DEFAULT

Brian dcosta bankruptcy simi valley

brian dcosta bankruptcy simi valley

Trisha Costa. We have 21 records for Trisha Costa ranging in age from 28 years old to 67 years old. Trisha has been found in 13 states including California, . Jul 06,  · Fountain Valley police identified Chandler Pentrack, a year-old male from Virginia, as the pedestrian killed in a traffic collision on Warner Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street, last week. News. Glen Souza. We have 26 records for Glen Souza ranging in age from 38 years old to 82 years old. Glen has been found in 19 states including California, Rhode . brian dcosta bankruptcy simi valley

Related videos

Crews are removing a statue depicting Christopher Columbus and Queen Isabella from California State

Times OC. Santa Ana artists take on American democracy in online video series. Santa Ana criticized for cutting funding for immigration rights program while increasing police spending.

Now, the center is taking people in for appointment-based STI testing starting June OC Protests plans next steps in movement to fight police brutality and strengthen Black coalitions in O. OC Protests, which has been organizing and collaborating with protest organizers throughout Orange County, is helping usher in that next step.

Now his work speaks for itself. TyRon Jackson was homeless when he was in high school. Readers weigh in on the O. Joseph Klunder writes that community colleges offer a proven, practical, time-tested solution in this time of crisis. Mailbag: The politicization of wearing face masks. Daily Pilot readers weigh on in face-mask mandates, calls to defund police departments and other issues in the news.

Commentary: The most contagious feeling is hope. Amit Hiteshi, a Hoag Medical Group physician, writes that the physical distance that COVID has imposed upon society has brought him closer to his patients than he could have imagined. Contact Us. July 8, Today's Headlines. News O. The Latest.

Opinion Commentary: A thoughtful, useful gift for the Fourth of July. Opinion A Word, Please: Delving deep into the rules of hyphenation. News Newport Beach in cleanup mode after storm swell, high tide flood Balboa Peninsula. News Female pedestrian, struck twice, dies in Fountain Valley hit-and-run collision.

News Fountain Valley police identify pedestrian killed in car crash. Load More. Enter Email Address. Sign Me Up. California Stories from The Times. California Andres Guardado was shot five times in the back, family autopsy finds.

Lawmakers have been tasked with finding legislative solutions. The appearance of taking action belies the truth of the actions being taken: The U. Bureau of Reclamation signed more than contracts that lock in low rates to corporate customers for the next 40 years. Mean- while, everywhere along the matrix the process encourages and even requires local water districts to sell more and more water to water bottlers and industry. As long as water decisions continue to be controlled by a handful of corporate elites, Estimates of lobbyists, and their state and federal allies, communities like Mt.

Meanwhile, they are excluded from decision-making. The solution — both at the community level and for the state — is to change the paradigm and assert the right of supply suggest we the people to democratic control of water, and to provide for local stewardship.

Of the , people water. Water is perhaps the hot-button issue in the state, heightened by the current drought. Indeed, the matrix of water delivery and decision-making is unclear to most people. Every California water report since has stated that there is not enough water to meet future needs. Currently, there is not even enough water to meet existing water contracts. Despite decades of research predicting water shortages, the existence of water pol- lution from industrial run-off, the collapse of fisheries and saltwater encroachment into fresh water stocks statewide, state officials have consistently promoted unfet- tered growth, development, and an agricultural empire in what is essentially a desert in the Central Valley and Southern California.

History reveals that economics for the few, rather than efficient water use for the many, has always ruled water policy. Those claims gave miners and particularly mining corpora- tions the ability to divert streams or operate water-intensive mining practices. Speculators quickly developed water monopolies for development infrastructure setting the stage for intense concentration of wealth.

Large agricultural interests took root in the central valley to feed the booming population, pumping vast amounts of water to meet ever-expanding needs. Within two or three decades, groundwater was being depleted at such a rate that California agribusi- the ground in the Central Valley had sunk by up to 30 feet. The Act poured tax dollars into the construction of dams and piped that water to the Central Valley, in service of these agriculture barons. Water con- servation then, is a net loss for water districts.

Gross State The impact of big agriculture and industry on our water cannot be overstated. Product GSP. A report by the Environmental Jus- tice Coalition for Water. June Gallon for gallon, profit margins for water bottling outstrip even oil.

In pursuit of the purest water at the lowest cost, corporate decision makers have targeted hun- dreds of rural and remote water-rich communities with limited economic clout, promising tax revenue to fill city coffers, and economic boon in the form of local job creation. A decade ago, most of the opposition to water bottling revolved around staggering and well documented environmental concerns. Managing water: Avoiding Crisis in California. University of California Press.

October Every water-bottling corporation seeking to site a facility in a small town promises an influx of new jobs. National community data reveal these promises to be empty. Water facilities hire very few workers. But in a small community, the creation of people need jobs two dozen jobs is an enticing prospect even at the cost of losing local control over in this area.

Those bottlers] mostly promises also include temporary construction jobs, and seasonal jobs that do not create local employment growth. In fact most of the jobs are temporary and part-time, pay hire temp workers. A plant promising 20 jobs They pay many of is likely to actually employ as few as 2 full time employees, research suggests.

They have one of the highest rates of injury of any industry; twice lay them off and that of the typical private sector workers. In the Pacific Northwest, the timber industry promised years Mecosta County, of employment. Mining for gold and coal in this country promised the same. Food and Water Watch. Whenever possible, corporations mechanize and outsource jobs. Water bottling in particular has proven to have a high negative impact on local businesses, tourism and new ventures seeking to set up shop in a picturesque town situated in a setting of natural beauty.

Many of those aspects are explored in the next section, which reveals that the few jobs created by water extraction fa- cilities are counter-balanced with job losses in other sectors, resulting in a net loss of jobs and fewer prospects for new job creation. It is the nature of the corporation to increase profit margins while lowering costs. When the finite resourc- es are gone, or the market declines, the corporation leaves town, abandoning the workers, the demoralized community, and far too often destroying the aquifers.

Tourist from around the world are attracted to Mt. Atop and below the majesty of the iconic snow-capped volcano, tourists and retirees flock to Mt. Shasta to hike, fish, ski, camp, spa, and spend time in one of the most beautiful and tranquil places on earth. Research from other communities, including neighboring Mc Cloud, points out that the existence of additional large-scale water bottling operation threatens to depress the local economy, diminish the draw for new residents and tourists, and creates a disincentive for new business ventures.

Excerpted from that report:. Bringing in so few jobs, the plant is unlikely to stimulate an economically depressed town and may ultimately cost McCloud more than its fresh mountain springs. Additionally, they can drill many times deeper than citizens can, placing private wells and water supplies at great risk.

Potential businesses consider large water bottling operations to be a serious concern to their business plan because their water source is by definition, insecure. Those businesses that trade on the natural beauty of Mt. Shasta, are also concerned about the traffic and the unsightliness of constant trucking and the facility itself, but also the effect that water withdrawal has on the larger watershed and recreation activities.

Hidden costs and unnecessary risks are another issue that communities with water bottlers must accept. The contracts ensure that the bottlers get their water, but the health of the springs and the aquifer remain a local responsibility. Contracts are often crafted granting corporate bottlers priority water access over community members even during times of drought. Sewage treatment needs for the plant can severely limit the ability of the city to service new customers, and places a cap on the number of residents and tour- ists that can be served.

Shasta not chosen to operate their own sewage treatment operation, the City would have faced that very problem, which would have greatly impacted existing and potential businesses and halted residential growth.

Another common risk is ground and surface water contamination, something Mt. Shasta has already had to contend with as a result of the CCDA plant. A inspection of the Mt. Shasta CCDA facility reported serious violations including contamination risk from effluent overflow.

Many communities face lawsuits brought by the corporate bottler, seeking to force new contract terms including withdrawal increases, special services, lower rates, or other compensation. The list of liabilities, uncertainties and risks placed on communities welcoming water bottlers is long, well documented, and far more extensive than this report details.

Anecdotally, small rural towns report their local economies suffered overall. But one thing that all communities subjected to these activities share in common — whether bottling was welcomed or not — is the loss of local sovereignty, the At the heart of ability to determine the course of their local future. Shasta to control their local destiny, and ensure our resources are viable for generations to come.

Why would anyone want to change the amount of rain or snow that falls from the sky? The answer is: private monetary gain or savings for large corporations.

Absurd as it may seem, large water management corporations have begun includ- ing in municipal contracts provisions that assert corporate ownership not only of the community water supply, but also of the rain, before it even touches the ground. Corporate cloud seeding is an unregulated activ- ity in the state. But the Right to Water trumps the archaic and unjust law of conquest. Fundamental rights are a higher law. Nor will the corpo- ration accept responsibility for dispersing toxic chemicals into our fields, water, the proven to increase air we breathe or the bodies we call ourselves.

There are no regulations or safety requirements for the amount of toxic chemicals used during the cloud seeding process; there is no legal accountability for poten- tial adverse effects, no requirements to operate transparently, and no mitigation plan should unintended consequences result. Shasta, and our local environ- ment, to assume all the risk with no potential benefit.

Cloud seeding has not been scientifically proven to increase precipitation, the practice itself is poorly understood, and its effects are largely unknown. The Mt. Under our current structure of law, concerned citizens have nowhere to turn to monitor—much less prohibit—cloud seeding in our community. It would be absurd for people to erect governments that have the effect of depriving rights, since government has The recognition no higher priority than the securing of rights.

It is also axiomatic that the people of these United States have declared that when a system of government becomes that the people destructive of that end, it is the right of the people constituting those govern- of California ments to change the form of governance that has been imposed upon them. In simplest in the original terms, this means that the people of Mt.

Shasta retain the unalienable right to democratically make decisions on questions of law and governance that directly California affect the people and environment of this community. This right is limited only by Constitution the obligation that such decisions not conflict with the preservation of the rights of other people.

Following a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the object of reducing communities to little more than administrative extensions of state power and resource colonies for corporate exploitation, the people of Mt. Shasta have petitioned to place this Ordinance before the community in an attempt to correct some of these errors. Corporations are created by State governments through the chartering process. In doing so, Courts have bestowed upon corporations im- mense constitutional powers of the Fourteenth, First, Fourth, and Fifth Amend- ments, and the expansive powers afforded by the Contracts and Commerce Clauses.

Wielding those constitutional rights and freedoms, corporations routinely nullify laws adopted by communities, states, and the federal government. The right to community self-government is nullified by the ability of those who direct corporations to intimidate and threaten local officials with municipal financial ruin.

For elected officers of the community to be blackmailed into surrendering community rights to protect the financial interests of a state-chartered municipal corporation amounts to a breach of the public trust and a denial of both due process and equal protection of the law.

US Citizens; a History steeped in the Right to Local Self-Governance Community law-making as the legitimate expression of self-government by peo- ple where they live has generated mostly negative attention from the courts and legislatures, state and federal, since the time of the American Revolution. The American Revolution can fairly be characterized as nothing less than a rejec- tion by American communities of the denial of local self-government by the British Empire. As noted by historian Jack P.

That royal deprivation of community self-governance over issues of immediate lo- cal concern formed the impetus and rationale for people to ignore - and eventually to openly defy as illegitimate - British laws and expectations of compliance with those laws.

