Supreme court cases from digging aroundRobin v. Hardaway 1790. Biblical Law at Common Law supersedes all laws and C!ristianity is custom custom is Law.United States of America Congressional Record Monday,August 19.1940 Excert ! ages 4"# I want you to noteparticularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the veryyear Our Government morphed a from a republic to a semi-democracy; the year inwhich we destroyed constitutionalovernment, international security, and paved the road for us tobecome a colony of the !ritish "mpire#It was also the same yearin which we, by adoptin the $ederal %eserve &ct, placed our'reasury under the control and domination of the !an( of "nlandand the international ban(in roups that are now )nancin the!ritish-Israel movement in the *nited +tates#, 'wo -i.erent and -istinct /ations"!e idea prevails wit! some indeed it !as e#pression in ar$uments at t!e bar t!at we !ave in t!is country substantially two national $overnments% one to be maintained under t!e Constitution wit! all its restrictions% t!e ot!er to be maintained by Con$ress outside and independently o& t!at instrument by e#ercisin$ suc! powers as ot!er nations o& t!e eart! are accustomed to... ' ta(e leave to say t!at i& t!e principles t!us announced s!ould ever receive t!e sanction o& a ma)ority o& t!is court a radical and misc!ievous c!an$e in our system will result. *e will 0ae 1 of 131in t!at event pass &rom t!e era o& constitutional liberty $uarded and protected by a written constitutioninto an era o& le$islative absolutism... 't will be an evil day &or +merican Liberty i& t!e t!eory o& a $overnment outside t!e ,upreme Law o& t!e Land &inds lod$ement in our Constitutional -urisprudence. .o !i$!er duty rests upon t!is court t!an to e#ert its &ull aut!ority to prevent all violation o& t!e principles o& t!e Constitution. --Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. idwell.$ossi%le cases against UCC, %e sure to loo& u .eit!erconsent nor submission by t!e states can enlar$e t!e powers o& Con$ress% none can e#ist e#cept t!ose w!ic! are $ranted. /nited ,tates v. Butler 097 /.,. 1 12 ,.Ct. 310 100 +.L.R. 914 decided -anuary 2 1932. "!esoverei$nty o& t!e state essential to its proper &unctionin$ under t!e 5ederal Constitution cannot be surrendered% it cannot be ta(en away by any &orm o& le$islation. ,ee /nited ,tates v. Constantine 092 /.,.067 12 ,. Ct. 003. +s!ton v. Cameron County *ater 'mp. 7ist. .o. 1 096 /.,. 113 131 819329Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure, not grant or create, theserights, governments are instituted. hat property !or income" which a man has honestly ac#uired he retains full control of. . .$!%udd v. &eople of 'tate of (ew )or*, +,- ..'. /+0 1+2345"0ae 1 of 131:on Ho&&man v. City o& ;uincy 71 /.,. 4 *all. 131 131 816229Because o& w!at appears to be a law&ul command on t!e sur&ace many Citi?ens because o& t!eir respect &or w!at appears to be law are cunnin$ly coerced into waivin$ t!eir ri$!ts due to i$norance. !S v "in#er$ %&0 !S 1'9 at 1(')19&*+"!e entire ta#in$ and monetary system are !ereby placed under t!e /CC. @"!e 5ederal "a#Lien +ct o& 1922A+ state may provide &or t!e collection o& ta#es in $old and silver only. @,tate treasurer v.*ri$!t 06 'll. 1091B @*!ita(er v. Haley. 0 Cre. 106A0ae 3 of 131"a#es law&ully assessed are collectible by a$ents in money and notes cannot be accepted inpayment. "own o& 5ran(&ort v. *aldo 106 DE. 1A67879 v. 9:C;7M7 0,0.0ae 3 of 131 ,upreme Court o& t!e /nited ,tates 1791 'nasmuc! as every $overnment is an arti&icial person an abstraction and a creature o& t!e mind only a $overnment can inter&ace only wit! ot!er arti&icial persons. "!e ima$inary !avin$ neit!er actuality nor substance is &oreclosed &rom creatin$ and attainin$ parity wit! t!e tan$ible. "!e le$al mani&estation o& t!is is t!at no $overnment as well as any law a$ency aspect court etc. can concern itsel& wit! anyt!in$ ot!er t!an corporate arti&icial persons andt!e contracts between t!em. ,.C.R. 1791 s +dministraters 83 /.,. 14% 1 L.Ed. 17% 3 7all. 149+n attorney &or t!e plainti&& cannot admit evidence into t!e court. He is eit!er an attorney or a witness.8"rinsey v. wit!in t!e con&ines o& t!e statute./nited ,tates v. Lac!er 134 /.,. 204 206 10,.Ct. 201 202 33 L.Ed. 1060% /nited ,tates v.Fradwell 043 /.,. 472461 37 ,.Ct. 407 21 L.Ed.617. 5.1 /nited ,tates v. *iltber$er 1 *!eat. 7291 1 L.Ed. 37.*e do not overloo( t!ose constitutional limitations w!ic! &or t!e protection o& personal ri$!ts must necessarily attend all investi$ations conducted under t!e aut!ority o& Con$ress. .eit!er branc! o& t!e le$islative department still less any merely administrative body establis!ed by Con$ress possesses or can be invested wit! a $eneral power o& ma(in$ inIuiry into t!e private a&&airs o& t!e citi?en.0ae 15 of 131Rilbourn v. "!ompson 103 /. ,. 126192 @02B 377 362A.*e said in Boyd v. /nited ,tates 112 /. ,. 212 230 @09B 742 711AVand it cannot be too o&ten repeatedVt!att!e principles t!at embody t!e essence o& constitutional liberty and security &orbid all invasions on t!e part o& t!e $overnment and its employes o& t!e sancity o& a man>s !ome and t!e privacies o& !is li&e. +s said by Dr. -ustice 5ield in Re n v. Brimson 816949 114 /.,. 447 36 L.Ed 1047 101614 ,.Ct. 1101.+lbrec!t v. /.,. Bal?ac v. ..ot only did t!e promul$atin$ order use t!e term 7istrict Courts o& t!e /nited ,tates in its !istoric and proper sense but t!e omission o& provision &or t!eapplication o& t!e rules t!e territorial court and ot!er courts mentioned in t!e aut!ori?in$ act clearly s!ows t!e limitation t!at was intended.Carlisle v. /nited ,tates 63 /.,. 147 114 816739 ="!e ri$!ts o& soverei$nty e#tend to all persons and t!in$s not privile$ed t!at are wit!in t!e territory."