighting are shocked that this is illegal here.
While it SHOULD be illegal, maybe we need to a better job of educating people on this.
rtards

Sacramento, CA

#4 Jul 6, 2007
art wrote:
It's a cultural thing. California is a melting pot, and a lot of folks who grew up with legal cockfighting are shocked that this is illegal here.
While it SHOULD be illegal, maybe we need to a better job of educating people on this.
I agree and disagree with you Art... I am a daughter of a Thai chicken farmer. Though my father is very old now so he doesn't raise chickens anymore. He has always taught the kids, including me, you never fight the chickens in that manner; gambling...(like these folks) It's normal just to see cock fight for a little bit because its their instinct... to fight other roosters to let them know who is in charge of the flock per say... And during New Year we would get few of the best roosters and let them fight for a little bit as an entertainment welcoming the new year but not till one dies... What these guys are doing should be banned, have more respect for the animals even if they are just chickens...
aack

Sacramento, CA

#5 Jul 6, 2007
Cockfighting is typically a hespanic imported sport.
Boxing_Fan

United States

#6 Jul 6, 2007
How can others get so much enjoyment from watching two creatures pound eachother senseless? Or to cause each other so much pain?
Josette

Sacramento, CA

#7 Jul 6, 2007
aack wrote:
Cockfighting is typically a hespanic imported sport.
DO YOU MEAN HISPANIC?? and an imported sport?? wtf, since when is cockfighting an imported sport?

anyhow, its 100% cruel and wrong... and just downright disgusting.
What_The

United States

#8 Jul 6, 2007
Boxing_Fan wrote:
How can others get so much enjoyment from watching two creatures pound eachother senseless? Or to cause each other so much pain?
Next thing you know, they'll have men fighting other men in cage matches on t.v.!!!
socorro perez

Modesto, CA

#10 Jul 6, 2007
I think we need way bigger fines and punishment for the people that think that it's okay to do this kinds of things to roosters I remember seeing cock fights when I was younger and thought these are grown adults with a sick way to make money somebody should tie two of them at the ring and let them duke it out it would be fair but, animals don't know any better so I find it very disturbing and hop that my kids never see anything like it.
socorro perez

Modesto, CA

#11 Jul 6, 2007
I think every state needs way bigger fines and punishment for the people that think that it's okay to do this kinds of things to roosters. I remember seeing cock fights when I was younger and thought these are grown adults with a sick way to make money, somebody should tie two of them up with a sharp object to their legs at the ring and let them duke it out it would be fair but, animals don't know any better so I find it very disturbing and hope that my kids never see anything like it.
Kayla

United States

#12 Jul 10, 2007
Um..its not typically a hispanic imported sport. I seen and hear all kinds of race, you name it, that does participate and enjoy cockfighting here in the USA, not just Hispanic people. Its out there and its just not being seen.
kalika

Kihei, HI

#13 Jul 14, 2007
why is it cruel?hanging a chicken by their feet is cruel to get their heads chop off.When we fight our rooster its part of our family that we raise from little chicks by years of breeding.When we show them its our family name that is fighting,instead of 2 humans killing each other.Oh thats why we have wars to kill off the humans!!!!!!
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#14 Mar 29, 2012
THREAT TO DOMESTIC & NATIONAL SECURITY

Title 18 U.S.C. section 3592. Mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in determining whether a sentence of death is justified:“(b) Aggravating factors for espionage and treason. In determining whether a sentence of death is justified for an offense…the court…shall consider each of the following aggravating factors for which notice has been given and determine which, if any, exist:(2) Grave risk to national security – In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of danger to the national security.” Our dwindling resource of farmers is being wiped out by vigilantes in government and private sectors committing terrorism, racketeering and theft under color of law. Farmers, by their own hard work, produce something out of nothing to feed our nation. The 3 million farmers left in the United States today are under threat of dwindling down to zero, because Title 18 U.S.C. section 43 Animal enterprise terrorism is adopted and perpetrated by county employees. The County is liable for any of its agents or employees taking “anonymous complaints” and illegally imposing limits or restrictions on livestock and property ownership without just compensation, and who threaten food supplies through “regulation and control of all wealth” with the aid of private vigilantes to enforce a “no ownership” policy upon citizens to the point where they can no longer keep and raise livestock, food or pets. The County would be liable for its agents threatening national security/food supply.

LAW FORBIDS GIVING AID TO ENEMIES OF THE U.S.

