Think you are still free to make choices in your life? Do you think the government will allow you to live independent of their utility monopolies? If you think so, try opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting toilets and your own self-sufficient water supply. Today, those life choices could land you in jail if you live in South Florida. Take the case of Robin Speronis.
Robin Speronis has lived off the grid, independent of the city’s water and electric system. A Florida court ruled this off-the-grid living illegal last week and has given Robin until March to connect her home to a municipal water line or face possible eviction. Further, officials in the city of Cape Coral have justified this by deeming Robin’s home “unsanitary,” citing the International Property Maintenance Code. First of all, since when did we begin to locally recognize “international codes?” Where in the US Constitution does it provide for international jurisdiction over local codes? Ironically, this “international” code mandates that homes be connected to an electricity grid and a running water source, even though most of the world lives without reliable electricity and municipal water and sewer. Further, the code is outdated and obsolete because it was written without consideration to both old and new technologies that relegate the need for grid tied power and municipal water as unnecessary and expensive; especially, in locations where it simply isn’t feasible to have grid tied utilities. Nonetheless, Speronis’ home does in fact have power and water through far cheaper and more environmentally friendly means — solar panels and rainwater, but that reality is ignored by the local government.
All too often now it has become blatantly clear that our governments will stop at nothing to control every aspect of your life and demand by force of law that you are dependent upon the system. Why dependent? Simple, because dependent people can be controlled. Nothing screams of totalitarism more than irrational government demands to conform to nonsensical and inefficient systems when better options that may suit an individual are available. Today, living off the grid allows one to become in a large part independent of the government and as such, has now been targeted as criminal behavior. Of course governments are not going to directly say this. Instead, you see governments using the tact such as Cape Coral citing “sanitary” reasons even though they presented no conclusive evidence that Robin’s lifestyle presented any type of public health threat. Sure, it was not the typical urban setup for a dwelling, but then, when was it demanded by law that everyone conformed to outdated modes of existence? In fact, how is locally sourcing water from renewable sources and incinerating or biodegrading human waste “more” unsanitary than the city’s own activities? Let’s be honest, providing filtered sewage mixed with a cocktail of harmful chemicals through debris and corrosion filled pipes as “clean” drinking water isn’t my idea of sanitary. Further, pumping raw sewage into open bodies of water and burning millions of tons of fossil fuels isn’t exactly sanitary either.
When viewed in its entirety, it appears that the government is simply mad because someone found a way to do things better and without the need of their “services.” Instead of adapting and reforming their code to catch up with technology, the uber bureaucrats with clearly limited mental faculties and stunted emotional development decided it was easier and or better to just prosecute Robin as a criminal. How scary is it that in today’s society common sense, logic, and reason are excommunicated by bureaucrats in favor of mindless adherence to ineffective, dated, and or obsolete codes and regulations that were allegedly designed to help not hurt the public? Instead of good judgment and rational logic, the go-to tools of bureaucrats are brutal police enforcement and prosecution of anyone that dares to try and live independent of their noxious edicts. As you have witnessed and will witness going forward, this is a recipe for a national collapse. No person, business, or state can function under such bureaucratic idiocy and harassment. The freedom of people and the ability of businesses to operate productively are inversely proportional to the size of the bureaucracy. The United States has hit the point where intrepid trend setters, inventors, pioneers, industrialists, and builders are no longer able to lead this nation forward, but instead, unaccomplished and dimwitted individuals with titles such as inspector, social worker, tax agent, appointee, consultant, and compliance officer are leading this nation into ruin. I don’t know how much longer the US can continue the allusion of a functional nation, but as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, this system and nation will collapse under its own bureaucratic weight and feel good hubris. I hope you are prepared.
By Guiles Hendrik
January 4, 2015
http://www.naturalnews.com/044102_Orwellian_nightmare_off-the-grid_living_code_ordinances.html
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/10/16/your-freedom-to-live-off-the-grid-is-under-attack/
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2015/01/04/florida-outlaws-off-the-grid-living/. […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting […]
[…] face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2015/01/04/florida-outlaws-off-the-grid-living/ Think you are still free to make choices in your life? Do you think the government will allow you […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
Robin Speronis was using the city water pipes ans in she flushed with a bucket of water. She also did a few other things, such as went against her housing commity. She went to her idea of OFF GRID, in the wrong area. She also did not go about it the right way.
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
That’s a court begging for lead!
