2cmorau
Bronze Member
- Nov 8, 2010
- 1,608
- 1,294
- Detector(s) used
- GMT&GM3 Whites MXT Pro, Shadow X5, Fisher 1280, OMG and the TDI
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS CASE..INVALIDATES SB670
Chuck Dunn
August 5 at 3:27pm
THE KEITH WALKER CASE IS FOR RELEASE NOW
In re : Constitutionality of AB 120(12)(2011) & S~ 1018(3)(2012)
State of California
County of Tuolumne
SS
Of Demand for Taking Judicial
Notice Under Federal Rules of
Evidence Code 20l(d), CA Evidence
Code §450. et seq. Judicial
Notice.
I, Keith Robert Walker, Affiant as UN-represented party and
being over the age of twenty one (21) am competent to testify to
the facts herein based upon first hand ·knowledge and belief and
do affirm that the facts herein are true, correct and complete.
The affiant, Keith Robert Walker does declare the following :
1. that, Affiant presents this Affidavit as the highest form
of prima facIe evidence in this matter,
U.S. vs. Kis ~658 F2d. 526, 536, and; -
2 . that, this affiant will be the direct evidence that overwhelms
the States "primary evidence" of presumptions until this
Affidavit is fully rebutted; and,
3. that, Affiant now presents to this court the citations of
authority that are self-executing constitutional provisions and
Case Law that allows this court the knowledge of affiant's title
of full right status.
4. that, self-executing constitutional provisions stand as
the sufficient rule of this instant case which is effective immediately
and evidences rule by which guaranteed rights are to
be enjoyed or duty of government imposed and enforced,
Cleary vs. Kincaid, 23 Idaho, 769, 131 p . 1117, 1118; Strange vs.
City of Cleveland, 94 Ohio St.377, 114 N.E. 261, 262; and,
5. that, Affiant, "Aggrieved Party" hereby demands that the
Court and Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the State of California,
take Judicial Notice pursuant to rule of evidence 201(b)
under Federal Rules of Evidence Code and also CA Evidence Code
§450. et seq. Judicial Notice, of the following:
6. that, you Judge *judge*, and Kamala Harris, Attorney
AFFIDAVIT Page 1
. .
21
General of the State of California, have imputed knowledge of the
wrong perpetrated on myself, Affiant, and others similar situated,
by the color able, -~~ et al Party(s) of Interest; that being the
Sierra Fund et al s., jointly and severally, including those members
of the Legislature affiliated with the Sierra Fund that while
sitting on the Budget ~ Committee(s} of the Legislature, caused
both AB 120(12)(2011) and SB 1018(3)(2012) to be inserted into
Budget bills as a "Rider" or "Trai1~t" bill to the Budget in.orde
to masquerade as Budget bills related to the Budget in order to
substantively amend the Fish and Game Code §5653 et seq. with
subjects not embraced in their titles, in violation of Art lV §9
of the California Constitution, with the ''subject" of both bills
being expressed in the titles of both AB 120 & SB 1018 as "related
.to-.-. the budget". and
7. that the Sierra Fund et al. who promoted and promulgated
both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) have alleged that the use of both
"Trailer" and "Rider" bills to the:: Budget.· i:q;e :· somehow a "loophole'
in the law whereby they can disregard Sections (a), (b) & (c) of
Art lV §12. Budgets; budget bills; Appropriations, while embracing
(b) "No bill except the budget bill may contain more than one
item of appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed pur- ....
pose.'', thereby allowing them to slip one of the rider of trail~ r
bills into a bill that could only be authorized by Art lV §12 of
the California Constitution because of the grouping together of
numerous bills "related to the budget'' . into one bill with its sub
ject being expressed in its title as related to the budget, which
was how both AB 120( 12 ·~- tind SB 1018(3) were passed or "log rolled"
bf the Legislature prior to being signed b i our greedy governor,
while at the same time somehow exempt from the requirements and
22 prohibitions_or both §9 & §12 or Art lV, CA Constitution.
27
8. that as a result of both of the afore stated legislative
enactments, and the indefinite moratorium imposed thereby. on suet
ion dredge mining, suction dredge miners have been denied their
right to mine granted i · to them by the 1872 Mining Act et seq., and
the right to due process of law under the 5th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
28 9. that as a result. of said denial of rights, _Affiant and
AFFIDAVIT Page 2
19
other professional suction dredge miners have suffered irreperable
damages in amounts that cannot be easily determined or even
compensated for, including loss of income, devaluation of property,
and the right to mine and pursue their chosen lawful occupation
as a direct result of being denied due process of law by a
"scheme" by the state et al s., including the Sierra Fund, by
which miners were/are required to obtain a permit in order to
operate a suction dredge, and then refusing to issue such permits
based in part on a moratorium imposed by SB 670(2009) that was
unconstitutionally extended indefinably by both AB 120 & SB 1018.
