CVI UGA Holistic View of Impact of County Video Presentation of the Meeting https://dekalbcountyga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2698
Welcome to the land of Oz and secret meetings
CVI UGA Holistic View of Impact of County Video Presentation of the Meeting https://dekalbcountyga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2698
Welcome to the land of Oz and secret meetings
A neighbor didn’t like looking over our 6-foot fence into our back yard with 2 BBQs, 8 bikes hanging from a rack, a swing set, and a garden of wild spinach/goosefoot/lanb’s quarter, among other things.
The City redefined a description in logic “inoperative” to prohibit any vehicle that can’t be driven on the streeet, including RV and cars that have Permits from California to be kept non-Operational in a driveway.
Since 2013, we have actually tried to cooperate with the City of Lakewood on many things: we painted over minor paint chips on a post and window and siding trim areas, we prettied up our flower beds more, but nothing satisfied the City and our neighbor.
They tried to declare our Property a Public Nuisance, but the Planning Commission held a hearing on November 3, 2016 and decided that our Back Yard and Pet Door were not Public, so they ruled to Abate a Private Nuisance, which the California Codes don’t allow. Civil Code 3494 allows the City to abate a Public Nuisance, not a Private Nuisance. The agency summary, section 8 stated “ Any reference to the term “public nuisance” shall be replaced with the word “nuisance”” We appealed that decision to abate a Private Nuisance and Code Enforcement withdrew the action before a hearing on appeal with the City Council on March 14, 2017 by saying we complied.
The City lost in their own hearings, so they decided to fool the Court into helping them harass us:
2/21/2018: CA Superior Court, Bellflower, Judge Tsao signed an Administrative Inspection Warrant to allow the City to conduct a Fishing Expedition in our Back Yard (within the curtilage of a 6 foot fence). The Affidavit by the City Employee was insufficient, and stated simply “Since the property located at 5708 Candor Street, Lakewood, California 90713 may pose a danger to the health and safety of the local residents and since the property owner refused entry into the rear yard for an inspection, I am requesting an Administrative Inspection Warrant be issued to inspect the rear yard of the property.”
There were no allegations of violations of “of a state or local law or regulation relating to building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning, which, if such violation existed, would be an immediate threat to health or safety”, as required by Code of Civil Procedure 1822.56. By not stating it, the City admitted that there is no immediate threat to health or safety.
We requested an ExParte Hearing to Quash the Warrant, which was denied. The City used the Warrant to trespass on our private property without our permission to “inspect” our back yard.
The City filed a “Return of Administrative Inspection Warrant”, which did not mention any Hazard to Health and Safety, but merely named 4 Municipal Codes alleged to be violated:
So, a trash can was visible from the street, some back yard plants were higher than they’d like, and they’d like me to get rid of some bicycles and our swing set, because it hadn’t been used for a while – all aesthetic opinions about our private property in our private back yard, with no hazard to Health or Safety.
4/12/2018: CA Superior Court, Bellflower, Judge Tsao signed an 2nd Administrative Inspection Warrant to allow the City to conduct a Fishing Expedition in our Back Yard (within the curtilage of a 6 foot fence).
We requested an ExParte Hearing in Court to Quash the Warrant, which was denied. The City used the Warrant to trespass on our private property without our permission to “inspect” our back yard.
2 Violations of our Right to Privacy and Property without unreasonable Search and Seizure, protected by the 4th Amendment and Article 1 of the California Constitution.
Now, they also want to tow away a vehicle that they say is “innoperable”, with no evidence, but try to use Municipal Code 44330 (G) to arbitrarily classify as “Inoperative”. These Municipal Codes are applicable on the streets or on City Property, but not on Private Property. Unlike State Codes relating to building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning, Municipal Codes are not Law, don’t apply to Private Property, and can’t be used to get a Warrant under Code of Civil Procedure 1822.56.
Government is out of Control!
Cities, Counties, States and the Federal Government are overspending and over-controlling.
In the past, Cities have left the individual alone. The IRS, FTB, ATF, FBI, CIA and other higher govenment entities have been the ones to usurp power.
Now, Cities are getting out of hand, too.
