This compilation came about in response to demands for information due to increasing public awareness that United States’ citizens are being robbed of their rights and property by white-collar criminals, who use the courts to steal.  These very sophisticated con games rely upon public ignorance about “due process” to get away with trespassing, stealing, and using corrupt court employees to issue “judgments” to  give these fake things the appearance of “legally valid,” when they are as criminal and phony as a $3 bill.  The cure to this problem, is to know what you own, and know the “bundle of rights” that comes along with owning anything from a chicken or a telephone, to a mansion or a Lear jet.  “If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any” is as true today as it was during the American Revolution.  By knowing your rights, knowing what you own, and by knowing our beautiful laws, nobody can bluff or con you out of your rights or property.  We are a capitalistic society – all our laws are designed to protect our enterprises, and give us total freedom to spend all the money we want on as much stuff or property as we want.   “Personal use” means that you acquire pottery, cars, poodles, golf balls, cookbooks, chickens, etc. for your pleasure, because that’s what gives YOU that “zip” or “inspiration” in life.  A free society protects this uniqueness, and no man can infringe on your lifestyle, property, or self expression unless he first PAYS you for it.  Rights have value, and all property has value.  Only socialist dictatorships restrict lifestyle and property ownership.

NOTE:  All references are taken directly from the 2001 editions of West Group’s federal civil and criminal codes, and Matthew-Bender’s California civil and penal codes.  My comments are in italic.  Exact cites are given, so the reader may look them up and decide for himself.  Omitted portions are dotted…  “U.S.C.” means United States Code as written by Congress.  Remember:  All tyrannies have used information control and propaganda to enslave and rob their own people – the first thing Hitler did was to burn all the books, and take over the courts.  A free nation cannot be enslaved by propaganda and revisionism as long as its citizens know their own laws:


DISTRICT COURT CLERK’S MANUAL Chapter 3 section 3.01. Search Warrants  (a) Introduction.  The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  (b) History of the Search Warrant:  The concept of unreasonable search and seizure was an 18th century reaction regarding two separate evils, one on each side of the Atlantic Ocean. The general warrant and writ of assistance were instruments which provided the authorities the power to enter anywhere and seize any persons or things, at anytime, with little or no regard to any expectation of privacy.  In England, general warrants were used by the King in an attempt to stop the publishing of what was then referred to as seditious libel (e.g., documents that incited rebellion against the authority of the state). In the colonies, writs of assistance were used, again by the King of England, to enforce customs and tax laws.  Taxes on wine, tea, and stamps were assessed by the British Parliament in an attempt to retire a portion of the French and Indian war debt. These taxes, of course, were met with great resistance by the colonists. It was this resistance that led, in part, to the American Revolution in 1775.  In England, the battle against the general warrant was being fought in the courts.  Cases such as Huckel v. Money (Chief Justice Charles Pratt, Lord Camden, 1763); Leach v. Money (Chief Justice William Murray, Lord Mansfield, 1765); and Entick v. Carrington (Chief Justice Charles Pratt, Lord Camden, 1765) laid the foundation of one of the most exciting chapters of legal history.  In what was an incredible triumph for the absolute impartiality of British justice, aristocratic judges returned verdicts against members of their own class, condemning the use of general warrants.  The search and seizure of an individual's personal property cannot extend beyond the intent of the Constitution and federal laws. The most important consideration underlying the Fourth Amendment's protection is the reasonable expectation of privacy and security on the part of every citizen, against arbitrary intrusions and seizures by governmental authorities.  (c) Search and Seizure Rule.  Search and seizure is governed by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The rule specifies who has the authority to issue warrants.  It states, in part:  “Upon the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, a search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued (1) by a federal magistrate, or a state court of record within the federal district, for a search of property or for a person within the district, and (2) by a federal magistrate for a search of property or for a person either within or outside the district if the property or person is within the district when the warrant is sought but might move outside the district before the warrant is executed.”  Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(a).

Overton v. Ohio, 151 L.Ed 2d 317 (October 16, 2001):  “The Fourth Amendment provides that ‘no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’  U.S. Const., Amdt. 4.  The probable-cause determination must be made by a neutral magistrate in order ‘to insure that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer will be interposed between the citizen and the police, to assess the weight and credibility of the information which the complaining officer adduces as probable cause.’  This case makes it very clear that there shall be NO “anonymous complaints,” and that the duty of the court is to interpose a “neutral and detached” judicial officer between the complaining party in order to see if an offense truly has been committed.  In California, warrants can only be issued on a FELONY.  And if there is no victim, then there is no crime.


The Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code, sections 54950-54962 “Brown Act”) – Excerpted from Opinion of Bill Lockyear, 2001 DJDAR 12289 (Nov. 26, 2001):  The Brown Act (§ 54950 et seq.), adopted in 1953, is intended to ensure the public’s right to attend the meetings of public agencies.  [Citation.]  To achieve this aim, the Act requires, inter alia, that an agenda be posted at least 72 hours before a regular meeting and forbids action on any item not on that agenda.  [Citation.]  The Act thus serves to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decisionmaking and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies.  [Citation.]

            The Act’s statement of intent provides: “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.  It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.  The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.  The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.  [Citation.]