10. that, as a result of said "scheme" resulting in the denial
of those afore stated rights, based in part on AB 120 & SB
1018, Causes of Action have b~en created under 42 USC §§ 1983,
1984, and 1986, and Title· 18 u.s.c. for obstruction· of justice,
including but not limited to actions under Title 18 USC 241 and
242 whereby even public officials can be liable for honest mistakes,
or with "·knowledge" of wrong·. DOD:[lg under Title 42 u. S. c.
1983 and failure for not stopping and correcting a wrong which
removes immunity.
11. that, concurrently with the service of this Affidavit
upon Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the Stat~ of California,
Affiant in this Affidavit and Petitioner in Walker vs. Harris in
the Coordinated Suction Dredge Mining Cases, Case No. JCCP4720,
Superior Court of the State b~ California, County of San Bernardino
will serve upon Kamala Harris an Application for an Opinion
of the Attorney General finding both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) to
20 be unconstitutional under Art. lV §9 of the Constitution of the
21 State of California, by which a wrong may be made right, for
reasons as set forth hereafter in the following Declaration · ~nd
22 attached citation of Authorities~
28
DECLARATION
The affiant, Keith Robert Walker does declare the following:
12. That both AB 120(12)(2011) and SB 1018(3)(2012) were enact
ed by virtue of constitutional provisions set forth in Art. 1 V, ., :
§12. · Budgets; Budget bills; Appropriations.
AFFIDAVIT Page 3
. .
22
13. That both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) are alleged to be related
to the budget in the titles of both AB 120 and SB 1018.
l'.4. That both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) were grouped together
with other bills "related to the budget".
15. That the title of AB 120 is "An act to ... , to amend
Section 5653.1 of, and to amend and add Section 8051.4 of, the
Fish and Game Code, . .. relating to public resources, and making
an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill
related to the budget."
1'6 . That the title of SB 1018 is "An act to amend Sections ..
l l • , to amend Section 5653.1 of, to add Section 2948 to, and
to repeal Article 2 (commencing with ·section 2940) of Chapter 13
of Division 3 of, the Fish and Game Code, ... , relating to
public resources, and making an· appropriation therefor, to take
effect immediately, bill related to the budget."
}7. Neither AB 120(12) or SB 1018(3) contained any provision
for the "appropriation therefor" of any appropriation of money
from the General Fund of the State for any "one certain, expressed
purpose" as authorized by Art lV §12(d) which expressly prohibits
any other bill except the budget bill from containing more
than one item of appropriation. Therefore
Y8. Both AB 120, (12) included, and SB 1018, (3) included, are
Budget bills alleged to be authorized by Art. lV, §12 o~ the Constitution
of the State of California.
19. Both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) substantively amended an
existing statute, in violation of Art. 4, §9, Statutory titles;
Amendments, of the Constitution of the State of California.
23 20. AB . 120(12) substantive~y amended §5653.1 by extending the
26
moratorium imposed by SB 670 (2009) until June 30, 2016, or until
the director ' s certification to the secretary as described above,
whichever is earlier. However, the increase of the threshold
from mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts,
27 as found in SB 670, to "fully mitigate" as found in AB 120( 12),
28 has been found by the CDFW to be unattainable resulting in the
AFFIDAVIT Page 4
21
continuation of the moratorium through June 30, 2016, a substantive
change to an existing statute.
21. AB 120( 12) was either authorized by Art. lV §12, or it
was prohibited by Art. lV §12(d). In either case it was prohibit
ed under Art. lV §9, and therefore unconstitutional, for embracing
subjects not expressed in its title as evidenced by case law:
Planned Parenthood Affiliates v Swoap (1985, 1st
Dist) 173 Cal App 3d 1187, 219 Cal Rptr 664: "The
main purpose of the annual budget bill is that of
itemizing recommended expenditures for the ensuing
fiscal year. Annual budget: acts, _,_like.' all .. other
enactments of the Legislature, are subject to the
provisions of Cal. Const . ... art. ·-iv, §9, which sets
the "single subject rule. Thus, the budget bill
may deal only with the. one subject of appropriations
to support the annual budget, a~d may not
constituti6naliy be used to grant authority to a
state agency that the agency does not otherwise
possess or to substantively amend and change exist
ing statute law."
Also, see herewith attached Citation .of Authorities, incorporated
herein and hereby made a part of by reference.