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] Guiles Hendrik | Last Minute Survival | January 4, […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
…and stupid people wonder what the 2nd amendment is really all about. This is what it is all about.
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
Repel all of these blatant fascist luciferians with LETHAL FORCE!
[…] For example, one prepper down in South Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in South Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] Florida Outlaws Off-the-Grid Living | Last Minute Survival. […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] Florida Outlaws Off-the-Grid Living:TIE THIS IN WITH THE EPA’S WOOD STOVE DECREE AND YOU CAN SEE T… […]
I don’t know who came up with the notion that going solar is “inexpensive” or “efficient”. The battery bank alone will cost between 10k and 20k … and if the sun isn’t shining, you’ll need a backup generator. Unless you’re hooked up to the grid, going solar is retty expensive.
Here’s what you ought to be clamoring about: bloomenergy.com Hit the “Customers” tab and take a look at who is currently using this technology. All electricity is generated on site eliminating the need for costly and unsightly power lines running all over the place.
It will take one of these units about the size of a loaf of bread to power the typical American home; with a 3-5 year payback, it makes solar look absolutely primitive. The fuel can be either natural gas or biogas. In time, the list of approved fuels will probably grow. It’s a technology in its’ infancy … and it is NOT available for residential use at this time. Why aren’t the “courts” addressing this?
jerry bolduc
They don’t want anyone being independent. They want us as helpless sheep. If you have your own food and water supply, you can’t be manipulated. You won’t do what they tell you. How do they root out all these independent subversives? Well they put on commercials telling you to prepare for a “zombie apocalypse”, but when you follow their advice, they label you a terrorist. Then they’ll pull up purchasing records of businesses that sell prepper suppliers and there you’ll be. That’s how they know who to round up when SHTF.
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] By Michael Snyder, on January 8th, 2015 […] one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
If any law is immoral, unjust or unconstitutional you need not obey it.
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
[…] For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik… […]
Back in the 1980’s they were fighting the live-aboards(boats).They were polluting/trashing the environment. Never mind that big old sewer pipe running miles seaward from Miami pumping multi-thousands of gallons of grade A raw sewerage 24/7/365.I wonder if it’s still pumping?
For those who aren’t informed yet, read about Agenda 21.
[…] Source: Guiles Hendrik of http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2015/01/04/florida-outlaws-off-the-grid-living/ […]
Very disturbing. But what is the place in the photo? Is that Robin’s house and yard? If so, that’s disturbing to me as well. But anyway international law should never be used by code enforcers.
Hi Linda,
The International Code became the standard for the National Code in 2004. Also, I talked to Robin on more than one occasion and unless something has happened recently this was last year’s news. I told her attorney the method i used for shutting down the Zuni Indian Reservation for taking my water rights. Hope this is not something new.
Good luck and God bless all in 2015.
CC
That is the comment of all comments……Russell the Grin- D.- er of tyranny. Keep it dude! Maybe some day enough of us meat heads will understand the banker cult matrix we are entangled with and throw it off our backs. It is too bad that truth and liberty can never be understood by the majority. We are born to know these things but they are kept from us and the prison walls are closing in.
Without a complaint from an injured party nothing has happened. If a neighbor files a complaint he will have to prove how he has been injured by the owner living off the grid. One will only have to file a “Counter Claim” against the original complainant in a “Court of Record” which is a Common Law Court. Without a proven injury nothing has happened, and if you open a “Court of Record” you are now the Judge in your own court, their Judge is now the case manager and cannot even make any decisions without your permission. You must stay out of the corrupt “Administrative Courts” that are owned by the corporation. If you don’t understand any of this you’d better throw yourself on the mercy of their court and never pitch a bitch again….or, go to Bill Thornton’s web site 1215.org and start studying, everything their is free. You need to understand who you are as a “Sovereign” and if this freaks you out just sign your property over to your neighbor and move into a cardboard box down on main street where you’ll at least have homeless rights and get fed twice a day. And oh yeah, get a tiny box to put your balls in, you don’t need them anymore….
Capt. Russ Griner United States Civil Defense Association
Trinity County North West Chapter
Why is she still living in a “CITY”! GTFO!
That’s interesting.
Do you have an allodial title to the property (my autocorrect doesn’t think allodial is a word, hail Orwell), or a fee simple title? Just about EVERYONE has a fee simple title. If you have a fee simple title, think about it for a bit, do you actually OWN your property, or are you simply renting it from the city? If you don’t own the property, the ordinances and zoning apply to the property that you reside upon because YOU DON’T OWN IT. Is the Kelo decision not enough for you to realize that? Civil asset forfeiture could not exist without this fee simple perversion.
This is kind of like the UCC statutes of the uS corporation being applicable to all “citizens” regardless of the original constitution which we are not signatories of.
Hey, it’s me again. Russ. Your county,city or Burg or whatever it is you live in is a “Private Corporation,” and has absolutely no jurisdiction over you or your property, unless, you are under contract to it. Are you? Without a signed contract made willingly, knowledgeably and intentionally there is nothing to compel performance. Again a “Private Corporation” can only control what it creates. Did it create you? If so, you are screwed. If not they are acting under color of law with no law to back it up. It’s time to circle the wagons and go for the throat, you are going to win big and make yourself toxic to where they will leave you alone no matter what. Go to your court house and find out where the “Office of Risk and Loss Management ” is and file a claim against the county or city people who are coming after you. File on them in their private capacity so the county will not pay their legal bills and watch how soon they charges will drop. Stand tall and stand firm, this is what America is all about, take the first punch get back up and start swinging………
Capt. R.Griner U.S.C.D.A.
ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED
California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon property that is not OWNED by the City or County even if the property is within City limits.
California Penal Code: Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES Sections 853.1through 853.4 was repealed in 1967.
The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___(2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City’s illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man’s private property and restricting the man’s business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992).(butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man’s private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a “takings”), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998).
In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement’s illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.
Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 “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.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 5 th Edition (page 1140): Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back. A species of remedy by the mere act of the party injured (otherwise termed “reprisal”), which happens when anyone has deprived another of his property in goods or chattels personal, or wrongfully detains one’s wife, child, or servant. In this case, the owner of the goods, and the husband, parent, or master may lawfully claim and retake them, wherever he happens to find them, so it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace.
AND THEN THERE’S BELOW:
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS
This compilation came about in response to demands for information due to increasing public
awareness that United States’ citizens are being robbed of their rights and property by white-collar
criminals, who use the courts to steal. These very sophisticated con games rely upon public ignorance
about “due process” to get away with trespassing, stealing, and using corrupt court employees to issue
“judgments” to give these fake things the appearance of “legally valid,” when they are as criminal and
phony as a $3 bill. The cure to this problem, is to know what you own, and know the “bundle of rights” that
comes along with owning anything from a chicken or a telephone, to a mansion or a Lear jet. “If you don’t
know your rights, you don’t have any” is as true today as it was during the American Revolution. By
knowing your rights, knowing what you own, and by knowing our beautiful laws, nobody can bluff or con
you out of your rights or property. We are a capitalistic society – all our laws are designed to protect our
enterprises, and give us total freedom to spend all the money we want on as much stuff or property as we
want. “Personal use” means that you acquire pottery, cars, poodles, golf balls, cookbooks, chickens, etc.
for your pleasure, because that’s what gives YOU that “zip” or “inspiration” in life. A free society protects
this uniqueness, and no man can infringe on your lifestyle, property, or self expression unless he first PAYS
you for it. Rights have value, and all property has value. Only socialist dictatorships restrict lifestyle and
property ownership.
NOTE: All references are taken directly from the 2001 editions of West Group’s federal civil and criminal
codes, and Matthew-Bender’s California civil and penal codes. My comments are in italic. Exact cites are
given, so the reader may look them up and decide for himself. Omitted portions are dotted… “U.S.C.”