Animal terrorism: FBI Report:“The Animal Enterprise Protection Act…codified as Title 18 section 43, makes it a federal offense…to cause physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise resulting in economic damage exceeding $10,000…While the Act characterizes terrorism as physical disruption…(including stealing…or causing the loss of property), the FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The County would be liable for its agents furthering political or social objectives of “domestic terrorism,”“takings without just compensation,” use of the courts to give “legally void” judgments the appearance of “legally valid” for the purpose of property confiscation; and other crimes described in “racketeering enterprises to steal property,” which is what will happen when the “chicken and livestock police terrorists” are loosed upon the County’s citizens.

Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 2381 Treason:“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death…” Title 18 U.S.C. section 2383 Rebellion or insurrection:“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the law thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be incapable of holding any office ...” The Humane Society puts in a strong presence at many public hearings. The Board illegally adopts their policy of making laws against property/chicken ownership under the guise of “stamping out cock fighting.” The County is liable for adopting Humane Society objectives, which amount to a covert operation to steal property, livestock, and real estate without just compensation by using criminals in government positions to give it the appearance of a legitimate operation.
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#15 Mar 29, 2012
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 “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.
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…
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#16 Mar 29, 2012
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 his was drafted to correct the evils of “swarms of the King’s officers” barging in and arbitrarily confiscating “seditious” material, which was determined by them to be “seditious” without benefit of a judge or a public trial. Today we see the same set of circumstances – invasion and terrorism because somebody else invaded our privacy, and did a “bench trial” because they determined that our lifestyle was “seditious.”
California Penal Code SECTION 602.2.“Any ordinance or resolution adopted by a county which requires written permission to enter vacant or unimproved private land from either the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession of private land, shall not apply unless the land is immediately adjacent and contiguous to residential property, or enclosed by fence, or under cultivation, or posted with signs forbidding trespass, displayed at intervals of not less than three to a mile, along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the private land.” County is liable for its agents/employees illegally entering fenced, posted, under cultivation, adjacent to residential, private property without written permission of the owner, owner’s agent, or person in lawful possession of the property.
The People v. Camacho, 1998 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12105:“Police observation through bedroom window from non-public area constitutes unlawful search.” The County is liable for Fourth Amendment violations, and has no immunity when its employees trespass upon areas that “members of the public cannot be said to have been implicitly invited.” No such implicit public invitation exists in a side yard, back yard, or neighbor’s yard for county employees or anybody else to conduct invasion of privacy and/or pretextual search without probable cause to inventory livestock or other property by peeking over or through fences, even chain-link fences, which are there to exclude the eyes of strangers and trespassers.
U.S. v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998).“To comply with Fourth Amendment, anticipatory search warrant must either on its face or on the face of the accompanying affidavit clearly, expressly, and narrowly specify the triggering event…Consent to search that is given after illegal entry is tainted and invalid under the Fourth Amendment…Plain-view doctrine did not apply to seizure of evidence from defendant’s residence after officers conducted initial search based on invalid anticipatory search warrant…Plain-view doctrine does not apply unless the initial entry is lawful…pursuant to a valid warrant…” The county is liable for its agents/employees stealing anything without probable cause on a tainted warrant that fails to narrowly list things with particularity that are connected with a crime, and that fails to have an attached affidavit from a victim injured in his or her business or property. State and federal law protects the unalienable right to “own property/livestock,” so the county is liable for its employees’“fabricated charges” and “pretextual search without probable cause.”
See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S.Ct. 1737:“[I]t was held that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless inspections of commercial structures as well as of private residences…The search of private commercial property, as well as the search of private houses, is presumptively unreasonable if conducted without a warrant.” Again, if there is no victim, there is no crime.
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#17 Mar 29, 2012
State and federal law protects the unalienable right to “own property/livestock,” so the county is liable for its employees’“fabricated charges” and “pretextual search without probable cause.”

See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S.Ct. 1737:“[I]t was held that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless inspections of commercial structures as well as of private residences…The search of private commercial property, as well as the search of private houses, is presumptively unreasonable if conducted without a warrant.” Again, if there is no victim, there is no crime. The county would be liable for violating the Fourth Amendment in allowing any of its agents or employees to conduct “warrantless inspections” to search for livestock and other property on residences.