            The Brown Act dictates that “[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.  [Citation.]”  This is designed to eliminate “special interests” from commandeering civic institutions and processes.  Unfortunately, bribery is such great a temptation that often “private policy” ends up getting shoved down the public’s throat to the detriment of unalienable rights.  INSIST that city council, etc. meetings disclose ALL “interested parties” AND their agendas.  If some private entity wants to regulate and/or restrict your ownership of chickens, dogs, or junk cars, DEMAND that the district attorney make them post a Bond, FIRST.  The District Attorney is paid by you to protect YOUR property rights.  Demand he do his job.


U.S. CONSTITUTION – Amendment 5.  Self-Incrimination; Double Jeopardy; Due process.  “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  If any city or county wants to regulate, restrict or eliminate ANY private property, it must PAY for it out of its General Fund.  “Regulations and restrictions” ARE TAKINGS, and MUST BE COMPENSATED.  So POST your property “No Trespassing” to show that it belongs to YOU.

California Constitution Article 1, section 9 Due Process; Equal Protection; Privileges and Immunities:  “(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws . . .”  “Due process” means that anybody wishing to restrain property or file a protest against the property of another, be it land, livestock, etc. must first put up a Bond to indemnify the lawful owner(s), THEN go through the process of having the matter decided by a jury.  That is due process.

Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S.__, 143 L Ed 2d 882, 119 S.Ct.___ (1999):  “[T]he District Court’s jury instructions…directed the jury that (1) it should find for the landowner if the jury found that (a) the landowner had been denied all economically viable use of its property, or (b) the city’s decision…did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose (the jury awarded the landowner $8 million for the “takings” and $1.45 million for the city’s unlawful acts -no just compensation or providing an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the loss).  The County is liable for any city employee violating the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment by trespassing.  The property owner owns all “bundle of rights” that come with his Deed, as he bought it “as is,” and nobody can convert, alter, change or amend his Deed except him.  Cities and Counties are forbidden by law to amend any Deed, steal any Deed, restrict its use, or to use deceit, extortion, fear, and threats to get the owner to “amend” it by restricting his ownership and use of livestock, property, or his land.  Post-deprivation loss also attaches to the sale of any agriculture or other commodity in interstate OR intrastate commerce, which sales were diminished by the takings/restriction.  This includes anything the landowner would buy for his use and enjoyment of his property – building materials, landscaping/gardening supplies, animal feed, livestock, pets, vehicles, etc.  Damages for the takings without just compensation and for the extortion are decided by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.

California Constitution Article 1, section 19 Eminent Domain:  “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.”  In an unpublished court order in the Daily Appellate, the Sierra Club was ordered to post a Bond of $250,000 for a “takings” because it didn’t want some logger to cut down his own trees.  If private corporations or individuals such as the Humane Society wish to get rid of all roosters and restrict ownership of other pets and livestock in the County, they must likewise pay for it by putting up a Bond.

California Civil Code Title 1 Nature of Property, section 654 Ownership defined: “The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.  In this code, the thing of which there may [be] ownership is called property.”  You own all your property to the exclusion of all others.  Nobody can tell you how to care for your own property, and nobody can “rescue” property from you unless they BUY it, first.

California Civil Code Title 1 Nature of Property, Section 655 Things Subject to ownership:  “There may be ownership of all inanimate things…[there may be ownership] of all domestic animals…”  Animals, land, junk cars, etc. are PROPERTY.

California Evidence Code section 811 Value of property defined:  “As used in this article, ‘value of property’ means market value of any of the following: (a) real property or any interest therein; (b) real property or any interest therein and tangible personal property valued as a unit.”  “Unit” could be one chicken.  Its genetic composition could have great value just as other strains of livestock such as racehorses and beef cattle.  “Interest” in that chicken could be anything from future profits from sale of its offspring to “intellectual property,” such as photographs, movies, books, articles, fine art paintings, funny stories, videotapes, educational seminars, wearable art, sculptures, black velvet paintings, etc. of that chicken.

California Food and Agriculture Code section 30651:  As used in this chapter, “livestock” includes domestic fowls and rabbits.  The City and County are liable for “takings” of property/livestock units known as “birds and poultry, cattle, crowing fowl, pigeons, fish, frogs, chinchillas, guinea pigs, rabbits, parakeets, peafowl, guineas, goats, horses, pigs, sheep, and other small farm animals” and could not convince a jury it was “immune from liability” after proving both its indifference to clearly established law and its intent to steal under false pretenses, and for perpetrating domestic terrorism and crime against its own citizens.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d 798:  “There are a number of non-economic interests in land, such as interest in excluding strangers from one’s land, the impairment of which will invite exceedingly close scrutiny under takings clause (5th Amend.)…if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government’s power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits…If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, “the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappeared…These considerations gave birth…to the oft cited maxim that, “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.  Where ‘permanent physical occupation’ of land is concerned, we have refused to allow the government to decree it anew…without compensation…no matter how weighty the asserted “public interests” involved.”  Unless just compensation is offered, the city or county is committing fraud, theft, racketeering and terrorism if it wants to exert “acts of ownership or control” private property and livestock ownership rights.  It is illegal to impose public policy upon private land; to do so constitutes a “takings,” for which the City and County are liable for compensating the owner for his loss, no matter how small the intrusion.

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S.__, 150 L.E.d.2d 592, 121 S.Ct.__ (2001) (quoting both Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council):  “Petitioners acquisition of title after the regulations effective date did not bar his takings claims.  This Court rejects the State Supreme Courts sweeping rule that a purchaser or a successive title holder like petitioner is deemed to have notice of an earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it effects a taking.  Were the Court to accept that rule, the postenactment transfer of title would absolve the State of its obligation to defend any action restricting land use, no matter how extreme or unreasonable.  A State would be allowed, in effect, to put an expiration date on the Takings Clause.  This ought not to be the rule.  Future generations, too, have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.  The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B.&Q. R.Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.  In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), Justice Holmes well-known…formulation, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.  (To quote Justice Stevens)  It is wrong for the government to take property, even for public use, without tendering just compensation.”  The Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago that it is wrong for the government to steal.  If the restriction is not listed in the Deed, the city or county cannot come in AFTER the fact and say it’s restricted, even if the restriction occurred before the property was purchased.  If the city did not reimburse the FORMER owner for the “regulatory taking,” it cannot get away with failing to reimburse the PRESENT owner.  That is FRAUD.  If it isn’t listed in the Deed, IT IS NOT RESTRICTED.  And if the city or county still wants to impose any restriction, they have to “lawfully acquire the property” by justly compensating the owner/buying the land.


California Constitution, Article 1, section 1.  Inalienable Rights.  “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.  On September 11, 2001, the American people were given new meanings for the word “terrorism” when four stolen passenger planes loaded with jet fuel were used as “smart bombs” to kill over 5,000 innocent and unsuspecting civilians, and cause untold destruction and fear.  Feelings of patriotism were immediately aroused coast-to coast.  Waving a flag is one thing, understanding what it really stands for is another.  The best way to eliminate ALL terrorism, is to regain an understanding of our own laws, and understand how and why CONGRESS defines terrorism.  ALL terrorism takes away our freedoms, and shuts down our businesses and lives.  Domestic terrorism takes many forms - racketeering, extortion, false liens, false personations and cheats, animal enterprise terrorism, and theft under color of law.  This problem is not new; the Colonists were plagued by cringing Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General of the Crown and the arbitrary Justices of the King's Court, all bent on the conviction of those who opposed the King's prerogatives, and who twisted the law to secure convictions.  Rights have VALUE.  Anybody wishing to restrict the use of any private property or ownership right, including rental agreement, must PAY the owner or occupant for that right.  A property is bought or rented “as is.”  Nobody can come along later and restrict its use except if they BUY IT, first.  For example, the Title to your car doesn’t say, “This car may be driven every day except on Wednesdays.”  Likewise, a property Deed does not say, “This land may be owned and used to the exclusion of all others for 10 years, after which it becomes City property, which the City can regulate and control."  City or county codes are for CITY or COUNTY property – they do not apply to any private property, unless the city or county lawfully acquires the property by BUYING it, first.  Only then can they “regulate” it.


Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331.  Definitions.  “As used in this chapter – (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that - (A) involve violent acts…; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping…”  The end results of all terrorist acts are to restrict the victims’ freedoms and put them out of business.  The punishment is imprisonment for 25 years.

Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 105 – SABOTAGE, Section 2152 Definitions  “As used in this chapter: The words ‘war material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘war premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced… The words ‘national-defense material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘national-defense premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced…”  “Livestock” are second in importance in war materials and defense materials, and the places where they are raised are war premises and national defense premises.  All those men on aircraft carriers eat eggs every morning.  Anybody interfering with the raising of livestock is sabotaging national defense materials.  And anybody who restricts or prevents one American citizen from spending one dollar on one dog, cat, chicken, or pigeon is committing domestic terrorism, as nobody has the authority to regulate these Title 7 U.S.C. section 2 “agricultural commodities” except Congress.

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2153 Destruction of war material, war premises, or war utilities  “(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency…with intent to injure, interfere with…willfully injures, destroys…or attempts to so injure, destroy…any war material, war premises…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both.   (b) If any two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.”  The President has declared WAR on terrorism.  After September 11, 2001, ANYBODY who conspires to interfere with lands for growing livestock gets 30 years in jail and a fine for committing SABOTAGE against the United States.  “Anonymous complaints” were abolished over 200 years ago.

Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113 – STOLEN PROPERTY, Section 2311 Definitions:  As used in this chapter: ‘aircraft’ means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air; ‘cattle’ means one or more bulls, steers, oxen, cows, heifers, or calves, or the carcass or carcasses thereof; ’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof; ‘money’ means the legal tender…; ‘motor vehicle’ includes an automobile…truck…wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle…; ‘securities’ includes any note, stock certificate, bond…check, draft, warrant, traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt…bill of lading…valid or blank motor vehicle title; certificate of interest in property, tangible or intangible…; ‘tax stamp’ includes any tax stamp, tax token, tax meter imprint…; ‘value’ means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, and merchandise, securities, and money referred to in a single indictment shall constitute the value thereof.”  Congress revised this on June 25, 1948 after the Peal Harbor attack, as the whole nation figured out that a stolen “airplane” could severely affect national security and economic stability.  It was already established for more than 200 years that the most important things that could be stolen that would destroy national security and economic stability were “cattle” and “livestock” including chickens.  Anybody who steals a dog, cat, goat, pigeon, horse or chicken, or who trespasses on lands for their production with intent to steal is a domestic terrorist.  The first capital offense prosecuted in this nation was for stealing chickens and eggs.  Chickens and eggs were used as currency during the Depression, and are still on the books as valuable property, more important than stolen “money” or stolen “car.”  Owning and raising cats, dogs, livestock, pigeons, etc. is an unalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and anybody stealing or conspiring to steal them will get the thief 10 years in jail.