means United States Code as written by Congress. Remember: All tyrannies have used information control
and propaganda to enslave and rob their own people – the first thing Hitler did was to burn all the books,
and take over the courts. A free nation cannot be enslaved by propaganda and revisionism as long as its
citizens know their own laws:
RESTRICTIONS ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE
DISTRICT COURT CLERK’S MANUAL Chapter 3 section 3.01. Search Warrants (a) Introduction.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (b) History of the Search
Warrant: The concept of unreasonable search and seizure was an 18th century reaction regarding two
separate evils, one on each side of the Atlantic Ocean. The general warrant and writ of assistance were
instruments which provided the authorities the power to enter anywhere and seize any persons or things, at
anytime, with little or no regard to any expectation of privacy. In England, general warrants were used by the
King in an attempt to stop the publishing of what was then referred to as seditious libel (e.g., documents that
incited rebellion against the authority of the state). In the colonies, writs of assistance were used, again by the
King of England, to enforce customs and tax laws. Taxes on wine, tea, and stamps were assessed by the
British Parliament in an attempt to retire a portion of the French and Indian war debt. These taxes, of course,
were met with great resistance by the colonists. It was this resistance that led, in part, to the American
Revolution in 1775. In England, the battle against the general warrant was being fought in the courts. Cases
such as Huckel v. Money (Chief Justice Charles Pratt, Lord Camden, 1763); Leach v. Money (Chief Justice
William Murray, Lord Mansfield, 1765); and Entick v. Carrington (Chief Justice Charles Pratt, Lord
Camden, 1765) laid the foundation of one of the most exciting chapters of legal history. In what was an
incredible triumph for the absolute impartiality of British justice, aristocratic judges returned verdicts against
members of their own class, condemning the use of general warrants. The search and seizure of an
individual’s personal property cannot extend beyond the intent of the Constitution and federal laws. The most
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
1 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
important consideration underlying the Fourth Amendment’s protection is the reasonable expectation of
privacy and security on the part of every citizen, against arbitrary intrusions and seizures by governmental
authorities. (c) Search and Seizure Rule. Search and seizure is governed by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The rule specifies who has the authority to issue warrants. It states, in part: “Upon the
request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, a search warrant authorized
by this rule may be issued (1) by a federal magistrate, or a state court of record within the federal district, for
a search of property or for a person within the district, and (2) by a federal magistrate for a search of property
or for a person either within or outside the district if the property or person is within the district when the
warrant is sought but might move outside the district before the warrant is executed.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(a).
Overton v. Ohio, 151 L.Ed 2d 317 (October 16, 2001): “The Fourth Amendment provides that ‘no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ U.S. Const., Amdt. 4. The probable-cause
determination must be made by a neutral magistrate in order ‘to insure that the deliberate, impartial judgment
of a judicial officer will be interposed between the citizen and the police, to assess the weight and credibility
of the information which the complaining officer adduces as probable cause.’ This case makes it very clear
that there shall be NO “anonymous complaints,” and that the duty of the court is to interpose a “neutral
and detached” judicial officer between the complaining party in order to see if an offense truly has been
committed. In California, warrants can only be issued on a FELONY. And if there is no victim, then there
is no crime.
NO “SECRET DECISIONS” IN A FREE SOCIETY
The Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code, sections 54950-54962 “Brown Act”) –
Excerpted from Opinion of Bill Lockyear, 2001 DJDAR 12289 (Nov. 26, 2001): “The Brown Act (§
54950 et seq.), adopted in 1953, is intended to ensure the public’s right to attend the meetings of public
agencies. [Citation.] To achieve this aim, the Act requires, inter alia, that an agenda be posted at least 72
hours before a regular meeting and forbids action on any item not on that agenda. [Citation.] The Act thus
serves to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decisionmaking and to curb misuse of
the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies. [Citation.]
The Act’s statement of intent provides: “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares
that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the
conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. [Citation.]
The Brown Act dictates that “[a]ll meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and
public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter. [Citation.]” This is designed to eliminate “special interests”
from commandeering civic institutions and processes. Unfortunately, bribery is such great a temptation
that often “private policy” ends up getting shoved down the public’s throat to the detriment of unalienable
rights. INSIST that city council, etc. meetings disclose ALL “interested parties” AND their agendas. If
some private entity wants to regulate and/or restrict your ownership of chickens, dogs, or junk cars,
DEMAND that the district attorney make them post a Bond, FIRST. The District Attorney is paid by you to
protect YOUR property rights. Demand he do his job.
EMINENT DOMAIN
U.S. CONSTITUTION – Amendment 5. Self-Incrimination; Double Jeopardy; Due process. “No
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
2 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
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.
