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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court Has Ruled!! A Story from Steve Scott In The Faceoff Movement

(If you are battling any private property issues or code enforcement issues, this case will help you)

https://faceoffmovement.blogspot.com/

The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___ (2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998).

In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.

Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C. § § 891-896, quoting Section 891 … "An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property."

The Appellees respectfully submit that the contours of the Appellees' Fourth Amendment rights are sufficiently clear that a reasonable code enforcement officer would have fair notice and understand that a nonconsensual warrantless intrusion upon the Appellees' private property is unlawful conduct. Because the law was clearly established and a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct, Officer Lawing's immunity defense should fail. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987); See; Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-819 (1982).

“Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions..’ Beck v. Ohio , 379 U.S. 89, 96.

“Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak, is in truth a “person” right, whether the” property” in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal property right. Neither could have meaning without the other. The rights in property are the basic civil rights has long been recognized. Congress recognized these rights in 1871 when it enacted the predecessor of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1343(3). We do no more than reaffirm the judgment of congress today.” Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972).

Private property is owned and controlled by private individuals. There is no monetary or proprietary interest that a government at any level has in controlling property belonging to a private individual. The property owner decides with whom he/she wishes to negotiate, procure a contract, dispose of or improve property. Jones v. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).   It has been described as the very essence of a scheme of ordered justice, Brock v. North Carolina, 344 US 424, 97 L Ed 456, 73 S Ct 349 and it has been said that without it, the right to private property could not be said to exist, in the sense in which it is known to our laws. Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 US 139, 57 L Ed 1427, 33 S Ct 1033.

No such statutory authority for warrantless searches appears to exist with regard to local code enforcement boards or code inspectors. Therefore, the administrative searches or inspections under consideration may not be constitutionally conducted without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of the affected premises or without a duly issued search warrant. Olson v. State, 287 So.2d 313 (Fla.1973).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that administrative inspections of commercial structures as well as private residences are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment when conducted without a warrant. Jones v. City of Longwood , Florida , 404 So.2d 1083 (5th DCA.Fla. 1981).

The trial court did not err in holding the ordinance unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment insofar as it purports to authorize removal of inoperable vehicles from private property without first obtaining the property owner's consent or a warrant. (beyzayiff v. city of St. Louis ) Missouri court of appeals, eastern dist. 1997.

"Further, an officer's unreasonable ignorance that he has violated a clearly established right does not save his claim of qualified immunity. Gilker v. Baker (9th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 245, 247; Coleman v. McHenry (E.D.Va. 1990) 735 F. Supp. 190, 193, affd. mem. (4th Cir. 1991) 945 F.2d 398.

"Even the most law-abiding citizen has a very tangible interest in limiting the circumstances under which the sanctity of his home may be broken by official authority……"It is said, however, that this fine is so small as to amount only to an assessment to cover the costs of the inspection. Yet if this fine can be imposed, the premises can be revisited without a warrant and repeated fines imposed. The truth is that the amount of the fine is not the measure of the right. The right is the guarantee against invasion of the home by officers without a warrant." Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 375 (1959) (J. Douglas, dissenting).

A local government code inspector is not authorized to enter onto any private, commercial or residential property to assure compliance with or to enforce the various technical codes or to conduct any administrative inspections or searches without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of such premises, or without a duly issued search or administrative inspection warrant.

The protection from unreasonable searches provided by section 12, Article I, Florida Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are extended to both business or commercial premises and to private residences.

See, See v. City of Seattle, supra n. 7, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that administrative inspections of commercial structures as well as private residences are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment when conducted without a warrant; and Jones v. City of Longwood, Florida, supra n. 7, in which the court, in a wrongful death action, stated that an ordinance requiring the building inspector and fire chief to periodically inspect all buildings and structures within the city was qualified by the Fourth Amendment and could not authorize inspections of private property without a warrant.

To Your Success!!

Janna Legg

112 Municipal County Corporations are larger than 1 to 42 states

31 Municipal City Corporations are larger than 1 to 39 states controlling 39,630,620 Citizens.

Let's explore municipal corporations to see how individual sovereignty has been taken & centralized into feudal monarchies & monopolies.

Please refer to attached Excel Spread Sheet "Populations Compare States Counties Cities" for more complete viewing of this research data.
- 112 Municipal County Corporations have now grown larger than 1 to 42 states controlling 136,845,991 Citizens.
- 31 Municipal City Corporations have grown larger than 1 to 39 states controlling 39,630,620 Citizens.
- 143 Municipal County and City Corporations ARE LARGER THAN most STATES controlling 176,476,611 Citizens or 57.5% of 307 million Americans as of 2009.
- Over 1000 politicians/lawyers in 143 municipal public corporations represent roughly 5% of the equivalent legislative size of the same number of states.
Municipalities were originally organized for sharing and direct billing of common infrastructure by free choice and individual contracting for services.
Municipalities were never given the power to extort property owners or its Citizens through a monopoly or any type of force.
Public or private corporations cannot bestow power upon themselves nor the use of force be bestowed upon them by majorities or minorities over Citizens.
No corporation, or majority or minority, may legitimately bind any American Citizen directly or indirectly without contracting directly with them individually.
Public corporations have perverted simple free choice community utility departments into feudal municipal monopolies of escalating tyranny for profit and power.