Rather than consciously working out the details of some master plan de- signed to bring them liberty or self-government, the lower houses moved along from issue to issue and from situation to situation, primarily con- cerning themselves with the problems at hand and displaying a remark- able capacity for spontaneous action, for seizing any and every opportu- nity to enlarge their own influence.

Because neither fundamental rights nor imperial precedents could be used to defend practices that were contrary to customs of the mother country or to the British constitution, the lower houses found it necessary to de- velop still another argument: that local precedents, habits, traditions and statutes were important parts of their particular constitutions and could not be abridged by a royal or proprietary order.

The British challenge after threatened to render their ac- complishments meaningless and drove them to demand equal rights with Parliament and autonomy in local affairs, and eventually to declare their in- dependence. At issue was the whole political structure forged by the lower houses over the previous century.

In this context, the American Revolution becomes in essence a war for political survival, a conflict involving not only individual rights, as historians have traditionally emphasized, but assembly rights as well. During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, royal and proprietary governors of chartered colonies, who were to have been locally administering the power of the central British government, lost significant amounts of their coercive power over American communities.

Apart from sheer distance from London, the English Civil War saw the agitation of groups such as the Levelers, Diggers, Quakers and Ranters for civil liberties and self-government. Two years before the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress, war had already been initiated against the oppressive British Empire by communities in western Massachusetts.

Historian Ray Raphael has recounted how, in , resi- dents of several Massachusetts Towns, including Worchester, Springfield, and Great Barrington, forced appointed British officials to resign their posts:. When British Regulars fired upon a small group of hastily assembled pa- triots on the Lexington Green, they were attempting to regain control of a colony they had already lost.

The real revolution, the transfer of political authority to the American patriots, occurred the previous summer when thousands upon thousands of farmers and artisans seized power from every Crown-appointed official in Massachusetts outside of Boston. The Revolution of can be seen as the crowning achievement of com- munal self-government in colonial New England. More than ever before, people assumed collective responsibility for the fate of their communities.

Above all, the revolutionaries of pioneered the concept of participa- tory democracy, with all decisions made by popular consent. Half a century before the so-called Jacksonian Revolution, they seized control of their government.

While more learned patriots expounded on Lockean prin- ciples, these country folk acted according to those principles by declar- ing their social contract with the established government null and void. Although the consequences were frightening and potentially disastrous, the townsfolk of Massachusetts were the first American colonists to follow revolutionary rhetoric to its logical conclusion.

All authority derives from the people, they proclaimed, as they deposed British officials. As much as any revolutionaries in history, they applied this statement reflexively to themselves. They abrogated no authority as they went about their business.

While elsewhere in the colonies, Committees of Correspondence and Congresses were devised as ad hoc community governing bodies to replace chartered colonial governments and municipal corporations, more inclusive and participatory local assemblies and town meetings were already well established in New England. It was this tradition — a rejection of the traditional English municipal corporation premised entirely on promoting commerce, rather than on self-governance - that formed the basis for the American Revolution.

As historian Jon Teaford explains:. For New Englanders had grown accustomed to the freedom of unfettered commerce and the privilege of direct participation in town meetings, and they were not ready to sacrifice these for a government of aldermen, councilors, markets, and monopolies.

Jon C. When the American people declared independence from Great Britain in , they did so with a fundamental document that marked the first time in western history When the Ameri- that a nation state founded itself upon the inalienable right of the people to govern can people de- themselves. That document, the American Declaration of Independence, was not composed in a vacuum through the spontaneous inspiration of the colonial gentry. After adopting them, they gave them in Britain in , varying forms to their delegates, and sent them to the Continental Congress with instructions to support a single Declaration of Independence for all the colonies.

Independence, at , The resulting document, now the cornerstone on which an independent America has been built, said:. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of this document, packed many principles into these sentences. These principles on the source, scope, and abolition of governmental power are nothing less than a statement of truths to be the inalienable right of self-government, a right held by all people in a free society.

Among the rea- sons for separating from the British Empire personified by the King , these were that they are stated unequivocally, declaring that separation was necessary because endowed by He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. Whether in the Magna among these Carta of , the Pennsylvania Frame of Government of , or the Pennsylvania are Life, Liberty, Charter of Privileges of , prior foundational documents acknowledged only specific rights concerning property, religion, criminal procedure, and other aspects and the pursuit of individual freedom4 in the context of a civil structure devoid of community of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence was the first foundational document in western history to recognize - at least in theory - the fundamental notion that people as a community have a civil right to self-government that cannot be alien- ated to any person, power, or governmental institution.

Following the American Revolution, this right to self-governance was codified when the royal proprietorships and colonial corporations were dissolved and re- placed by constitutionalized states. During this process, people acted from within. Women, Native Americans, Slaves, indentured servants, white males without property, and others were not afforded those protections. The classic study of the first consti- tutions drafted by Americans during the Revolutionary era has this to say:. It was instead the remarkably stable territorial units of towns, cities, counties, and colonies that took control.

The economic, political, and, in the broadest sense, social authority established within these familiar units did not actually melt away in a single stroke of revolu- tionary integration. The very form of the organized resistance of the colonists was determined by a clear sense of the independence of territorial units that had evolved during the past years. The borders England had drawn between the colonies continued to be respected as political demarcation lines even during the struggle against the mother country.

Perhaps even more im- portant for building a new governmental system was the integrity of the smaller units, called counties or districts in different colonies, and of the lowest level of political organization, cities, towns, townships, and parishes.

All these units remained intact during the Revolution, and only the quasi- feudal manors in the Hudson River valley disappeared as political entities.

When state governments gathered to form a national American government, the Federalists sought to construct a preemptive, centralized federal government, while the Anti-Federalists sought to preserve the right of self-government at the state level.

