Aida Fernandez's Story On The Miami Land Grab Of Her
Farmland
Battle For The California Dessert: Why Is The Government
Driving Folks Off Their Land
MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY/AGENDA 21 CONCERNS
Robert Burton's Story:
I am just across the state line in Florida.. You may
have heard of me...I am under attack by Senator Charlie Dean and other officials
in concert with at least three UN NGOs for exposing many official hands secretly
facilitating Agenda 21 while telling constituents and the news media, they have
no idea what I am talking about.
I have been exposing that their campaigns are endorsed
and funded by the UN NGO Network. I have exposed that they are committing
Sherman Act and Clayton Act violations in concert with International
Corporations to take over entire US based industries. That they are using
the Mitigation Credit Bank to leverage private land to assimilate all
natural resources toward Agenda 21 development schemes.
For my expose ,my home was raided and most of the
evidence I have collected was stolen by Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Most of my You tubes were pulled from the air.
Currently I am being maliciously prosecuted for wire tap
charges because I recorded Dean's Chief of Staff in the commission of his
official duties ,and with his consent and posted his Agenda 21 lobbying
admissions to You Tube.
The You Tubes below will show what I have been doing in
Miami Dade with ICLEI Harvey Ruvin. If you watch them you will see why they want
me silenced.
In 05-6 I was successful in ousting GARDC Comprehensive
development planning from Echols County with the land owners by educating them
to the UN being behind what was happening to their property rights. The Echols
County Attorney ( Warren Turner) was Georgia Conservancy and is operating in
Lounds. Sherry Davidson (GARDC) is still your regional affiliate for Agenda 21..
They are Umbrella-ed under NADO National Association of Development
Organizations and other UN NGOs. They are the consulting organization for Lounds
and Valdosta
Robert Burton's Research
A closer Look Southeastern Ecologocal Framework In
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi,
Kentucky, And Tennessee (Buffer Zones, Green areas, Sustainability, Agenda
21)
Agenda 21 Todays Brochures on Understanding Agenda 21 in
Education, Fishing, Property, Immigration, And Conservation
Easement
The Supreme Court Has Ruled!! A Story from Steve Scott
In The Faceoff Movement
(If you are battling any private property issues or code
inforcement issues, this case will help you)
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