May 20, 2014

Two Richmond, Calif. men were busted last weekend in connection with a cockfighting event on a Yolo County farm, authorities said.

Miguel Angel Garcia, 51, and Jorge Gonzalez Garcia, 50, both of Richmond, were booked into the Monroe Detention Center in Yolo County on various charges including animal cruelty, according to the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department. The men have since posted the $50,000 bail.

The men were called possible ringleaders of the cockfight along with three others following the raid on a farm at 23490 County Road 28. Authorities received a tip about the bloody bird brawl before raiding the farm about 11 p.m. Saturday.

About 70 people attended the cockfight, including two children, sheriff’s officials said.

The attendees fled in all directions when authorities showed up. Fourteen spectators were caught and cited for attending the cockfight.

The birds fared worse.

“Recovered at the scene were ten dead roosters, 52 live roosters, cockfighting spurs and approximately $15,000 in cash,” the sheriff’s department said.

According to news reports, another 10 birds had to be euthanized due to the severity of their injuries.

The five suspects who had been booked into jail are scheduled to appear for an arraignment June 18.



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

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

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

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

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

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

    17954-A S. Euclid Ave.

    Chino, CA 91710

    gene hatch | Jun 19th, 2014
    U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” The County is liable for “failure to provide equal protection” to all citizens owning property, as the County is not a separate country, it falls within the State of California within the United States, and its employees do not get to make up their own laws intended to steal property and disenfranchise and discriminate against citizens for owning chickens, pigeons, parakeets, guinea pigs, goats, ducks, turkeys, cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, fish, chinchillas, frogs, etc.

    Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S.___, 145 L.Ed 2d 1060, 120 S.Ct.___ (Feb. 2000): “Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause held to give rise to cause of action on behalf of ‘class of one’ where property owner’s equal protection claim…did not allege membership in class or group.” The County is liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for each claim by each feed store, feed mill, and livestock owner for property loss without the necessity of a class action suit, and without being in any particular group. All that is necessary, under this Supreme Court decision, is for one person to be denied equal protection.

    Equal protection: If the city or County restricts “crowing fowl,” it must also restrict all other vehicles, machinery, etc. whose noise levels exceed the decibel level of crowing fowl. This means restricted use of all sirens, construction equipment, aircraft, motorcycles, stereos, 18-wheel trucks, etc. within the county. Under the laws they ordain, city and county employees including the Board of Supervisors must open their homes for public inspection. If the public finds any property that is abused, neglected, abandoned or in excess of acceptable numbers, the public shall rescue the property and adopt it out to a new owner. Given the county’s code enforcement officers’ past practices and precedents, this inspection shall include living conditions and all other personal property, which can likewise be rescued and adopted out. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


    Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…” The County would be liable for discrimination against “livestock owners, 4-H, FFA, feed stores, and feed mills.”

    Title 28 U.S.C. – Section 1343 Civil rights and elective franchise. “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;

    the defendant acted under color of law; and

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

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

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

    the municipality had a policy or custom;

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

    the policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.

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

    Title 18 U.S.C. sections 891-896. Section 891 Definition and rules of construction: “(7) An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property.” This applies to bogus “utility liens” or “attorney’s fees,” which sanctions are only for licensed attorneys, and only for DEFENDANTS for causing undue delay and needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. Private attorneys conspiring with private corporations/Humane Societies to bribe federal or state judges, etc. to get rulings/judgments favorable to the robbers fits these “rules of construction,” as only Hitler punished those who sued and confiscated their property. The county is not immune for cities’ criminal profiteering within the county, when they are paid to protect and serve, NOT to rob and do these white-collar con games.
    Under Title 7 U.S.C. section 2159, Congress restrains all states subject to Public Law regarding animals and livestock. All investigations for “alleged animal neglect” fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, NOT the County. The United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, sends a request to the United States Attorney General, now John Ashcroft, to request of a United States District Court Judge to issue a “restraining order or injunction” pursuant to section 2159 of Title 7 United States Code, whenever the Secretary has reason to believe…the health of any animal [is] in serious danger…” The County employees and agents are not the United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, and The County Board of Supervisors are not United States District Court judges, therefore, they conspired to intentionally and willfully “impersonate federal authority,” restricted since 1966 under the following “explicit” statute:

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

    gene hatch | Jun 19th, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    gene hatch | Jun 19th, 2014
    Title 18 section 1951 Interference with Commerce: “Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity…by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so…shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than twenty years…(2) the term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” Title 7, section 2 [Agricultural commodities] Definitions: “The word ‘person’…shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts. The word ‘commodity’ shall mean wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs,…[Irish potatoes], wool, wool tops, fats and oils…cottonseed meal, cottonseed, peanuts, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, livestock products, and frozen concentrated orange juice, and all other goods and articles…” Title 7 section 2131 “The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effectively regulate such commerce, in order…(3) to protect the owners of animals from theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen.” Title 18 section 1962. Prohibited activities: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce…(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” Title 18 Stolen Property, section 2311 Definitions: “As used in this chapter…’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof.” Title 7 Agriculture section 601: No state can restrict the raising of any commodity (chicken – hen or cock, other poultry, cattle, horse, goat, pig, sheep, parakeet, frog, fish, chinchilla, guinea pig, rabbit, etc.) for personal use. If the state is forbidden to restrict commodities, neither can the city or county. City or county employees get 20 years in prison for conspiring to restrict the free flow of commerce and agricultural commodities known as “chickens (roosters and hens),” “birds and poultry,” cattle,” “crowing fowl,” “pigeons,” “goats,” “horses,” “pigs,” “sheep,” “other small farm animals (rabbits, fish, chinchillas, frogs, parakeets, guinea pigs, etc.),” and “animal/livestock feed” consisting of mill feeds: rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, and grain sorghums. The penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment or $250,000 fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    gene hatch | Jun 19th, 2014
  5. We are living in an age when previously taboo practices have become legitimate and made part of our societal order. Such things as casino gambling, marijuana use and same-sex marriage have become commonplace since the reasons used to keep them out of society have failed.

    While we are legitimatizing things, let’s add one more item to the list of things to be made legal: cockfighting.

    There is no reason to continue to outlaw the practice. The fact it finds favor in a small portion of the Latino community and has no advocate for its legalization might be reasons it remains illegal. But the reasons to legalize it are many.

    First, it is a victimless crime. No one suffers, no one is forced into it and no one is becoming wealthy by exploiting others.

    The fact one of the draws to cockfighting is wagering is also no reason to continue to put it in the shadows of society. Wagering is such a part of our daily routine, it is difficult to imagine what life would be like without bingo, the lottery, office sports pools and slot machines, to name a few, and it would not be any problem to add cockfighting to the list.

    Getting the cockfights out of almond orchards and into the open would also benefit farmers who would not have to put up with the mess such clandestine events leave behind. Law enforcement, already cut to the bone, would be freed up from enforcing an otherwise useless law.

    The major contestants in cockfighting are the chickens. It takes little effort, if any, to get them to fight, given the right conditions. Their combative nature has given rise to the cliché “pecking order,” in which the strong tend to dominate the weak.

    There may be some embellishment to the birds, usually roosters, to put them into fighting condition. Cropping of the comb and the addition of spurs to their feet to increase the lethal nature of the sport are some of the things done, but the chickens themselves provide the aggressive nature which is the essential element of the sport.

    The loss of a few select chickens certainly cannot be a reason to continue the prohibition of cockfighting. Any poultry operation, whether done for eggs or meat, loses chickens regularly for a variety of reasons during the course of routine operations.

    Cockfighting needs few facilities. Usually a small ring, some makeshift seating and a place for the bagman to collect and distribute money that has been bet. Legalization would increase the number of events and who knows, the state might figure out a way to tax it like it taxes everything else.

    Assertions that chickens might be more highly developed intellectually than we give them credit for lacks any reason to pause. The presence of intelligence doesn’t complicate the issue since intelligent creatures, such as man, have been engaging in combative behavior every since Cain and Abel.

    Chickens: They aren’t just for eating and egg-laying anymore.

    Bultena is a Merced resident and community columnist for The Modesto Bee and Merced Sun-Star. Send comments or questions to

    Read more here:

    gene hatch | Jun 19th, 2014

About the Author

Mike Aldax is the editor of the Richmond Standard. He has 13 years of journalism experience, most recently as a reporter for the San Francisco Examiner. He previously held roles as reporter and editor at Bay City News, Napa Valley Register, Garden Island Newspaper in Kaua’i, and the Queens Courier in New York City.