Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: City Ordinance...please help

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like

    City Ordinance...please help

    I am passing this along...I live in the city of Norco, CA where this is taking place. I know this is a pretty big community online. I've been in the shadows of this board for quite some time. I've called when numbers were posted and needed action to be taken place such as the Texas issue, Alabama and North Carolina.

    I asking if you could please take the time to call and let the city council know that you oppose the amendment to lower the ownership of roosters. This proposal is a noise issue...people are trying to make it an issue about owning game cocks....

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: City Ordinance...please help

    as posted by another cocker on another site....

    The current city oridance allows for the property owner to have 13 crowing roosters (dubbed) on a 1/2 acre lot and 63 crowing roosters on an acre.

    I didn't know that my city was discussing this matter until yesterday. I attended the planning committee meeting tonight in hopes that they would not pass measures that would harm my rights as a rooster owner. Well tonight they passed an amendment that will go before the city council. The new amendment calls for 1 rooster on a property 10 thousand square feet. 3 roosters on a 20 thousand square foot property. 6 roosters on a 40 thousand square foot property.

    There will also be a conditional use premit that people would have to apply for in order to own more than the said amount. One that would have to be approved by your neighbors and the planning committee.

    I will post the links to articles that discuss this topic.


    The issue came about with city slickers moving into big homes that are built next to a home that falls in the agricultural category allowing for the roosters to be owned on that property.



    I am asking people of this community to help our rooster owning brethern out by calling the city council. If we could start a calling campign that would greatly help us out in opposing this new law. Help us make sure that the city council hears our voice and that they vote no against this ammendent.


    Here is the link for the first article

    http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news ... tory277246

    Here is the link to follow up article

    http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside- ... passed.ece


    Here is the link to all the city council members. This page has their emails and phone numbers. If you could please contact them to let them know that you oppose the passing of this amendment.

    http://www.norco.ca.us/depts/city_council/default.asp



    If you post on other boards please pass this information along. We only have two weeks to do this. All your help will be greatly appreciated.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    usa/p.i
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: City Ordinance...please help

    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.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    usa/p.i
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: City Ordinance...please help

    July 27, 2011 | Posted by Jess Sullivan
    Father, son file lawsuit over Solano County rooster law
    FAIRFIELD — A Dixon father and son have sued Solano County and the Board of Supervisors over the chicken law passed in April, claiming their Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment constitutional rights have been violated.

    The lawsuit filed last week by Neftali C. Rivera and Neftali C. Rivera Jr., who currently keep 60 roosters and 40 hens on their rural property, seeks a court order overturning the law, a restraining order keeping officials from enforcing the law and at least $25,000 in damages.

    The chicken law makes it a crime to have more than four roosters. People violating the law face a fine of $500 for each violation and up to six months in jail.

    Invoking concerns about cockfighting, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the ordinance after hearing complaints from citizens about properties with hundreds of roosters that make a huge amount of noise.

    The Riveras say they have raised chickens most of their lives, and claim the chicken law “effects an unreasonable, oppressive and unwarranted interference” on them.

    While the law provides exemptions, the Riveras say those exemptions, which are controlled by the county’s agriculture commissioner, “allow for complete abuse of discretion” since the law did not include guidelines for the exemptions.

    The Riveras say they bought their 80 acres in Dixon in 2001 partly because they could keep their roosters and hens.

    The Riveras claim the chicken law should be invalidated because the definition of “rooster” is vague and the minimum of roosters allowed by the law is “vague, ambiguous and unintelligible.”

    The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fifth and 14th amendments protect against loss of property without due process of law.

    Judge David E. Power is scheduled to first consider the lawsuit in November.

    Reach Jess Sullivan at 427-6919 or at jsullivan@dailyrepublic.net.




    Join Date: Dec 2009
    Posts: 266 Re: Gamefowl owners FILED a Lawsuit against H$US Sponsored cockfighting laws in

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    usa/p.i
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: City Ordinance...please help

    city/county employees get 20 yrs in prison 4 conspiring to restrict free flow of chic

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    email this law to county supervisors,law enforcements etc ..

    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. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)…. (RICO) conspiracy conviction does not require overt or specific act… 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 a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and 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 1681s-2 and 1692(e), and become "principles" 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."

Similar Threads

  1. Hub City???
    By LevisaRiver in forum Chicken Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2014, 11:39 AM
  2. New San Diego County Ordinance
    By BLUEEAGLES in forum Laws and Politics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: September 16th, 2011, 11:32 AM
  3. Replies: 61
    Last Post: July 31st, 2010, 11:14 PM
  4. Bacolod City
    By nonny in forum Chicken Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 25th, 2006, 11:14 PM
  5. makati city
    By delgado in forum Usapang Manok
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 29th, 2005, 12:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •