This is wrong, but we don’t know what God has planed. He might just use Mr. Salman in Jail. God bless this family, i will be praying for you all. God will take care of it in His time.
Gary
By that logic, they should be arresting people at the local churchs!
bret
sorry when i converted from pdf the words got jumbled.
these are cases that state that city and county codes are prohibited
from being used on any property other than what the city/county
owns
bret
Enforcement of City a
gouniv Codes Prohibited
C
alifornia La/
prohibits Cities and_ COuntigs. from enforcounty Codes and
Or mantes upon prope*:Mt-17mOWNED
by the Ci -
even
if the pr is
within City.
limits.
California Penal Code:
Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS
OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES – Sections 853.1through 853.4
was repealed in 1967.
The
SupLeagcguLtLuled
that, “cigplities
cannot
exert any acts ,o1 ownership
and control oven_oropeity that is not 0.181.11FD pv them, see Palazzolo V. Rhode IsTand
533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121
S.Ct. (2001) (no expiration
date on the taking clause for City’s illegsiLeAforcemep.t of its Codes_on
thq man’s. private propertm_and if•eng the
marts….tpusinesgT,—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 I dimNIL…esquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars
constitutes a “takings”),end
looks like a tort claim! 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
faofced illegal
tresjaass.and-relstriction of his busi1220,…ancLanotfier$1.45
million. „for/ftgggaLon of
__ sale.
Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Countiesfrom issuing
citations _a amst
see Title J.:11. 6 § 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 I
to the person, reputation, or ; property.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 5 th Edition
(page 1140):
Reception. At Common Law, a
retaking or taking back.
A species of remedy by the
mere act of the party injured (otherwise termed
“reprisal”),
which happens when anyone
has deprived another of his property in goods or chattels
personal, or wrongfully
detains one’s wife, child, or servant. In this case, the
owner of the goods, and the
husband, parent, or master may lawfully claim and retake
them, wherever he happens
to find them, so it be not in a riotous manner, or attended
with a breach
of the peace. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 411J.S. (16 Pet) 539, 612, 10L.Ed. 1060.
Chris Chartier
The state doesn’t want to have religion in public, but yet they want you to open up your religious practice to the public? They believe in separation of church and state, but they make enough money by fining honest citizens for practicing religion in their state. I support you Michael, and your wife in your worship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Keep the faith. Your actions will have a reward. Be patient and strong, pray and continue spreading the word of GOD!
Disgusted
This is ridiculous! What they do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. What they talk about is their business. Sounds like Phoenix has some nut cases running their city! Yikes!
Watch Salman and his wife discuss their legal battle, below:
