To:
1st Distribution: Property Rights Individuals & Groups, Family Business Property Owners, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Legal Freedom Foundations
2nd Distribution: Washington House & Senate, DOE, Governor's Office, AG Office, State Supreme Court, King County, King County Ag, PA Offices, WAUSDOJ
3rd Distribution: Montana House & Senate, Governor Schweitzer & Lt. Governors Bohlinger (Fax 406-444-5529 & 406-444-4648)
4th Distribution: Media
 

 
This is 4 emails in one plus research material I have uploaded to a new web page.
 
1. Please read the attached email CAPR Letter to San Juan WA County Planning Commission, "Shorelines & You" by Frank Penwell (also embedded below) ( 2 min.)
 
2. Please read the attached email "Supreme Court Decision on Private Property Rights ... and Municipalities..." by Janna Legg (also extract below) (3 min.) 
 
3. Especially watch ALL this video in Janna Legg's email.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw3RiMdS7sE&feature=player_embedded  (10 Minutes) 
  • Note this video is about LA County Board of Supervisors taking the Antelope Valley & scattered, mostly poor property owners.  The Board went silent when asked why they are doing this. 
  • Henry Lamb speaks to this here - http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lamb/110919
  • Note chart below showing that LA County is the largest county in America AND larger than 44 American states.
4. The material above and below offers a perfect segue to a new web site documentary (link below) titled "Reverse Engineering Municipal Corporations & Evil Empires".  Summary charts, abstract and comments provided herein (5 minutes).
 
 
 
 
Jack Venrick
www.freedomforallseasons.org
Enumclaw, Washington
Rollins, Montana
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Frank M Penwell
To: Frank M Penwell
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 10:39 AM
Subject: San Juan County CAO-BAS

Dear County Council and Citizens,

A few County Critical Areas Ordinance concerns:

·         County Staff and County Committees communicate with certain individuals and organizations and ignore other individuals and organizations.

·         Staff delete some emails w/o reading them.

·         Staff do not answer written citizen questions submitted to them.

·         Staff write and condense information that they are not qualified to synthesize.  The WA. Policy Center noted Staff made basic factual mistakes, misquoted information, and speculated.

·         Staff asks special interests to respond in support of “personal” scientific theories, rather than seeking out peer reviewed science.

·         Staff refuses to address: What and where are the identified local problems?   County Staff is headed toward recommending 100 to 200 foot buffers, in spite of DOE’s pronouncement that we have pristine waters, while other jurisdictions are allowed to have 25 foot buffers.

 If you follow the money, or have been reading CAPR San Juan’s Fact Sheets, or CSA’s writings, you understand “Agendas” and “Special interests” are driving this process.     

According to: Fish and Wildlife, N.W. Indian Fisheries and NOAA, marine life in Puget Sound is primarily affected by 4 factors: (the all-H analyzer) Habitat (spawning streams), Hatcheries, Harvest, and Hydro (Dams).  To this we should add: Stormwater runoff from streets, industrial pollution, and municipal sewers.   You will notice that there is a lack of science that relates to private property being a problem.  Note that all identified factors/problems are controlled by government.   It is not rocket science to conclude that waterfront homes, recreational docks, and private property are not measurable problems.        

In 2008 I wrote that the County CAO process would lead to: a huge number of properties being affected, and our citizens not being able to afford to remodel or build due to over burdensome regulations.  I also pointed out that we would not be able to plant fruit trees or gardens in wetlands or buffers.   Staff responded by saying that few properties would be fully encumbered, and gardens and fruit trees would be allowed.  When maps were presented that showed about 90% of properties affected, and I provided a copy of DOE's letter to Staff, my comments were substantiated.       

Due process has not taken place in our CAO process, see Attorney General, Rob McKenna’s 2006 Memorandum, and CAPR San Juan letters to Council on this subject.       

 It is time to stop Staff’s playing politics, and their following special interests' directives.  Their misinformation to our Council will lead our Council into years of legal battles with our citizens.  It is time for Staff to be intellectually honest and fair, and base decisions on real science and environmental need.   We need to demand that our County Staff lessen the regulatory burdens of our existing Critical Areas Ordinance, and not recommend making zoning regulations a “criminal” act.  Staff needs to stop philosophizing and theorizing what problem an individual property might cause, and focus on “What are the identified problems?”  Then we can all stand together and make a difference by solving any locally identified problems.

Sincerely,

Frank Penwell

Citizen Alliance For Property Rights

San Juan County Washington


Extract from above email from Janna Legg titled  "Supreme Court Decision On Private Property Rights ...." 

The Supreme Court Has Ruled!! A Story from Steve Scott In The Faceoff Movement
(If you are battling any private property issues or code enforcement issues, this case will help you)
http://faceoffmovement.blogspot.com/
 
The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___ (2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998). 
 
In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale. 
 
Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C. § § 891-896, quoting Section 891 … "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." 
 The Appellees respectfully submit that the contours of the Appellees' Fourth Amendment rights are sufficiently clear that a reasonable code enforcement officer would have fair notice and understand that a nonconsensual warrantless intrusion upon the Appellees' private property is unlawful conduct. Because the law was clearly established and a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct, Officer Lawing's immunity defense should fail. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987); See; Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-819 (1982).
 
 “Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions..’ Beck v. Ohio , 379 U.S. 89, 96.
 
 “Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak, is in truth a “person” right, whether the” property” in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal property right. Neither could have meaning without the other. The rights in property are the basic civil rights has long been recognized. Congress recognized these rights in 1871 when it enacted the predecessor of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1343(3). We do no more than reaffirm the judgment of congress today.”  Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972). 
 
Private property is owned and controlled by private individuals.  There is no monetary or proprietary interest that a government at any level has in controlling property belonging to a private individual.  The property owner decides with whom he/she wishes to negotiate, procure a contract, dispose of or improve property.  Jones v. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).   It has been described as the very essence of a scheme of ordered justice, Brock v. North Carolina, 344 US 424, 97 L Ed 456, 73 S Ct 349 and it has been said that without it, the right to private property could not be said to exist, in the sense in which it is known to our laws.  Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 US 139, 57 L Ed 1427, 33 S Ct 1033. 
  
No such statutory authority for warrantless searches appears to exist with regard to local code enforcement boards or code inspectors. Therefore, the administrative searches or inspections under consideration may not be constitutionally conducted without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of the affected premises or without a duly issued search warrant. Olson v. State, 287 So.2d 313 (Fla.1973). 
  
The U.S. Supreme Court held that administrative inspections of commercial structures as well as private residences are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment when conducted without a warrant.  Jones v. City of Longwood , Florida , 404 So.2d 1083 (5th DCA.Fla. 1981).
 
The trial court did not err in holding the ordinance unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment insofar as it purports to authorize removal of inoperable vehicles from private property without first obtaining the property owner's consent or a warrant. (beyzayiff v. city of St. Louis ) Missouri court of appeals, eastern dist. 1997.
 
"Further, an officer's unreasonable ignorance that he has violated a clearly established right does not save his claim of qualified immunity. Gilker v. Baker (9th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 245, 247; Coleman v. McHenry (
E.D.Va. 1990) 735 F. Supp. 190, 193, affd. mem. (4th Cir. 1991) 945 F.2d 398.
 
"Even the most law-abiding citizen has a very tangible interest in limiting the circumstances under which the sanctity of his home may be broken by official authority……"It is said, however, that this fine is so small as to amount only to an assessment to cover the costs of the inspection. Yet if this fine can be imposed, the premises can be revisited without a warrant and repeated fines imposed. The truth is that the amount of the fine is not the measure of the right. The right is the guarantee against invasion of the home by officers without a warrant." Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 375 (1959) (J. Douglas, dissenting).
 
A local government code inspector is not authorized to enter onto any private, commercial or residential property to assure compliance with or to enforce the various technical codes or to conduct any administrative inspections or searches without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of such premises, or without a duly issued search or administrative inspection warrant. 
 
The protection from unreasonable searches provided by section 12, Article I, Florida Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are extended to both business or commercial premises and to private residences.
See, See v. City of Seattle, supra n. 7, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that administrative inspections of commercial structures as well as private residences are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment when conducted without a warrant; and Jones v. City of Longwood, Florida, supra n. 7, in which the court, in a wrongful death action, stated that an ordinance requiring the building inspector and fire chief to periodically inspect all buildings and structures within the city was qualified by the Fourth Amendment and could not authorize inspections of private property without a warrant. 
 
To Your Success!!
Janna Legg

Jack's Response
  • The above two emails from Frank and Janna coincided  with this web page report (link below) to segue into the dark side of municipal corporations.
 

  • 112 Municipal County Corporations are larger than 1 to 42 states
  •  
     
  • 31 Municipal City Corporations are larger than 1 to 39 states controlling 39,630,620 Citizens.
  •  
     
    Let's explore municipal corporations to see how individual sovereignty has been taken & centralized into feudal monarchies & monopolies
    The following web page report is another piece of the puzzle of the picture on the puzzle box regarding how the global to local power structure has assimilated America.
     
    ABSTRACT - "Reverse Engineering Municipal Corporations" - A Website Report  http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ReverseEngineeringEvilEmpires.html
     
    The American "public sector" is not public in the true and honest meaning. 
     
    Here is the rest of the story in a web site report link here - http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ReverseEngineeringEvilEmpires.html
     
    Property and business owners are finding this out every day as they fight for their life and property. 
    American natural born and rightfully naturalized owe nothing to these bandit "public" corporations by the higher fundamental and founding laws of the land, i.e. the Laws of Nature and Natures God, the Declaration of Independence and the spirit and success of the first American Revolution. 
     
    WHAT MUST BE DONE
     
       
     
    Jack Venrick
    Enumclaw, Washington
    Rollins, Montana
    Pioneer Family of Montana
    Pioneer Family of Nebraska
    Pioneer Family of Wisconsin
    www.freedomforallseasons.org
    The Boeing Company
    30 Years Service - Retired
    Montana State University
    B.S. Electrical Engineering
    M.S. Applied Science -
    Business Administration
    Industrial Engineering
     
    P.S. #1.
    All takings of YOUR private and YOUR public property including your traditions and labor are taken through a network of legal fiction public and private corporations and THEIR charters. These charters were created by professional politicians and lawyers.  I hope you see this agenda more clearly on the Excel sheet below.  
    http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/FreedomFromTheStateofWashingtonCONstitutionThatNeverWas.asp
     
    Please link to the complete research above if you have not studied this material before. The truth is indeed stranger than fiction.  
    • In summary, individual sovereignty and allodial rights were taken by the politicians, attorneys and prosecuting attorneys. 
    • "Attorney General" and "prosecuting attorney" never existed in the 1878 constitution version, however now there are 9 words in the current constitution for each.   
    • The word "attorney" nearly tripled from 1878 to the current constitution. 
    • Corporations became 4 times more mentioned than in 1878. 
    • The word "Penal" increased 50%.
    • The word "Revenue" increased 29 times more. 
    • The word "Judges" increased over 5 times.
    • The word "Tax(es)" increased over 5 times.
    • "Amendments" increased 21 times.
    • The word "Property" increased 4 times due mostly because of amending. 
    • "Municipal corporation" increased by 17%. 
    • "Eminent Domain" increased 7 times. 
    • The word "Oath(s)" decreased over half. 
    • "Allodial" was eliminated. 
    • "Sovereignty" was eliminated.
    • To see the rest of the story, link to the complete research and conclusion. It will be more unbelievable that what you have read herein.
    P.S. #2.  
    This chart is relatively self explanatory. In short, the books have been cooked. To understand how this was done, if you need more evidence than the above table, ....
     
    http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/FreedomFromTheBrotherhoodofDarkness.html
     
     
    P.S. #3.  All takings of YOUR private and public property are done through a subversive agenda of decades of dogma glamorizing the criminal act
     
    www.FreedomForAllSeasons.org - Table of Contents
    1. Mission Statement
    2. Natural Law & Natural Rights
    3. Unalienable Rights vs. Inalienable Rights 
    4. Organic Laws of The United States of America
    5. The British Common Law
    6. The U.S. Constitution That Never Was
    7. Current Property Battles -Taking Back Our Rights
    8. Freedom From Alternative Energy Myths
    9. Freedom From Critical Area Ordinances Myths
    10. Freedom From Fish Myths
    11. Freedom From Endangered Species Mythomania
    12. Freedom From Environmental Extremism
    13. Freedom From Government Cover Ups - The 9-11 Hot Engineering Facts
    14. Freedom From Government Roundabout Nonsense For Humans & Fish 
    15. Freedom From Illegal Aliens in Government 
    16. Freedom From "Man Caused" Global Warming Myths
    17. Freedom From Rails To Trails Takings
    18. Freedom From Rural Cleansing and Government Junk Agenda "Science"
    19. Freedom From The State of Washington Constitution That Never Was 
    20. Freedom To Keep & Bear Arms 
    21. Freedom From ALL Tax Takings Upon The Natural Born State Citizens 
    22. Freedom To Own Land With Allodial Rights
    23. Freedom To Own Property W/O TYRANNY - Embattled Owner Stories
    24. Freedom From The unFederal unReserve
    25. Freedom From King County WA Municipal Corporation - The Great Imposter 
    26. Must Read Must Subscribe Must Support Must See
    27. Freedom From Water Takings
    28. Freedom From Defacto Laws (New)
    29. Reverse Engineering Evil Empires (New)
    30. Freedom From The Brotherhood of Darkness (New)
    30. Jack's Prose From The Heart
    31. About Jack