Title 18 U.S.C. section 43. Animal enterprise terrorism.  “Whoever…(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing…or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records)…or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both...(d) Definitions…the term ‘animal enterprise’ means-(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture…(B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agriculture arts and sciences…(b) Aggravated offense  “Whoever…causes serious bodily injury…shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”  The County is liable for their or cities’ employees ’illegally taking “anonymous complaints” and use of threats, fear, and intimidation (animal terrorism) to restrict federally protected “events intended to advance agriculture arts and sciences,” namely, all 4H and FFA projects, all hobbyists who raise livestock and small animals and birds including pigeons for shows and competitions, and anybody who raises an animal for food.  NOTE: The “Humane” Society is a private corporation, contracted with the County to get rid of unwanted pets and nuisance wildlife.  They are NOT contracted to violate the Fourth Amendment in order to inventory and steal dogs, cats, chickens, horses, etc. under ANY pretext, or to conspire with corrupt judges, lawyers and court clerks to use the courts as a racketeering enterprise.  The “Humane” Society was declared by the FBI to be an “animal terrorist organization” in 1993, yet they not shut down thanks to bribe money used to void judgments against them in court.  See REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE EXTENT OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ON ANIMAL ENTERPRISE online under Department of Justice or DOJ reports.

Title 18 U.S.C. section 3112.  Repealed November 16, 1981.  This federal law used to provide for the issuance of search warrants for seizure of animals, birds, and eggs, but it was repealed, which means that it has been illegal since 1981 for anybody to issue a warrant to seize an animal, a bird, or an egg.  The County is liable for any of its cities, agents or employees acting outside the law to restrict ownership of livestock, and using fear, threat, intimidation, and fraud to coerce citizens to give up their property rights.


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.


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.

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.  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.

California Penal Code section 484.  Acts Constituting Theft.  “Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person…is guilty of theft.”  The County is liable for its employees/agents’ use of “false or fraudulent representation or pretense [to] defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property” by having county or city agents/employees go door-to-door, falsely representing that they have any legal “authority” to use stalking, threats, fear, intimidation to restrict another’s ownership of “property and livestock,” and is liable for said employees/agents trespass to knowingly commit terrorism to “steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another.”

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.

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.


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.


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.

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

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

Lalonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000):  “If, however, there is a material dispute as to the facts regarding what the officer or the plaintiff actually did, the case must proceed to trial, before a jury if requested10 even when immunity from suit was an issue.  Issues of credibility belong to the trier of fact.  The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution so requires…See also Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 317-318 (1995) (holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pre-trial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity)…[O]nce the plaintiff established that material issues of fact existed, the court was required to submit the factual dispute to a jury. Thomson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]here there is a genuine issue of fact on a substantive issue of qualified immunity, ordinarily the controlling principles of summary judgment and, if there is a jury demand and a material issue of fact, the Seventh Amendment, require submission to a jury.”).  It would be impossible for the County to prove any immunity, when, after receiving a Claim or civil RICO suit with additional charges of terrorism and sabotage, it automatically rejects it in order to “play the odds” that the Claimant would be too ignorant to follow up where these issues would be taken to trial.  The rejected Claim would become “Exhibit A.”

Robinson v. Solano County, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7643:  “[T]he court awarded partial summary judgement after Robinson filed both state and federal claims in federal court.  As to the county, the court found that Robinson had failed to provide evidence to support municipal liability under the rule set out in Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 435 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).  However, California has rejected the Monell rule, under which a county may be held liable in a § 1983 suit only if it has adopted an illegal or unconstitutional policy or custom.  California holds counties liable for acts of their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and grants immunity to counties only where the public employee would also be immune from liability.  See C.G.C. § 815.2; see also Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 643, 650 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Under Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a), the County is liable for acts and omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a private employer.  Under subdivision (b), the County is immune from liability if, and only if, [the employee] is immune.”).  The County would not be immune, as their employees  and cities are not immune for Title 42 section 1983 discrimination against disenfranchised livestock owners, 4-Hers, FFA, pigeon clubs, feed stores, and feed mill owners.  There is no immunity for domestic terrorism, sabotage, extortion, theft and racketeering under color of state and federal law, and no immunity for failing to provide equal protection at the point of threat, in this case, conspiracy by public employees to restrict commerce, and commit takings without just compensation by means of using threats, fear, intimidation, and fraud to coerce a civilian population to amend their Deeds and give up property rights or else face “charges” for owning property/agricultural commodities.  This only happens in third-world socialist dictatorships.


California Civil Code section 847.  “An owner…shall not be liable to any person for any injury or death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of any of the felonies set forth in subdivision (b)…The felonies to which the provisions of this section apply are the following: murder, mayhem, rape, sodomy…attempted murder…burglary, robbery; selling [controlled substances], grand theft, and any attempt to commit a crime.”  There shall be no liability to the property owner for the death or injury to “thieves, terrorists, and robbers who trespass with intent to steal “personal property/livestock.”




Title 18 section 1951 Interference with Commerce:  “Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity…by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so…shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than twenty years…(2) the term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”  Title 7, section 2 [Agricultural commodities] Definitions: “The word ‘person’…shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts.  The word ‘commodity’ shall mean wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs,…[Irish potatoes],  wool, wool tops, fats and oils…cottonseed meal, cottonseed, peanuts, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, livestock products, and frozen concentrated orange juice, and all other  goods and articles…”  Title 7 section 2131 “The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effectively regulate such commerce, in order…(3) to protect the owners of animals from theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen.”  Title 18 section 1962. Prohibited activities: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce…(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”  Title 18 Stolen Property, section 2311 Definitions:  As used in this chapter…’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof.” Title 7 Agriculture section 601:  No state can restrict the raising of any commodity (chicken - hen or cock, other poultry, cattle, horse, goat, pig, sheep, parakeet, frog, fish, chinchilla, guinea pig, rabbit, etc.) for personal use.  If the state is forbidden to restrict commodities, neither can the city or county.  City or county employees get 20 years in prison for conspiring to restrict the free flow of commerce and agricultural commodities known as “chickens (roosters and hens),” “birds and poultry,” cattle,” “crowing fowl,” “pigeons,” “goats,” “horses,” “pigs,” “sheep,” “other small farm animals (rabbits, fish, chinchillas, frogs, parakeets, guinea pigs, etc.),” and “animal/livestock feed” consisting of mill feeds: rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, and grain sorghums.  The penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment or $250,000 fine.

Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997)  “[I]nterprative canon is not license for judiciary to rewrite language enacted by legislature. . .  Predominant elements in substantive Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations are: (1) conduct (2) of enterprise (3) through pattern of racketeering activity.  18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). . . .  Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy conviction does not require overt or specific act.  18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). . . .  If conspirators have plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate crime and others to provide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators. . . .  Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues, for conspiracy is distinct evil, dangerous to public, and so punishable in itself.”  Judges and cities are forbidden to rewrite language enacted by legislature.  They are forbidden to even think about using the courts to uphold bogus, fabricated charges for “hot pursuit of revenue.”  By their “conduct” of falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, participants violate 15 U.S.C. sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1681s-2, and became “principals” in a “pattern of racketeering” by putting “false liens or debts” on “court or credit records” without “verifying” that the liens or debts were “legally valid” as the result of “having the matter determined by a jury” prior to having an “abstract of judgment entered.”  The fraud continues when these bogus judgments are used for “collection of unlawful debt.”  The language of 15 U.S.C. section 1681s-2 is particularly clear:  “A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.”

Amortization:  “The World Book Dictionary defines ‘amortize’ as:  1. To set money aside regularly in a special fund for future wiping out of (a debt…); 2. Law. To convey (property) to a body, especially an ecclesiastical body, which does not have the right to sell or give it away.”  ‘Amortization’ is:  1. The act of amortizing a debt; 2. The money set aside for this purpose.”  The County is liable for cities’ fraudulent misuse of the word “amortization” to mean an 18-month “grace” period before county agents crack down on all livestock and other small farm animal owners, 4-H, and FFA.  The correct definition of “amortization” means that the county and cities need to set money aside right now for “conveying property (deeds/bundle of rights/chickens/chicken feed/livestock) to a body, (city or county agents), which does not have the right to sell or give it away.  This is hard evidence of County’s liability for fraud – they know they have no right to con citizens into amending their own Deeds by giving up their property, but count on the public being too ignorant to look up the real definition of “amortize.”

CIVIL RICO by DAVID B. SMITH and TERRANCE G. REED, 1999 Edition published by MATTHEW BENDER, publication update September 1999, front page:  “Injuries to “Business or Property:”  Interpreting the scope of compensable “business or property” injuries under section 1964(c), THE Sixth Circuit recently held in Isaak v. Trumble Savings & Loan Co., 169 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 1999), that the use and enjoyment of real estate constitutes “property” within the meaning of RICO so as to trigger the accrual of a RICO claim.”  The county and its cities are liable for racketeering conduct of its employees/agents’ use of fear, threats, and intimidation to “interfere with the use and enjoyment of property” by citizens who pay city and county employees to “protect and serve” their property rights.

California Civil Code section 3482.5 Preexisting Agricultural Uses Not Nuisance.  “(a)(1) No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after it has been in operation for more than three years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began.”  County is liable for their agents’ “racketeering and extortion” in using threats, fear and intimidation by going door-to-door issuing citations for having too many parakeets, fish, frogs, goats, guinea pigs, fowl, pigeons, pigs, horses, etc., which information they obtained illegally through criminal trespass or violation of property owners’ Fourth Amendment.

U.S. v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) at 793:  “To establish conspiracy under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not require proof that individual defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses; rather, the conspiracy must contemplate the commission of two predicate acts by one or more of its members.  18 U.S.C. section 1962(d).”  More than two predicate acts occur when private individuals conspire with public employees to violate state and federal law by restricting property ownership without just compensation in furtherance of a racketeering scheme or artifice (denial of honest government services and theft under color of law); therefore, the County is the municipality upon which the “liability is imposed” for conduct constituting RICO conspiracy through fraud and deceit to effect “takings” without due process and without just compensation, which is theft under color.  The county needs to remember the “judicial officers” who went to jail in this Frega case for operating the courts as a racketeering enterprise, the $42 million that went back into Uncle Sam’s Treasury as “fruits of a racketeering enterprise,” and needs to remember the 1,500 crooked employees who used to work for the DMV and who took “bribes” to “do favors” and manufacture fake licenses for their friends.  In the Frega case, the feds only collected $42 million, because it was pled improperly, and a lot more big fish escaped the net.

Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997):  “[C]onspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and punishable in itself.”  City and county employees are liable for conspiring to restrict property (including old cars) and agricultural commodities (Title 7, section 2) without just compensation, and conspiring to target disenfranchised livestock owners and feed mills in violation of Title 42 section 1983, and admitted to having “met” (conspired) with code enforcement and private persons in violation of the Brown Act in order to steal.  The county is liable for its employees’ intent (conspiracy) to conduct city and county business as a racketeering enterprise.

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 1996) at 378:  “Attorney need know nothing about client’s ongoing or planned illicit activity for crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege to apply.”  The County is liable for city employees’ “planned illicit activity” to turn property ownership into a crime, and any attorney representing the city or county agents in a lawsuit is liable under crime-fraud exception, and their malpractice insurance will not cover RICO allegations; nor can any of their clients recover ANY attorney fees (this notion was rejected by the full House in 1970 see CIVIL RICO, footnote 25)

Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1995):  “A preanswer Motion to Dismiss action for failure to state a claim admits facts alleged in complaint but challenges plaintiff’s right to relief based upon those facts.”  The County would have no hope of using a 12(b)(6) motion to deny the fact that any of its citizens exists, and that one citizen was subjected to Animal Enterprise Terrorism, threats, fear, intimidation, trespass, and robbery by city employees.

Guerrero v. Gates, et al, CV 00-7165, WILLIAM J. REA, August 28, 2000, United States District Court for the Central District of California, quoting pertinent parts relating to nationwide news the LAPD CONDUCT SUBJECT TO CIVIL RICO:  DISCUSSION:  Legal Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6):  A party may bring a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims if the plaintiff’s allegations “fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Generally, “[a] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”  Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).  Thus, dismissal is proper where the complaint lacks either a cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.  See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).  In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must construe all allegations contained in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them.  See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738 (1976). Thus, no matter how improbable the alleged facts are, the court must accept them as true for the purposes of the action.  See Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989).  The first amended complaint alleges planting evidence and extortion by Rampart police, which are both racketeering violations under Title 18.  Attorneys for the defendant police made a motion to dismiss based on “failure to state a claim.”  The court recommended that this motion be denied, and encouraged the plaintiff to pursue his racketeering claims.  Likewise, it would be very easy to “prove the set of facts” that the city and county employees aided and abetted racketeering activity by restricting property use, and by conspiring with private individuals and corporations to terrorize tax-paying citizens.

AR zoning: “Existing animal keeping uses in the AR Agricultural-Residential District which become nonconforming by reason of development on an adjoining site which was vacant when the animal keeping use was established may be continued indefinitely; provided, however, if the animal keeping use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of eighteen (18) months, it shall not be resumed except in conformity with the provisions of Section 9-3.420 of this article.  The County is liable for illegally proposing (extortion) that citizens be given 18 months to get rid of chickens or face charges” in order to threaten and intimidate citizens to give up their property rights, which is a “scheme or artifice to defraud under color of official right.”  The County is liable for any of its employees/agents using extortion, threats, fear and intimidation to coerce citizens to “amend” their Deeds and give up their property rights without just compensation or due process, and for falsely purporting that if the chickens or other livestock/small farm animals are gone for 18 months, the County can then fraudulently “amend” the owner’s deed, illegally convert the title, and get rid of the Prop 13 tax break.

Jones v. United States, 529 U.S.__, 146 L Ed 2d 902, 120 S.Ct___ (May 22, 2000):  Held:  Because an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property ‘used in’ commerce or commerce-affecting activity, arson of such a dwelling is not subject to…prosecution…”  The Supreme Court says that you cannot be prosecuted by anybody for damaging your own property.  The county is liable for its employees/agents’ fraud, perjury, and extortion to steal property under the guise of “rescuing” it from its lawful owner.


Rotella v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 SCt.__, at pg. 1047:  “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C.S §§ 1961 et seq.) provides that (1) it is unlawful to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (2) a pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which occurs within 10 years after the commission of a prior act (18 USCS § 1962(c), (3) a person injured by a RICO violation can bring a civil RICO action (18 USCS 1964(c)).”  Any person injured by racketeering activity can file a civil RICO lawsuit.  “Racketeering activity” is anything which interferes with land use and property rights – threats, fear, false process, false liens, etc.


Title 18 U.S.C. section 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds.  “Whoever…being an agent of…a State, or local…government, or any agency thereof-(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner…shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both…The circumstances referred to…is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance…As used in this section-(1) the term ‘agent’ means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or government and…includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative; (2) the term ‘government agency’ means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other  legal entity established, and subject to control, by a governmental or intergovernmental program.”  The County is liable for its “servants or employees, boards, etc.” embezzlement of federal funds in excess of $10,000 for restricting federally funded and protected “animal enterprises” including hobbyists, petting zoos, fairs, aquariums, 4H and FFA, pigeon shows, etc. by “stealing, obtaining by fraud, or otherwise convert to the use of any person other than the rightful owner” livestock and small animals lawfully owned within the County.  The county does not get to receive federal funds for protected 4H and FFA programs, then turn around and restrict them.  Not only is this a crime against the tax-paying citizens in the County, it is a crime against the United States.  Anything which interferes with land use is racketeering.


Steagald v. United States, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 “Held: 2. The search in question violated the Fourth Amendment, where it took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances.  (a) Absent exigent circumstances or consent, a home may not be searched without a warrant…(c) A search warrant requirement…will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts…no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place.  Moreover, the exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant is needed.  And in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is generally insignificant.  In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring a search warrant…they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest at stake in protecting the right of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the government…The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral judicial officer to assess whether the police have probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search.  As we have often explained, the placement of this checkpoint between the Government and the citizen implicitly acknowledges that an ‘officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-15 (1948),  at 14, may lack sufficient objectivity to weigh correctly the strength of the evidence supporting the contemplated action against the individual’s interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home.”  Warrantless search or arrest can ONLY occur IN A PUBLIC PLACE during “hot pursuit.”  In all other cases, a fair, neutral and detached judicial officer determines FROM THE COMPLAINT is a warrant should issue based upon the commission OF A FELONY.  This is where the public’s ignorance is used by robbers posing as code enforcement, etc., WHO DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ANYTHING.

California Penal Code Chapter 3 SEARCH WARRANTS section 1523 Definition:  “A search warrant is an order in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate, directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or persons, a thing or things, or personal property, and, in the case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same before the magistrate.  1996 Notes: (a) the purpose of the amendment to Section 1523 of the Penal Code is to provide a mechanism for compliance with Steagald v. United States, , 68 L.Ed.2d 38”  No VICTIM equals NO CRIME.  And search warrants cannot be issued willy-nilly – see Steagald, above.  Warrants are only issued IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE by going through the DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the MAGISTRATE.  The reference to Steagald was a warning: Cities have been caught issuing bullshit warrants BEFORE.  The ONLY person who can issue ANY warrant in the NAME OF THE PEOPLE is the district attorney, and he can ONLY do this from a report taken by a police officer from a VICTIM that goes through HIS office, then through the scrutiny of a neutral and detached MAGISTRATE.

California Penal Code Chapter 3 SEARCH WARRANTS section 1524 Ground for Issuance:  “(a) A search warrant may be issued upon any of the following grounds:  (1) When the property was stolen or embezzled.  (2) When the property or things were used as the means of committing a felony….”  There’s more to this section, but it is very clear:  THERE ARE NO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” TO SEIZE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT REPORTED AS STOLEN!!!

Carrera v. Bertaini, 63 C.A. 3d 721; 134 Cal.Rptr. 14:  “[I]mpoundment of an owner’s farm animals…without prior notice or hearing, and without a hearing in the superior court…was unlawful and the owner was entitled either to have animals returned…or their reasonable value…the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires some form of notice and hearing…the hearing must take place before the property is taken.”  Cities try to wriggle around this one, by holding “public hearings.”  These hearings, however, are NOT proper hearings with the property owner or his counsel present in superior court with the value of all property and bundle of rights tallied and presented for just compensation by the city or county out of the General Fund.  The County is liable for the city using fraud and deceit to try to con the public into believing that public hearings take the place of “a notice and hearing in superior court.”


Apartment Association of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8951:  “Fee imposed upon residential rental properties that wasn’t adopted pursuant to Proposition 218 is void.  In 1996, California adopted Proposition 218 (the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act”), thereby adding Article XIIID to the California Constitution (1) to limit “the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent”…Section 6 obligates an agency to follow specified procedures before imposing or increasing any…fee…including notice to identified property owners who would be subject to the proposed new fee…”  The County is liable for its employees/Planning Department/Supervisors/Cities’ illegal imposition of “conditional use permit/tax/fee” on property (livestock) in violation of Proposition 218.


U.S. CONSTITUTION Amendment 4.  Search and Seizure.  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  We have forgotten that his was drafted to correct the evils of “swarms of the King’s officers” barging in and arbitrarily confiscating “seditious” material, which was determined by them to be “seditious” without benefit of a judge or a public trial.  Today we see the same set of circumstances – invasion and terrorism because somebody else invaded our privacy, and did a “bench trial” because they determined that our lifestyle was “seditious.”

California Penal Code SECTION 602.2.  “Any ordinance or resolution adopted by a county which requires written permission to enter vacant or unimproved private land from either the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession of private land, shall not apply unless the land is immediately adjacent and contiguous to residential property, or enclosed by fence, or under cultivation, or posted with signs forbidding trespass, displayed at intervals of not less than three to a mile, along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the private land.”  County is liable for its agents/employees illegally entering fenced, posted, under cultivation, adjacent to residential, private property without written permission of the owner, owner’s agent, or person in lawful possession of the property.

The People v. Camacho, 1998 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12105:  Police observation through bedroom window from non-public area constitutes unlawful search.”  The County is liable for Fourth Amendment violations, and has no immunity when its employees trespass upon areas that “members of the public cannot be said to have been implicitly invited.”  No such implicit public invitation exists in a side yard, back yard, or neighbor’s yard for county employees or anybody else to conduct invasion of privacy and/or pretextual search without probable cause to inventory livestock or other property by peeking over or through fences, even chain-link fences, which are there to exclude the eyes of strangers and trespassers.

