Modesto Cockfighting ringleader busted

Modesto Cockfighting ringleader busted
A couple of Burciago's roosters and his dog (Facebook)

A couple of Burciago’s roosters and his dog (Facebook)

It is apparent from Felix Burciago’s Facebook page that he likes boxing, restoring old cars, and cockfighting. One of those activities is illegal, and he was arrested for it last Saturday Afternoon.

Cockfighting, gamecock fighting or rooster fighting is an activity that involves raising or breeding roosters for strength and aggressiveness, outfitting them with sharp blades attached to their legs, sometimes given steroids to increase their energy and aggression, and put into a ring to fight another bird until death, or at least badly wounded. It has been widely recognized as cruel and inhumane treatment of animals, at least in the United States, and is illegal. In most, but not all states it is a felony. But it is still a popular and legal activity in many other countries, especially in some Latin America and Asian countries.

burciaga poster

There are even movements in the US to make it legal, and many supporters like to claim that the country’s founding fathers even enjoyed the sport, as is shown in the poster Buciago posted on his Facebook page (left). Politifact and others, however, have disputed their involvement, or at least their enthusiasm for cockfighting. It was going on back then, and there are mentions of it in some documents related to Washington, Jefferson, etc. And of course, it is still going on today, though under the shadow of illegality.

According to the Stanislaus Sheriff’s Department, they received a report of an active cockfight going on in rural southwest Modesto, in the Riverdale Park area, near the Tuolumne River. Deputies responded to the home on Poland Road at 3:40 Saturday afternoon, January 24. They found resident Felix Buciago had a cockfighting ring set up, along with 50 roosters in cages, and three dead roosters, apparent losers of earlier fights.

While Animal Control officers took custody of the roosters, deputies arrested 42-year-old Burciago on charges of animal cruelty, keeping fighting animals or birds, and possession of implements for rooster or game cock fighting. Being a spectator at a cockfight is also illegal, but the crowd that had been reported earlier had left by then. Since his release pending court, Burciago already posted the founding fathers poster image to his Facebook page, with the words “Maybe i can president one day?”

 

Modesto Cockfighting ringleader busted was last modified: January 29th, 2015 by admin
Categories: Sutter

Comments

  1. Felix
    Felix 10 April, 2015, 15:17

    Now im a ring leader too! Wow, a no! Yours truely, Felix n. Burciago

    Reply this comment
  2. kyle hatch
    kyle hatch 3 June, 2015, 22:06

    http://www.topix.com/forum/city/modesto-ca/T6SGJ13QCS9P8TSVK#lastPost

    Title 18 U.S.C. section 43. Animal enterprise terrorism. “Whoever…(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing…or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records)…or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both…(d) Definitions…the term ‘animal enterprise’ means-(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture…(B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agriculture arts and sciences…(b) Aggravated offense “Whoever…causes serious bodily injury…shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” The County is liable for their or cities’ employees ’illegally taking “anonymous complaints” and use of threats, fear, and intimidation (animal terrorism) to restrict federally protected “events intended to advance agriculture arts and sciences,” namely, all 4H and FFA projects, all hobbyists who raise livestock and small animals and birds including pigeons for shows and competitions, and anybody who raises an animal for food. NOTE: The “Humane” Society is a private corporation, contracted with the County to get rid of unwanted pets and nuisance wildlife. They are NOT contracted to violate the Fourth Amendment in order to inventory and steal dogs, cats, chickens, horses, etc. under ANY pretext, or to conspire with corrupt judges, lawyers and court clerks to use the courts as a racketeering enterprise. The “Humane” Society was declared by the FBI to be an “animal terrorist organization” in 1993, yet they not shut down thanks to bribe money used to void judgments against them in court. See REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE EXTENT OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ON ANIMAL ENTERPRISE online under Department of Justice or DOJ reports.

    Title 18 U.S.C. section 3112. Repealed November 16, 1981. This federal law used to provide for the issuance of search warrants for seizure of animals, birds, and eggs, but it was repealed, which means that it has been illegal since 1981 for anybody to issue a warrant to seize an animal, a bird, or an egg. The County is liable for any of its cities, agents or employees acting outside the law to restrict ownership of livestock, and using fear, threat, intimidation, and fraud to coerce citizens to give up their property rights.

    THREAT TO DOMESTIC & NATIONAL SECURITY

    Title 18 U.S.C. section 3592. Mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in determining whether a sentence of death is justified: “(b) Aggravating factors for espionage and treason. In determining whether a sentence of death is justified for an offense…the court…shall consider each of the following aggravating factors for which notice has been given and determine which, if any, exist: (2) Grave risk to national security – In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of danger to the national security.” Our dwindling resource of farmers is being wiped out by vigilantes in government and private sectors committing terrorism, racketeering and theft under color of law. Farmers, by their own hard work, produce something out of nothing to feed our nation. The 3 million farmers left in the United States today are under threat of dwindling down to zero, because Title 18 U.S.C. section 43 Animal enterprise terrorism is adopted and perpetrated by county employees. The County is liable for any of its agents or employees taking “anonymous complaints” and illegally imposing limits or restrictions on livestock and property ownership without just compensation, and who threaten food supplies through “regulation and control of all wealth” with the aid of private vigilantes to enforce a “no ownership” policy upon citizens to the point where they can no longer keep and raise livestock, food or pets. The County would be liable for its agents threatening national security/food supply.

    LAW FORBIDS GIVING AID TO ENEMIES OF THE U.S.

    Animal terrorism: FBI Report: “The Animal Enterprise Protection Act…codified as Title 18 section 43, makes it a federal offense…to cause physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise resulting in economic damage exceeding $10,000…While the Act characterizes terrorism as physical disruption…(including stealing…or causing the loss of property), the FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The County would be liable for its agents furthering political or social objectives of “domestic terrorism,” “takings without just compensation,” use of the courts to give “legally void” judgments the appearance of “legally valid” for the purpose of property confiscation; and other crimes described in “racketeering enterprises to steal property,” which is what will happen when the “chicken and livestock police terrorists” are loosed upon the County’s citizens.

    Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 2381 Treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death…” Title 18 U.S.C. section 2383 Rebellion or insurrection: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the law thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be incapable of holding any office . . .” The Humane Society puts in a strong presence at many public hearings. The Board illegally adopts their policy of making laws against property/chicken ownership under the guise of “stamping out cock fighting.” The County is liable for adopting Humane Society objectives, which amount to a covert operation to steal property, livestock, and real estate without just compensation by using criminals in government positions to give it the appearance of a legitimate operation.

    CITIES & COUNTIES CANNOT LEGISLATE EXCEPT AS TO LANDS THEY OWN

    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article 6, Cl.2 Supremacy of Constitution. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” We have three separate branches of government – legislative, administrative, and judicial – set up this way to ensure we would not become a dictatorship. “Dictatorship” means that one branch assumes all control, takes over the other branches, and becomes a “legislator” who makes its own laws, “administrates” to set up its own “court,” and “prosecutes” its own laws. Under a “dictatorship,” citizens have no rights, and property ownership is eliminated, as the dictatorship assumes regulation and control over all private property. The penalty for conspiring to overthrow the government of the United States is death or life imprisonment.

    Reply this comment
  3. kyle hatch
    kyle hatch 3 June, 2015, 22:08

    DOMESTIC TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW

    California Constitution, Article 1, section 1. Inalienable Rights. “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. On September 11, 2001, the American people were given new meanings for the word “terrorism” when four stolen passenger planes loaded with jet fuel were used as “smart bombs” to kill over 5,000 innocent and unsuspecting civilians, and cause untold destruction and fear. Feelings of patriotism were immediately aroused coast-to coast. Waving a flag is one thing, understanding what it really stands for is another. The best way to eliminate ALL terrorism, is to regain an understanding of our own laws, and understand how and why CONGRESS defines terrorism. ALL terrorism takes away our freedoms, and shuts down our businesses and lives. Domestic terrorism takes many forms – racketeering, extortion, false liens, false personations and cheats, animal enterprise terrorism, and theft under color of law. This problem is not new; the Colonists were plagued by cringing Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General of the Crown and the arbitrary Justices of the King’s Court, all bent on the conviction of those who opposed the King’s prerogatives, and who twisted the law to secure convictions. Rights have VALUE. Anybody wishing to restrict the use of any private property or ownership right, including rental agreement, must PAY the owner or occupant for that right. A property is bought or rented “as is.” Nobody can come along later and restrict its use except if they BUY IT, first. For example, the Title to your car doesn’t say, “This car may be driven every day except on Wednesdays.” Likewise, a property Deed does not say, “This land may be owned and used to the exclusion of all others for 10 years, after which it becomes City property, which the City can regulate and control.” City or county codes are for CITY or COUNTY property – they do not apply to any private property, unless the city or county lawfully acquires the property by BUYING it, first. Only then can they “regulate” it.

    TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW – FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:
    Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331. Definitions. “As used in this chapter – (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that – (A) involve violent acts…; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping…” The end results of all terrorist acts are to restrict the victims’ freedoms and put them out of business. The punishment is imprisonment for 25 years.

    Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 105 – SABOTAGE, Section 2152 Definitions “As used in this chapter: The words ‘war material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘war premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced… The words ‘national-defense material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘national-defense premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced…” “Livestock” are second in importance in war materials and defense materials, and the places where they are raised are war premises and national defense premises. All those men on aircraft carriers eat eggs every morning. Anybody interfering with the raising of livestock is sabotaging national defense materials. And anybody who restricts or prevents one American citizen from spending one dollar on one dog, cat, chicken, or pigeon is committing domestic terrorism, as nobody has the authority to regulate these Title 7 U.S.C. section 2 “agricultural commodities” except Congress.

    Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2153 Destruction of war material, war premises, or war utilities “(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency…with intent to injure, interfere with…willfully injures, destroys…or attempts to so injure, destroy…any war material, war premises…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both. (b) If any two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.” The President has declared WAR on terrorism. After September 11, 2001, ANYBODY who conspires to interfere with lands for growing livestock gets 30 years in jail and a fine for committing SABOTAGE against the United States. “Anonymous complaints” were abolished over 200 years ago.

    Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113 – STOLEN PROPERTY, Section 2311 Definitions: “As used in this chapter: ‘aircraft’ means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air; ‘cattle’ means one or more bulls, steers, oxen, cows, heifers, or calves, or the carcass or carcasses thereof; ’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof; ‘money’ means the legal tender…; ‘motor vehicle’ includes an automobile…truck…wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle…; ‘securities’ includes any note, stock certificate, bond…check, draft, warrant, traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt…bill of lading…valid or blank motor vehicle title; certificate of interest in property, tangible or intangible…; ‘tax stamp’ includes any tax stamp, tax token, tax meter imprint…; ‘value’ means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, and merchandise, securities, and money referred to in a single indictment shall constitute the value thereof.” Congress revised this on June 25, 1948 after the Peal Harbor attack, as the whole nation figured out that a stolen “airplane” could severely affect national security and economic stability. It was already established for more than 200 years that the most important things that could be stolen that would destroy national security and economic stability were “cattle” and “livestock” including chickens. Anybody who steals a dog, cat, goat, pigeon, horse or chicken, or who trespasses on lands for their production with intent to steal is a domestic terrorist. The first capital offense prosecuted in this nation was for stealing chickens and eggs. Chickens and eggs were used as currency during the Depression, and are still on the books as valuable property, more important than stolen “money” or stolen “car.” Owning and raising cats, dogs, livestock, pigeons, etc. is an unalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and anybody stealing or conspiring to steal them will get the thief 10 years in jail.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXtpQ1qMrx8

    http://patch.com/georgia/loganville/hsus-charity-rating-revokedlike-a-snowball-headed-for-hell

    Reply this comment
  4. kyle hatch
    kyle hatch 3 June, 2015, 22:11

    CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT FABRICATE CHARGES

    California PenalCode section 526 Imitation or Pretended Process – Delivery “Any person, who, with intent to obtain from another person any money, article of personal property or other thing of value, causes to be delivered to the other person any paper, document or written, typed or printed for purporting to be an order or other process…calculated by its writing…to cause or lead the other person to believe it to be an order…is guilty of a misdemeanor…” Citations for CITY or COUNTY “violations” have been void since 1967; and anybody purporting to steal property/livestock by “pretended service” gets one year in prison.

    California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 518 Defined. “Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.” It is a wrongful and terrorist act to deprive one American citizen of the ability or freedom to spend one dollar on one rooster, small animal, dog, cat, pigeon, or other livestock, or any animal feed. The penalty is four years in prison.

    California PenalCode CHAPTER 8 FALSE PERSONATIONS AND CHEATS section 531 Conveyance to Defraud Creditors and Others. “Every person who is a party to any fraudulent conveyance of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, goods or chattels, or any right or interest issuing out of the same…had, made, or contrived with intent to deceive and defraud others, or to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors or others of their just debts…is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Livestock is classified as “property having value” which can be used as collateral. Any city or county which restricts or eliminates livestock ownership, and anybody such as “humane” Society or veterinarians who conspire with them violates contract and debt obligation laws.

    CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT INDUCE FEAR

    California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 519 Fear Induced by Threat. “Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either: 1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or, 2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or, 3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime…” Threats by the city or county to turn “ownership of livestock” into a “crime” is EXTORTION, TERRORISM, and COMMODITIES’ TAMPERING. The penalty is four years in prison.

    California PenalCode CHAPTER 7 EXTORTION section 521 When Under Color of Office, section 522 Extorting Signature to Transfer of Property, section 523 Written threat Made to Extort. “Every person who commits any extortion under color of official right…Every person who, by any extortionate means, obtains from another his signature to any paper or instrument, whereby, if such signature were freely given, any property would be transferred…Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, send or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying…any threat…is punishable in the same manner as if the actual delivery of such debt, demand, charge, or right of action were obtained.” This section was enacted to prosecute and incarcerate corrupt government employees using threats and fear to terrorize innocent property owners, elderly, and other citizens into giving up any right or any property without due process. The penalty is four years in prison.

    California Penal Code, Title 11.6 CIVIL RIGHTS. Section 422.6 Use of Force, Threats, or Destruction of Property to Interfere With Another’s Exercise of Civil Rights – Punishment. “(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States…” Acquiring and owning livestock is an unalienable right secured by Congress. Nobody can take that right away, unless they PAY you for it. Rights have VALUE. The owner must be paid, and all moving expenses reimbursed for being relocated to some area where there is no domestic terrorism, the Constitution is the law of the land, and the owner is free to acquire and own property for personal enjoyment and use to the exclusion of all others. City or county employees are stripped of all immunity for attempting vigilante action against property owners.

    CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE RACKETEERING LAWS
    Title 18 section 1951 Interference with Commerce: “Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity…by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so…shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than twenty years…(2) the term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” Title 7, section 2 [Agricultural commodities] Definitions: “The word ‘person’…shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts. The word ‘commodity’ shall mean wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs,…[Irish potatoes], wool, wool tops, fats and oils…cottonseed meal, cottonseed, peanuts, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, livestock products, and frozen concentrated orange juice, and all other goods and articles…” Title 7 section 2131 “The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effectively regulate such commerce, in order…(3) to protect the owners of animals from theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen.” Title 18 section 1962. Prohibited activities: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce…(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” Title 18 Stolen Property, section 2311 Definitions: “As used in this chapter…’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof.” Title 7 Agriculture section 601: No state can restrict the raising of any commodity (chicken – hen or cock, other poultry, cattle, horse, goat, pig, sheep, parakeet, frog, fish, chinchilla, guinea pig, rabbit, etc.) for personal use. If the state is forbidden to restrict commodities, neither can the city or county. City or county employees get 20 years in prison for conspiring to restrict the free flow of commerce and agricultural commodities known as “chickens (roosters and hens),” “birds and poultry,” cattle,” “crowing fowl,” “pigeons,” “goats,” “horses,” “pigs,” “sheep,” “other small farm animals (rabbits, fish, chinchillas, frogs, parakeets, guinea pigs, etc.),” and “animal/livestock feed” consisting of mill feeds: rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, and grain sorghums. The penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment or $250,000 fine.

    Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997) “[I]nterprative canon is not license for judiciary to rewrite language enacted by legislature. . . Predominant elements in substantive Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations are: (1) conduct (2) of enterprise (3) through pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). . . . Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy conviction does not require overt or specific act. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). . . . If conspirators have plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate crime and others to provide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators. . . . Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues, for conspiracy is distinct evil, dangerous to public, and so punishable in itself.” Judges and cities are forbidden to rewrite language enacted by legislature. They are forbidden to even think about using the courts to uphold bogus, fabricated charges for “hot pursuit of revenue.” By their “conduct” of falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, participants violate 15 U.S.C. sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1681s-2, and became “principals” in a “pattern of racketeering” by putting “false liens or debts” on “court or credit records” without “verifying” that the liens or debts were “legally valid” as the result of “having the matter determined by a jury” prior to having an “abstract of judgment entered.” The fraud continues when these bogus judgments are used for “collection of unlawful debt.” The language of 15 U.S.C. section 1681s-2 is particularly clear: “A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.”

    Amortization: “The World Book Dictionary defines ‘amortize’ as: 1. To set money aside regularly in a special fund for future wiping out of (a debt…); 2. Law. To convey (property) to a body, especially an ecclesiastical body, which does not have the right to sell or give it away.” ‘Amortization’ is: 1. The act of amortizing a debt; 2. The money set aside for this purpose.” The County is liable for cities’ fraudulent misuse of the word “amortization” to mean an 18-month “grace” period before county agents crack down on all livestock and other small farm animal owners, 4-H, and FFA. The correct definition of “amortization” means that the county and cities need to set money aside right now for “conveying property (deeds/bundle of rights/chickens/chicken feed/livestock) to a body, (city or county agents), which does not have the right to sell or give it away. This is hard evidence of County’s liability for fraud – they know they have no right to con citizens into amending their own Deeds by giving up their property, but count on the public being too ignorant to look up the real definition of “amortize.”

    http://patch.com/georgia/loganville/hsus-charity-rating-revokedlike-a-snowball-headed-for-hell

    Reply this comment
  5. kyle hatch
    kyle hatch 3 June, 2015, 22:12

    AR zoning: “Existing animal keeping uses in the AR Agricultural-Residential District which become nonconforming by reason of development on an adjoining site which was vacant when the animal keeping use was established may be continued indefinitely; provided, however, if the animal keeping use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of eighteen (18) months, it shall not be resumed except in conformity with the provisions of Section 9-3.420 of this article. The County is liable for illegally proposing (extortion) that citizens be given 18 months to get rid of chickens or face charges” in order to threaten and intimidate citizens to give up their property rights, which is a “scheme or artifice to defraud under color of official right.” The County is liable for any of its employees/agents using extortion, threats, fear and intimidation to coerce citizens to “amend” their Deeds and give up their property rights without just compensation or due process, and for falsely purporting that if the chickens or other livestock/small farm animals are gone for 18 months, the County can then fraudulently “amend” the owner’s deed, illegally convert the title, and get rid of the Prop 13 tax break.

    Jones v. United States, 529 U.S.__, 146 L Ed 2d 902, 120 S.Ct___ (May 22, 2000): “Held: Because an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property ‘used in’ commerce or commerce-affecting activity, arson of such a dwelling is not subject to…prosecution…” The Supreme Court says that you cannot be prosecuted by anybody for damaging your own property. The county is liable for its employees/agents’ fraud, perjury, and extortion to steal property under the guise of “rescuing” it from its lawful owner.

    PROPERTY OWNER’S STANDING TO SUE UNDER RICO

    Rotella v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 SCt.__, at pg. 1047: “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C.S §§ 1961 et seq.) provides that (1) it is unlawful to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (2) a pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which occurs within 10 years after the commission of a prior act (18 USCS § 1962(c), (3) a person injured by a RICO violation can bring a civil RICO action (18 USCS 1964(c)).” Any person injured by racketeering activity can file a civil RICO lawsuit. “Racketeering activity” is anything which interferes with land use and property rights – threats, fear, false process, false liens, etc.

    CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE FORBIDDEN TO INTERFERE WITH FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND FUNDED PROGRAMS – FFA and 4H
    Title 18 U.S.C. section 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds. “Whoever…being an agent of…a State, or local…government, or any agency thereof-(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner…shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both…The circumstances referred to…is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance…As used in this section-(1) the term ‘agent’ means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or government and…includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative; (2) the term ‘government agency’ means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a governmental or intergovernmental program.” The County is liable for its “servants or employees, boards, etc.” embezzlement of federal funds in excess of $10,000 for restricting federally funded and protected “animal enterprises” including hobbyists, petting zoos, fairs, aquariums, 4H and FFA, pigeon shows, etc. by “stealing, obtaining by fraud, or otherwise convert to the use of any person other than the rightful owner” livestock and small animals lawfully owned within the County. The county does not get to receive federal funds for protected 4H and FFA programs, then turn around and restrict them. Not only is this a crime against the tax-paying citizens in the County, it is a crime against the United States. Anything which interferes with land use is racketeering.

    CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT DO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
    Steagald v. United States, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 “Held: 2. The search in question violated the Fourth Amendment, where it took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. (a) Absent exigent circumstances or consent, a home may not be searched without a warrant…(c) A search warrant requirement…will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts…no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place. Moreover, the exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant is needed. And in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is generally insignificant. In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring a search warrant…they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest at stake in protecting the right of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the government…The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral judicial officer to assess whether the police have probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search. As we have often explained, the placement of this checkpoint between the Government and the citizen implicitly acknowledges that an ‘officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-15 (1948), at 14, may lack sufficient objectivity to weigh correctly the strength of the evidence supporting the contemplated action against the individual’s interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home.” Warrantless search or arrest can ONLY occur IN A PUBLIC PLACE during “hot pursuit.” In all other cases, a fair, neutral and detached judicial officer determines FROM THE COMPLAINT is a warrant should issue based upon the commission OF A FELONY. This is where the public’s ignorance is used by robbers posing as code enforcement, etc., WHO DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ANYTHING.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXtpQ1qMrx8

    Reply this comment
  6. kyle hatch
    kyle hatch 3 June, 2015, 22:13

    CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
    U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” The County is liable for “failure to provide equal protection” to all citizens owning property, as the County is not a separate country, it falls within the State of California within the United States, and its employees do not get to make up their own laws intended to steal property and disenfranchise and discriminate against citizens for owning chickens, pigeons, parakeets, guinea pigs, goats, ducks, turkeys, cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, fish, chinchillas, frogs, etc.

    Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S.___, 145 L.Ed 2d 1060, 120 S.Ct.___ (Feb. 2000): “Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause held to give rise to cause of action on behalf of ‘class of one’ where property owner’s equal protection claim…did not allege membership in class or group.” The County is liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for each claim by each feed store, feed mill, and livestock owner for property loss without the necessity of a class action suit, and without being in any particular group. All that is necessary, under this Supreme Court decision, is for one person to be denied equal protection.
    Equal protection: If the city or County restricts “crowing fowl,” it must also restrict all other vehicles, machinery, etc. whose noise levels exceed the decibel level of crowing fowl. This means restricted use of all sirens, construction equipment, aircraft, motorcycles, stereos, 18-wheel trucks, etc. within the county. Under the laws they ordain, city and county employees including the Board of Supervisors must open their homes for public inspection. If the public finds any property that is abused, neglected, abandoned or in excess of acceptable numbers, the public shall rescue the property and adopt it out to a new owner. Given the county’s code enforcement officers’ past practices and precedents, this inspection shall include living conditions and all other personal property, which can likewise be rescued and adopted out. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
    CITES AND COUNTIES CANNOT VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS
    Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…” The County would be liable for discrimination against “livestock owners, 4-H, FFA, feed stores, and feed mills.”
    Title 28 U.S.C. – Section 1343 Civil rights and elective franchise. “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
    (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

    (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

    (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

    (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” The County is liable to reimburse disenfranchised livestock owners for property loss without just compensation and deprivation of the right to own all livestock both large and small for personal use, food, or profit. Cities and counties cannot set themselves up as heads of vigilante organizations. The County is liable to provide redress for the deprivation, under color, of the rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and Acts of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens to have just compensation for any County “takings;” and is liable to pay damages or to secure equitable or other relief providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to own and raise pigeons, cats, dogs, large or small livestock, chickens whether they be hens or roosters, and to buy and sell livestock feed.

    Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D.Cal. 1999): “…the district court began its analysis by setting forth the elements of a § 1983 claim against an individual state actor as follows:

    [the plaintiff(s)] possessed a constitutional right of which [they were] deprived;

    the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;

    the defendant acted under color of law; and

    the acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional deprivation.

    The court also stated that, to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that:

    [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which [he/she] was deprived;

    the municipality had a policy or custom;

    this policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff’s] constitutional right; and

    the policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.

    …The district court then stated, however, that “[b]efore there can be any liability under section 1983, there must be ‘a direct causal link’ between the personal conduct of Deputy Lopez or the municipal conduct of Sonoma County and the alleged constitutional deprivation, in this case the murder of Maria Teresa Macias…In each of these cases, the Supreme Court and this court treated the deprivation of a constitutional right as the alleged “injury.” See Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 435 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), 436 U.S. at 692 (holding that a § 1983 “plainly imposes liability on a government that, under color of some official policy, ‘causes’ an employee to violate another’s constitutional rights”); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) at 385 (stating that “our first inquiry in any case alleging municipal liability under § 1983 is the question whether there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation”); City of Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 378 (1987) at 267 (stating that “the Court repeatedly has stressed the need to find a direct causal connection between municipal conduct and the constitutional deprivation”); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir. 1981) at 1125 (…liability under § 1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights, or caused such a deprivation to occur). There is a constitutional right, however, to have police services administered in a nondiscriminatory manner – a right that is violated when a state actor denies such protection to disfavored persons. See Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 715-17 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing a cause of action under § 1983 based upon the discriminatory denial of police services); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990) (same); see also Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1406 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[a]n equal protection violation occurs when the government treats someone differently [from] another who is similarly situated”). The alleged constitutional deprivation in this matter was the alleged denial of equal police protection to Mrs. Macias.” There became a direct causal link between the city and the constitutional deprivation of its citizens under “equal protection” when the city, through its agents and employees, showed indifference to the rights of its residents and businessmen (feed mills) and adopted a custom or policy to discriminate against disfavored individuals, who were disenfranchised because they “owned or raised livestock” or were “keeping any property the city doesn’t like;” this policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to injured citizens’ constitutional rights. Any hearings done in conspiracy with other private individuals to restrict commerce and deprive citizens of equal protection constitutes the cause/point of threat to citizens’ unalienable rights of property ownership, equal protection, and benefit of honest government services before the citizen gets robbed.

    CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT ENGAGE IN EXTORTIONATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
    Title 18 U.S.C. sections 891-896. Section 891 Definition and rules of construction: “(7) 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.” This applies to bogus “utility liens” or “attorney’s fees,” which sanctions are only for licensed attorneys, and only for DEFENDANTS for causing undue delay and needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. Private attorneys conspiring with private corporations/Humane Societies to bribe federal or state judges, etc. to get rulings/judgments favorable to the robbers fits these “rules of construction,” as only Hitler punished those who sued and confiscated their property. The county is not immune for cities’ criminal profiteering within the county, when they are paid to protect and serve, NOT to rob and do these white-collar con games.
    CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT “IMPERSONATE FEDERAL AUTHORITY
    Under Title 7 U.S.C. section 2159, Congress restrains all states subject to Public Law regarding animals and livestock. All investigations for “alleged animal neglect” fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, NOT the County. The United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, sends a request to the United States Attorney General, now John Ashcroft, to request of a United States District Court Judge to issue a “restraining order or injunction” pursuant to section 2159 of Title 7 United States Code, whenever the Secretary has reason to believe…the health of any animal [is] in serious danger…” The County employees and agents are not the United States Department of Agriculture Secretary, and The County Board of Supervisors are not United States District Court judges, therefore, they conspired to intentionally and willfully “impersonate federal authority,” restricted since 1966 under the following “explicit” statute:

    Title 7 U.S.C. Section 2159. Authority to Apply for Injunctions.- (a) Request. – Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler is dealing in stolen animals, or is placing the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act or the regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General who may apply to the United States district court in which such dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler resides or conducts business for a temporary restraining order or injunction to prevent any such person from operating in violation of this Act or the regulations and standards prescribed under this Act. The County is not immune from city’s criminal conduct, and “impersonating federal authority” in order to commit terrorism and theft under color.

    HISTORY LESSON ON ANIMAL RIGHTS AND TYRANNY

    “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

    Hitler’s Nazi Germany was marked by a preoccupation with “animal rights.” Hitler’s Third Reich passed numerous animal protection laws, such as declaring that shoeing a horse was cruel, and declared an end to dissection. This reduced Man’s status to that of animals, and justified treating men as animals. Before the war was ended, the Nazis stepped up experiments on the best way to castrate a Jew without anesthesia, and turned countless men, women and children into lampshades and soap. These Nazi actions were justifiable by their belief that it was possible to “…increase the moral standing of animals and decrease the moral standing of people, thus integrating human characteristics to animals… elevating animal life to the level of cult worship…which would lead to the spiritual and ideological changes necessary… for a new national identity.”

    The real political objective of “animal rights” is to eliminate “unalienable rights,” and to make way for all these other supposed rights and pervert our Bill of Rights to the point where only the perverted are protected. A favored socialist strategy is to separate the population from common sense and its own laws by bringing about chaos, clouding real issues, then bring about “change” through gradual “legislation from within.” Ruling by planned crisis is the favored method, as this short-circuits the brain’s ability to think and reason clearly about true issues. This planned chaos (such as “animal cruelty,” “puppy mills” and “cock fighting”) is designed to rob the nation of its creativity and life force, degrade human existence, make everything seem uncontrollable and bad, which then allows the introduction of a tyrannical form of government.

    The Gestapo was first used by Goring to do away with political opponents. A “temporary” state of emergency was declared after the Reichstag fire, but was never rescinded. This allowed the Gestapo to enforce conformity at every level of society. Block wardens monitored their neighbors, and children were recruited to inform on their teachers and parents. The Gestapo was authorized to hold people in “protective custody” which was really arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. At first, only political prisoners were taken under the guise of “preventive protective custody” and placed in SS-controlled concentration camps; later, anyone was hunted down and taken who was deemed to not fit in with SS and Gestapo vision of a perfect Aryan society. (“SS” came from Schutzstaffel which means “elite guard”).

    Today we see this same conduct and set of circumstances appearing in some of our civic institutions. The only way for one man to achieve dominion and control over another is through the darkness of IGNORANCE. Let’s get educated about our own laws, so that tyranny cannot gain a foothold in America, and so that we can once again have “happiness and good government flowing forth” as paraphrased by all our early education laws. We do have some beautiful laws. Let’s learn them, and insist that our civic institutions obey them for the good of our nation. God Bless America.

    -Compiled by: Janet I. Fischer and S.A. Martin

    17954-A S. Euclid Ave.

    Chino, CA 91710

    Reply this comment
  7. kyle
    kyle 4 June, 2015, 20:22

    ANONYMOUS TIP!

    TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW – FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:
    Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331. Definitions. “As used in this chapter – (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that – (A) involve violent acts…; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping…” The end results of all terrorist acts are to restrict the victims’ freedoms and put them out of business. The punishment is imprisonment for 25 years.

    Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 105 – SABOTAGE, Section 2152 Definitions “As used in this chapter: The words ‘war material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘war premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced… The words ‘national-defense material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘national-defense premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced…” “Livestock” are second in importance in war materials and defense materials, and the places where they are raised are war premises and national defense premises. All those men on aircraft carriers eat eggs every morning. Anybody interfering with the raising of livestock is sabotaging national defense materials. And anybody who restricts or prevents one American citizen from spending one dollar on one dog, cat, chicken, or pigeon is committing domestic terrorism, as nobody has the authority to regulate these Title 7 U.S.C. section 2 “agricultural commodities” except Congress.

    Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2153 Destruction of war material, war premises, or war utilities “(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency…with intent to injure, interfere with…willfully injures, destroys…or attempts to so injure, destroy…any war material, war premises…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both. (b) If any two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.” The President has declared WAR on terrorism. After September 11, 2001, ANYBODY who conspires to interfere with lands for growing livestock gets 30 years in jail and a fine for committing SABOTAGE against the United States. “Anonymous complaints” were abolished over 200 years ago.

    Title 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 113 – STOLEN PROPERTY, Section 2311 Definitions: “As used in this chapter: ‘aircraft’ means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air; ‘cattle’ means one or more bulls, steers, oxen, cows, heifers, or calves, or the carcass or carcasses thereof; ’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof; ‘money’ means the legal tender…; ‘motor vehicle’ includes an automobile…truck…wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle…; ‘securities’ includes any note, stock certificate, bond…check, draft, warrant, traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt…bill of lading…valid or blank motor vehicle title; certificate of interest in property, tangible or intangible…; ‘tax stamp’ includes any tax stamp, tax token, tax meter imprint…; ‘value’ means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, and merchandise, securities, and money referred to in a single indictment shall constitute the value thereof.” Congress revised this on June 25, 1948 after the Peal Harbor attack, as the whole nation figured out that a stolen “airplane” could severely affect national security and economic stability. It was already established for more than 200 years that the most important things that could be stolen that would destroy national security and economic stability were “cattle” and “livestock” including chickens. Anybody who steals a dog, cat, goat, pigeon, horse or chicken, or who trespasses on lands for their production with intent to steal is a domestic terrorist. The first capital offense prosecuted in this nation was for stealing chickens and eggs. Chickens and eggs were used as currency during the Depression, and are still on the books as valuable property, more important than stolen “money” or stolen “car.” Owning and raising cats, dogs, livestock, pigeons, etc. is an unalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, and anybody stealing or conspiring to steal them will get the thief 10 years in jail.

    Reply this comment
  8. kyle
    kyle 5 June, 2015, 09:00

    Modesto City council need to PASS a AGRICULTURAL ZONING ORD to ” Legalize GameFowl Sport in AGRI ZONING ” PRIVATE PROPERTY “.

    City to Issue ” DAY Derby EVENT PERMIT $ 200 per day, maximum 40 entrys per day ”

    It will create much needed Sustainable Jobs, Small Businesses to open in AGRICULTURAL Zoning PRIVATE property and Millions in sustainable TAX revenues to city of Modesto.

    Ex. IF Felix ( or any individual PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER IN AGRI ZONINGS) promoted a 3 cock derby 1 day, sells $ 20 per ticket ( 50 people=$ 1,000 ), plus food and 5 % revenue income on bets.
    Felix can make up to $ 4,000 per event, once month. Free Enterprise.

    That’s better OFF having Feliz on gov’t WELFARE…

    It VIOLATES Individual Constitutional Liberty Rights and Private PROPERTY RIGHTS( Chicken ), it violates RICO ACt & AETA laws of 2006,
    the Anti-cockfighting laws SPONSORED by a PRIVATE , TAX DODGER ECONOMIC TERRORIST VEGAN org/on FBI # 1 Domestic Terrorist, please read pages 8-9 of US Homeland Security, http://www.hsussucks.com/.

    New twist in HSUS

    There is a new and interesting twist in the saga of this ostensible animal-loving organization, which has historically boasted about its 4-star rating from Charity Navigator: the Humane Society was recently downgraded to 3-stars, and then had its rating totally revoked.

    Now, instead of a rating, there is a “donor advisory” warning that urges donors to think twice before donating to the HSUS.

    Ouch.

    According to HumaneWatch.org, the American Institute of Philanthropy gave HSUS a “D” grade in April 2012, its sixth consecutive “D” rating, reflecting its high operational costs and inefficient fundraising. But the Charity Navigator service continued to give the Humane Society a four-star assessment — until now.

    “The Humane Society of the United States scandalously only gives 1% of its budget to local pet shelters, and doesn’t actually run any rescue pet shelters of its own,” reported by HumaneWatch.org. Humane Watch is the watchdog of the Humane Society.

    Even more telling is buried in HSUS’s latest tax return is the non-profit’s admission that it made “investments” totaling $25.7 million in the “Central American and the Caribbean” region, according to the 2012 IRS Form 990 for the Humane Society.

    HumaneWatch.org. filed an official IRS complaint against the Humane Society for inflating revenue on its tax return. Charity Navigator initially downgraded the Humane Society’s score to a C-, and eventually revoked any recommendation or rating for charitable contributions.

    IRS troubles

    The 2012 tax return shows the Humane Society spend $10 million on marketing, $7 million on direct mail, more than $3.5 million on fundraising consultants, $1.8 on “print management” (brokers), and the CEO received $400,000 in salary and benefits.

    The top staff and non-profit officers were paid more than $3.6 million in salary and benefits.

    Total staff salaries and benefits paid for 2012 were more than $44.5 million, out of $125.7 million of revenue — nearly 30 percent of the total revenue.

    Total expenses for fundraising are more than $4 million.

    The Humane Society of the United States appears to be one giant fundraising and fat salary machine. And while The IRS permits tax-exempt organizations to pay executives “fair and reasonable” compensation, there is no universal standard defining fair and reasonable.

    Analysis of 100,000 nonprofit CEO salaries

    The highest paid non-profit CEOs — defined as paid more than 2 Standard Deviations from the mean salaries, than the average salary – represent only about 1/2 of 1 percent of all nonprofit organizations. In other words, only around 1 percent of nonprofit CEOs make a salary significantly higher than the average, according to Economist Linda Lampkin, who analyzed 100,000 CEO salaries of non-profit organizations.