Thus, the counter-revolu- tionary tendencies of federalism undid the community self-governing institutions and traditions that the Revolution had established. If England was the mother country and the colonies were her offspring, it clearly followed that the colonies were dependents, who needed the protection of, and who were obliged to yield obedience to their parent state. In any conflict of wills or judgment, the colonies had to defer to the superior strength and wisdom of the metropolitan government.

Former railroad bond lawyer and later Iowa Supreme Court Justice John Forrest Dillon had the dubious honor of codifying that prevailing argument as the frame for the new state-municipal legal framework. As Dillon explained,. It must be conceded that the great weight of authority denies in toto the existence, in the absence of special constitutional provisions, of any inherent right of local self-government which is beyond legislative control.

Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy.

If it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation We know of no limitation on this right so far as the corporations themselves are concerned. They are, to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature. It is not necessary to a municipal government that the officers should be elected by the people.

Local self-government is undoubtedly desir- able where there are not forcible reasons against its exercise. But it is not required by any inexorable principle. John Forrest Dillon, LL. The impulse to throw off the bonds of monopolistic governance, whether monar- chical, aristocratic or incorporated, more truly comports with American ideals of justice than the structure of law under which municipalities, ruled by preemptive state fiat, are pitted against the rights of publicly chartered, privileged and em- powered -- but privately governed -- business corporations.

The struggle for self-government on issues of direct import to communities is long-standing. More than one hundred years ago, local government reformers tried to drive first principles to the forefront of the struggle for community rights.

Frederic C. This agitation for home rule is but part of a larger movement. It is more than a cry for charter reform; more even than a revolt against the misuse of the municipality by the legislature. It partakes of a struggle for liberty, and its aim is the enlargement of democracy and a substitution of simpler conditions of government.

It is a demand on the part of the people to be trusted, and to be endowed with the privileges of which they have been dispossessed…The state at large can have no more interest in [local] mat- ters than it has in the methods of the corporations which it creates.

Those revolutionary founders were the disenfranchised men and women who fought for - and thought they had won — the right to govern themselves in the communities where they live. Shasta Possess an Inalienable Right to Local Self-Governance Although California did not adopt its first constitution until , we know that the American Revolution was fought by people who believed its purpose was to establish the right to community self-government, based on the language in the Declaration of Independence, where we find the majority of complaints against the British Empire refer to the denial of local governing authority, the overturning of local laws and the refusal of the central government to allow local self-determi- nation.

The very first American state constitution reflects this commitment to com- munity self-governance explicitly. Eleven days after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a revolutionary committee convened in Pennsylvania to craft a constitution for the commonwealth WHEREAS all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever these great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness Constitution went about their task.

He wrote: Mr. MADISON, observed that if the opinions of the people were to be our guide, it would be difficult to say what course we ought to take. A plan adjusted to this idea will recommend itself The respectability of this convention will give weight to their recommendation of it. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times ac- countable to them.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are only part of that community: And that the com- munity hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that commu- nity judged most conducive to the public weal.

Pennsylvania Constitution of , Ch. The language here is significant. On September 8th, , delegate W. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is insti- tuted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it. Delegate M. Norton of San Francisco affirmed the primacy of these statements of fundamental rights. The Report of the Debates record him as saying:.

The first and second sections, introduced by the gentleman from Sacra- mento, Mr. Shannon, he believed the committee had agreed should be incorporated in the bill of rights. It was the proper place for them. The dec- laration of the sovereignty of the people, emanates from the foundation of our Republic.

It has been adhered to ever since, and, he trusted, would be adhered to in all time to come. Rather, communities of people naturally have a right to self-government, and they are powerless only in their inability to alienate that right to anyone. In his treatise on constitutional law and in various opinions, Chief Justice Thomas Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court explained the basis of community govern- ing authority thusly:. The doctrine that within any general grant of legislative power by the constitu- tion there can be found authority thus to take from the people the manage- ment of their local concerns, and the choice, directly or indirectly, of their local officers, if practically asserted, would be somewhat startling to our people, and would be likely to lead hereafter to a more careful scrutiny of the charters of government framed by them, lest sometime, by an inadvertent use of words, they might be found to have conferred upon some agency of their own, the legal authority to take away their liberties altogether.

If we look into the several state constitutions to see what verbal restrictions have heretofore been placed upon legislative authority in this regard, we shall find them very few and simple.

We have taken great pains to surround the life, liberty, and property of the individual with guaranties, but we have not, as a general thing, guarded lo- cal government with similar protections.

We must assume either an intention that the legislative control should be constant and absolute, or, on the other hand, that there are certain fundamental principles in our general framework of government, which are within the contemplation of the people when they agree upon the written charter, subject to which the delegations of authority to the several departments of government have been made Hurlbut, 24 Mich.

By petitioning for adoption of the Water Rights Ordinance, the people of Mt. Shasta have asserted their inalienable and fundamental right to community self- government. They preserved the remainder for themselves in written and unwritten constitutional limitations on governmental actions.

On the other hand, John Dillon the foremost bond lawyer of his day argued that cities were creatures of the state — nothing more than administrative divisions. As creatures of the states, these governments had no autonomy. Entrepreneurial incentives for creating new cities were now quite high. To say [otherwise] Gazette, 18 Mar. Herrington, Popular Sovereignty in Pennsylvania —, 67 Temp. It is well-settled law that corporations are creations of the state.

Liggett Co. Lee, U. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended mortmain.

There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent in large aggregations of capital, particularly when held by corpora- tions. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, Louis, I. Paul, U. Earle, 38 U. Morton Salt Co. Henkel, U. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.

