Colored Citations from Matthew Bender Primer on Eminent Domain


U.S. CONSTITUTION Amendment 5.  Self-Incrimination; Double Jeopardy;


Due process.  “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor- shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  If any city or county wants to regulate, restrict or eliminate ANY private property, it must PAY for it out of its General Fund.  “Regulations and restrictions” ARE TAKINGS, and



So POST your property “No Trespass” to show that it belongs to YOU.


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 post-deprivation 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.


1).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 post-enactment 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 compen-sation


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.


2). 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 “takingswithout 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.


3). 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. §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 S Ct. 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 Countys Notice and Opportunity to be heard regarding city or county employees criminal conduct/conspiring to steal property.


4). Salinas v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 469 (1997) “[I]nterprative canon is not license for judiciary to rewrite language enacted by legislature. . .Predominant elements in substantive Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations are:

(1) conduct

(2) of enterprise

(3) through pattern [practice kustom] of racketeering activity


18 U.S.C. §1962 (c). . . .  Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy conviction does not- require overt or specific act.  18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). . . .


If conspirators have plan which calls   for some conspirators to perpetrate crime and others to provide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators. . Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues, for conspiracy is distinct evil, dangerous to public, and so punishable in itself.”     


Judges and cities are forbidden to rewrite language enacted by legislature.   They are forbidden to even think about using the courts to uphold bogus, fabricated charges for

“hot pursuit of revenue.” 


By their [ultra vires very bad acts] “conduct” of falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, participants violate FDCPA CFPA 15 U.S.C. sections 1692e(2) (A) and 1681s-2, and became principals” in a “pattern of racketeering” by putting false liens or debts” on “court or credit records” without “verifying” that the liens or debts were legally valid as the result of “having the matter determined by a jury” prior to having an “abstract of judgment entered.”


The fraud continues when these bogus judgments are used for “collection of unlawful debt.”  The language of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 is particularly clear: 


“A person shall not furnish any- information relating to a consumer, to any consumer reporting agency if; the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.”



5). U.S. v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) at 793:  “To establish conspiracy under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not require proof that individual defendant participated personally or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses; rather, the conspiracy must contemplate the commission of  two-predicate acts by one or more of its members


18 U.S.C. section 1962(d).”  More than two predicate acts occur when private individuals conspire with public employees to; violate state and federal law by restricting property ownership without just compensation in furtherance of a racketeering scheme or artifice (denial of honest government services and theft under color of law); therefore, the [LLC] County is the municipality upon which the “liability is imposed” for conduct constituting RICO conspiracy through fraud and deceit to effect “takingswithout due process and without just compensation, which is theft under color.     


The county needs to remember the “judicial officers” who went to jail in this Frega case for operating the courts as a racketeering enterprise, the $42 million that went back into Uncle Sam’s Treasury as “fruits of a racketeering enterprise,” and needs to remember the 1,500 crooked employees who used to work for the DMV and who took “bribes” to “do favors” and manufacture fake licenses for their friends


In the Frega case, the feds only collected $42 million, because it was pled improperly, and a lot more big fish escaped the net.


 4b). Salinas v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 469 (1997):  “[C]onspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and punishable in itself.”  City and county employees are liable for conspiring to restrict property (including old cars) and agricultural commodities (Title 7, section 2) without- just compensation and conspiring to target disenfranchised livestock owners and feed mills in violation of                 Title 42 section 1983, and admitted to having “met (conspired) with code enforcement and private persons in violation of the Brown Act in order to steal.  The county is liable for its employees’ intent (conspiracy) to conduct city and county business as a racketeering enterprise.

6). 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).


7). Jones v. United States, 529 U.S.__, 146 L Ed 2d 902, 120 S. Ct.___ (May 22, 2000): 

Held:  Because an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose

does not-qualify as property used in commerce or commerce-affecting activity,                  arson of such a dwelling  is not subject toprosecution…” 


The Supreme Court says that you cannot be prosecuted by anybody for damaging your own property.  The county is liable for its employees/agentsfraud, perjury and extortion to steal property under the guise of rescuing it from its lawful owner.

                                                                                                                                              PROPERTY OWNER’S STANDING TO SUE UNDER RICO


8). Rotella v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 S Ct.__, at pg. 1047:  “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C.S §§ 1961 et seq.) provides that  (1) it is unlawful to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),  

(2) a pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which                              occurs within 10 years after the commission of a prior act (18 USCS § 1962(c),

(3) a person injured by a RICO violation can bring a civil RICO action (18 USCS 1964(c)).”  Any [natural] 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.


9). Guerrero v. Gates, et al, CV 00-7165, WILLIAM J. REA, August 28, 2000, United States District Court for the Central District of California, quoting pertinent parts relating to nationwide news the LAPD CONDUCT SUBJECT TO CIVIL RICO:  DISCUSSION: 


Legal Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6):  A party may bring a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims if the plaintiff’s allegations “fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).


Generally, “[a] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim             which would entitle him to relief.  Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, (1957). 


Thus, dismissal is proper where the complaint lacks either a cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.  See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 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, [12(b)(6)], “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.


10). 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’simpersonating an officer” and “treason” against the

United States.




11). Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3rd, 232 (9th Cir. 1995):  “By definition, probable cause to  arrest can only exist in relation to [Felony] criminal conduct; civil disputes cannot give rise to probable causecontract dispute cannot give rise to probable cause to arrest.”  Cities or counties CANNOTbutt 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.


12). 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.


13). 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 7 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.”




14). [Calif.] Article 1, section 1. Unalienable Rights.  “All people are by nature free and independent and have Unalienable natural rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacyOn 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 livesDomestic terrorism takes many forms - racketeering, extortion, false liens, false personations and E’cheats, animal enterprise terrorism, and theft [Offical Oppresion] 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 FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:


15). 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.


16). 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.


17).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.


18). 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.


19). 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 injuryshall 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’re 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 [man & other] ANIMAL ENTERPRISE online under Department of Justice or             DOJ reports.


20). 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

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



22). 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 stealingor 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.


23). 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 [quo warranto] incapable of holding any office . . .”     The Humane Society puts in a strong presence at many public hearings.                                                     


The Board illegally adopts their policy of making laws against property/chicken ownership under the guise of “stamping out cock fighting.”  The County is liable for adopting Humane Society objectives, which amount to a covert operation to steal property, livestock, and  real estate without just compensation by using criminals in government positions to              give it the appearance of a legitimate operation.




UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article 6, Cl. 2, Supremacy of Constitution.       


“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,  any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”                                


We have three separate branches of government – legislative, [falsity] administrative [EXECUTIVE], 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  KA-AN-“G”-AH-Ruse “court,” and “prosecutes” its own laws.  Under a “dictatorship, citizens have no rights, and [private] property ownership is eliminated, as the dictatorship assumes regulation and control over all private property.  The penalty for conspiring to overthrow the government of the United States is death or life imprisonment.


“24). 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.