I planted this big balloon a few messages ago, but there were no bites.
Around 2008, I posted on my blog a piece, with the title above, or something similar. For me it was the logical conclusion from intensive review of the past 30 years of corruption in Los Angeles, with the historical background from the 1920's:
- Iran-Contra wholesale cocaine trafficking by CIA to LA
- in your face racketeering by California judges, in full view and with full backing by federal agencies (James Wedick was productive in producing that evidence in more ways than one).
- large scale false imprisonment
- extreme corruption in the LAPD
- extreme corruption in Countrywide (then the largest sub-prime mortgage lender and a financial giant.)
- being recognized by the early 2000s by FBI as "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud",
- the US District Court in LA appears to be a clearing house for strange transactions by federal agencies, in numerous "MJ" cases, moving mysterious persons, objects,funds from point A to point B.
My conclusion was: Los Angeles is recognized by federal agencies as an Extra-constitutional Zone. A couple of nearby GITMOs can come in handy for any good government of the people, by the people, etc.
And then came the anonymous tip, an email from a person that clearly was in some understanding of legal matters, and he quoted a SCOTUS decision that talked about the same very issue, relative to the manner in which the area was acquired by the United States. (kind of GITMO story).
Any bites on this conspiracy?
jz
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:08:51 -0700
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Lawsters:16678] Re: 13-06-30 Los Angeles County as an extra-constitutional zone...
One more piece for the puzzle:
Under Bush II, US judges were appointed as Overseers for Civil Rights in areas of great abuse:
a. GITMO
b. California prisons
c. Los Angeles
GITMO and California prisons are clearly zones of restricted constitutional and civil rights.
Perhaps Los Angeles too?
_________
JZ:
Thought this would interest you. GLZ.
http://www.latimes.com/local/
Thought this would interest you. GLZ.
http://www.latimes.com/local/
__________
On Monday, July 1, 2013 3:52:20 PM UTC+3, Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) wrote:
I love Google, these don't forget don't forgive systems.... So here is the tip as it came, luv to hear commnets. I never went to see the decision that the tip refers to, since I usually stick to fraud on the face of documents, and this was above my head... jz
Anonymous said...
My 2010 submission to the United Nations was in part supported by government, court, media, and academic records, supporting the conclusion that the level of government corruption in Los Angeles today is higher than in the 1920's (e.g. government report: Rampart Reconsidered, 2006), and that such conduct is patronized by the FBI and US DOJ. At the same time, FBI reports, already in the early 2000s identified Los Angeles as the epicenter of real estate and mortgage fraud, and identified such conditions as a national threat. Los Angeles County now got its claim to fame in history, as the cradle of the Greater Depression..._________
With all the attorneys on this group, can anybody dig up that SCOTUS opinion on US sovereignty in Los Angeles/ applicability of US law, or do I have to do all the work again? :)JZ
I love Google, these don't forget don't forgive systems.... So here is the tip as it came, luv to hear commnets. I never went to see the decision that the tip refers to, since I usually stick to fraud on the face of documents, and this was above my head... jz
_________
Here is a mega tip for you.
Take a look at the Ruling of the United State's Supreme Court from 1984 in a case called Summa Co. vs. Cal state lands commission.
466 U. S. 198 (1984)
This will blow your mind. Read (especially) the amicus curiae brief filed by the US Solicitor General on the matter:
Brief no. 82-708
It basically said that Calif and/or L.A. never properely paid for the land where Marina del Rey is.
It seems that somebody made a huge mistake and assumed that that land could be taken (from the true owner(s)) as part of the Public Trust Doctrine - lands subjected to tides. However, this land was also once part of a Mexican Land Grant and the High Court had held long before through a series of cases that state could not assert Public Trust servitudes in Mexican Land Grants. The solicitor General asserts that when they realized the seriousness of their mistake they started the lawsuit to try to cover up the fact and confuse the public and the true owners.