Commonwealth, Pa. Nugent Funeral Home v. Beamish, A. Curtice, P. Barnette, U. During the debates that framed the first constitution for the State of California, with regard to allowing the Legislature to grant special privileges, delegate R. Price of San Francisco said this:. Let us not…allow any special privileges to corporations or associations to compete with, or paralyze, individual enterprise and industry. Sandberg, U. Kember Fin. United States, U. Lasker, U.

Bellotti, U. Green, U. Ash, U. Bouligny, Inc. Ramsey, U. Clarksdale, U. American Tobacco Co. Indiana, U. Life Asso. Mettler, U. Life Ins. Warren, U. Huron Copper Min- ing Co. Mississippi, U. Pennsylvania, U. Maryland, 88 U. Woolsey, 59 U. Constitution and Bestowed Constitutional Rights Upon Them Over the past years, the United States judiciary has conferred constitutional protections - once intended to protect only natural persons - upon corporations.

Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guar- anteed by the United States Constitution. During the debates to create the first state constitution of California, delegate C. Botts of Monterey put the granting of special privileges to corporations into historical context, saying:. Corporations as they were originally known to the Roman law, had sev- eral beneficial properties.

One was the power of succession, by which the property of the corporation does not become subdivided into the hands of the heirs, but remains subject to the rules of the corporation.

Another was, to sue and be sued in their corporate capacity, instead of being regarded as a partnership merely of individuals. These were the useful properties of these corporations as known to the Roman law. The institution as it was known when adopted by the common law, had engrafted upon it this doctrine: that to establish a corporation was the great prerogative of the crown; and it followed soon with the numerous other prerogatives of the crown, that it was claimed by the crown; and certain great privileges and immunities were given to these corporations.

This is the evil which we have followed so nearly in our own country, and of which we have such grievous cause to complain. Botts preceded by nearly forty years a profound 20 As a general principal of justice, rights have long been understood to accrue to the living, and not to the dead, nor to inanimate matter. See also Thomas Jefferson, who asked: Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever?

The classic study of the first consti- tutions drafted by Americans during the Revolutionary era has this to say:. It was instead the remarkably stable territorial units of towns, cities, counties, and colonies that took control. The economic, political, and, in the broadest sense, social authority established within these familiar units did not actually melt away in a single stroke of revolu- tionary integration.

The very form of the organized resistance of the colonists was determined by a clear sense of the independence of territorial units that had evolved during the past years. The borders England had drawn between the colonies continued to be respected as political demarcation lines even during the struggle against the mother country.

Perhaps even more im- portant for building a new governmental system was the integrity of the smaller units, called counties or districts in different colonies, and of the lowest level of political organization, cities, towns, townships, and parishes. All these units remained intact during the Revolution, and only the quasi- feudal manors in the Hudson River valley disappeared as political entities. When state governments gathered to form a national American government, the Federalists sought to construct a preemptive, centralized federal government, while the Anti-Federalists sought to preserve the right of self-government at the state level.

Thus, the counter-revolu- tionary tendencies of federalism undid the community self-governing institutions and traditions that the Revolution had established.

If England was the mother country and the colonies were her offspring, it clearly followed that the colonies were dependents, who needed the protection of, and who were obliged to yield obedience to their parent state.

In any conflict of wills or judgment, the colonies had to defer to the superior strength and wisdom of the metropolitan government. Former railroad bond lawyer and later Iowa Supreme Court Justice John Forrest Dillon had the dubious honor of codifying that prevailing argument as the frame for the new state-municipal legal framework.

As Dillon explained,. It must be conceded that the great weight of authority denies in toto the existence, in the absence of special constitutional provisions, of any inherent right of local self-government which is beyond legislative control.

Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist.

As it creates, so it may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation We know of no limitation on this right so far as the corporations themselves are concerned. They are, to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature. It is not necessary to a municipal government that the officers should be elected by the people. Local self-government is undoubtedly desir- able where there are not forcible reasons against its exercise. But it is not required by any inexorable principle.

John Forrest Dillon, LL. The impulse to throw off the bonds of monopolistic governance, whether monar- chical, aristocratic or incorporated, more truly comports with American ideals of justice than the structure of law under which municipalities, ruled by preemptive state fiat, are pitted against the rights of publicly chartered, privileged and em- powered -- but privately governed -- business corporations.

The struggle for self-government on issues of direct import to communities is long-standing. More than one hundred years ago, local government reformers tried to drive first principles to the forefront of the struggle for community rights. Frederic C. This agitation for home rule is but part of a larger movement.

It is more than a cry for charter reform; more even than a revolt against the misuse of the municipality by the legislature. It partakes of a struggle for liberty, and its aim is the enlargement of democracy and a substitution of simpler conditions of government. It is a demand on the part of the people to be trusted, and to be endowed with the privileges of which they have been dispossessed…The state at large can have no more interest in [local] mat- ters than it has in the methods of the corporations which it creates.

Those revolutionary founders were the disenfranchised men and women who fought for - and thought they had won — the right to govern themselves in the communities where they live. Shasta Possess an Inalienable Right to Local Self-Governance Although California did not adopt its first constitution until , we know that the American Revolution was fought by people who believed its purpose was to establish the right to community self-government, based on the language in the Declaration of Independence, where we find the majority of complaints against the British Empire refer to the denial of local governing authority, the overturning of local laws and the refusal of the central government to allow local self-determi- nation.

The very first American state constitution reflects this commitment to com- munity self-governance explicitly. Eleven days after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a revolutionary committee convened in Pennsylvania to craft a constitution for the commonwealth WHEREAS all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever these great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness Constitution went about their task.

He wrote: Mr. MADISON, observed that if the opinions of the people were to be our guide, it would be difficult to say what course we ought to take. A plan adjusted to this idea will recommend itself The respectability of this convention will give weight to their recommendation of it. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times ac- countable to them.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are only part of that community: And that the com- munity hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that commu- nity judged most conducive to the public weal.