    Non-Profit Investments?

    In June, Charity Navigator completely removed its letter grade rating of the Humane Society U.S. and replaced it with a “donor advisory.” “The advisory notifies website visitors of the $15.75 million settlement of a racketeering and bribery lawsuit that HSUS was a part of last month,” HumaneWatch.org reported. “You can read more about that settlement here, but the lawsuit involved HSUS money allegedly paying a witness who lied to a federal court.”

    HSUS moved money to several funds in the Cayman Islands include the following “investments:”

    $500,000 to Ascend Partners Fund I, L.P., a Cayman hedge fund

    $253,000 to BKM Holdings (Cayman) Ltd.

    $8 million to Fore Multi Strategy Offshore Fund, Ltd., in the Caymans

    $5 million to Hayman Capital Offshore Partners, L.P. in Bermuda

    $6.7 million invested in Fir Tree International Value Fund in the Caymans

    Given that U.S. Charities are supposed to provide charitable services, while for-profit businesses invest money in hedge funds to make a profit, it is quite dubious that a non-profit charity from the United States would put $26 million in offshore funds in the Cayman Islands other than to stash money.

    Charity Navigator rates non-profit organizations and charities on how well they manage finances day to day. “Charities that are financially efficient spend less money to raise more,” Charity Navigator explains. “Their fundraising efforts stay in line with the scope of the programs and services they provide. They keep administrative costs within reasonable limits. They devote the majority of their spending to the programs and services they exist to provide.”

    Charity Navigator looks at Program Expenses, Administrative Expenses, Fundraising Expenses, Fundraising Efficiency, Primary Revenue Growth and Program Expenses Growth.

    Inhumane scams

    Despite television fundraising commercials showing mostly mistreated cats and dogs in need of rescuing, the Humane Society does not run any pet shelters. Pet shelters are usually independent organizations. The commercials are an emotional appeal. According to HumaneWatch.org, the Humane Society only gives 1 percent of the money it raises to pet shelters, and instead spends millions on anti-farming and anti-hunting political campaigns.

    The Humane Society website explains their focus, in the “About Us” page on its website:

    http://patch.com/georgia/loganville/hsus-charity-rating-revokedlike-a-snowball-headed-for-hell

    ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY
    My compliments to Dave Bultena for his daring article (“Time to make cockfighting legal in our state,” May 9, Page A11) on restoring cockers’ 14th Amendment rights and kudos to The Modesto Bee for supporting the First Amendment right to print something that some may consider “appalling” or “obscene.”
    In response to the letter “Cockfighting column was appalling”(May 14): Whether there is something wrong with cocking or not is not the point. The point is that cocking is singled out for persecution because of a lengthy campaign to demonize a minority class of people. The courts have held that moral disapproval is not a reason to deprive one of Constitutional rights. To correct the writer, gamecocks are not helpless or defenseless. Unlike other legal sports, cocks are matched by equal weight, age and weapon. Cocks fight because that is the instinct that God put into them. No power on Earth can make a cock fight if he doesn’t want to.
    Other legal animal uses – hunting, fishing, trapping, falconry, animal slaughter, etc.– involve the victimizing of an unwilling, helpless, defenseless creature that wants no part of the “game.”
    Spending limited resources to squelch one of the oldest sports known to man – that can’t be stopped – seems unwise. We should bring it into the light by legalizing, regulating and taxing it. California could realize millions of dollars and at the same time eliminate the attendant crimes that sometimes are present at clandestine gatherings.
    JOHN F. HARLESS
    SONORA
    LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
    Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-

    Reply this comment
  9. kyle hatch
    kyle hatch 8 June, 2015, 21:25

    http://www.tkc.com/resources/resources-pages/animalrights1.html

    Six Billion Chickens

    The animal rights movement

    Part one of a two part series by Dave Matherson

    Have you ever
    gone to the circus

    Roll over Marx and Lenin!

    Most people “love” animals…

    God’s intent has
    always been for
    man to show kindness
    to animals…

    “A rat is a pig
    is a dog is a boy.”

    …animal idolatory…

    In other words
    man is superior
    to the animals.

    Man’s rebellion against God takes many forms, but as king Solomon once observed, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Such is the case with the environmental and animal “rights” movements that have captured a growing amount of media attention over the past two decades. These trendy and fashionable causes are really little more than a modern day manifestation of a sin that is rooted in antiquity, but they do threaten to further undermine the already eroded Christian foundations of our culture.

    Environmental extremism and the animal “rights” movement are closely linked in terms of their core beliefs. While environmentalism encompasses a broad spectrum of issues, animal rights deals with only one: the relation between human beings and animals. This essay deals with the animal rights movement (really a movement within a movement), and in this first of a two part series, we’ll look at the philosophy, origins, and influence of animal rights. In part two, we’ll examine the movement’s tactics and the inroads it has made in our culture.

    Have you ever gone to the circus…?
    Let me begin by asking you a few personal questions. (Don’t be shy!) Have you ever gone to the circus or rodeo with your family? Do you own or wear leather belts, shoes, wallets, or purses? What about a fur coat or a parka with a fur-lined hood? Ever visited the zoo? Do you eat meat, poultry, or fish? What about honey or dairy products? Do you own pets of any sort? Do you ever wear clothing made of wool, silk, or goose down? Do you take comfort in swallowing a prescription knowing it was tested on a lab animal and found to be safe for humans before the pharmacist dispensed it to you?

    …you are a primitive, arrogant, cruel, barbaric, murdering “speciesist,”

    If you answered “yes” to any of the above, the animal “rights” movement would like you to know that you are a sick, exploitive, bloodthirsty person. Furthermore, you are a primitive, arrogant, cruel, barbaric, murdering “speciesist,” not fit to lick the boots of a crustacean. Such kind words of encouragement are actually just a collection of animal rights rhetoric seen frequently in their publications and literature and used regularly against their enemies – namely, you and me.
    Sounds a bit strong, doesn’t it? It’s the sort of ranting and raving you would expect from some fringe radical refugees from the 60s; greying hippy-dips that burnt-out a few too many brain cells on their last trip. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The grass roots popularity of the animal rights movement continues to grow rapidly with each passing year; it attracts a broad cross-section of society, and it is highly organized, heavily financed, and politically sophisticated.