U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972):“The Government’s duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression…[t]he freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic surveillances are conducted…[violates] the citizen’s right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion.” The city and county is liable for conducting illegal surveillance on private citizens to see who might be keeping or raising livestock. Violation of the Fourth Amendment strips public employees of all immunity. NOTE: U.S. v. U.S. District Court was about protecting the rights of persons who actually blew up federal property and conspired to blow up some more. It appears that terrorist bombers have more constitutional protections than a livestock owners today.

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523, 18 L.ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727:“The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials; the Amendment thus gives concrete expression to a right of the people which is basic to a free society. The guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the states by reason of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited to a situation in which an individual is suspected of criminal behavior.” The County is liable for violations of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by their agents/employees for “suspecting” that a citizen is a criminal because he or she happens to own and raise livestock for their own use. The County needs to remember the hundreds of innocent citizens who were released in the Rampart scandal, because “corrupt city and county employees fabricated charges and committed perjury.”

Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S.___, 143 L.Ed 2d 978, 119 S. Ct.__:“It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for media to be present during the execution of a search warrant.” The County is liable and has no immunity for using the local media to invade the privacy of, and slander fowl and livestock owners while falsely representing the County’s “racketeering enterprise” is lawful to facilitate “raids on other livestock owners” for the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity prohibited under Title 18 § 1962 Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#18 Mar 29, 2012
CITES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS
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:
(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” The County is liable to reimburse disenfranchised livestock owners for property loss without just compensation and deprivation of the right to own all livestock both large and small for personal use, food, or profit. Cities and counties cannot set themselves up as heads of vigilante organizations. The County is liable to provide redress for the deprivation, under color, of the rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and Acts of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens to have just compensation for any County “takings;” and is liable to pay damages or to secure equitable or other relief providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to own and raise pigeons, cats, dogs, large or small livestock, chickens whether they be hens or roosters, and to buy and sell livestock feed.

Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D.Cal. 1999):“…the district court began its analysis by setting forth the elements of a § 1983 claim against an individual state actor as follows:

[the plaintiff(s)] possessed a constitutional right of which [they were] deprived;

the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;

the defendant acted under color of law; and

the acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional deprivation.

The court also stated that, to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that:

[the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which [he/she] was deprived;

the municipality had a policy or custom;

this policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff’s] constitutional right; and

the policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#19 Mar 29, 2012
The district court then stated, however, that “[b]efore there can be any liability under section 1983, there must be ‘a direct causal link’ between the personal conduct of Deputy Lopez or the municipal conduct of Sonoma County and the alleged constitutional deprivation, in this case the murder of Maria Teresa Macias…In each of these cases, the Supreme Court and this court treated the deprivation of a constitutional right as the alleged “injury.” See Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 435 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), 436 U.S. at 692 (holding that a § 1983 “plainly imposes liability on a government that, under color of some official policy,‘causes’ an employee to violate another’s constitutional rights”); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) at 385 (stating that “our first inquiry in any case alleging municipal liability under § 1983 is the question whether there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation”); City of Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 378 (1987) at 267 (stating that “the Court repeatedly has stressed the need to find a direct causal connection between municipal conduct and the constitutional deprivation”); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir. 1981) at 1125 (…liability under § 1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights, or caused such a deprivation to occur). There is a constitutional right, however, to have police services administered in a nondiscriminatory manner – a right that is violated when a state actor denies such protection to disfavored persons. See Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 715-17 (9th Cir. 1996)(recognizing a cause of action under § 1983 based upon the discriminatory denial of police services); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)(same); see also Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1406 (10th Cir. 1996)(stating that “[a]n equal protection violation occurs when the government treats someone differently [from] another who is similarly situated”). The alleged constitutional deprivation in this matter was the alleged denial of equal police protection to Mrs. Macias.” There became a direct causal link between the city and the constitutional deprivation of its citizens under “equal protection” when the city, through its agents and employees, showed indifference to the rights of its residents and businessmen (feed mills) and adopted a custom or policy to discriminate against disfavored individuals, who were disenfranchised because they “owned or raised livestock” or were “keeping any property the city doesn’t like;” this policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to injured citizens’ constitutional rights. Any hearings done in conspiracy with other private individuals to restrict commerce and deprive citizens of equal protection constitutes the cause/point of threat to citizens’ unalienable rights of property ownership, equal protection, and benefit of honest government services before the citizen gets robbed.
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#20 Mar 29, 2012
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT INDUCE FEAR
California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 519 Fear Induced by Threat.“Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either: 1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or, 2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or, 3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime…” Threats by the city or county to turn “ownership of livestock” into a “crime” is EXTORTION, TERRORISM, and COMMODITIES’ TAMPERING. The penalty is four years in prison.
California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 521 When Under Color of Office, section 522 Extorting Signature to Transfer of Property, section 523 Written threat Made to Extort.“Every person who commits any extortion under color of official right…Every person who, by any extortionate means, obtains from another his signature to any paper or instrument, whereby, if such signature were freely given, any property would be transferred…Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, send or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying…any threat…is punishable in the same manner as if the actual delivery of such debt, demand, charge, or right of action were obtained.” This section was enacted to prosecute and incarcerate corrupt government employees using threats and fear to terrorize innocent property owners, elderly, and other citizens into giving up any right or any property without due process. The penalty is four years in prison.
California Penal Code, Title 11.6 CIVIL RIGHTS. Section 422.6 Use of Force, Threats, or Destruction of Property to Interfere With Another’s Exercise of Civil Rights - Punishment.“(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States…” Acquiring and owning livestock is an unalienable right secured by Congress. Nobody can take that right away, unless they PAY you for it. Rights have VALUE. The owner must be paid, and all moving expenses reimbursed for being relocated to some area where there is no domestic terrorism, the Constitution is the law of the land, and the owner is free to acquire and own property for personal enjoyment and use to the exclusion of all others. City or county employees are stripped of all immunity for attempting vigilante action against property owners.
CITY AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES CANNOT VIOLATE THEIR OATHS
Indebtedness: California Constitution Article XX section 3 Oath of Office: All public officers and employees, executive, legislative and judicial…shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following Oath or affirmation:“I,_________ do solemnly swear [affirm] that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United Sates and the Constitution of the state of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. And I do further swear [affirm] that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately proceeding the taking of this oath [affirmation]
Human Rights