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
3 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
California Food and Agriculture Code section 30651: As used in this chapter, “livestock” includes
domestic fowls and rabbits. The City and County are liable for “takings” of property/livestock units known
as “birds and poultry, cattle, crowing fowl, pigeons, fish, frogs, chinchillas, guinea pigs, rabbits, parakeets,
peafowl, guineas, goats, horses, pigs, sheep, and other small farm animals” and could not convince a jury it
was “immune from liability” after proving both its indifference to clearly established law and its intent to
steal under false pretenses, and for perpetrating domestic terrorism and crime against its own citizens.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d 798: “There are a number of
non-economic interests in land, such as interest in excluding strangers from one’s land, the impairment of
which will invite exceedingly close scrutiny under takings clause (5th Amend.)…if the protection against
physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government’s power to
redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by
constitutional limits…If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated
qualification under the police power, “the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the
qualification more and more until at last private property disappeared…These considerations gave birth…to
the oft cited maxim that, “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will
be recognized as a taking. Where ‘permanent physical occupation’ of land is concerned, we have refused to
allow the government to decree it anew…without compensation…no matter how weighty the asserted
“public interests” involved.” Unless just compensation is offered, the city or county is committing fraud,
theft, racketeering and terrorism if it wants to exert “acts of ownership or control” private property and
livestock ownership rights. It is illegal to impose public policy upon private land; to do so constitutes a
“takings,” for which the City and County are liable for compensating the owner for his loss, no matter how
small the intrusion.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S.__, 150 L.E.d.2d 592, 121 S.Ct.__ (2001) (quoting both Monterey v. Del
Monte Dunes and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council): “Petitioners acquisition of title after the
regulations effective date did not bar his takings claims. This Court rejects the State Supreme Courts
sweeping rule that a purchaser or a successive title holder like petitioner is deemed to have notice of an
earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it effects a taking. Were the Court to accept that
rule, the postenactment transfer of title would absolve the State of its obligation to defend any action
restricting land use, no matter how extreme or unreasonable. A State would be allowed, in effect, to put an
expiration date on the Takings Clause. This ought not to be the rule. Future generations, too, have a right to
challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land. The Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B.&Q. R.Co. v. Chicago,
166 U.S. 226 (1897), prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just
compensation. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), Justice Holmes
well-known…formulation, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it
will be recognized as a taking. (To quote Justice Stevens) It is wrong for the government to take property,
even for public use, without tendering just compensation.” The Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago that
it is wrong for the government to steal. If the restriction is not listed in the Deed, the city or county cannot
come in AFTER the fact and say it’s restricted, even if the restriction occurred before the property was
purchased. If the city did not reimburse the FORMER owner for the “regulatory taking,” it cannot get
away with failing to reimburse the PRESENT owner. That is FRAUD. If it isn’t listed in the Deed, IT IS
NOT RESTRICTED. And if the city or county still wants to impose any restriction, they have to “lawfully
acquire the property” by justly compensating the owner/buying the land.
DOMESTIC TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW
California Constitution, Article 1, section 1. Inalienable Rights. “All people are by nature free and
independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. On
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
4 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
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.
TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW – FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:
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.
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
5 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113 – STOLEN PROPERTY, Section 2311 Definitions: “As used in this
chapter: ‘aircraft’ means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation
of or for flight in the air; ‘cattle’ means one or more bulls, steers, oxen, cows, heifers, or calves, or the carcass
or carcasses thereof; ’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit,
such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof; ‘money’ means
the legal tender…; ‘motor vehicle’ includes an automobile…truck…wagon, motorcycle, or any other
self-propelled vehicle…; ‘securities’ includes any note, stock certificate, bond…check, draft, warrant,
traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt…bill of lading…valid or blank motor vehicle title;
certificate of interest in property, tangible or intangible…; ‘tax stamp’ includes any tax stamp, tax token, tax
meter imprint…; ‘value’ means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate
value of all goods, wares, and merchandise, securities, and money referred to in a single indictment shall
constitute the value thereof.” Congress revised this on June 25, 1948 after the Peal Harbor attack, as the
whole nation figured out that a stolen “airplane” could severely affect national security and economic
stability. It was already established for more than 200 years that the most important things that could be
stolen that would destroy national security and economic stability were “cattle” and “livestock” including
chickens. Anybody who steals a dog, cat, goat, pigeon, horse or chicken, or who trespasses on lands for
their production with intent to steal is a domestic terrorist. The first capital offense prosecuted in this
nation was for stealing chickens and eggs. Chickens and eggs were used as currency during the
Depression, and are still on the books as valuable property, more important than stolen “money” or stolen
“car.” Owning and raising cats, dogs, livestock, pigeons, etc. is an unalienable right guaranteed by the
Constitution, and anybody stealing or conspiring to steal them will get the thief 10 years in jail.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 43. Animal enterprise terrorism. “Whoever…(2) intentionally causes physical
disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing…or causing the loss of, any
property (including animals or records)…or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both…(d) Definitions…the term ‘animal enterprise’ means-(A) a commercial or
academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture…(B) a zoo, aquarium, circus,
rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agriculture
arts and sciences…(b) Aggravated offense “Whoever…causes serious bodily injury…shall be fined…or
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” The County is liable for their or cities’ employees ’illegally
taking “anonymous complaints” and use of threats, fear, and intimidation (animal terrorism) to restrict
federally protected “events intended to advance agriculture arts and sciences,” namely, all 4H and FFA
projects, all hobbyists who raise livestock and small animals and birds including pigeons for shows and
competitions, and anybody who raises an animal for food. NOTE: The “Humane” Society is a private
corporation, contracted with the County to get rid of unwanted pets and nuisance wildlife. They are NOT
contracted to violate the Fourth Amendment in order to inventory and steal dogs, cats, chickens, horses, etc.