    Roll-over Marx and Lenin!
    The membership of the larger animal rights groups is widely diversified and includes the young, the not so young, blue collar workers, professionals, the unemployed, politicians, and (surprise!) Hollywood celebrities. Did you ever wonder what became of the left wing “intelligentsia” following the humiliating collapse of the Soviet Union and its Communist puppet states? Well, they are alive and well, and they are continuing to promote the Communist ideals of state control over resources. The only things that have changed are the terminology they use, and the names of the organizations they belong to. Roll over Marx and Lenin! Today’s trendy and leftist causes are animal rights and radical environmentalism.

    Just how large and influential has the animal rights movement become? In the United States alone, it is estimated that there are over 7000 different animal rights advocacy groups. About 56 of these groups maintain fully staffed offices in Washington, D.C. to lobby and harass federal politicians. These offices employ over 700 people, and have a combined annual budget in excess of 219 million dollars. Some animal rights groups even employ professional fund-raising firms from New York and Los Angeles and spend over a million dollars annually on advertising alone. The largest North American animal rights group is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (P.E.T.A.), which boasts a membership of over 350,000 people, an annual budget of over eight million dollars, and 65 full-time staff.

    Most people “love” animals…
    What is it about the animal rights movement that makes it so attractive to so many people? Most people “love” animals to varying degrees and hate the thought of them being treated with cruelty or violence. Animal rights groups are very aware of the public’s emotional attachment to animals, and they exploit this fully, using emotive visual imagery whenever possible. A favourite tactic is to orchestrate or stage media “events.” Seldom do reporters criticize or ask probing questions, let alone conduct anything that even remotely resembles investigative journalism. The “enemies” of animals are usually portrayed in the worst possible light: medical researchers are caricatured as “mad scientists who torture animals”; hunters as “bloodthirsty savages”; and the animal rights supporters are, of course, portrayed as righteous crusaders valiantly striving to save innocent animals.

    From infancy, the animal rights movement seemed to realize that in order to gain popularity and public acceptance for their off-beat philosophies, they would need to associate themselves with the well-established and respectable animal welfare groups. In so doing, they spread the deception that animal “rights” are the same as animal welfare. The two are actually quite distinct and separate. Historically, animal welfare advocacy groups originated in England during the 19th century and appeared later in North America. Their goals were admirable and, more importantly, Biblically-based. These included encouraging the humane treatment of farm animals, monitoring the treatment of performing (i.e., circus or racetrack) animals, eliminating unnecessary laboratory testing, and neutering or spaying shelter animals.

    God’s intent has always been for man to show kindness to animals…
    It should be clear that as Christians, we can and should embrace the concept of animal welfare. In Genesis 2:15, God gave what was Adam’s first job and mankind’s first responsibility. This was to “tend and keep” the garden of Eden, and it included responsible stewardship of all the resources God placed in the garden, whether plant or animal. Clearly, man was not to make unethical use of, waste, or despoil God’s creation. God’s intent has always been for man to show kindness to animals, as is revealed in His law: domestic animals were to share in the rewards of the harvest (Deut 25:4), to be included in the weekly Sabbath rest (Ex 23:12 and Lev 25:5-7), and to be treated with respect (Prov 12:10). Men were forbidden to kill both the mother and young of a wild animal together, apparently to prevent the destruction of an entire species (Deut 22:6-7).

    “…animal rights activists … takeover…

    In what proved to be an excellent strategy, animal rights activists set out to takeover the old established animal welfare groups. First to fall, was the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Over 200 animal rights activists arrived by bus at one of the annual general meetings and voted in their own slate of “rights” activists. They not only acquired a respectable organization to hide behind, but a group with lots of cash in its coffers. Corporate takeover methods have since been used by “rights” activists to acquire effective control over other welfare groups such as The Humane Society and The New England Anti-Vivisection League.

    There are, however, some voices of truth and sanity speaking into this issue. Putting People First (PPF) is a non-profit, grassroots organization founded by Kathleen Marquardt in 1990 and is dedicated to opposing anti-human animal “rights,” and environmental extremism. Although a very young organization, PPF has compiled an impressive list of victories in the political, legislative, and media arenas. PPF is an ardent supporter of animal welfare and conservation; they oppose animal abuse and environmental destruction. However, according to Marquardt, “People just don’t understand how dangerous, how radical the animal extremists are. They’re not reformers. They’re abolitionists, revolutionaries… they say humans have no right to exploit animals. Animal extremists lie. They’re out to brainwash the American public, and they’re succeeding. They use terrorist tactics. They make death threats against their opponents, such as scientists who conduct medical research on animals. I’ve received lots of death threats from them myself.”

    Even a cursory look through the literature published by animal rights groups validates what Marquardt says. Consider the following sample of statements made by the founders of two of the largest and most high profile animal rights groups:

    “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” (Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of P.E.T.A.)
    “I would not knowingly have an animal hurt for me, or my children, or anyone else.” (Cleveland Amory, founder of The Fund for Animals, when asked on the Larry King Live Show if he would kill a lamb in order to get insulin needed to save his own child’s life, who was dying of diabetes.)
    “Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.” (Ingrid Newkirk)

    These statements reveal the foundations of the animal rights movement. It is the belief that animals have the same feelings, motivations, and inalienable rights as humans do. Animals are in every way of equal “worth” to humans, and the death of a rat or slug is just as tragic and significant as the death of a child.

    …animal idolatry…
    Not only is this philosophy disgustingly anti-human, it is also defiantly anti-God. The animal rights movement is little more than a modern version of the animal idolatry that has flourished for thousands of years. Surely our modern animal worshippers are aptly described by the Apostle Paul when he wrote of men “whose foolish hearts have become darkened,” and who have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator….” (Rom 1:25). Fallen man has always elevated God’s creation to the level of deity, worshipping the image of animals molded or carved into idols.

    In other words, man is superior to the animals.
    In the dominion mandate, God declares that man is to “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” In other words, man is superior to the animals. Of all the life-forms God created, man alone was made in His image. Man is the crown of God’s creation: he is not merely one creature among many, but rather is distinct from the rest of creation. He has been placed in a position of rulership.

    The animal rights movement is at war with the Creator and His order in creation; it seeks to overturn the dominion mandate and reduce man to the level of an animal. It will not succeed, for our Lord rules in the midst of His enemies.

    Originally published in U-TURN

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.