Pennsylvania Constitution of , Ch. The language here is significant. On September 8th, , delegate W. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is insti- tuted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it. Delegate M. Norton of San Francisco affirmed the primacy of these statements of fundamental rights. The Report of the Debates record him as saying:. The first and second sections, introduced by the gentleman from Sacra- mento, Mr.

Shannon, he believed the committee had agreed should be incorporated in the bill of rights. It was the proper place for them. The dec- laration of the sovereignty of the people, emanates from the foundation of our Republic. It has been adhered to ever since, and, he trusted, would be adhered to in all time to come. Rather, communities of people naturally have a right to self-government, and they are powerless only in their inability to alienate that right to anyone.

In his treatise on constitutional law and in various opinions, Chief Justice Thomas Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court explained the basis of community govern- ing authority thusly:.

The doctrine that within any general grant of legislative power by the constitu- tion there can be found authority thus to take from the people the manage- ment of their local concerns, and the choice, directly or indirectly, of their local officers, if practically asserted, would be somewhat startling to our people, and would be likely to lead hereafter to a more careful scrutiny of the charters of government framed by them, lest sometime, by an inadvertent use of words, they might be found to have conferred upon some agency of their own, the legal authority to take away their liberties altogether.

If we look into the several state constitutions to see what verbal restrictions have heretofore been placed upon legislative authority in this regard, we shall find them very few and simple. We have taken great pains to surround the life, liberty, and property of the individual with guaranties, but we have not, as a general thing, guarded lo- cal government with similar protections. We must assume either an intention that the legislative control should be constant and absolute, or, on the other hand, that there are certain fundamental principles in our general framework of government, which are within the contemplation of the people when they agree upon the written charter, subject to which the delegations of authority to the several departments of government have been made Hurlbut, 24 Mich.

By petitioning for adoption of the Water Rights Ordinance, the people of Mt. Shasta have asserted their inalienable and fundamental right to community self- government. They preserved the remainder for themselves in written and unwritten constitutional limitations on governmental actions. On the other hand, John Dillon the foremost bond lawyer of his day argued that cities were creatures of the state — nothing more than administrative divisions.

As creatures of the states, these governments had no autonomy. Entrepreneurial incentives for creating new cities were now quite high. To say [otherwise] Gazette, 18 Mar. Herrington, Popular Sovereignty in Pennsylvania —, 67 Temp. It is well-settled law that corporations are creations of the state. Liggett Co. Lee, U. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual.

Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended mortmain. There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent in large aggregations of capital, particularly when held by corpora- tions. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, Louis, I.

Paul, U. Earle, 38 U. Morton Salt Co. Henkel, U. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. Commonwealth, Pa. Nugent Funeral Home v. Beamish, A. Curtice, P. Barnette, U. During the debates that framed the first constitution for the State of California, with regard to allowing the Legislature to grant special privileges, delegate R.

Price of San Francisco said this:. Let us not…allow any special privileges to corporations or associations to compete with, or paralyze, individual enterprise and industry. Sandberg, U. Kember Fin. United States, U.

Lasker, U. Bellotti, U. Green, U. Ash, U. Bouligny, Inc. Ramsey, U. Clarksdale, U. American Tobacco Co. Indiana, U. Life Asso. Mettler, U. Life Ins. Warren, U. Huron Copper Min- ing Co. Mississippi, U. Pennsylvania, U. Maryland, 88 U. Woolsey, 59 U. Constitution and Bestowed Constitutional Rights Upon Them Over the past years, the United States judiciary has conferred constitutional protections - once intended to protect only natural persons - upon corporations. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guar- anteed by the United States Constitution.

During the debates to create the first state constitution of California, delegate C. Botts of Monterey put the granting of special privileges to corporations into historical context, saying:. Corporations as they were originally known to the Roman law, had sev- eral beneficial properties.

One was the power of succession, by which the property of the corporation does not become subdivided into the hands of the heirs, but remains subject to the rules of the corporation. Another was, to sue and be sued in their corporate capacity, instead of being regarded as a partnership merely of individuals. These were the useful properties of these corporations as known to the Roman law. The institution as it was known when adopted by the common law, had engrafted upon it this doctrine: that to establish a corporation was the great prerogative of the crown; and it followed soon with the numerous other prerogatives of the crown, that it was claimed by the crown; and certain great privileges and immunities were given to these corporations.

This is the evil which we have followed so nearly in our own country, and of which we have such grievous cause to complain. Botts preceded by nearly forty years a profound 20 As a general principal of justice, rights have long been understood to accrue to the living, and not to the dead, nor to inanimate matter. See also Thomas Jefferson, who asked: Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator made the earth for the living, not the dead.

Rights and powers can belong only to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will. The dead are not even things…To what then are attached the rights and powers they held while in the form of men?

A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in its place, holding all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man!

Southern Pacific Railroad Company, U. Louis Railroad Company v. Beckwith, U. Union River Logging R. Mahon, U. Corporations have been discovered in other Amendments, including the Seventh Amend- ment, but this Brief focuses solely on those Amendments relevant to the instant suit.

Woodward, 4 Wheat. For an example of how courts have blanketed corporations in the Commerce Clause, see, e. Hazeltine, F. Johnson, U. Glander, U. Maryland, U. Over and over again, legal writers attempted to find a vocabulary that would enable them to describe the corporation as a real or natural entity whose existence is prior to, and separate from, the state.

Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law Corporations Routinely Use Those Constitutional Rights to Deny Communities the Right of Local Self-Governance Constitutional guarantees bestowed upon corporations are wielded against com- munities to override their right to local self-governance.

