The case

This blog pertains to the lawsuit I filed against the government, in pro per status, seeking compensation for damages I suffered after discovering a previous employer illegal, because it was a suspended corporation at all times of my employment and I suffered a life changing physical injury.  I am awaiting payment or an attorney. (more…)

Images: Neck mass

This morning when I woke in a fog of facial paralysis, rolling eyes, and pounding head I decided to try and take some photos of the mass in my neck as the inability to “see” is enough to make a crazy woman insane.  Surprisingly the photos were not difficult and I did not require tracking down additional equipment and programing the camera to auto capture images, but with the tumor attached to my arm that I use with the camera, better images can be taken.

It has been nearly 2 years since I notified the government of my demand for payment and over one since this case was filed.  Given I worked on inmate lawsuits pertaining to poor medical care I find myself wondering why I wonder why the government has not stepped in to save a life.  It is typical of the government to not concern itself with the health of its people and find the “free healthcare for everyone” which changed to an inclusion of the word insurance, at some time, to be interesting and not within the mind of the government to provide healthcare to the people.  It was also stated the new healthcare for the people was mandatory but there has not been a knock upon my door or movement by these Defendants to direct me to a free hospital for what may be a life saving procedure.   I understand that the healthcare for everyone is merely nothing more than healthcare insurance law reform, which probably pertains to inmates and the ability of the government to obtain healthcare insurance policies on each inmate and not the people like me who suffer from an excluded problem, “employment injury”, and no income because of the employment, which prevent the obtainment of a policy.  However, the reform act does remove the regulation that preexisting injury can longer be a cause for higher rates, denial, or cancellation of policy and my mass has yet to be provided a history of existence.  So long as the history of the existence remains unattached or caused by the employment injury I should be capable of healthcare insurance without fear of imprisonment for fraud.  The mass though seems to be connected to the employment injury through the permitting of a foreign object to hide within my body because the pain medications would not allow the brain to recognize the pain and symptoms … though I do recall requesting a body scan at some time because this crazy woman thought once she had a tumor on her spine.  What could have been had healthcare reform been present and allowed for exploratory procedures.  Turns out … I got many tumors … and many questions … I remain to find hope in those whom jobs were called upon have done just that.

Images follow:

(more…)

City of Thousand Oaks – Bus. License Tax

The bugs in the brain and computers seem to clog the intelligent thoughts as the transition from State to local laws leaves the mind echoing for a lifetime … the entire mess of local must be trashed and redone as the clash between State and local will not permit the brain to think seamlessly.

Probably a year …

County of Ventura and Prop. Taxes

Well it seems that writing from a intelligent brain is not an option so I will resort to pointless, non-conclusive, and thoughtless ramblings until the junk is cleared.

The County of Ventura is required to know every person and every thing within its boundaries and does not delegate to the Cities, rather they do to the County, and the assessor is whom is charged with the duty to ascertain the value of each.  The Sheriff is charged with the duty of enforcement of tax collection which is the duty of the Tax Collector – Treasurer, so the Sheriff is the reinforcement for the Tax Collector.  It is assumed that Assessor ascertains persons in possession of businesses, person property, and registers the business with the Sheriff whom notifies the Tax Collector for administrative purposes of mailing notices … the value of property, is unclear: $20.00, $200.00, or $100,000 is the minimum reporting value – but an information statement is required regardless for the purpose of statistics so to ascertain a real ideal of values.

The Assessor use to consider corporations personal property and thus corporations were taxes based upon the cash value, ad valoreom (who cares one day the bugs will cease).  In 1910-1911 there was a split between County and State whereby State no longer collected property taxes only counties did and by 1935 the State no longer accepted ad valeorom taxes.  However, the State retained mining and railroad property taxes or just railroad as it was intercounty jurisdication and probably provided for being a moderator – it seems that the imposition and levy cannot be handled by the same.  Prior to 1910 the State imposed and the Counties collected, whether true or not is not research and made only by appearance.

The County of Ventura was imposed to know all businesses within the entire boundaires of the County and not just the unincorporated areas – thus the process is believed to be initiated with the Sheriff through business registration also supported by the Fraud Investigation division maintained by the District Attorney, whom is to investigate all instances of fraud pertaining to Workers’ Compensation – it thought that the DOI in 2003 reported to the District Attorney the uninsured business and at a minimum the phone call could have been traced to my residence and then employment data pulled and discovered the employer and at that time there were only 28 law offices in Thousand Oaks … but if they pull … but if no one knew they existed … there was no record to pull … what a shame.

The County of Ventura does not maintain ordinances directing the Assessor it is assumed through lack of public availability that the Assessor must be directed through State laws and no county ordinances nor by-laws exist to the contrary.

 

RTC 103 – property is everything capable of private ownership.
RTC 2602 – The Tax Collector shall collect all property taxes.

RTC 404 – Property is assessed where it is situated.
RTC 405 – Annually the assessor shall assess all taxable property in his county to the person owning, claiming, possessing, or controlling it – how is debt assessed?
RTC 453 – Assessor may make any person “found” regardless of ownership provide statement of name and residence or place of business (not employment) – FI cards?

Seems so basic and fundamental that it is appearing not challenging, but through common thought every business … or just payroll businesses … must register with the Sheriff … or the DA – but does fraud only work on report of incident of uninsured – or does Sheriff reconcile payroll with the rating people?  WCRB – which does have public search engine for inquiry of insurance carrier to employer – so I would think Sheriff or DA must because of the fraud fund that would grant rights to look because they not the Commissioner whom is officially charged with the duty – but if one takes upon himself the duty to look did him self-impose himself to act when in color of law?  There are no answers in this wild world of internet data.  I hate allegations based in thought.  Because guys isn’t that thought already in your head?  Why do I have to tell you your common sense thoughts – am I “that smart”?  Wow, look at this brand new original thought for free complementary from me to you – but if you don’t pay for it – it is not yours and you cannot “resale” my thoughts.  Brain patent research please – isn’t that a birth certificate – or an MRI?  Know you know runway models insure their legs, wonder if they can patent them no two alike – trademarks – possibly invention through plastic surgery – “these legs are one of kind, personally designed by me, no original parts left.”  Sell a pair for millions, or just one leg for a discount so long as you don’t retain the other leg too – mismatched never looks good.  Manufactured runway models coming soon.  Anyways -

DOI website contains information on the DA program, but no law to cite or rather provide a guide for expectations.

 

Draft: Opposition to dismiss (Calif.)

(11/24/13) – This is a draft of an opposition to the State should they file a motion to dismiss based upon the ruling of their demurrer.

DOCUMENT:
Opposition to dismissal by the State (draft and unfiled)
This is a draft revision and is incomplete.
- updated 11/24/2013 – the research

Draft: Motion to file first amended

(03/06/14) – This is a draft of a motion for permission to file a first amended complaint.  I am still continuing to research and work out the issues of the case and am preparing this motion, out of fear there is a motion to dismiss filed rather than payment made, so I will be prepared.

DOCUMENT:
Motion for permission to file a first amended complaint (draft and unfiled)
This is a draft revision and is incomplete.
Revised: 12/01/2013
Revised: 03/03/2014
Revised: 03/06/2014 – the amendments of Calif.

California: statement of the case

The demurrer of the State of California having been heard, sustained without leave to amend, and still working on the case I provided a statement of the case to the State of California.  The statement was incomplete and still contained errors that needed to be worked out, but I provided a settlement offer and notice of intent to amend the complaint, all of which was ignored.

Statement of the case – State of California

* The issue of the case barred by statute of limitations was not addressed.

Thousand Oaks: statement of the case

The demurrer of the City of Thousand Oaks having been heard, sustained without leave to amend, and still working on the case I provided a statement of the case to the City of Thousand Oaks.  The statement was incomplete and still contained errors that needed to be worked out, but I provided a settlement offer and notice of intent to amend the complaint, all of which was ignored.

Statement of the case – City of Thousand Oaks

* The typo of the demurrer, Municipal Code 3-1.04 vs. 3-1.25, was not questioned.

Ventura: statement of the case

The demurrer of the County of Ventura having been heard, sustained without leave to amend, and still working on the case I provided a statement of the case to the County of Ventura.  The statement was incomplete and still contained errors that needed to be worked out, but I provided a settlement offer and notice of intent to amend the complaint, all of which was ignored.

Statement of the case – County of Ventura

California: Demurrer to original

The State of California demurred to the original civil complaint in February 2013 and the hearing was set for March 18, 2013, wherein the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend despite request to do so.

Demurrer to the complaint - State of California

Thousand Oaks: Demurrer to original

The City of Thousand Oaks demurred to the original civil complaint in February 2013 and the hearing was set for March 13, 2013, wherein the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend despite request to do so.

Demurrer to the complaint – City of Thousand Oaks

Civil Complaint

The original civil complaint for damages was filed January 15, 2013 in Ventura County Superior Court.

Original civil complaint

Leg. History: Taxation

This is the first preliminary draft of the legislative history of taxation in California, beginning in 1850 and continuing until 2014, and as is here, 1996-2000 are years with applicable laws.

The research is necessary as it is required by Govt. Code 815.6 to show the intent of the legislature to fulfill elements of the code pertaining to mandatory and type of injury.

Draft:
Legislative History for Taxation

Leg. History: Corporations

This is the first preliminary draft of the legislative history of corporations in California, beginning in 1850 and continuing until 2014, and as is here, 1996-2000 are years with applicable laws.

The research is necessary as it is required by Govt. Code 815.6 to show the intent of the legislature to fulfill elements of the code pertaining to mandatory and type of injury.

Draft:
Legislative History for Corporations

Leg. History: Employment

This is the first preliminary draft of the legislative history of employment laws in California, beginning in 1850 and continuing until 2014, and as is here, 2000 thru 2003 are years with applicable laws.

The research is necessary as it is required by Govt. Code 815.6 to show the intent of the legislature to fulfill elements of the code pertaining to mandatory and type of injury.

Draft:
Legislative History for Employment laws

Legal Notices

PRIVACY
Protecting your personal information and privacy is important to me.
I will only collect personal information that you voluntarily provide.
I will only use the personal information you provide for its intended purpose.
I will only disclose personal information to a government agency if required by law.

SECURITY
Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information contained within this site are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the United States criminal code (18 U.S.C. 1030). Possible violations of law may be provided to law enforcement officials. I do not grant permission for uploads or changes of information unless required by law.

COPYRIGHT
This site is protected by United States copyrights code (17 U.S.C.), and is punishable under United States criminal code (17 U.S.C. Chapter 5). Possible violations of law may be provided to law enforcement officials. I do not grant authorizations for use (17 U.S.C. 106), unless required by law.