Home Recommended Products Contact Us
 
 
Home
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Donate
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
 
 
Signup for Newsletter
 
E-mail:  
 
 
Search Site
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Government Officials Not Upholding Their Duty to Enforce the Law
 
 

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:49:58 -0000
From: "thecourtwatcher" <thecourtwatcher@yahoo.com>
Subject: You do not have the right to declare any Constitutional issue void, or refuse it

Darrell E. Issa
49th District, California

Washington Office
211 Cannon House
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3906
Fax: (202) 225-3303

District Office
1800 Thibodo Rd #310
Vista, CA 92081
(760) 599-5000
Fax: (760) 599-1178

Southwest Riversides County
(951) 693-2447

www.issa.house.gov http://www.issa.house.gov

Committee on Government Reform
Committee's website: http://reform.house.gov <http://reform.house.gov>
- Subcommittee on Energy and Resources (Chairman)
- Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization

Committee on International Relations
Committee's website: http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/
<http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/>
- Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats
- Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation (Vice
Chair)
- Subcommittee on The Middle East and Cental Asia

Committee on Judiciary
Committee's website: http://judiciary.house.gov
<http://judiciary.house.gov>
- Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intelectual Property
- Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims


February 17,2006

Mr. Brian W. York
1119 S. Mission Road, Mail Box #178 Fallbrook, California XXXX

Dear Mr. York:

I received your recent correspondence regarding your custody problems. I am sorry to learn of the difficulty you are experiencing.

As much as I would like to assist you, it appears that this matter stems from a civil/legal issue. Since the nature of my office as a federal legislator precludes me from intervening in such matters, I can only suggest that you may wish to seek legal advice.

If there is any way my office can assist you in the future with an issue involving a federal agency, please do not hesitate to call on me again.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa
Member of Congress

DI:AW


PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

MY REPLY!

Minister Brian W. York

February 23, 2006

Congressman Issa
211Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC. 20516

Re: You do not have the right to declare any Constitutional issue void, or refuse to uphold it.

Dear Congressman Issa,

I received your recent correspondence regarding your failure to comply to the law and refusal to abide by the Constitution. Your statement to try to get out of your job, may indeed cost you your job, failing and refusing to enforce a California or Constitutional law is not something you can declare.

Statement which are impeachable.
(1) Was perjury committed?
(2) Was there an obstruction of justice?
(3) Was there any witness tampering? and
(4) Was there any abuse of power, of an official while in his official capacity?

Impeachment is a matter of incomparable gravity. There is a serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government. Charles L. Black, Impeachment: A Handbook 38-39 (1974).

CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO ENFORCE CALIFORNIA LAWS.

To declare any State or Federal Constitutional Law unenforceable is to commit war against it.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery..." United States v. Peters... A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restriction of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases..." Sterling v. Constantin...

A. Pursuant to The California Constitution, City and County Officials Cannot Refuse to Enforce State Laws. Respondents' actions directly violate Article III, 3.5 of the California Constitution. Article III, 3.5 states: An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations. Cal. Const. art. III, 3.5 (emphasis added).

Although Respondents have repeatedly argued below that they are not subject to Article III, 3.5, the laws is clear that counties, which are political subdivisions of the state according to California Constitution art. XI, 1, as well as their officers and clerks are "administrative agencies" of the state and thus are subject to Article III, 3.5. See, e.g., Billig v. Voges, 273 Cal. Rptr. 91, 96 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (counties are "administrative officials" for purposes of
Art. III, 3.5); Westminster Mobile Home Park Owners' Assoc. v. City of Westminster, 213 Cal. Rptr. 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (city arbitrator subject to Art. III, 3.5); Schmid v. Lovette, 154 Cal. App.3d 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (local school district and its individual employees subject to Art. III, 3.5); Office of the Attorney General, State of California, Opinion No. 88902 (1989) (RJN, Ex. 1) (listing various applications of Art. III, 3.5, including county assessor, city employees and school district employees).

In Billig, the court explained that "[t]he very existence of the statute means it is there to be enforced. Administrative agencies, including public officials in charge of such agencies, are expressly forbidden from declaring statutes unenforceable . . . ." Billig, 273 Cal. Rptr. at 96. A county, as a direct political subdivision of the state, must enforce the laws of the state. See Cal. Const. art. XI, 1. Thus, regardless of Respondents' Parents rights, the California Constitution makes clear that they have no power

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > 1361
1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
Release date: 2005-09-29
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

In its order granting the Appellees' motion for summary judgment, the district court began its analysis by setting forth the elements of a 1983 claim against an individual state actor as follows:
(1) [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which she was deprived;
(2) the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;
(3) the defendant acted under color of law; and
(4) the acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional deprivation.

Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d 957, 962 (N.D. Cal. 1999). The court also stated that, to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that
(1) [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which she was deprived;
(2) the municipality had a policy or custom;
(3) this policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff's] constitutional right; and
(4) the policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation.

Which has already cost California $15 MILLION dollars!

Are you intentionally calling this a civil case to violate my rights under color of law?
Disabled to perform your duty or bad behavior to perform your duty?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 241 Conspiracy against rights
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 246 Deprivation of relief benefits
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > 641 Public money, property or records
TITLE 28 > PART IV> CHAPTER 85 > 1343 Civil rights and elective franchise
TITLE 28 > PART IV> CHAPTER 85 > 1361 Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
TITLE 28 > PART IV> CHAPTER 85 > 1365 Senate actions
TITLE 28 > PART IV> CHAPTER 85 > 1367 Supplemental jurisdiction
TITLE 31 > III > CHAPTER 37 > SUBCHAPTER III > 3729 False claims
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 45 > SUBCHAPTER II > 3631 (a) any person because of his race, color, religion, sex, handicap
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 136 > SUBCHAPTER IX > Part B > 14141 deprives persons of rights
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 136 > SUBCHAPTER IX > Part B > 14141. Cause of action
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights


Very truly yours,



Minister Brian W. York, Sui Juris

Thursday, February 23, 2006
enclosure: 9th Circuit Court, This will be promulgated.
Attachment, letter from Congressman Issa.