Corporate Fourth Amendment rights are routinely wielded to prohibit warrantless inspections of corporate workplaces , to bar federal agencies from requiring the production of corporate books and papers in the course of Congressional investi- gations , and to challenge over flights of manufacturing facilities by the Environ- mental Protection Agency Amestoy, 92 F. State of Alaska, F.

Armco Steel Corporation, F. CA Union Pac. See also Cincinnati Bridge Co. Martin Linen Supply Co. For example, when Chemi- cal Waste Management, Inc. It challenges a body of welfare through law that has stripped the authority of the people to govern corporations as crea- tures of State government, while stripping municipal corporations of the authority the exercise of their right to local self-governance.

Interestingly, the Court also explained that municipal char- ters were not subject to the same prohibitions, thus enabling States to alter laws governing munici- palities at will. Miller, F. Rush Township, F. Hunt, U. The outcomes of that matchup are all too familiar to citizens living in municipal jurisdictions who at- tempt to decide health, safety, welfare, and quality of life issues for their communi- ties, families, and natural environments.

Predictably, the results are unfavorable to the municipal tenants. This is the forecast, however, for the residents of Mt. Shasta, absent an assertion of their fundamental rights to the contrary.

As Dillon explained, rights, including It must be conceded that the great weight of authority denies in toto the existence, in the absence of special constitutional provisions, of any inherent right of local self-government which is beyond legislative control.

Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their right to self- their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. If it may destroy, it may government. Local self-government is undoubtedly desirable where there are not forcible rea- sons against its exercise. The Revolution thus reflected the understanding that people, otherwise existing in a state of nature, do not relinquish their inalienable rights when governments are instituted, but that governments are instituted specifically to guarantee and protect those freedoms and rights.

Thomas Gordon once summarized that fundamental principle in the form of a question, asking:. What is Government, but a Trust committed by All, or the Most, to One, or a Few, who are to attend upon the Affairs of All, that every one may, with the more Security, attend upon his own?

See, e. Having bestowed those privi- leges, the State exceeds the bounds of generosity toward its corporate creations and erects law that directly usurps the authority of the people to govern those creations. Such acts are beyond the powers of any government, yet they are currently treated The people of Mt. He wrote: rate creatures of One important subject I must briefly refer to. It is the growth of corpora- the state. The re- sults of an examination of the comparative extent of corporate and private litigation surprised me.

In May, , Chief Justice Waite wrote me that the court had at the recent term disposed of three hundred and seventy-nine causes, of which ninety-one related to the United States, one hundred and eighty three were corporation cases, and only one hundred and five were between private individuals. How wisely and satisfactorily to govern our populous public and municipal corporations is yet an unsolved problem. The facts here brought to view, however, present statesmen and lawyers questions in political economy and practical legislation of exceeding interest and difficulty.

They are not, I am persuaded, insoluble, but the future must considerately deal with them in the light of time and experience, which alone can supply the needed wisdom. The future that John Dillon postulated is now upon us. The Ordinance is the expres- sion in life of the rights held in fact by the people of Mt. The ordinance is pro- tective of the physical, natural, social, governmental, psychological, cultural, moral, and community values and attributes of the people and environment of the City.

Shasta are asserting the proposition that the rights of the people are superior to corporate creatures of the state. Shasta are doing and for state and federal governments to correct the errors of the past. Finally, to state the facts in their starkest terms: when the people are denied self- government where they live, they are denied self-government everywhere.

No one can partake in the governance of his or her own affairs while being deprived of the right and authority to govern in the affairs of the community in which he or she resides. If community self-government is denied, the entire right to self-govern- ment is denied. The California Constitution of asserted fundamental rights that have not been and cannot be revoked, whether or not they are enumerated in the current state constitution. Article I, Section 1 of that constitution reads:.

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtain- ing safety and happiness. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

Shasta are making real the promises contained in those constitutional provisions. And, with commu- nities across the United States over the past years — they have been constantly reminded by courts, legislatures, and State agencies that the corporations operat- ing within their midst have more rights than the people within the community.

They are discovering that these creatures of the State now carry the legal authority and raw power to nullify democratically-enacted Ordinances that seek to protect the health, safety, and welfare of people and nature within their community.

One speaker, Charles J. Ingersoll — an eminent lawyer of his day who practiced before the United States Supreme Court — declared that:. It is a great mistake to suppose that charters of corporate rights are more sacred than personal rights. Judicial speculations and pro-. But this is a mischievous error, without the least foundation in justice or authority. No charter vests corporate rights more firmly than every individual right. Shasta pos- The pedigree of American corporations is extremely base.

Privileges incon- sistent with American government proceed from acts of legislatures hav- sess an unalienable ing no constitutional power expressly to grant them. Corporation power is now an overshadowing influence in this State whose very prepotency right to local, com- requires investigation.

XIII , January, They now need their the state and federal City Council to take up their cause and stand with them. The Ordinance is Legitimate and any Preemption of it is empowered large Illegitimate and multi-national The ordinance carves a narrow path against state and federal preemption. Without asserting rations to assert the rights enumerated in it, the municipality and the people who live in Mt.

Shasta would be at the mercy of the state and federal legal frameworks which permit two special privileges specific activities that are harmful to the community and its environment. Shasta possess an unalienable right to local, community fect of nullifying the self-government, and because the state and federal governments have empow- ered large and multi-national business corporations to assert special privileges rights of Mt.

Shasta that have the effect of nullifying the rights of Mt. Shasta residents, and because the ordinance corrects those errors, the ordinance is legitimate and enforceable. Any law that violates unalienable rights corrects those er- is by definition illegitimate. But slavery was rors, the ordinance a denial and violation of the fundamental human and civil rights of those held in is legitimate and bondage.