U.S. v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998).  “To comply with Fourth Amendment, anticipatory search warrant must either on its face or on the face of the accompanying affidavit clearly, expressly, and narrowly specify the triggering event…Consent to search that is given after illegal entry is tainted and invalid under the Fourth Amendment…Plain-view doctrine did not apply to seizure of evidence from defendant’s residence after officers conducted initial search based on invalid anticipatory search warrant…Plain-view doctrine does not apply unless the initial entry is lawful…pursuant to a valid warrant…”  The county is liable for its agents/employees stealing anything without probable cause on a tainted warrant that fails to narrowly list things with particularity that are connected with a crime, and that fails to have an attached affidavit from a victim injured in his or her business or property.   State and federal law protects the unalienable right to “own property/livestock,” so the county is liable for its employees’ “fabricated charges” and “pretextual search without probable cause.”

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

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

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

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


U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Section 1:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”  The County is liable for “failure to provide equal protection” to all citizens owning property, as the County is not a separate country, it falls within the State of California within the United States, and its employees do not get to make up their own laws intended to steal property and disenfranchise and discriminate against citizens for owning chickens, pigeons, parakeets, guinea pigs, goats, ducks, turkeys, cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, fish, chinchillas, frogs, etc.

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:

            (1)            To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

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

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

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

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

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

the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;

the defendant acted under color of law; and

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

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

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

the municipality had a policy or custom;

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

the policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.

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


Title 18 U.S.C. sections 891-896.  Section 891 Definition and rules of construction:  “(7) An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property.”  This applies to bogus “utility liens” or “attorney’s fees,” which sanctions are only for licensed attorneys, and only for DEFENDANTS for causing undue delay and needlessly increasing the cost of litigation.  Private attorneys conspiring with private corporations/Humane Societies to bribe federal or state judges, etc. to get rulings/judgments favorable to the robbers fits these “rules of construction,” as only Hitler punished those who sued and confiscated their property.  The county is not immune for cities’ criminal profiteering within the county, when they are paid to protect and serve, NOT to rob and do these white-collar con games.


Under Title 7 U.S.C. section 2159, Congress restrains all states subject to Public Law regarding animals and livestock.  All investigations for “alleged animal neglect” fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, NOT the County.  The United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, sends a request to the United States Attorney General, now John Ashcroft, to request of a United States District Court Judge to issue a “restraining order or injunction” pursuant to section 2159 of Title 7 United States Code, whenever the Secretary has reason to believe…the health of any animal [is] in serious danger…”  The County employees and agents are not the United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, and The County Board of Supervisors are not United States District Court judges, therefore, they conspired to intentionally and willfully “impersonate federal authority,” restricted since 1966 under the following “explicit” statute:

Title 7 U.S.C. Section 2159.  Authority to Apply for Injunctions.- (a)  Request. – Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler is dealing in stolen animals, or is placing the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act or the regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General who may apply to the United States district court in which such dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler resides or conducts business for a temporary restraining order or injunction to prevent any such person from operating in violation of this Act or the regulations and standards prescribed under this Act.  The County is not immune from city’s criminal conduct, and “impersonating federal authority” in order to commit terrorism and theft under color.


“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Hitler's Nazi Germany was marked by a preoccupation with "animal rights."  Hitler's Third Reich passed numerous animal protection laws, such as declaring that shoeing a horse was cruel, and declared an end to dissection.  This reduced Man’s status to that of animals, and justified treating men as animals.  Before the war was ended, the Nazis stepped up experiments on the best way to castrate a Jew without anesthesia, and turned countless men, women and children into lampshades and soap.  These Nazi actions were justifiable by their belief that it was possible to "...increase the moral standing of animals and decrease the moral standing of people, thus integrating human characteristics to animals... elevating animal life to the level of cult worship...which would lead to the spiritual and ideological changes necessary... for a new national identity."

The real political objective of “animal rights” is to eliminate "unalienable rights," and to make way for all these other supposed rights and pervert our Bill of Rights to the point where only the perverted are protected.  A favored socialist strategy is to separate the population from common sense and its own laws by bringing about chaos, clouding real issues, then bring about “change” through gradual “legislation from within.”  Ruling by planned crisis is the favored method, as this short-circuits the brain’s ability to think and reason clearly about true issues.  This planned chaos (such as “animal cruelty,” “puppy mills” and “cock fighting”) is designed to rob the nation of its creativity and life force, degrade human existence, make everything seem uncontrollable and bad, which then allows the introduction of a tyrannical form of government.

The Gestapo was first used by Goring to do away with political opponents.  A "temporary" state of emergency was declared after the Reichstag fire, but was never rescinded.  This allowed the Gestapo to enforce conformity at every level of society.  Block wardens monitored their neighbors, and children were recruited to inform on their teachers and parents.  The Gestapo was authorized to hold people in "protective custody" which was really arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.  At first, only political prisoners were taken under the guise of "preventive protective custody" and placed in SS-controlled concentration camps; later, anyone was hunted down and taken who was deemed to not fit in with SS and Gestapo vision of a perfect Aryan society.  ("SS" came from Schutzstaffel which means "elite guard").

Today we see this same conduct and set of circumstances appearing in some of our civic institutions. The only way for one man to achieve dominion and control over another is through the darkness of IGNORANCE.  Let’s get educated about our own laws, so that tyranny cannot gain a foothold in America, and so that we can once again have “happiness and good government flowing forth” as paraphrased by all our early education laws.  We do have some beautiful laws.  Let’s learn them, and insist that our civic institutions obey them for the good of our nation.  God Bless America.



        -Compiled by:            Janet I. Fischer and S.A. Martin

                                    17954-A S. Euclid Ave.

                                    Chino, CA 91710