Unusual Aajonus e-mail-notification

[TylerDurden]

Hi,
The government is trying every means to close us so that we cannot
provide our members with their own healthy food that we have worked so
hard to make available. Because they have not been able to close us on
health-issues and our Right to Association, they are trying
building-safety-violation tactics. The Los Angeles Department of
Building and Safety (LADBS) has issued a closure notice that is dated
August 18 with a 15-days response required (see attached); we got is
just today. Since this is not a residence or public food venture, this
entire issue is probably moot and can be dismissed by a judge when
applying for an injunction against LA City.
To buy time, I am reluctant to ask for an appeal because that may give
it jurisdiction that they do not have because we are not selling
anything (as stated in its notice) and we are not open to public. Right
to Choose Healthy Food/Rawesome has a charity-based agreement with the
owners of the property to use the lot as a distribution center and our
members have agreed that the buildings that exist are adequate for their
needs as per membership agreement (see attached).
We need all willing attorneys to help us fight this fast. Please call me
at 01166850189174 anytime. Sometimes international networks may be
congested but do not give up on your call. However, best times to reach
me are 5-7 PM and 5-7 AM.
I plan to issue a letter to LADBS stating that  it lacks jurisdiction,
that we are a not-for-profit organization that does not sell any food,
that we are not open to the public and that the closure-notice is not valid.
We are about to hire a building and safety engineer to establish that
our open lot meets LA City standards for yard-lot and storage purposes.
appreciatively,
aajonus

[Alan]

sending a letter is not sufficient.   you need to confront a judge at the VERY BEGINNING of any possible proceeding to make your claim that he can't proceed for non-subject-matter jurisdiction  and/or non-personal jurisdicition.  If you don't object at the very beginning, you might be deemed to have WAIVED the right to object.

you might as well do all the lengthy research yourself.  Hardly any attorney will take  this approach.  Attornies are sworn to be Officers of the Court,  and it goes completely against their guild system to claim common-law rights.


At the very beginning of any proceeding, the judge will ask you innocuous-sounding questions which polite people are wont to answer..... "are you so-an-so"?     If you start answering these questions, you are volunteering to go under their jurisdiction.

There is no USA jurisdiction in which you can be forced to act as a witness against yourself.  Don't start answering their questions.   Object on the basis of non-jurisdiction.  The other side will be then be forced to prove that they have it.