under ANY pretext, or to conspire with corrupt judges, lawyers and court clerks to use the courts as a
racketeering enterprise. The “Humane” Society was declared by the FBI to be an “animal terrorist
organization” in 1993, yet they not shut down thanks to bribe money used to void judgments against them in
court. See REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE EXTENT OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM ON ANIMAL ENTERPRISE online under Department of Justice or DOJ reports.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 3112. Repealed November 16, 1981. This federal law used to provide for the
issuance of search warrants for seizure of animals, birds, and eggs, but it was repealed, which means that it
has been illegal since 1981 for anybody to issue a warrant to seize an animal, a bird, or an egg. The County
is liable for any of its cities, agents or employees acting outside the law to restrict ownership of livestock,
and using fear, threat, intimidation, and fraud to coerce citizens to give up their property rights.
THREAT TO DOMESTIC & NATIONAL SECURITY
Title 18 U.S.C. section 3592. Mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in determining
whether a sentence of death is justified: “(b) Aggravating factors for espionage and treason. In
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
6 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
determining whether a sentence of death is justified for an offense…the court…shall consider each of the
following aggravating factors for which notice has been given and determine which, if any, exist: (2) Grave
risk to national security – In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of
danger to the national security.” Our dwindling resource of farmers is being wiped out by vigilantes in
government and private sectors committing terrorism, racketeering and theft under color of law. Farmers,
by their own hard work, produce something out of nothing to feed our nation. The 3 million farmers left in
the United States today are under threat of dwindling down to zero, because Title 18 U.S.C. section 43
Animal enterprise terrorism is adopted and perpetrated by county employees. The County is liable for any
of its agents or employees taking “anonymous complaints” and illegally imposing limits or restrictions on
livestock and property ownership without just compensation, and who threaten food supplies through
“regulation and control of all wealth” with the aid of private vigilantes to enforce a “no ownership” policy
upon citizens to the point where they can no longer keep and raise livestock, food or pets. The County
would be liable for its agents threatening national security/food supply.
LAW FORBIDS GIVING AID TO ENEMIES OF THE U.S.
Animal terrorism: FBI Report: “The Animal Enterprise Protection Act…codified as Title 18 section 43,
makes it a federal offense…to cause physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise resulting in
economic damage exceeding $10,000…While the Act characterizes terrorism as physical disruption…
(including stealing…or causing the loss of property), the FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force
or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any
segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The County would be liable for its
agents furthering political or social objectives of “domestic terrorism,” “takings without just
compensation,” use of the courts to give “legally void” judgments the appearance of “legally valid” for the
purpose of property confiscation; and other crimes described in “racketeering enterprises to steal
property,” which is what will happen when the “chicken and livestock police terrorists” are loosed upon the
County’s citizens.
Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 2381 Treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against
them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty
of treason and shall suffer death…” Title 18 U.S.C. section 2383 Rebellion or insurrection: “Whoever
incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States or the law thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than ten years, or both, and shall be incapable of holding any office . . .” The Humane Society puts in a
strong presence at many public hearings. The Board illegally adopts their policy of making laws against
property/chicken ownership under the guise of “stamping out cock fighting.” The County is liable for
adopting Humane Society objectives, which amount to a covert operation to steal property, livestock, and
real estate without just compensation by using criminals in government positions to give it the appearance
of a legitimate operation.
CITIES & COUNTIES CANNOT LEGISLATE EXCEPT AS TO
LANDS THEY OWN
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
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
7 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
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.