While the defenders of slavery argued that its abolition would deprive the slaveholders of vested property rights, the claim to legal rights in human prop- enforceable. The federal and state slave laws and the U. Constitution were wrong, and they were only changed when their illegitimacy and resulting injustice were called-out, confronted for what they were, and they were directly challenged by people who refused to obey them. They simply did what was right and did not weigh the financial or personal consequences.

Today, we have the same right, authority and duty to challenge current injustices by asserting our rights, using our community government to correct injustices and codifying those rights and defending them in local law.

We lack the luxury or authority to so irresponsibly turn our backs on the future and remain indentured to the precedent and error of the past. On the final day of the California Constitutional Convention of , we find this statement placed in the record. Steuart, from the committee appointed to prepare an Address to the People of California, presented the following….

No people were ever yet enslaved, who knew and dared maintain the co-relative rights and obligations of free and independent citizens. Today, the people of Mt. Shasta hold those rights and obligations sacred, and to secure those rights and fulfill those obligations they begin by recommending the City of Mt. Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government Ordinance is a rights-based ordinance mandating that local government represent public over private interests in regards to water.

If implemented, the ordinance will prevent the contamination and depletion of precious Shasta water resources by prohibit- Knowing that the ing cloud seeding as well as additional water mining for resale and export within City jurisdiction.

Preserving the pristine quality and abundant quantity of water at consequences of the headwaters of the Sacramento River will have direct benefits not only for the inaction jeopardize citizens of Mt.

Shasta and its outlying areas, but for the many people who come to Mount Shasta for physical, mental and spiritual renewal, as well as diverse interests our lives and liveli- downstream. As a regional pioneer for reclaiming our rights to local self-govern- hoods, we have ment by adopting this legislation, Mt. Shasta City will inspire and serve as a model for the democratic stewardship of our natural resources in Siskiyou County, Califor- no choice but to nia, the State of Jefferson and beyond.

Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government Ordinance that secure our embraces precautionary, participatory, local self-government as an 11th hour col- rights to life, liberty laborative effort to realign human systems and ecosystems.

Decades of fragment- ed, issue-oriented, reactive environmental regulation have failed to achieve the and the pursuit of protections necessary to ensure human survival in the 21st century. When federal happiness. Knowing that the consequences of inaction jeopardize our lives and livelihoods, we have no choice but to advance solutions that secure our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

WHEREAS atmospheric, surface and ground waters are intricately connected, they are currently vulnerable to mismanagement under separate jurisdictions; and. WHEREAS the water bottling industry increases reliance upon fossil fuels, creating excessive non- biodegradable waste and carbon emissions; and.

WHEREAS comprehensive, objective scientific studies proving the safety and efficacy of cloud seeding are non-existent, the State of California allows private corporations to cloud seed without regulation, while regulating municipal entities that experiment with cloud seeding; and.

WHEREAS human survival on planet earth relies upon local, state and national governments to respond proportionately to the challenges of climate change by employing conservative natural resource policies that respect biological systems; and. WHEREAS regulatory policies function to limit, rather than prevent environmental damage and the time has come to prohibit, not mitigate, continued needless environmental destruction; and WHEREAS conservative natural resource policies have been proven to stimulate green, local, in- novative, resilient, sustainable commerce; and.

One purpose of this Ordinance is to recognize and protect the inalienable rights of residents of the City of Mt. Another purpose of this Ordinance is to recognize and protect the inalienable rights of the natural environment of the City of Mt.

Shasta, including the right to exist and flourish, free from damage caused by alteration of natural water systems and cycles or introduction of toxic and potentially toxic substances. Disturbing natural water cycles, including rainfall, the recharging of aquifers, and interfering with access to water by human and natural communities are explicit prohibitions imposed by this Ordinance, to protect Rights. A further purpose of this Ordinance is to recognize that it is an inviolate, fundamental, and inalien- able right of each person residing within the City of Mt.

Shasta to be free from involuntary inva- sions of their bodies by the application of corporate chemicals into the environment as a result of the violation of the provisions of this Ordinance. Shasta understand that responsibility for remedying or simply endur- ing harmful effects brought about by modifications to weather, the introduction of toxins into the environment, and the privatization of water, is borne predominantly by the public.

State and federal authorities regularly sanction damaging industrial and corporate behavior, and state and federal lawmakers and courts exercise preemptive authority over community attempts to prohibit harmful corporate behavior locally.

Shasta recognize that they are forced to endure or attempt to repair the harm to their environment that they have no commensu- rate authority to prevent, under current state and federal law.

While the State of California and the federal government have bestowed legal protections and immunities upon corporations and those who benefit from them, they have concurrently disal- lowed the people from making those persons reaping financial benefits from harmful corporate activities bear responsibility for damage inflicted. Shasta, under authority of the people, subordinates corporations to the rights and self-governance of the people, prohibits corporations from violating rights, and to achieve the purposes herein outlined, enacts this Ordinance.

All Rights delineated in this Ordinance, and all provisions, findings and purposes of this Ordinance, without exception, are self-executing and legally enforceable. All residents, natural communities and ecosystems in the City of Mt. Shasta possess a fundamental and inalienable right to sustainably access, use, consume, and preserve water drawn from natural water cycles that provide water necessary to sustain life within the City. It shall be unlawful for any person to assist a corporation to engage in cloud seeding or weather modification within the City of Mt.

Shasta from those activities. Shasta, or into any natural community or ecosystem, which results from corporate cloud seeding or weather modification, whether engaged in, within or beyond the City of Mt. Shasta, is declared a form of trespass and is hereby prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to assist a corporation to engage in water withdrawal in the City of Mt.

Shasta hereby allow the following exceptions to the Statements of Law contained within Section 2. Shasta outside of the City of Mt.

0 thoughts on “Brian dcosta bankruptcy simi valley

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *