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.
|