!ey e#tend to all stran$ers resident t!ereinB not only to t!ose w!o are naturali?ed and to t!ose w!o are domiciled t!erein !avin$ ta(en up t!eir abode wit! t!e intention o& permanent residence but also to t!ose w!ose residence is transitory. +ll stran$ersare under t!e protection o& t!e soverei$n w!ile t!ey are wit!in !is territory and owe a temporary alle$iance in return &or t!at protection.> 'n Leiber$ v. :itan$eli 70 C!io +pp. 479 47 ..E. 07031 036K39 819409 "!ese constitutional provisions employ t!e word =person> t!at is. +nyone w!om we !ave permitted to peaceably reside wit!in our bordersmay resort to our courts &or redress o& an in)ury 0ae 31 of 131done !im in !is land $oods person or reputation. "!e real party plainti&& &or w!om t!e nominal plainti&& sues is not s!own to !ave entered our land in an unlaw&ul manner. *e said to !er you may enter and reside wit! us and be eIually protected by our laws so lon$ as you con&orm t!ereto. Nou may own property and our laws will protect your title. *e as a people !ave said to t!ose o& &orei$n birt! t!att!ese constitutional $uaranties s!all assure you o& our $ood &ait!. "!ey are t!e written surety to you o&our proud boast t!at t!e /nited ,tates is t!e !aven o& re&u$e o& t!e oppressed o& all man(ind.Court will assi$n to commonKlaw terms t!eir commonKlaw meanin$ unless le$islature directs ot!erwise. s Lessee v. 7orrance0 /.,. 304817919.+ constitution is desi$nated as a supreme enactment a &undamental act o& le$islation by t!e people o& t!estate. + constitution is le$islation direct &rom t!e people actin$ in t!eir soverei$n capacity w!ile a statute is le$islation &rom t!eir representatives sub)ect to limitations prescribed by t!e superior auMpriry. ,eeB Ellin$!am v. 7ye 176 'nd. 332% 99 .E 1% 031 /.,. 010% 16 L. Ed. 002% 34 ,. Ct. 90% ,a$e v..ew Nor( 114 .N 21% 47 .E 1092."!e Iuestion is not w!at power t!e &ederal $overnmentou$!t to !ave but w!at powers in &act !ave been $iven by t!e people.... "!e &ederal union is a $overnment o& dele$ated powers. 't !as only suc! as are e#pressly con&erred upon it and suc! as are reasonably to be implied &rom t!ose $ranted. 'n t!is respect we di&&er radically &rom nations w!ere all le$islative power wit!out restriction o& limitationis vested in a parliament or ot!er le$islative body sub)ect to no restrictions e#cept t!e discretion o& 0ae 34 of 131its members. ,eeB /.,. v. *illiam D. Butler 097 /.,.1."!e people t!emselves !ave it in t!eir power e&&ectually to resist usurpation wit!out bein$ driven to an appeal in arms. +n act o& usurpation is not obli$atoryB 't is not law% and any man may be )usti&ied in !is resistance. Let !im be considered asa criminal by t!e $eneral $overnmentB yet only !is &ellow citi?ens can convict !im. "!ey are !is )ury and i& t!ey pronounce !im innocent not all powers o&con$ress can !urt !im% and innocent t!ey certainly will pronounce !im i& t!e supposed law !e resisted was an act o& usurpation. ,eeB 0 Elliot>s 7ebates 94% 0 Bancro&t History o& t!e Constitution 027.But it cannot be assumed t!at t!e &ramers o& t!e Constitution and t!e people w!o adopted it did not intent t!at w!ic! is t!e plain import o& t!e lan$ua$eused. *!en t!e lan$ua$e o& t!e Constitution is positive and &ree &rom all ambi$uity all courts are not at liberty by a resort to t!e re&inements o& le$al learnin$ to restrict its obvious meanin$ to avoid !ards!ips o& particular cases we must accept t!e Constitution as it reads w!en its lan$ua$e is unambi$uous &or it is t!e mandate o& t!e soverei$n powers. ,eeB ,tate v. ,utton 23 Dinn. 147 21 *X ..*. 020101 ..*. 74% Coo( v. 'verson 100 ..D. 011.'n t!is state as well as in all republics it is nott!e le$islation !owever transcendent its powers w!oare supremeV but t!e peopleV and to suppose t!at t!eymay violate t!e &undamental law is as !as been most eloIuently e#pressed to a&&irm t!at t!e deputy is $reater t!an !is principal% t!at t!e servant is above!is master% t!at t!e representatives o& t!e people 0ae 35 of 131are superior to t!e people t!emselvesB t!at t!e men actin$ by virtue o& dele$ated powers may do. .ot onlyw!at t!enK powers do not aut!ori?e but w!at t!ey &orbid. ,eeB *arnin$ v. t!e Dayor o& ,avanna! 20 Feor$ia %>, "" ?.@d. "4A.8n 1al7ac, the high )ourt stated;, ofthat instrument,ofma6ingallneedful rulesand regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United tates.+4. [%4 .)t. >%>, "" ?.@d. "4A '+&4+-.0ae 34 of 131)onstitutional provision against diminution of compensation of federaljudges wasdesigned to secure independenceof judiciary.[CD(onoghue v. U.., 43& U.. ,+" '+&>>-. [headnote 4. Judges.of )onstitution, and did not include territorial courts. [0oo6ini et al. v. U.., >#> U.. 4#+.[headnote 4. )ourts, emphasis added.*here statute authori7ed upreme )ourt to prescribe )riminal !ppeals 2ulesin(istrict)ourtsofthe Unitedtates including namedterritorial courts, omission in rules when drafted ofreferenceto (istrict)ourtof5awaii,and certain otherof the named courts, indicated that )riminal !ppeals 2ules were not to apply to those [latter. courts.[0oo6ini et al. v. U.., >#> U.. 4#+. [headnote %. )ourts, emphasis added.H, and it is i)ewise true under Section +*&a' of the IRS code of *CI=. If there is not gain, there is not income,%-5GR7SS FAS #AG79 I5%-87, 5-# %-8:75SA#I-5"JJJ#"(ers vs )er2au!*:E&pire -"., 271 US 17$6 Income" has !een ta)en to meanthe same thing as used in the %orporation 7xcise #ax Act of *C1C, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts su!seAuenty passed ...."#rus*a2er v. Uni"n 7a'i.i' R.R. -"., 2$+ U.S. 1 #he concusion reached in the :ooc) %ase did not in any degree invove hoding that income taxes genericay andnecessariy came within the cass of direct taxes on property, !ut on the contrary recogni@ed the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entited to !e enforced as such..."Si&&s v. A*rens, 271 S; 72+An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, !ut is an http/00www.prostar.com0we!0ameri)a0courtsD.htm7G%IS7 tax...#he egisature may decare as privieged and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, !ut it has no power to decare as a priviege and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."Eisner v. ,a'"&2er, 22 US 189 US Supre&e '"urt, never "verruled ...the definition of income approved !y this court is/ #he gain derived from capita, from 0ae 53 of 131a!or, or from !oth com!ined, provided it !e understood to incude profits gained through sae or conversion of capita assets."4aureldale -e&eter3 Ass"'. vs ,att*e(s, 3$ 7a. 2399 Reasona!e compensation for a!or or services rendered is not profit"S'*uster v. Helverin!, 121 F 2nd 6$3Income is reai@ed gain."And in one of the most eoAuent opinions ever deivered !y the %ourt..#ut'*ers< Uni"n -". v. -res'ent -it3 -"., 111 U.S. 7$6. 1883 Among these unaiena!e rights, as procaimed in the 9ecaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, !y which is meant, the right any awfu !usiness or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the eAua rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or deveop their facuties, so as to give them their highest enKoyment...It has !een we said that, #F7 :R-:7R#6 LFI%F 727R6 8A5 FAS IS FIS -L5 3A,-R, AS I# IS #F7 -RIGI5A3 one,# L L 'he e=clusive :urisdiction which the *nited +tates have in forts L and doc(-yards ceded to them, is derived from the e=press assent L of the states by whom the cessions are made# It could be derived L in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state L would be supreme and e=clusive therein,, 3 Dheat#, at 337, 331# L L a## 1663C !utchers@ *nion ;o# v# ;rescent ;ity ;o#, 111 L *#+# 524# -e)nes labor as property, and the most sacred (ind L of property L L &mon these unalienable rihts, as proclaimed in the -eclaration L of Independence is the riht of men to pursue their happiness, L by which is meant, the riht any lawful business or vocation, L in any manner not inconsistent with the eEual rihts of others, L which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, L so as to ive them their hihest en:oyment###It has been well said L that, '?" 0%O0"%'B D?I;? "K"%B G&/ ?&+ I+ ?I+ OD/ 9&!O%, &+ I' I+ L '?" O%IGI/&9 $O*/-&'IO/ O$ &99 O'?"% 0%O0"%'B +O I' I+ '?" GO+'L +&;red &/- I/KIO9&!9"###,LL a## 1692C ;aha v# *nited +tates, 131 *#+# 111# %estricts :urisdictionL of the federal overnment inside the states#L0ae 54 of 131L 'he law of ;onress in respect to those matters do not e=tendL into the territorial limits of the states, but have force onlyL in the -istrict of ;olumbia, and other places that are within theL e=clusive :urisdiction of the national overnment#,LL b## 1977C Fnowlton v# Goore, 156 *#+# 21# -e)nes the meanin ofL direct ta=es,#LL -irect ta=es bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession andL en:oyment of rihts; indirect ta=es are levied upon the happeninL of an event as an e=chane#,LL a## 1971C -ownes v# !idwell, 161 *#+# 122# "stablishes thatL constitutional limits on the ;onress do not apply within theL federal >one, and described where they do apply#LL ;O/+'I'*'IO/&9 %"+'%I;'IO/+ &/- 9IGI'&'IO/+ M!ill of %ihtsNL D"%" /O' &009I;&!9" to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories,L and possessions over which ;onress had "O;9*+IK" 9"GI+9&'IK"L 8*%I+-I;'IO/,LL a## 1974C ?ale v# ?en(el, 171 *#+# 23# -e)ned the distinctionL between natural persons and corporations as it pertains to 3thL &mendment protections within the *#+# ;onstitution#LL ###we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in thisL particular between an individual and a corporation, and that theL latter has no riht to refuse to submit its boo(s and papers for anL e=amination at the suit of the state# 'he individual may stand uponL his constitutional rihts as a citi>en# ?e is entitled to carryL on his private business in his own way# ?is power to contract isL unlimited# ?e owes no duty to the state or to his neihbors toL divule his business, or to open his doors to an investiation,L so far as it may tend to criminate him# ?e owes no such duty to theL state, since he receives nothin therefrom, beyond the protectionL of his life and property# ?is rihts are such as e=isted by the lawL of the land lon antecedent to the orani>ation of the state, andL can only be ta(en from him by due process of law, and in accordanceL with the ;onstitution# &mon his rihts are a refusal to incriminateL himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrestL or sei>ure e=cept under a warrant of the law# ?e owes nothin toL the public so lon as he does not trespass upon their rihts#LL *pon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state# ItL is presumed to be incorporated for the bene)t of the public# It0ae 55 of 131L receives certain special privilees and franchises, and holdsL them sub:ect to the laws of the state and the limitations of itsL charter# Its powers are limited by law# It can ma(e no contract notL authori>ed by its charter# Its rihts to M171 *#+# 23, 53N act as aL corporation are only preserved to it so lon as it obeys the lawsL of its creation# 'here is a reserved riht in the leislature toL investiate its contracts and )nd out whether it has e=ceeded itsL powers# It would be a strane anomaly to hold that a state, havinL chartered a corporation to ma(e use of certain franchises, could not,L in the e=ercise of its sovereinty, inEuire how these franchisesL had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand theL production of the corporate boo(s and papers for that purpose# 'heL defense amounts to thisC 'hat an oures andL enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after sub:ectinL accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rihtsL secured by the $ederal ;onstitution, should )nd no sanction in theL :udments of the courts, which are chared at all times with theL support of the ;onstitution, and to which people of all conditionsL have a riht to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamentalL rihts#LL M#NLL 'he case in the aspect in which we are dealin with it involvesL the riht of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for theL purposes of evidence the letters and correspondence of the accused,L sei>ed in his house in his absence and without his authority, by aL *nited +tates marshal holdin no warrant for his arrest and noneL for the search of his premises# 'he accused, without awaitinL his trial, made timely application to the court for an orderL for the return of these letters, as well or other property# 'hisL application was denied, the letters retained and put in evidence,L after a further application at the beinnin of the trial, bothL applications assertin the rihts of the accused under the 2thL and 3th &mendments to the ;onstitution# If letters and privateL documents can thus be sei>ed and held and used in evidence aainst aL citi>en accused of an o.ense, the protection of the 2th &mendment,L declarin his riht to be secure aainst such searches and sei>ures,L is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned,L miht as well be stric(en from the ;onstitution# 'he e.orts ofL the courts and their o>led money is ta=able as income#LL #the +i=teenth &mendment, which rants ;onress the powerL to lay and collect ta=es on incomes, from whatever sourceL derived#, ?elverin v# ;li.ord, 379 *#+# 331, 332; -oulasL v# Dillcuts, 194 *#+# 1,9# It has lon been settled that ;onress@L broad statutory de)nitions of ta=able income were intended toL use the full measure of ta=in power#, 'he +i=teenth &mendmentL is to be ta(en as written and is not to be e=tended beyond theL meanin clearly indicated by the lanuae used#, "dwards v# ;ubaL %# ;o# 146 *#+# 416, 431 M$rom separate opinion by Dhitta(er, !lac(,L and -oulas, 88#N H"mphasis addedILL a## 1957C !rady v# *#+#, 395 *#+# 521 at 526# +upreme ;ourt ruledL thatC Daivers of ;onstitutional %ihts not only must be voluntary,L they must be (nowinly intellient acts, done with su v# *nited +tates, supra, at 137; see alsoL ?odel v# Kirinia +urface Ginin R %eclamation &ssn#, supra, atL 154-155# $irst, ;onress may reulate the use of the channels ofL interstate commerce# +ee, e##, -arby, 311 *#+#, at 112 ; ?eartL of &tlanta Gotel, supra, at 134 H,VM'Nhe authority of ;onressL to (eep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral andL in:urious uses has been freEuently sustained, and is no loner openL to Euestion#@, HEuotin ;aminetti v# *nited +tates, 121 *#+# 257,L 291 H1915II# +econd, ;onress is empowered to reulate and protectL the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or thinsL in interstate commerce, even thouh the threat may come only0ae 97 of 131L from intrastate activities# +ee, e##, +hreveport %ate ;ases, 132L *#+# 321 H1912I; +outhern %# ;o# v# *nited +tates, 111 *#+# 17 H1911IL Hupholdin amendments to +afety &ppliance &ct as applied to vehiclesL used in intrastate commerceI; 0ere>, supra, at 137 H,M$Nor e=ample,L the destruction of an aircraft H16 *#+#;# 31I, or # # # thefts fromL interstate shipments H16 *#+#;# 439I,I# $inally, ;onress@ commerceL authority includes the power to reulate those activities havin aL substantial relation to interstate commerce, 8ones R 9auhlin +teel,L 371 *#+#, at 35 , I#e#, those activities that substantially a.ectL interstate commerce# Dirt>, supra, at 194, n# 15#LL $"-"%&9 ;I%;*I' ;O*%' ;&+"+CLL a## *#+# v# 'weel, 337 $#1d 195, 199-377 H1955ILL +ilence can only be eEuated with fraud when there is a leal orL moral duty to spea(, or when an inEuiry left unanswered wouldL be intentionally misleadin### De cannot condone this shoc(inL conduct###If that is the case we hope our messae is clear# 'hisL sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine itL should be corrected immediately,LL a## 9avin v# Garsh, 422 $#1nd 1356, 9th ;ir#, H1961ILL 0ersons dealin with overnment are chared with (nowin overnmentL statutes and reulations, and they assume the ris( that overnmentL aents may e=ceed their authority and provide misinformation,LL a## !ollow v# $ederal %eserve !an( of +an $rancisco, 437 $#1d 1793,L 9th ;ir#, H1961ILL &ll persons in the *nited +tates are chareable with (nowledeL of the +tatutes-at-9are## It is well established that anyone whoL deals with the overnment assumes the ris( that the aent actinL in the overnment@s behalf has e=ceeded the bounds of his authority,LL a## "conomy 0lumbin and ?eatin v# *#+#, 257 $#1d 363 H;t# ;l# 1951ILL 0ersons who are not ta=payers are not within the system andL can obtain no bene)t by followin the procedures prescribed forL ta=payers, such as the )lin of claims for refunds#,LL a## 9on v# %asmussen, 161 $# 134, at 136L0ae 91 of 131L 'he revenue laws are a code or a system in reulation of ta=L assessment and collection# 'hey relate to ta=payers, and not toL non-ta=payers# 'he latter are without their scope# /o proceduresL are prescribed for non-ta=payers, and no attempt is made to annulL any of their rihts and remedies in due course of law# Dith themL ;onress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the sub:ectL nor the ob:ect of the revenue laws#,LL a## red)eld v# $isher, 191 0# 613, 133 Or# 167, 192 0#241, 53L #%# 511 H1931ILL 'he individual, unli(e the corporation, cannot be ta=ed for theL mere privilee of e=istin# 'he corporation is an arti)cial entityL which owes its e=istence and charter powers to the state; but theL individuals@ rihts to live and own property are natural rihtsL for the en:oyment of which an e=cise cannot be imposed#,LL a## *#+# v# !allard, 333 $1d 277, cert denied, 219 *#+# 916, 37L 9#"d#1d 163, 95 +#;t# 317 H1954ILL income, is not de)ned in the Internal %evenue ;odeL7ct of state=An a't ". state 'ann"t 2e >uesti"ned "r &ade t*e su2?e't ". le!al pr"'eedin!s in a '"urt ". la(@#an'" 5a'i"nal de -u2a vs. Sa22atin", 376 U.S. 398A Ri'aud vs. A&eri'an ,etal -"., 2$6 U.S. 3+$AOet?en vs. -entral 4eat*er -"., 2$6 U.S. 297AF. 7ala'i" 3 -"&pania, S.A. vs. #rus*, 389 U.S. 83+9 26 F. Supp. $819 37 F.2nd 1+11A#la'1ens right to ,e secure in his pri+acy against unreasona,le 6o+ernment intrusion. The city and county is lia,le for conducting illegal sur+eillance on pri+ate citi>ens to see who might ,e keeping or raising li+estock. iolation of the 3ourth Amendment strips pu,lic employees of allimmunity. J'TF& ../. +. ../. Eistrict 1ourt was a,out protecting the rights of persons who actually ,lew up federal property and conspired to ,low up some 0ae 171 of 131more. It appears that terrorist ,om,ers ha+e more constitutional protections than a li+estock owners today.Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523, 18 L.ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727: The ,asicpurpose of the 3ourth Amendment is to safeguard the pri+acy and security of indi+iduals against ar,itrary in+asions ,y go+ernmental officialsL the Amendment thus gi+es concrete e(pression to a right of the people which is ,asic to a free society. The guaranty against unreasona,le searches and sei>ures contained in the 3ourth Amendment is applica,le to the states ,y reason of the due process clause of the 3ourteenth Amendment. The protection of the 3ourth Amendment against unreasona,le searches and sei>ures is not limited to a situation in which an indi+idual is suspected of criminal ,eha+ior. The 1ounty is lia,le for +iolations of the 3ourth, 3ifth and 3ourteenth Amendments ,y their agents R employees for suspecting that a citi>en is a criminal ,ecause he or she happens to own and raise li+estock for their own use. The 1ounty needs to remem,er the hundreds of innocent citi>ens who were released in the ?ampart scandal, ,ecause corrupt city and county employees fa,ricated charges and committed per-ury.Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S. , 143 L.Ed 2d 978, 119 S. Ct. &It is a +iolation of the 3ourth Amendment for media to ,e present during the e(ecution of a search warrant. The 1ounty is lia,le and has no immunity for using the local media to in+ade the pri+acy of, and slander fowl and li+estock owners while falsely representing the 1ountys racketeering enterprise is lawful to facilitate raids on other li+estock owners for the proceeds of the specified unlawful acti+ity prohi,ited under Title !8 V !$=2 ?acketeering Influenced and 1orrupt 'rgani>ations Act. CITES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS Title 42 Section 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress... The County 0ae 171 of 131would be liable for discrimination against livestock owners, 4-H, FFA, feed stores, and feed mills.Title 28 United States Code 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;("D To redress the depri+ation, under color of any /tate law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, pri+ilege or immunity secured ,y the 1onstitution of the .nited /tates or ,y any Act of 1ongress pro+iding for eNual rights of citi>ens or of all persons within the -urisdiction of the .nited /tatesL (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 setthemselves 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 ofthe 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 ,egan its analysis ,y setting forth the elements of a V !$8" claim against an indi+idual state actor as follows&0ae 173 of 131[the plaintiff(s)] possessed a constitutional right of which [they were] deprived; theacts 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; andthe 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 conductof 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 anothers 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 amunicipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation); City of Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 378 (1987) at 267 (stating that the Court repeatedlyhas 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, orcaused such a deprivation to occur). There is a constitutional right, however, to have police services administered in a nondiscriminatory mannera right that is 0ae 172 of 131violated 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.CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT ENGAGE IN EXTORTIONATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS Title 18 USC sections 891-896. Section 891 Definition and rules of construction: (7) An extortionate means is any means whichinvolves 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 tobogus utility liens or attorneys 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.0ae 173 of 131CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT IMPERSONATE FEDERAL AUTHORITYUnder Title 7 section 2159, 1ongress restrains all states su,-ect to Pu,lic Law regarding animals and li+estock. All in+estigations for alleged animal neglect fall under the -urisdiction of the Eepartment of Agriculture, J'T the 1ounty. The .nited /tates Eepartment of Agriculture /ecretary, sends a reNuest to the .nited /tates Attorney 6eneral, now Bohn Ashcroft, to reNuest of a .nited /tates Eistrict 1ourt Budge to issue a restraining order or in-unction pursuant to section 2!:$ of Title # .nited /tates 1ode, whene+er the /ecretary has reason to ,elie+e the healthof any animal OisP in serious danger.The 1ounty employees and agents are not the .nited /tates Eepartment of Agriculture /ecretary, and The 1ounty 7oard of /uper+isors are not .nited /tates Eistrict 1ourt -udges, therefore, they conspired to intentionally and willfully impersonate federal authority, restricted since !$== under the following e(plicit statute&Title 7, Section 2159. Authority to Apply for Injunctions.- (a) Request. Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler is dealing in stolen animals, or is placing the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act or the regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General who may apply to the United States district court in which such dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler resides or conducts business for a temporary restraining order or injunction to prevent any such person from operating in violation of this Act or the regulations and standards prescribed under this Act. The County is not immunefrom citys criminal conduct, and impersonating federal authority in order to commit terrorism and theft under color of law. TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:Title 18 USC CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM, /ection 2""!. Eefinitions. As used in this chapterC!D the term international terrorism means acti+ities that * CAD in+ol+e +iolent actsL C7D appear to ,e intended * CID to intimidate or coerce a ci+ilian populationL CiiD to influence the policy of a go+ernment ,y intimidation or 0ae 174 of 131coercionL or CiiiD to affect the conduct of a go+ernment ,y assassination or kidnapping. The end results of all terrorist acts are to restrict the +ictims freedoms and put them out of ,usiness. That is what cities and counties do if they come to your door Ctrespass, impersonate an officerD, and tell you that you cannot own o+er ( num,er of dogs, roosters, or -unk cars Cregulatory takings in +iolation of due processD. If they issue a citation, its filing a false complaint, ,ecause !D they are not a +ictim of a pu,lic offense and 2D they cannot enforce city and county codes on P?IATFL; owned lande+en if it is in the 0IEELF of the city, and e+en though you are ?FJTIJ6@ Tens ha+e no rights, and property ownership is eliminated, as the dictatorship assumes regulation and control o+er all pri+ate property. The penalty for conspiring to o+erthrow the go+ernment of the .nited /tates is death or life imprisonment.Schulz v. Milne, 849 F.Supp. 708 (N.D.Cal. 1994: OEPefendants fail to apprehend ,asic constitutional tenets restricting the e(tent to which state power may ,e 0ae 117 of 131delegated to pri+ate parties. /ee also page ==$5, footnotes ! X :& !. It appears to the court that the 1ity may ha+e improperly contracted away its legislati+e and go+ernmental functions to the 7oard and 0ilne, ,oth of whom are pri+ate parties. The Jinth 1ircuit clearly held that a municipality may not surrender its control of amunicipal function to a pri+ate party.1ities and 1ounties are pri+ate municipalitiesL they 1AJJ'T assume legislati+e powers without the 6o+ernors signature, or without it going through the /tate Legislature. 'nly the 6o+ernor can sign laws against consumer goods. If any city or county does this, itUs racketeering, fraud, em,e>>lement, e(tortion, and impersonating an officerL in this case, a /tate Legislator or the 6o+ernor.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. Dept 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. 441Ex 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, its impersonating an officer and treason against the United States. 0ae 111 of 131THE COUNTY CANNOT SHIRK ITS LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS, OR ANY CITY EMPLOYEES OR AGENTSAllen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3 rd, 232 (9 th Cir. 1995): 7y definition, pro,a,le cause to arrest can only e(ist in relation to criminal conductL ci+il disputes cannot gi+e rise to pro,a,le cause, contract dispute cannot gi+e rise to pro,a,le cause to arrest. 1ities or counties 1AJJ'T ,utt in on any ci+il dispute ,etween neigh,ors, or presume there is any criminal acti+ity related to ownership of li+estock, fowl or other property. 1i+il disputes go through the EI/T?I1T ATT'?JF;. If the city gets in+ol+ed, it commits domestic terrorism.Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087 (9 th Cir. 1998) at 1088: =. 1i+il ?ights 2!5C5D 0unicipality is not entitled to the shield of Nualified immunity from lia,ility under 52 ../.1.A. /ection !$8". Eiscrimination against disenfranchised citi>ens ,ecause they own fowl CroostersD andRor other li+estock, andRor are Latinos, strips the 1ounty of immunity.Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991): OTPhe law reNuires that the official seeking immunity to ,ear the ,urden of demonstratingthat immunity attaches to the particular function. 1ounty or city employees could not ,ear the ,urden of demonstrating that sa,otage, terrorism, e(tortion, theft under color of law, discrimination, racketeering, +iolation of due process, and takings without compensation attaches to their particular function of upholding the 1onstitution and protecting the property and rights of ta(*paying citi>ens and property ownersL therefore, the 1ounty would not ,e 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. 1i+il ?ights !".!= W In cases arising under section !$8", -udgment against a pu,lic ser+ant Gin his official capacityH imposes lia,ility on the entity that he represents pro+ided the pu,lic entity recei+es notice and an opportunity to respond. 52 ../.1.A. /ection !$8". ations Act C?I1'D +iolationsare C!D conduct C2D of enterprise C"D through pattern of racketeering acti+ity. !8 ../.1. //!$=2CcD. ?acketeer Influenced and 1orrupt 'rgani>ations Act. !8 ../.1. //!$=2CdDT. C?I1'D conspiracy con+iction does not reNuire o+ert or specific act. If conspirators ha+e plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate crime and others to pro+ide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators. 1onspiracy may e(ist and ,e punished whether or not su,stanti+e crime ensues, for conspiracy is a distinct e+il, dangerous to the pu,lic, and punisha,le in itself.Budges and cities arefor,idden to rewrite language enacted ,y legislature. They are for,idden to e+en think a,out using the courts to uphold ,ogus, fa,ricated charges for hot pursuit of re+enue. 7y their conduct of falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any de,t, participants +iolate !: ../.1. /ections !=8!s*2 and !=$2CeD, and ,ecome principles in a pattern of racketeering ,y putting false liens or de,ts oncourt or credit records without +erifying that the liens or de,ts were illegally +alid as the result of ha+ing the matter determined ,y a -ury prior to ha+ing an a,stract of -udgment entered. The fraud continues when these ,ogus -udgments are used forcollection of unlawful de,t. The language of !: ../.1. /ection !=8!s*2 is particularly clear& a person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumerto any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously a+oids knowing that the information is inaccurate.0ae 113 of 131Amortization: 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 havethe 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 Countys liability forfraud when 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 theuse and enjoyment of real estate constitutes property within the meaning of RICO so as to trigger the accrual of a RICO claim. The county and its cities are liable for racketeering conduct of its employees/agents use of fear, threats, and intimidation to interfere with the use and enjoyment of property by citizens who pay city and county employees to protect and serve their property rights. U.S. v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) at 793: To esta,lish conspiracy under ?acketeer Influenced and 1orrupt 'rgani>ations Act C?I1'D does not reNuire proof that indi+idual defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offensesL rather, the conspiracy must contemplate the commission of two predicate acts ,y one or more of its mem,ers. !8 ../.1. 0ae 114 of 131/ection !$=2CdD.0ore than two predicate acts occur when pri+ate indi+iduals conspire with pu,lic employees to +iolate state and federal law ,y restricting property ownership without -ust compensation in furtherance of a racketeering scheme or artifice Cdenial of honest go+ernment ser+ices and theft under color of lawDL therefore, the 1ounty is the municipality upon which the lia,ility is imposed for conduct constituting ?I1' conspiracy through fraud and deceit to effect KtakingsI without due process and without -ust compensation, which is theft under color.The county needs to remem,er the -udicial officers who went to -ail in this 3rega case for operating the courts as a racketeering enterprise, the Q52 million thatwent ,ack into .ncle /ams Treasury as fruits of a racketeering enterprise, and needs to remem,er the !,:%% crooked employees who used to work for the E0 and who took ,ri,es to do fa+ors and manufacture fake licenses for their friends. Inthe 3rega case, the feds only collected Q52 million, ,ecause it was pled improperly and a lot more ,ig fish escaped the net.Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997): O1Ponspiracy is a distinct e+il, dangerous to the pu,lic, and punisha,le in itself. 1ity and county employees are lia,le for conspiring to restrict property Cincluding old carsD and agricultural commodities CTitle #, section 2D without -ust compensation, and conspiring to target disenfranchised li+estock owners and feed mills in +iolation of Title 52 section !$8", when they admit to ha+ing met CconspiredD with code enforcement and pri+ate persons in +iolation of the 7rown Act in order to steal. The county is lia,le for its employees intent CconspiracyD to conduct city and county ,usiness as aracketeering 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 (5 th Cir. 1995): A pre*answer 0otion to Eismiss action for failure to state a claim admits facts alleged in complaint ,ut challenges 0ae 115 of 131plaintiffUs right to relief ,ased upon those facts. The 1ounty would ha+e no hope ofusing a !2C,DC=D motion to deny the fact that any of its citi>ens e(ists, and that one citi>en was su,-ected to Animal Fnterprise Terrorism, threats, fear, intimidation, trespass, and ro,,ery ,y city employees.Guerrero v. Gates, et al, CV 00-7165, WILLIAM J. REA, August 28, 2000, UnitedStates 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 Dept., 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 0ae 116 of 131site 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 exceptin 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 officialright. 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 owners deed, illegally convert the title, and get rid of the Prop 13 tax break.Dewey J. Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. __, 146 L.Ed.2d 902, 120 S.Ct. __ (2000): Held: Because an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property used in commerce or commerce-affecting activity, arson of such a dwelling is not subject to prosecution. The Supreme Court says that you cannot be prosecuted by anybody for damaging your own property. The county is liable for its employees/agents fraud, perjury, and extortion to steal property under the guise of rescuing it from its lawful owner.PROPERTY OWNERS STANDING TO SUE UNDER RICO Rotella v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 Sct.__, at pg. 1047: The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 USCS 1961 et seq.) provides that (1) it is unlawful to conduct an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeeringactivity (18 USCS 1962(c), (2) a pattern requires at least two acts of racketeeringactivity, 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.0ae 119 of 131CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE FORBIDDEN TO INTERFERE WITH FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND FUNDED PROGRAMS FFA and 4HTitle 18 section 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds. Whoever being an agent of a State, or local government, or any agency thereof-(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. The circumstances referred to is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance As used in this section-(1) the term agent means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or government and includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative; (2) the term government agency means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a governmental or intergovernmental program. The County is liable for its servants or employees, boards, etc. embezzlement of federalfunds 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.

Aut-ority ! A''41AD4, D. M in order to 'A0S4'@ ,>E RECE RECD.#o the Senate.#he !i N to modify and continue N the act entited NAn act to incorporate the su!scri!ers to the ,an) of the 4nited States N was presented to me on the =th Muy instant. Faving considered it with that soemn regard to the principes of the %onstitution which the day was cacuated to inspire, and come to the concusion that it ought not to !ecome a aw, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my o!Kections.A !an) of the 4nited States is in many respects convenient for the Government and usefu to thepeope. 7ntertaining this opinion, and deepy impressed with the !eief that some of the powers and privieges possessed !y the existing !an) are unauthori@ed !y the %onstitution, su!versive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the i!erties of the peope, I fet it my duty at an eary period of my Administration to ca the attention of %ongress to the practica!iity of organi@ing an institution com!ining a its advantages and o!viating these o!Kections. I sincerey regret that in the act !efore me I can perceive none of those modifications of the !an) charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to ma)e it compati!e with Kustice, with sound poicy, or with the %onstitution of our country.#he present corporate !ody, denominated the president, directors, and company of the ,an) of the 4nited States, wi have existed at the time this act is intended to ta)e effect twenty years. It 0ae 111 of 131enKoys an excusive priviege of !an)ing under the authority of the Genera Government, a monopoyof its favor and support, and, as a necessary conseAuence, amost a monopoy of the foreign and domestic exchange. #he powers, privieges, and favors !estowed upon it in the origina charter, !y increasing the vaue of the stoc) far a!ove its par vaue, operated as a gratuity of many miions to the stoc)hoders.An apoogy may !e found for the faiure to guard against this resut in the consideration that the effect of the origina act of incorporation coud not !e certainy foreseen at the time of its passage. #he act !efore me proposes another gratuity to the hoders of the same stoc), and in many cases to the same men, of at east seven miions more. #his donation finds no apoogy in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. -n a hands it is conceded that its passage wi increase at east so or >1 per cent more the mar)et price of the stoc), su!Kect to the payment of the annuity of OD11,111 per year secured !y the act, thus adding in a moment oneEfourth to its par vaue. It is not our own citi@ens ony who are to receive the !ounty of our Government. 8ore than eight miions of the stoc) of this !an) are hed !y foreigners. ,y this act the American Repu!ic proposes virtuay to ma)e them a present of some miions of doars. ,*11, and in the 8idde and 7astern States is a!out O*>,IDD,111. #he profits of the !an) in *H>*, as shown in a statement to %ongress, were a!out O>,=II,ICHB of this there accrued in the nine western States a!out O*,+=1,1=HB in the four Southern States a!out O>ID,I1P, and in the 8idde and 7astern States a!outO*,=+>,1=*. As itte stoc) is hed in the Lest, it is o!vious that the de!t of the peope in that section to the !an) is principay a de!t to the 7astern and foreign stoc)hodersB that the interest they pay upon it is carried into the 7astern States and into 7urope, and that it is a !urden upon their industry and a drain of their currency, which no country can !ear without inconvenience and occasiona distress. #o meet this !urden and eAuai@e the exchange operations of the !an), the amount of specie drawn from those States through its !ranches within the ast two years, as shown !y its officia reports, was a!out O+,111,111. 8ore than haf a miion of this amount does not stop in the 7astern States, !ut passes on to 7urope to pay the dividends of the foreign stoc)hoders. In the principe of taxation recogni@ed !y this act the Lestern States find no adeAuate compensation for this perpetua !urden on their industry and drain of their currency. #he !ranch !an) at 8o!ie made ast year OCI,*=1, yet under the provisions of this act the State of Aa!ama can raise no revenue from these profita!e operations, !ecause not a share of the stoc) is hed !y any of her citi@ens. 8ississippi and 8issouri are in the same condition in reation to the !ranches at 5atche@ and St. 3ouis, and such, in a greater or ess degree, is the condition of every Lestern State. #he tendency of the pan of taxation which this act proposes wi !e to pace the whoe 4nited States in the same reation to foreign countries which the Lestern States now !ear to the 7astern. Lhen !y a tax on resident stoc)hoders the stoc) of this !an) is made worth *1 or *I per cent more to foreigners than to residents, most of it wi inevita!y eave the country.#hus wi this provision in its practica effect deprive the 7astern as we as the Southern and Lestern States of the means of raising a revenue from the extension of !usiness and great profits ofthis institution. It wi ma)e the American peope de!tors to aiens in neary the whoe amount due to this !an), and send across the Atantic from two to five miions of specie every year to pay the !an) dividends.In another of its !earings this provision is fraught with danger. -f the twentyEfive directors of this !an) five are chosen !y the Government and twenty !y the citi@en stoc)hoders.