WARRANTS ONLY ISSUED THROUGH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
California Penal Code Chapter 9 CRIMINAL PROFITEERING section 186.2 Definitions: “(c)
“Prosecuting agency” means the Attorney General or the district attorney of any county.” The following
CANNOT file charges or prosecute in the name of the People: city attorneys, police officers, code
enforcement, other private attorneys, animal control officers, etc. All they can do, is take a complaint from
an injured citizen, and turn it over to the district attorney for prosecution. If any of them do violate this
procedure, they are guilty of filing a false report, fraud, swindles, racketeering, extortion, and
impersonating an officer.
California Penal Code section 813 Issuance of Warrants or Summons; Form and Content of Summons:
1995 Note: “[A]n arrest warrant shall issue on a complaint if, and only if, the magistrate is satisfied from the
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
8 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
complaint that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe
that the person named in the warrant has committed the offense.” Only a victim or injured party can file a
complaint, which can only go through the district attorney’s office. Then, it goes through a neutral and
detached magistrate, who determines from the reports that the person named in the complaint has
committed a crime. By law, police officers cannot file charges; they can only take reports from a victim.
By law, dog-catchers are only contracted with the county to get rid of nuisance wildlife and unwanted pets.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT ISSUE CITATIONS
California Penal Code, Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY OR CITY
AND COUNTY ORDINANCES. Sections 853.1 through 853.4. Enacted 1955. Repealed 1967. It has
been illegal since 1967 for city or county ordinances to be enforced on private property. County employees
are committing domestic terrorism if they issue “citations” for “code violations” on private property.
“Repealed” means CANCELLED SINCE 1967. Twelve years of lawsuits between the years 1955 and 1967
clearly established the unconstitutionality of “city and county CITATIONS,” so they were ABOLISHED.
Any city or county employee writing one after 1967 is guilty of racketeering, extortion, and terrorism. The
penalty is four years in prison.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT STEAL
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.”
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
9 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
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.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT FABRICATE CHARGES
California PenalCode section 526 Imitation or Pretended Process – Delivery “Any person, who, with
intent to obtain from another person any money, article of personal property or other thing of value, causes to
be delivered to the other person any paper, document or written, typed or printed for purporting to be an
order or other process…calculated by its writing…to cause or lead the other person to believe it to be an
order…is guilty of a misdemeanor…” Citations for CITY or COUNTY “violations” have been void since
1967; and anybody purporting to steal property/livestock by “pretended service” gets one year in prison.
California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 518 Defined. “Extortion is the obtaining of
property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a
wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.” It is a wrongful and terrorist act to deprive
one American citizen of the ability or freedom to spend one dollar on one rooster, small animal, dog, cat,
pigeon, or other livestock, or any animal feed. The penalty is four years in prison.
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
10 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
California PenalCode CHAPTER 8 FALSE PERSONATIONS AND CHEATS section 531 Conveyance
to Defraud Creditors and Others. “Every person who is a party to any fraudulent conveyance of any lands,
tenements, or hereditaments, goods or chattels, or any right or interest issuing out of the same…had, made, or
contrived with intent to deceive and defraud others, or to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors or others of their
just debts…is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Livestock is classified as “property having value” which can be
used as collateral. Any city or county which restricts or eliminates livestock ownership, and anybody such
as “humane” Society or veterinarians who conspire with them violates contract and debt obligation laws.
CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT INDUCE FEAR
California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 519 Fear Induced by Threat. “Fear, such as
will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either: 1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or
property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or, 2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any
relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or, 3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any
deformity, disgrace or crime…” Threats by the city or county to turn “ownership of livestock” into a
“crime” is EXTORTION, TERRORISM, and COMMODITIES’ TAMPERING. The penalty is four years in
prison.
California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 521 When Under Color of Office, section 522
Extorting Signature to Transfer of Property, section 523 Written threat Made to Extort. “Every person
who commits any extortion under color of official right…Every person who, by any extortionate means,
obtains from another his signature to any paper or instrument, whereby, if such signature were freely given,
any property would be transferred…Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property
from another, send or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing
or implying…any threat…is punishable in the same manner as if the actual delivery of such debt, demand,
charge, or right of action were obtained.” This section was enacted to prosecute and incarcerate corrupt
government employees using threats and fear to terrorize innocent property owners, elderly, and other
citizens into giving up any right or any property without due process. The penalty is four years in prison.
California Penal Code, Title 11.6 CIVIL RIGHTS. Section 422.6 Use of Force, Threats, or Destruction
of Property to Interfere With Another’s Exercise of Civil Rights – Punishment. “(a) No person, whether
or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with,
oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States…”
Acquiring and owning livestock is an unalienable right secured by Congress. Nobody can take that right
away, unless they PAY you for it. Rights have VALUE. The owner must be paid, and all moving expenses
reimbursed for being relocated to some area where there is no domestic terrorism, the Constitution is the
law of the land, and the owner is free to acquire and own property for personal enjoyment and use to the
exclusion of all others. City or county employees are stripped of all immunity for attempting vigilante
action against property owners.
CITES AND COUNTIES CANNOT TAX PROPERTY TWICE
California Civil Code section 732. Right to Accessions and Increase. “The owner of a thing owns also all
its products and accessions.” The State, directly or indirectly through their agents, cannot tax future
profits. So if the STATE cannot do this, how can a municipal corporation CITY do it, by requiring
“permits” or “fees” for “private property ownership?” How can a non-profit corporation such as the
“Humane” Society do it by requiring “licensing” of all dogs, or “conditional use permits” for dogs or
livestock? By law, dogs and livestock are property, and, once purchased or acquired, are never taxed
again except in socialist dictatorships, which punish property ownership. Besides, how can a non-profit
corporation be “damaged” by somebody else raising dogs or livestock for profit, unless their real agenda is
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
11 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
domestic terrorism, introduce socialism, take away all property rights, and regulate and control all wealth.
California Food and Agriculture Code section 30951. “It is unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or
keep any dog over the age of four months, or to permit such a dog which is owned, harbored, or controlled by
him to run at large, unless the dog has attached to its neck or leg a substantial collar on which one of the
following is fastened: (a) A metallic tag which gives the name and post office address of the owner. (b) A
metal license tag which is issued by the authority of a county, city and county, or any municipal corporation
for the purpose of identifying the dog and designating the owner.” Notice the “either/or” – enacted to
protect the property owner if his dog gets lost or stolen so that it can be returned to him. Working dogs
taken off the property can be registered with the County Recorder for cheap. It is illegal for a private
corporation such as the Humane Society to require “fees” or “taxes” on private property “dog,” as this
constitutes “taxation without representation.” California is the only state in the union that has stalking
laws, and where it is a felony to steal a dog. These laws are to PROTECT the owner of a dog, so that he can
recover it for FREE if it gets lost or stolen.
CITY AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES CANNOT VIOLATE THEIR OATHS
Indebtedness: California Constitution Article XX section 3 Oath of Office: All public officers and
employees, executive, legislative and judicial…shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective
offices, take and subscribe the following Oath or affirmation: “I, __________, do solemnly swear [affirm]
that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of
California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United Sates and the Constitution of the state of California; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties upon which I am about to enter. And I do further swear [affirm] that I do not advocate, nor am I a
member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the
government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means;
that within the five years immediately proceeding the taking of this oath [affirmation] I have not been a
member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the government
of the united states or the state of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
_______________ (if no affiliations, write in the words “no exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold
the office of (name of office) , I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or
organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of
the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.” And no other oath, declaration, or test
shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. “Public officer or employee”
includes every officer and employee of the state, including the University of California, every county, city,
city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission,
agency, or instrumentality of any of the forgoing. [adopted May 1879. Amended Nov. 1952]. City and
County employees are indebted to fulfill their Oaths, which forbids them to overthrow the government by
means of adopting the policies of non-governmental organizations/corporations, animal terrorists, or
criminals masquerading as government employees that steal property under false pretenses.
THE COUNTY CANNOT SHIRK ITS LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES
OR AGENTS, OR ANY CITY EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS
Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3rd, 232 (9th Cir. 1995): “By definition, probable cause to arrest can only
exist in relation to criminal conduct; civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause…contract dispute
cannot give rise to probable cause to arrest.” Cities or counties CANNOT “butt in” on any civil dispute
between neighbors, or presume there is any criminal activity related to ownership of livestock, fowl or
other property. Civil disputes go through the DISTRICT ATTORNEY. If the city gets involved, it commits
domestic terrorism.
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
12 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
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
PRIMER ON EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/landpatent/primer-on-e…
13 of 25 5/26/2014 5:14 PM
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.
PROPERTY OWNER IS IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR USE
OF DEADLY FORCE
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
That may be the longest comment in history.
This story came out months ago. The woman was using water and sewer without paying for it !
I think she was sourcing her own water from rainwater; she was using the sewer.
[…] Last Minute Survival – by Guiles Hendrik […]
[…] Go to article […]