Thug Rule in California via ‘Nuisance Abatement Teams’

What Happened to the Constitution?

 to listen click here

Constitution Day is September 17th, the day many citizens celebrate the foundation upon which all American law is supposed to rest. New laws are emerging every day, however, that rest not upon the U.S. Constitution, but on a newer document called Agenda 21.

The Fourth Amendment says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated….”

The Fifth Amendment says “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation….”

Joey Gallo says “All of a sudden I’ve got police at my front door, with guns, wearing bullet proof vests. They surrounded my place. Everything I’ve worked for was just melting away from me.” Oscar Castaneda was told that unless he secures a building permit, he will have to leave his land. The county will not issue a building permit until Oscar pays $75,000 to $100,000 to connect to the electricity grid and dig a new well. For the last 22 years, Oscar has been doing just fine using electricity he generates from his solar panels and with the water that comes from his existing well.

Joey and Oscar are just two of the residents of Antelope Valley in north Los Angeles County who have been targeted by Nuisance Abatement Teams (NATs). For years, these families have lived peaceful lives, disturbing no one. Suddenly, the county wants these people off their land, and they are forcing them off the land with absolutely no regard for the Constitutional guarantee that citizens are secure in their persons, their houses, and their effects. This means that government cannot enter private property uninvited, without a search warrant. Apparently, NATs care nothing about the Fourth Amendment.

Lee Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff, apparently not an Oath Keeper

The excuse used by the NATs is that unnamed neighbors have complained about the appearance of the property. Oscar’s nearest neighbors are ten miles away. Is there not something in our legal system that says an accused person is entitled to confront his accusers? Not according to the NATs, which have become the LA-God-squads.

Joey, Oscar and the other Antelope Valley residents were not shown a search warrant; they were told to remove or destroy their property, and leave. The county offered not a penny for “just compensation” for the property. Officials just issued orders for the owners to leave, or face fines and jail time for every day they remained in defiance of the officials’ orders.

The detailed story about these people is available here. ReasonTV has produced a video (9:50) that will make you want to travel to Los Angeles County and descend upon the Board of Supervisors and inject a healthy dose of the U.S. Constitution. The producers of the video asked five different departments of Los Angeles county government for an interview to discuss why these properties were being taken. Every department refused to talk to the producers.

The producers asked for and received time on the agenda of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors and asked this question: “How is using Nuisance Abatement Teams to force Antelope Valley residents to destroy their houses and vacate their property in the public interest?”

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, to whom the question was directed, sat motionless and quiet. Eventually, a clerk told the questioner that the Supervisors were not required to answer questions. When elected officials display this degree of arrogance, their bureaucrat employees — who don’t have to worry about elections — are likely to be brutal.

This blatant disregard for the Constitution and the determination to remove people from their rural property is the result of the implementation of sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21. This government behavior is not limited to Los Angeles County. To one degree or another, it has infected nearly every county and city in America.

The Agenda 21 police have discovered that by declaring property to be a “nuisance, “or “blight,” they are free to take the property, without any thought about the Constitution. Neither nuisance, nor blight, is exempt from the protection provided for private property. Nor is there any unit of government anointed with the power to designate the property of private individuals to be a nuisance or blight.

Agenda 21, and the myriad of so called “sustainable development” policies that flow from it, are at odds with the U.S. Constitution. These policies lead to a government-managed society. The U.S. Constitution leads to a society-managed government. In Los Angeles County, and in cities and counties across the country, the Constitution is being buried under these sustainable development polices defined so vividly in the U.N. document Agenda 21.

America doesn’t need sustainable development; America needs sustainable freedom. The source of that freedom is the Creator of all things. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that freedom to every American. Honor it; defend it; celebrate it. Don’t let professional bureaucrats or elected officials replace your freedom with freedom-killing polices while waving the flag of sustainability.

Battle for the California Desert: Why is the Government Driving Folks off Their Land?


 

.

Henry Lamb is the author of “The Rise of Global Governance,” Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc.

.

Graphics and video added by Gulag Bound


G & M

Subscribe to The Globe & Malevolence daily intelligence briefing via Noisy Room, Maggie's Notebook, Gulag Bound, and other key sources.
 

Comments

  1. Patricia Roberts says:

    My father purchased his property in 1965. The land use was always commercial, industrial and residential until the City of Madera annexed him into the City in 2011. During the process of annexation the City under their Redevelopment Agency rezoned a very small portion of the annexed lots to an entirely new zoning code. IP for Industrial Park. Of the six properties rezoned my father’s was the only one still occupied with a full time resident. Shortly before the annexation became official my father started to get citations from the City for nuisance and blight conditions. My father is 83 years old and handicapped so asked the City for time to abate. Instead the City sent out prisoners to “help” him with the abatement. When my father saw them taking whatever they wanted he asked them to leave. Less than a month later the City show up with several armed police officers, bulldozers, teenagers, and tow trucks with which they proceeded to abate. While my father and brother where being held at gun point, the City leveled his house, and everything in it including his oxygen. The tow trucks were used to impound 17 vehicles including a 36 ford pickup my father purchased new, a 58 ford tbird, 3 rv’s 7 boats and everything else on the property, including the holding tank for the well and his plants and trees.
    When my father asked what he could do now the city told him he could put a trailer on his property as long as it was on a paved surface. So my dad had a driveway of gravel installed and then bought the only trailer he could afford, at approx 30 feet in length it was not a palace but liveable. However the city now states that under the new IP zoning code the property is not to be used for any residential purposes , futher the city has a “no camping” municipal code that they say my fathers trailer is in violation of. The IP zoning allows that the owner can put a building only on properties of an acre or more. My fathers 3 lots combined are just shy of an acre. He is now fighting an injunction to permanently vacate his property. When he found out about the IP zoning he asked the City to trade properties with him so that he could have a home somewhere or to at least buy him out, but they refused. Now they will take it for nothing. Isn’t this against his 5th and 14th amendment rights for due process and others?

  2. Patricia Roberts says:

    My father purchased his property in 1965. The land use was always commercial, industrial and residential until the City of Madera annexed him into the City in 2011. During the process of annexation the City under their Redevelopment Agency rezoned a very small portion of the annexed lots to an entirely new zoning code. IP for Industrial Park. Of the six properties rezoned my father’s was the only one still occupied with a full time resident. Shortly before the annexation became official my father started to get citations from the City for nuisance and blight conditions. My father is 83 years old and handicapped so asked the City for time to abate. Instead the City sent out prisoners to “help” him with the abatement. When my father saw them taking whatever they wanted he asked them to leave. Less than a month later the City show up with several armed police officers, bulldozers, teenagers, and tow trucks with which they proceeded to abate. While my father and brother where being held at gun point, the City leveled his house, and everything in it including his oxygen. The tow trucks were used to impound 17 vehicles including a 36 ford pickup my father purchased new, a 58 ford tbird, 3 rv’s 7 boats and everything else on the property, including the holding tank for the well and his plants and trees.
    When my father asked what he could do now the city told him he could put a trailer on his property as long as it was on a paved surface. So my dad had a driveway of gravel installed and then bought the only trailer he could afford, at approx 30 feet in length it was not a palace but liveable. However the city now states that under the new IP zoning code the property is not to be used for any residential purposes , futher the city has a “no camping” municipal code that they say my fathers trailer is in violation of. The IP zoning allows that the owner can put a building only on properties of an acre or more. My fathers 3 lots combined are just shy of an acre. He is now fighting an injunction to permanently vacate his property. When he found out about the IP zoning he asked the City to trade properties with him so that he could have a home somewhere or to at least buy him out, but they refused. Now they will take it for nothing. Isn’t this against his 5th and 14th amendment rights for due process and fair compensation?

Speak Your Mind

*