Palo Alto v. Leibrand: Gardening Grandma Arrested for Failure to Prune
In Palo Alto, Calif., a 61-year old grandmother was arrested and almost went to jail,
because “her hedge of xylosma bushes was more than 2 feet tall”.
This was covered in the Monday, December 8, 2003 edition of the Daily Press, which commented “While she won her fight with cancer, she couldn’t prevail over city hall. But frankly, she shouldn’t have had to try.”.
Check out the grandma’s story at dailysignal.com/2010/05/14/criminalizing-unsatisfactory-hedge-pruning/ (Criminalizing Unsatisfactory Hedge Pruning)
Stockton arrests Lady for sharing Ceviche with PotLuck Facebook Group. 1, 2, 3, 4
Landlord helps near-homeless with low rents – City goes after him because repairs after vandalism aren’t fast enough. 1, 2
2 Peter 2: 2-3) warns us “and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you”
Michael Downs, the son of a neighbor, (who does not even live in Lakewood – apparently lives at 2257 Jeans Ct, Signal Hill), has been complaining to the City of Lakewood for years about our property. He doesn’t like our mini-RV parked in our driveway, but the Non-Opp status granted by DMV makes it legal. Because he couldn’t get the City of Lakewood to force us to get rid of the mini-RV, Michael Downs has constantly made PETTY COMPLAINTS to the City of Lakewood. Michael Downs’ PETTY COMPLAINTS are continued HARASSMENT, using the City as a pawn to harass us. It appears that the City has received complaints from him that:
our lawn isn’t green enough (in a drought, we should water less),
that our front flowerbeds weren’t pretty enough (so, we made them prettier),
that our front porch post had a small amount of chipped paint (so we repainted it),
that our bikes at the side of the house weren’t pretty enough (so, we put them behind a gate),
that we shouldn’t have a pet door to our garage for our cat to go in and out,
some Paint on the eaves in our back yard was chipping (so we painted there too),
my (tall) garden of wild spinach in my back yard didn’t look nice (now removed, season over),
we should remove the swing set and BBQ in my back yard,
We fixed every petty thing he complained about, except we’re not blocking the Pet Door in the Garage Door that our Cat uses, and we’re not getting rid of the swingset, BBQ, etc in our Back Yard. Michael Downs made a false complaint to the City of Dog Poop in the Back Yard, which SEACA quickly determined was false.
The City’s Code Enforcement didn’t know what to do, so they finally asked the Planning Commission to see if we should be declared a Public Nuisance. At the Public Nuisance Hearing on November 3, 2016, it was obvious that nothing on our property rose to the level of a “PUBLIC NUISANCE’, so the Commission decided to remove the word “Public” and just make it a “Nuisance”. Sorry, Commissioners, if it’s not a Public Nuisance, it’s a Private Nuisance, which is not a crime and the City has no business acting on something that 1 neighbor doesn’t like.
We’re tired of fixing PETTY THINGS that Michael Downs is complaining about!!
We fixed everything they asked except for their request to cover the Pet Door and throw away more possessions in the Back Yard.
They had a Public Nuisance Hearing on November 3, 2016, and they found that it was not a Public Nuisance, so they declared it a “Nuisance” (without the word “Public”) instead. Planning and Environmental Commission Resolution 14-2016.
California Civil Code says that any nuisance that is not a Public Nuisance under 3480 is a Private Nuisance. (There is no other). A Private Nuisance is a private tort by a neighbor that a City is not allowed to get involved in. Their is no “Municipal Affair”, nothing “public” and no “necessity for immediate abatement”
As quoted and stated by the California Appellate Court:
“While we have not found authority in California that states where the burden of proof lies, other jurisdictions have held that the municipality has the burden of proof of the nuisance and the necessity for its immediate abatement. (See Solly v. City of Toledo, supra, at p. 466; Crossman v. City of Galveston, 112 Tex. 303 [247 S.W. 810, 815, 26 A.L.R. 1210]; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 135 [38 L.Ed. 385, 388, 14 S.Ct. 499].) We feel that the reasoning of these cases should be applied here. Such conclusion is consistent with the rule requiring the state to have the burden of proving.” Leppo v. City of Petaluma (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 711 at page 718
The City of Lakewood is another City that is overeager to unnecessarily enforce Municipal Codes on non-City Property without any necessity, where there is no “Public” Nuisance or need.
The City Manager sent us a letter stating “…on March 9, 21017,Code Enforcement staff conducted a follow up inspection and established that the remaining two violations had been corrected sufficiently for the Community Development Director to determine that at this point in time that the property was in substantial compliance with the Lakewood Municipal Code.” and “RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accepts and files this report, as the subject matter of the appeal is moot and compliance with the original Final Notice of Violation has been accepted by the City.”
Agenda and Notice 11/3/16
Agenda and Notice 11/3/16,
Hearing Summary 11/3/16,
Resolution 11/10/16, Appeal 11/14/16.
1) CA Superior Court Los Angeles County Case # VD030155 TRO/Domestic Violence 6/18/1997
Loretta V. Downs v Michael Downs – to Protect Derrick 12/14/94 & Michael Jr 8/10/91 at 17825 Clark Ave Bellflower
It was alleged that Michael came several times and stole TV and furniture while Loretta was gone and a relative was watching the 2 kids.
2) CA Superior Court Los Angeles County Case # VS006831
Yolanda Batriz v Michael & Loretta Downs – Civil Harassment granted 10/8/1997
3) Michael Downs sued Long Beach twice:
8/17/1994-6/29/1998 CA Superior Court Los Angeles County Case # SOC074310
9/3/1987 – 9/23/1991 CA Superior Court Los Angeles County Case # SOC089152
In California, Cities have often gotten totally out of hand, so the Legislature had to start restricting them more.
In 1967, the ability of Municipal Corporations to issue Citations or Notice to Appear was repealed (former Penal Code 853.1 to 853.4).
In 1970, the California Legislature repealed provisions for municipalities to enact ordinances or regulations imposing restrictions equal to or greater than those imposed by the state. California Health and Safety Code 17958.5, requires that the Building Code can only be amended for geographical, topographical, or climatic reasons, not by whim..(see Briseno v. City of Santa Ana 6 Cal.App.4th 1378, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 (4th Dist 1992), Building Insustry Assn. V. City of Livermore, 45 Cal.App.4th 719, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 (1st Dist 1996), Baum Electric Co. v. City of Huntington Beach 33 Cal.App.3d 572, 109 Cal.Rptr. 260 (4th Dist 1973), Gonzales v. Santa Ana 12 Cal.App.4th 1335, Cal. Apt. Assn v. City of Fremont 97 Cal.App.4th 693.
Many Cities are using False Pretexts for Domination, usually labeled an unreasonable application of the Municipal Code or Building Code, because it is not for any needed purpose or exigent circumstance. “A legislative body may not, under the guise of the police power, impose restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities. (McKay Jewelers vs. Bowron).” In Chantiles vs. Lake Forest II Master Homeowner’s Assn, 37 Cal.App.4th 914,922, (1955), the Court terms the [government’s] actions as “a clear cut case of a ‘nanny state’ – nanny in almost a literal sense – going too far. These actions flew in the face of one of the most ancient precepts of American society and Anglo-American legal culture. “A man’s house is his castle” was not penned by anonymous, but by the famous jurist Sir Edward Coke in 1628.” “It is of far greater concern to effectuate an incremental whittling away of private property rights absent demonstrable public harm.”
Hurwitz v. City of Orange, (September 24, 2004) (cite as: 2004 WL 2129731 (Cal. App. 4 Dist.) “… a city’s finding of “nuisance” could be found by a trial court to be pretextual (as a cover for the substantive taking of property, or as here, a property right), this is it. “in substance, the sequence shows that the city was not using its police power to abate a nuisance. Rather, it was trying to use its police power to abate nuisances as a fig leaf to hide the rather naked expropriation of an existing property right.” “We need only add that there is precedent for the point that a public entity cannot mask what is substantively a taking merely by invoking its nuisance power.”
Most Cities have no charter granting them exclusive jurisdiction for “Municipal Affairs”, and thus, each as a Municipal Corporation with the limited powers of a General Law City, is subject to County and State Codes and Statutes, with which it is in conflict. (An ordinance which prohibits the same acts which are forbidden by state law is void to extent that it duplicates state law. People v. Commons (Super. 1944) 64 Cal.App.2d Supp. 925, 148 P.2d 724; see Municipal Corporations 592(2).
The police powers of a city under Government Code 38660 include the power to regulate construction, but not maintenance and use, unless they are unsafe for renters and the public: it is not designed to protect the owner from himself.
Health and Safety Code section 17912. “Rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this part and building standards published in the State Building Standards Code, relating to the erection or construction of buildings or structures, shall not apply to existing buildings or structures or to buildings or structures as to which construction is commenced or approved prior to the effective date of the rules, regulations, or building standards, except by act of the Legislature, but rules, regulations, and building standards relating to use, maintenance, and change of occupancy shall apply to all hotels, motels, lodginghouses, apartment houses, and dwellings, or portions thereof, and buildings and structures accessory thereto, approved for construction or constructed before or after the effective date of such rules, regulations, or building standards.”
Building Code 3401 essentially grandfathers in existing structures that are safe.
Many Cities still go beyond their authority in the application of Building Codes. The City’s Building Official, Code Enforcement Dept., and Dept. of Community Development all work under the auspices of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, whose vesting authority is delimited in 2001 California Building Code section 101.17.
Join us in returning Government to the People. Help us teach Renegade Bureaucrats their Constitutional Limits.
Contact Jim Krage at firstname.lastname@example.org if you want to help.
We have been fighting, not only Annexation into Stone Mountain, City Limits, but also creation and Annexation into a new City of Greenhaven. Some responsible, caring individuals, with their heads on straight have led the fight against Greenhaven.
We need more people like Ed Williams, Ed.D.
One such individual, Ed Williams, Ed.D. was an instrumental opponent who knows how to get people to understand the truth about what they were trying to accomplish, and it was not for the good of the people.
The email I received today:
I have attached a press release related to the recent failure of Greenhaven cityhood bill (HB644) to make it to the House floor for a vote o Crossover day
Ed Williams. Ed.D.
Chair, Concerned Citizens For Effective Government
Roderick L. Wyatt, 61, of Stone Mountain, has been charged with accepting bribe payments in exchange for approving the enrollment of almost 20 students to a local college, through a federal workforce program in DeKalb County. The federal indictment alleges that Wyatt agreed to accept payments from the college president for each student sent to the college through WorkSource DeKalb, a federally funded program.
“Wyatt allegedly sold his supervisory position with WorkSource DeKalb for cash. In doing so, he allegedly accepted a “bounty” for each student sent to a specific college,” said U. S. Attorney John A. Horn.
“An important mission of the Office of Inspector General is to investigate allegations of fraud relating to Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act grants issued by the U.S. Department of Labor. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to investigate these types of allegations,” said Rafiq Ahmad, Special Agent in Charge, Atlanta Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General.
According to United States Attorney Horn, the charges, and other information presented in court: the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is a federal public law designed to improve and modernize America’s workforce development system by providing dislocated and low-income individuals with the skills and education needed to obtain employment and by providing employers with trained and qualified workers to fill employment vacancies.
WorkSource DeKalb (formerly DeKalb Workforce Development) was a DeKalb County department funded exclusively by the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. WorkSource DeKalb (“WSD”) served the unemployed and underemployed citizens of DeKalb County by providing work readiness programs, services, and activities necessary to obtain sustainable wages. Using federal funds, WSD paid the cost for unemployed and underemployed individuals to attend pre-screened schools or programs where the individuals gained the technical or vocational skills needed to obtain employment in fields such as nursing, truck driving, or welding. After reviewing the unemployed individuals’ career aspirations and educational interests, WSD staff members recommended the individuals to particular pre-screened schools or programs.
From 2013 to April 2017, Wyatt served as a WSD Employment and Training Supervisor. As a supervisor, Wyatt reviewed and approved the school/program recommendations made by WSD staff members.
In 2014, the president and founder of a pre-screened school that offered its students nursing assistant and medical technician certifications approached Wyatt and offered to pay him for each individual that WSD referred to the College. In 2014 and 2015, Wyatt approved the enrollment of approximately 19 students to the College. The College’s president paid Wyatt $100 for each student approved to attend his school. In total, the College received approximately $82,000 in federal funds under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The name of the college has not been identified in the Information or any of the court pleadings.
This case is being investigated by the Department of Labor – Office of the Inspector General and Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey W. Davis and Special Assistant United States Attorney Tyler Man prosecuting the case.
For further information please contact the U.S. Attorney’s Public Affairs Office at USAGAN.PressEmails@usdoj.gov or (404) 581-6016.
State Representative Vernon Jones (D-Lithonia) today announced that he will introduce legislation that would create a state commission on historic monuments during the 2018 legislative session of the Georgia General Assembly.
“The recent events in Charlottesville, Va., have spurred on calls for the removal of historical monuments and artifacts that honor a dark era in Georgia’s history,” said Jones. “While I have my personal beliefs on the matter, I propose that a bipartisan, systematic and transparent study be conducted in an effort to arrive at an inclusive solution.”
Should this legislation pass and be enacted, this commission would hold statewide hearings to discuss historic monuments and artifacts, and would make recommendations to the governor and the General Assembly regarding monument placement and the possibility of adding new monuments that hold historic value to the citizens of Georgia.
“Hysteria and knee jerk reactions are not the solution. Sensitive subjects such as this deserve calm, practical and open dialogue. A house divided cannot stand, and Georgians must show the nation that we can unite for the greater good,” added Jones.
Commission members would reflect and represent a broad spectrum of interest on the subject, and would include, but not be limited to, preservationists, historians and advocacy groups.
Jones represents the citizens of District 91, which includes portions of DeKalb and Rockdale counties.
Funny thing, my neighbor put one of those game cameras on the house next door. Yes, that same house where no one lives. The camera is pointing at us. Then, in an answer to a civil action we filed, they allege we have trespassed on their property. Yea, right, like I really lost something over there, in that junk heap! We didn’t trespass for 21 years, all the sudden, we are trespassing.
What is even funnier, it was on our own easement that we trespassed.
Anyway, a couple of weeks prior to that, we noticed the wild game camera mounted on the post. So not only did we trespass, but we waited till they mounted the camera, so they could take pix or video of us trespassing on our easement.
I think that these game cameras, and these sick people that have nothing better to do than spy on their neighboring properties are sick puppies, and need to get a life, before they go to jail for illegally spying on the neighbors.
Heads up! You never know how much your neighboring properties is violating the privacy of your home!!!
NOTE: They have changed the angle of the camera to point over to our house more. They had to see how much they were seeing of us first.
The angle was changed as shown below. Now, it covers our driveway, our gate, our front yard, the side of our house. Everyone that comes here has their picture taken. Every time we come or go from our house, go to the mailbox, etc. It does not point at anything in their own yard. We have been violated!
These two pictures were taken from the right hand side, behind the camera from our yard. See the angle of that camera? It is mounted of the back section of that house.
Keep in mind also, that is the only camera on the whole property, the only no trespassing sign is on their gate to keep out. No private property or keep out anywhere except ono the gate, and the side yard fence has been removed, so it is open. So they are intentionally only spying on us and our yard. The chain link fence is bent over on the top at the other side of the yard where kids have been crossing through the yard forever.
Digital Products That Work
Where we keep you up to date with the latest information in the 2A community!
Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!
Freedom is a state of mind.
Where Deplorables Hang Out
A United States Supreme Court Blog
Pacific Wild is a conservation voice dedicated to ensuring that the Great Bear Rainforest remains one of the planet’s greatest cradles of biodiversity.
an animal's eyes can speak a great language
by not killing them.
you reap what sow
Save The Wolves
Help Protect YOUR Wolves
"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can not be eaten."
Merry Christmas! @SaveTheWolves
The Investigations of Award-Winning Writer, Photographer & Conservationist Chester Moore
Speaking Truth, Destroying Narratives about Politics, Markets and Culture