San Mateo, CA

#21 Mar 29, 2012
THE COUNTY CANNOT SHIRK ITS LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS, OR ANY CITY EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS

Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3rd, 232 (9th Cir. 1995):“By definition, probable cause to arrest can only exist in relation to criminal conduct; civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause…contract dispute cannot give rise to probable cause to arrest.” Cities or counties CANNOT “butt in” on any civil dispute between neighbors, or presume there is any criminal activity related to ownership of livestock, fowl or other property. Civil disputes go through the DISTRICT ATTORNEY. If the city gets involved, it commits domestic terrorism.

Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1998) at 1088:“6. Civil Rights 214(4) Municipality is not entitled to the shield of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983.” Discrimination against disenfranchised citizens because they own fowl (roosters) and/or other livestock, and/or are Latinos, strips the County of immunity.

Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991):“[T]he law requires that “the official seeking immunity to bear the burden of demonstrating that immunity attaches to the particular function.” County or city employees could not bear the burden of demonstrating that sabotage, terrorism, extortion, theft under color of law, discrimination, racketeering, violation of due process, and “takings” without compensation attaches to their particular function of upholding the Constitution and protecting the property and rights of tax-paying citizens and property owners; therefore, the County would not be immune, either for the conduct of criminals posing as city or county employees.

Brandon v. Holt, 105 S.Ct. 873 (1985) at pp. 873, 874:“2. Civil Rights 13.16 - In cases arising under section 1983, judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents provided the public entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond. 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983. Held: 2. In cases under section 1983, a judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents. This rule was plainly implied in Monell, supra; Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522; and Owen v. City of Independence, 455 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673.” Cities and counties cannot take anonymous complaints. The Supreme Court says that the County is the municipality upon which liability is imposed for civil rights claims against city employees within its jurisdiction. Any County Claim Form filed regarding these terrorist acts, frauds and swindles will be the County’s Notice and Opportunity to be heard regarding city or county employees’ criminal conduct/conspiring to steal property.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Sacramento Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 2 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 26
Clinton Foundation Money from Dictators 4 hr Battle Tested 16
Catch the bus 16 hr Endstage 1
Do White Women generally prefer Black Guys over... Sat HankBDog 1
News Sacramento Hospital Worker Arrested in Teen Pat... (May '08) Aug 25 RiccardoFire 15
Orlando Mass Murderer's father Supports Clinton... Aug 24 RiccardoFire 9
News California firefighters stretched thin as blaze... Aug 24 Clinton Fire 1

Sacramento Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Sacramento Mortgages