CITY AND COUNTY CODES AND ORDINANCES ARE ONLY FOR CITY AND COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY!

“Public Office is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
Boies Penrose

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.  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.  The law forbids the City or County 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 ñ building materials, landscaping/gardening supplies, animal feed, livestock, pets, vehicles, etc.  Damages for the takings without just compensation and for the extortion will be decided by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.

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  In an unpublished court order in the Daily Appellate, the Sierra Club was ordered to post a Bond of $250,000 for a  takings because it didn’t want some logger to cut down his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

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

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d 798:           There are a number of non-economic interests in land, such as interest in excluding strangers from one’s land, the impairment of which will invite exceedingly close scrutiny under takings clause (5th Amend.) if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government’s power to redefine the range of interests included that the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits. If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappeared. These considerations gave birth to the oft cited maxim that, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.  Where permanent physical occupation of land is concerned, we have refused to allow the government to decree it anew without compensation no matter how weighty the asserted public interests involved. Unless just compensation is offered, the city or county is committing fraud, theft, racketeering and terrorism if it wants to exert ‘acts of ownership or control of private property and livestock ownership rights.  It is illegal to impose public policy upon private land; to do so constitutes a taking for which the City and County are liable for compensating the owner for his loss, no matter how small the intrusion
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S.__, 150 L.E.d.2d 592, 121 S.Ct.__ (2001)     (quoting both Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council):  Petitioners acquisition of title after the regulations effective date did not bar his takings claims.  This Court rejects the State Supreme Courts sweeping rule that a purchaser or a successive title holder like petitioner is deemed to have notice of an earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it affects 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 compensation.  In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), Justice Holmes well-known formulation, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.  (To quote Justice Stevens)  It is wrong for the government to take property, even for public use, without tendering just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago that it is wrong for 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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s