22. SB 1018(3) an "Untitled" bill was a last minute insertion
into SB 1018, a bill titled "An act to amend ... the Fish and
Game Code , .. , relating to public resources, and making an appropriation
therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to
the budget.", and did substantively amend Fish and Game Code Sect
5653 et seq. by extending the June 30, 2016 end of the moratorium
dated indefinitely by the addition of ''This bill would repeal the
June 30, 2016 date, and, instead, make the moratorium operative
until the director makes that certification to the secretary.", a
22 substantive change and amendment to the F&GC §5653~1. SB 1018(3)
2
28
further amended an existing statute by the addition of "The bill
would, ~ in order to facilitate the making of that certification,
r~quire the department to consult with other agencies as it determines
to be necessary, and, on or before April 1, 2013, prepare
and submit to the Legislature a report with the recommendations
on statutory changes or authorizations necessary to develop the
required suction dredge regulation, including, but not limited to
AFFIDAVIT Page 5
, ..
28
recommendations relating to the mitigation of all identified significant environmental impacts and a fee structure that will fully
cover all program costs. This to is a substantive change or
amendment to F&GC §5653.1 not authorized by Art. lV §12, and prohibited
by Art. lV §9 for expressing subjects not expressed in
its title.
23. that, the insertion of "and a fee structure that will ful
ly cover all program costs." is a restatement of the language
found in AB 120(12) as incorporated into F&GC §5653.1, and as
such is a void act possibly included in the bill to masquerade
SB 1018(3) as relating to the budget ..
24. that, for those reasons as stated above, both AB 120(12)
(2011) and SB 1018(3)(2012) are unconstitutional and prohibited
by Art. lV, §9 of the Constitution of the State of California.
24. that, absent the afore stated bills, the moratorium ended
legally in July of 2012.
VERIFICATION
I, the Affiant Keith Robert Walker, under oath, affirm
that I am competent in the testimony of the matters herein stated
and that I have personal knowledge of the facts herin stated, and
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the forgoing is true, complete, certain, and not
misleading, except as to those matters stated by information or
belief, . and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
Dated this LJ;;":ft:J.day of July 2015
AFFIDAVIT
Keith R. Walker~ 1 : A ffiant
9646 Mormon Creek Rd.
Sonora, CA 95370
Chuck Dunn
August 5 at 3:27pm
THE KEITH WALKER CASE IS FOR RELEASE NOW
In re : Constitutionality of AB 120(12)(2011) & S~ 1018(3)(2012)
State of California
County of Tuolumne
SS
Of Demand for Taking Judicial
Notice Under Federal Rules of
Evidence Code 20l(d), CA Evidence
Code §450. et seq. Judicial
Notice.
I, Keith Robert Walker, Affiant as UN-represented party and
being over the age of twenty one (21) am competent to testify to
the facts herein based upon first hand ·knowledge and belief and
do affirm that the facts herein are true, correct and complete.
The affiant, Keith Robert Walker does declare the following :
1. that, Affiant presents this Affidavit as the highest form
of prima facIe evidence in this matter,
U.S. vs. Kis ~658 F2d. 526, 536, and; -
2 . that, this affiant will be the direct evidence that overwhelms
the States "primary evidence" of presumptions until this
Affidavit is fully rebutted; and,
3. that, Affiant now presents to this court the citations of
authority that are self-executing constitutional provisions and
Case Law that allows this court the knowledge of affiant's title
of full right status.
4. that, self-executing constitutional provisions stand as
the sufficient rule of this instant case which is effective immediately
and evidences rule by which guaranteed rights are to
be enjoyed or duty of government imposed and enforced,
Cleary vs. Kincaid, 23 Idaho, 769, 131 p . 1117, 1118; Strange vs.
City of Cleveland, 94 Ohio St.377, 114 N.E. 261, 262; and,
5. that, Affiant, "Aggrieved Party" hereby demands that the
Court and Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the State of California,
take Judicial Notice pursuant to rule of evidence 201(b)
under Federal Rules of Evidence Code and also CA Evidence Code
§450. et seq. Judicial Notice, of the following:
6. that, you Judge *judge*, and Kamala Harris, Attorney
AFFIDAVIT Page 1
. .
21
General of the State of California, have imputed knowledge of the
wrong perpetrated on myself, Affiant, and others similar situated,
by the color able, -~~ et al Party(s) of Interest; that being the
Sierra Fund et al s., jointly and severally, including those members
of the Legislature affiliated with the Sierra Fund that while
sitting on the Budget ~ Committee(s} of the Legislature, caused
both AB 120(12)(2011) and SB 1018(3)(2012) to be inserted into
Budget bills as a "Rider" or "Trai1~t" bill to the Budget in.orde
to masquerade as Budget bills related to the Budget in order to
substantively amend the Fish and Game Code §5653 et seq. with
subjects not embraced in their titles, in violation of Art lV §9
of the California Constitution, with the ''subject" of both bills
being expressed in the titles of both AB 120 & SB 1018 as "related
.to-.-. the budget". and
7. that the Sierra Fund et al. who promoted and promulgated
both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) have alleged that the use of both
"Trailer" and "Rider" bills to the:: Budget.· i:q;e :· somehow a "loophole'
in the law whereby they can disregard Sections (a), (b) & (c) of
Art lV §12. Budgets; budget bills; Appropriations, while embracing
(b) "No bill except the budget bill may contain more than one
item of appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed pur- ....
pose.'', thereby allowing them to slip one of the rider of trail~ r
bills into a bill that could only be authorized by Art lV §12 of
the California Constitution because of the grouping together of
numerous bills "related to the budget'' . into one bill with its sub
ject being expressed in its title as related to the budget, which
was how both AB 120( 12 ·~- tind SB 1018(3) were passed or "log rolled"
bf the Legislature prior to being signed b i our greedy governor,
while at the same time somehow exempt from the requirements and
22 prohibitions_or both §9 & §12 or Art lV, CA Constitution.
27
8. that as a result of both of the afore stated legislative
enactments, and the indefinite moratorium imposed thereby. on suet
ion dredge mining, suction dredge miners have been denied their
right to mine granted i · to them by the 1872 Mining Act et seq., and
the right to due process of law under the 5th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
28 9. that as a result. of said denial of rights, _Affiant and
AFFIDAVIT Page 2
19
other professional suction dredge miners have suffered irreperable
damages in amounts that cannot be easily determined or even
compensated for, including loss of income, devaluation of property,
and the right to mine and pursue their chosen lawful occupation
as a direct result of being denied due process of law by a
"scheme" by the state et al s., including the Sierra Fund, by
which miners were/are required to obtain a permit in order to
operate a suction dredge, and then refusing to issue such permits
based in part on a moratorium imposed by SB 670(2009) that was
unconstitutionally extended indefinably by both AB 120 & SB 1018.
10. that, as a result of said "scheme" resulting in the denial
of those afore stated rights, based in part on AB 120 & SB
1018, Causes of Action have b~en created under 42 USC §§ 1983,
1984, and 1986, and Title· 18 u.s.c. for obstruction· of justice,
including but not limited to actions under Title 18 USC 241 and
242 whereby even public officials can be liable for honest mistakes,
or with "·knowledge" of wrong·. DOD:[lg under Title 42 u. S. c.
1983 and failure for not stopping and correcting a wrong which
removes immunity.
11. that, concurrently with the service of this Affidavit
upon Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the Stat~ of California,
Affiant in this Affidavit and Petitioner in Walker vs. Harris in
the Coordinated Suction Dredge Mining Cases, Case No. JCCP4720,
Superior Court of the State b~ California, County of San Bernardino
will serve upon Kamala Harris an Application for an Opinion
of the Attorney General finding both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) to
20 be unconstitutional under Art. lV §9 of the Constitution of the
21 State of California, by which a wrong may be made right, for
reasons as set forth hereafter in the following Declaration · ~nd
22 attached citation of Authorities~
28
DECLARATION
The affiant, Keith Robert Walker does declare the following:
12. That both AB 120(12)(2011) and SB 1018(3)(2012) were enact
ed by virtue of constitutional provisions set forth in Art. 1 V, ., :
§12. · Budgets; Budget bills; Appropriations.
AFFIDAVIT Page 3
. .
22
13. That both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) are alleged to be related
to the budget in the titles of both AB 120 and SB 1018.
l'.4. That both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) were grouped together
with other bills "related to the budget".
15. That the title of AB 120 is "An act to ... , to amend
Section 5653.1 of, and to amend and add Section 8051.4 of, the
Fish and Game Code, . .. relating to public resources, and making
an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill
related to the budget."
1'6 . That the title of SB 1018 is "An act to amend Sections ..
l l • , to amend Section 5653.1 of, to add Section 2948 to, and
to repeal Article 2 (commencing with ·section 2940) of Chapter 13
of Division 3 of, the Fish and Game Code, ... , relating to
public resources, and making an· appropriation therefor, to take
effect immediately, bill related to the budget."
}7. Neither AB 120(12) or SB 1018(3) contained any provision
for the "appropriation therefor" of any appropriation of money
from the General Fund of the State for any "one certain, expressed
purpose" as authorized by Art lV §12(d) which expressly prohibits
any other bill except the budget bill from containing more
than one item of appropriation. Therefore
Y8. Both AB 120, (12) included, and SB 1018, (3) included, are
Budget bills alleged to be authorized by Art. lV, §12 o~ the Constitution
of the State of California.
19. Both AB 120(12) and SB 1018(3) substantively amended an
existing statute, in violation of Art. 4, §9, Statutory titles;
Amendments, of the Constitution of the State of California.
23 20. AB . 120(12) substantive~y amended §5653.1 by extending the
26
moratorium imposed by SB 670 (2009) until June 30, 2016, or until
the director ' s certification to the secretary as described above,
whichever is earlier. However, the increase of the threshold
from mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts,
27 as found in SB 670, to "fully mitigate" as found in AB 120( 12),
28 has been found by the CDFW to be unattainable resulting in the
AFFIDAVIT Page 4
21
continuation of the moratorium through June 30, 2016, a substantive
change to an existing statute.
21. AB 120( 12) was either authorized by Art. lV §12, or it
was prohibited by Art. lV §12(d). In either case it was prohibit
ed under Art. lV §9, and therefore unconstitutional, for embracing
subjects not expressed in its title as evidenced by case law:
Planned Parenthood Affiliates v Swoap (1985, 1st
Dist) 173 Cal App 3d 1187, 219 Cal Rptr 664: "The
main purpose of the annual budget bill is that of
itemizing recommended expenditures for the ensuing
fiscal year. Annual budget: acts, _,_like.' all .. other
enactments of the Legislature, are subject to the
provisions of Cal. Const . ... art. ·-iv, §9, which sets
the "single subject rule. Thus, the budget bill
may deal only with the. one subject of appropriations
to support the annual budget, a~d may not
constituti6naliy be used to grant authority to a
state agency that the agency does not otherwise
possess or to substantively amend and change exist
ing statute law."
Also, see herewith attached Citation .of Authorities, incorporated
herein and hereby made a part of by reference.
22. SB 1018(3) an "Untitled" bill was a last minute insertion
into SB 1018, a bill titled "An act to amend ... the Fish and
Game Code , .. , relating to public resources, and making an appropriation
therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to
the budget.", and did substantively amend Fish and Game Code Sect
5653 et seq. by extending the June 30, 2016 end of the moratorium
dated indefinitely by the addition of ''This bill would repeal the
June 30, 2016 date, and, instead, make the moratorium operative
until the director makes that certification to the secretary.", a
22 substantive change and amendment to the F&GC §5653~1. SB 1018(3)
2
28
further amended an existing statute by the addition of "The bill
would, ~ in order to facilitate the making of that certification,
r~quire the department to consult with other agencies as it determines
to be necessary, and, on or before April 1, 2013, prepare
and submit to the Legislature a report with the recommendations
on statutory changes or authorizations necessary to develop the
required suction dredge regulation, including, but not limited to
AFFIDAVIT Page 5
, ..
28
recommendations relating to the mitigation of all identified significant environmental impacts and a fee structure that will fully
cover all program costs. This to is a substantive change or
amendment to F&GC §5653.1 not authorized by Art. lV §12, and prohibited
by Art. lV §9 for expressing subjects not expressed in
its title.
23. that, the insertion of "and a fee structure that will ful
ly cover all program costs." is a restatement of the language
found in AB 120(12) as incorporated into F&GC §5653.1, and as
such is a void act possibly included in the bill to masquerade
SB 1018(3) as relating to the budget ..
24. that, for those reasons as stated above, both AB 120(12)
(2011) and SB 1018(3)(2012) are unconstitutional and prohibited
by Art. lV, §9 of the Constitution of the State of California.
24. that, absent the afore stated bills, the moratorium ended
legally in July of 2012.
VERIFICATION
I, the Affiant Keith Robert Walker, under oath, affirm
that I am competent in the testimony of the matters herein stated
and that I have personal knowledge of the facts herin stated, and
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the forgoing is true, complete, certain, and not
misleading, except as to those matters stated by information or
belief, . and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
Dated this LJ;;":ft:J.day of July 2015
AFFIDAVIT
Keith R. Walker~ 1 : A ffiant
9646 Mormon Creek Rd.
Sonora, CA 95370
Amazon Forum Fav 👍
Upvote
0
I believe the takings case is set for September in San Bernadino. The judge has established the defendants were harmed, this will determine to what extent, and how much the State and it's cronies owe those harmed, if any...
