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 http://leibrand.netdojo.com/paloalto/enforcement.html
2 Peter 2: 2-3) warns us "and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you"
Download and sign the Water Protest Letter to the City of Bellflower before the 260% increases are voted in.
Harassment of Jim Krage by the City of Bellflower
The City of Bellflower has singled out James Krage for retaliation.
Denial of Due Process by the Courts
The City can't find a permit for the circa 1954 Patio in back of his house. (Did they lose it?)
(The City keeps all permits in an envelope they hold, and they don't keep backup copies.)
There are over 80 other unpermitted patios within a mile of him, but only Jim and his wife have been singled out by Selective enforcement to go to court to defend himself on a Misdemeanor Criminal Violation.
Jim's wife has no interest in the house, but the judge is allowing the City to prosecute her, too.
Jim has been denied Due Process rights in many ways:
1) The Judge denied Jim the right to a Public Defender, altho he qualifies,
2) The Judge said the Selective Enforcement issue is irrelevant, but Jim has the right to Due Process (People v. Murguia)
3) The Prosecutor never filed a required Conflict of Interest Form or Oath of Office, and thus is not competent to prosecute.
4) Prosecution is for a 1999 Bellflower Building Code, but California now enforces a 2001 Building Code, which all Cities must now use by law. The 1999 Bellflower Building Code is now VOID. Both the Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals have denied Jim's Writs to force Bellflower to obey the law (CA Health & Safety Code 17598 et seq.).
5) The City of Bellflower prosecuted Jim for "maintaining" an unpermitted Patio, under Bellflower Building Code ("BBC") 109.2, which is an illegal amendment to the California Uniform Building Code. BBC 109.2 was illegal, because it violated California Health and Safety Code 17958.5, which require that any amendment be only "because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions". The City of Bellflower also violated and California Health and Safety Code 17958.7, which required them to make "express findings" and get approval of the amendment by the California Building Standards Commission. Bellflower did not get Express Findings or Approval.
5) The Judge even withheld the Court Folder to prevent Jim from getting certified copies under Fee Waiver, when Jim tried to file a Writ to the Court of Appeals. This was an overt impedance of Jim's right to get Copies.
Jim ended up getting a Continued Use Permit for the Patio - he should have been grandfathered.
Jim could have informed the U.S. Attorney General's office of an apparent Conspiracy to block Jim's Due Process Rights or filed a Civil Rights lawsuit.
What did Jim do to get the wrath of the City of Bellflower?
10 Starting in 1995, Jim spearheaded the Recall of corrupt Councilman Ken Cleveland, of the "good old boys" club.
2) Later, Jim helped start a Cable Show satirizing the actions of the City of Bellflower: watch a video at Bellflower B.S.
3) Jim has spoken at numerous City Council meetings. Councilman Randy Bomgaars, a teacher, has repeatedly objected to Jim's calling our government a "Republic". He said: "It's a Democracy, and if you don't like it you can leave the country!"
Should Civic Action be commended, or retaliated against?
No Good Deed Should Go Unpunished
Cities in California
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.
California Health and Safety Code section 17958 now requires Cities and Counties to adopt and amend their codes with the latest Building Code within 6 months for uniformity or face loss of use of their existing Building Codes.
BELLFLOWER FAILED TO ADOPT THE 2001 BUILDING CODE (still enforces their 1999 Code)
As a further check, California Health and Safety Code 17958.7, which required that Express Findings be made for the necessity of the Building Code amendments for geographical, topographical, or climatic reasons, and that those findings be filed with the State.
BELLFOWER MADE NO EXPRESS FINDINGS FOR THEIR AMENDMENTS (because they can't prove their amendments are not only for geographical, topographical, or climatic reasons)
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.