It seems that even the Calif Supreme Court did the unthinkable when they ruled for California - a decision that had absolutely no basis in law according to the solicitor general. The High Court reversed the Ca high court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the case remanded back down so that they finish out the matter in way not inconsistent with their ruling. That was in 1984. It seems CA ignored the US Supreme Court Ruling and didn't do anything other than to sweep it under the rug as best they could... The case was remanded all the way back down to the trial court level where it still festers today. They gave the case to a commissioner, Bruce Miller, and as far as I can tell they have still not followed the ruling of the US Supreme Court.
By the way once the US Supreme court ruled that the Hildalgo Guadalupe treaty was the trump card in the case, is you will, I think that this should mean that the case is one of original jurrisdiction and therefore should be in federal court and not even in state court. It seems that the fox had been put in charge of the hen house - a major conflict of interest!
Could the Summa v Cal case have something to do with Richard Fine and way all this always seems to be related to Marina del Rey? I think maybe so.
The summa case is just the tip of the iceburg, but it is all there for you to find if you just look. I gaurantee that if you look at that case your mind will be blown. This is the biggest heist ever - committed in broad daylight, and no one has any knowledge, except those who stole the land in the first place which interestingly is both of the parties in the case.
Stealing land from Mexican Land Grant recipiants was a virtual industry and the best, most cunning, effective way to accomplish this is to start a bogus lawsuit -something about the land. Hence both parties where trying to steal it from an unsuspecting and unnamed and unserved third party - the true owner who BTW lives in Culver City!!! I found him with a couple of phone calls.
Note: the (Summa v. CA) case started in 1965 just as the Marina was being finished and the original name of the case is Los Angeles v. Venice Peninsula Properties.
If you want to pluck this weed once and for all, (I believe) here is where you will find the root.
Good Luck and God Speed
Take a look at the Ruling of the United State's Supreme Court from 1984 in a case called Summa Co. vs. Cal state lands commission.
466 U. S. 198 (1984)
This will blow your mind. Read (especially) the amicus curiae brief filed by the US Solicitor General on the matter:
Brief no. 82-708
It basically said that Calif and/or L.A. never properely paid for the land where Marina del Rey is.
It seems that somebody made a huge mistake and assumed that that land could be taken (from the true owner(s)) as part of the Public Trust Doctrine - lands subjected to tides. However, this land was also once part of a Mexican Land Grant and the High Court had held long before through a series of cases that state could not assert Public Trust servitudes in Mexican Land Grants. The solicitor General asserts that when they realized the seriousness of their mistake they started the lawsuit to try to cover up the fact and confuse the public and the true owners.
It seems that even the Calif Supreme Court did the unthinkable when they ruled for California - a decision that had absolutely no basis in law according to the solicitor general. The High Court reversed the Ca high court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the case remanded back down so that they finish out the matter in way not inconsistent with their ruling. That was in 1984. It seems CA ignored the US Supreme Court Ruling and didn't do anything other than to sweep it under the rug as best they could... The case was remanded all the way back down to the trial court level where it still festers today. They gave the case to a commissioner, Bruce Miller, and as far as I can tell they have still not followed the ruling of the US Supreme Court.
By the way once the US Supreme court ruled that the Hildalgo Guadalupe treaty was the trump card in the case, is you will, I think that this should mean that the case is one of original jurrisdiction and therefore should be in federal court and not even in state court. It seems that the fox had been put in charge of the hen house - a major conflict of interest!
Could the Summa v Cal case have something to do with Richard Fine and way all this always seems to be related to Marina del Rey? I think maybe so.
The summa case is just the tip of the iceburg, but it is all there for you to find if you just look. I gaurantee that if you look at that case your mind will be blown. This is the biggest heist ever - committed in broad daylight, and no one has any knowledge, except those who stole the land in the first place which interestingly is both of the parties in the case.
Stealing land from Mexican Land Grant recipiants was a virtual industry and the best, most cunning, effective way to accomplish this is to start a bogus lawsuit -something about the land. Hence both parties where trying to steal it from an unsuspecting and unnamed and unserved third party - the true owner who BTW lives in Culver City!!! I found him with a couple of phone calls.
Note: the (Summa v. CA) case started in 1965 just as the Marina was being finished and the original name of the case is Los Angeles v. Venice Peninsula Properties.
If you want to pluck this weed once and for all, (I believe) here is where you will find the root.
Good Luck and God Speed
No comments:
Post a Comment