further proof you don't own nuttin...

yesterday or the day before i learned something new: the county (at least the one where i'm located) dictates the placement of a home on a given lot...

across the street from our "office" are three new homes being built. good size lots (crappy location - very much a "hillside" with a soggy area at the bottom, the top of the hill is at the road, and it is on a bend).

i walked over to ask the crews not to block our driveway.

in part of that conversation i found out that the "homeowner" was furious at the site location of the house. he, the crew, and i, conscensed that the house should have been sited further back instead of a mere 20 feet (it is very close) from the edge of the road - and a very dangerous curve at that...

turns out the county said "it goes here" on the engineering plan.

the construction foreman stated the county dictates house siting on a given plot...

so there you go.

if you really owned it, YOU'D dictate where it would be, wouldn'tcha?

jon

[KaosTheory]

Where do "they" get their authority to do such a thing?

Well, I believe this is the result of a phenomenon known as the doctrine of Just Cause. They do it "just cause" they got the guns and keep getting away with it.

Sincerely,
truth

[KaosTheory]

Ok, excepting violence, how do they get their authority.

[wirlwind]

Because they can, and no one ever challenges them. People get mad, and cuss and throw things, but they never try to do anything legally. Now it almost impossible to do anything, even legally. That is why we are in the shape we are in now. People didn't challenge anything, and the government got so firmly ensconced in doing whatever they wanted with little to no resistance, that now it is hell to take back our rights that have become so eroded. Most of the people in this country have a welfare mentalilty, and don't ever challenge the government on anything "as long as they care of them."

[KaosTheory]

Originally Posted by wirlwind

Because they can, and no one ever challenges them. People get mad, and cuss and throw things, but they never try to do anything legally. Now it almost impossible to do anything, even legally. That is why we are in the shape we are in now. People didn't challenge anything, and the government got so firmly ensconced in doing whatever they wanted with little to no resistance, that now it is hell to take back our rights that have become so eroded. Most of the people in this country have a welfare mentalilty, and don't ever challenge the government on anything "as long as they care of them."

So, it's all about violence then? It's almost impossible to do anything but not entirely impossible.

Next, have your rights erroded away or has respect for your rights erroded away?

Originally Posted by jmunson

yesterday or the day before i learned something new: the county (at least the one where i'm located) dictates the placement of a home on a given lot...

across the street from our "office" are three new homes being built. good size lots (crappy location - very much a "hillside" with a soggy area at the bottom, the top of the hill is at the road, and it is on a bend).

i walked over to ask the crews not to block our driveway.

in part of that conversation i found out that the "homeowner" was furious at the site location of the house. he, the crew, and i, conscensed that the house should have been sited further back instead of a mere 20 feet (it is very close) from the edge of the road - and a very dangerous curve at that...

turns out the county said "it goes here" on the engineering plan.

the construction foreman stated the county dictates house siting on a given plot...

so there you go.

if you really owned it, YOU'D dictate where it would be, wouldn'tcha?

jon

THE COUNTY OR CITY HAS WHAT THEY CALL SET BACK REGULATIONS. MOST PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS PLACE THEIR BUILDINGS ACCORDING TO EASEMENT AND SET BACK LINES. THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY HAS PROBABLY ALREADY PLATTED THE LAND TO SUIT THEIR NEEDS (ROADS, UTILITIES, ETC). IT APPEARS THAT NEW HOMEOWNERS GET WHATEVER THE DEVELOPER GOT APPROVED FROM THE COUNTY.

Oh, you're absolutely correct. Excepting violence, they don't have any authority. Unless, of course, one were to consider the fact that a majority of the people accept the title of "persons" and sit back and allow their own neighbors to be destroyed when such resistance occurs. Not to mention a majority actually re-elects the same individuals who condoned violent acts. A majority even allows town selectmen to re-appoint local law enforcement who have probably taken part in such acts. A majority, a majority, of course we know another reason is because "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule", ie the law of necessity. But, I found it most interesting in researching state foreclosure laws and even U.C.C laws in regards to repossession. They all use the terms "peaceable" possession and "peaceable" entry on land. So I looked up the term possession and expected to find the phrases "peaceable entry" and peaceable possession" described among the many other definitions under "possession" in BLD 6th and 4th. But, the definition of peaceable is not there, oddly. The word peaceable stands alone alphabetically and reads as follows:

"Free from the character of force, violence, or trespass; as a "peaceable entry" on lands. “Peaceable possession” of real estate is such as is acquiesced in by all other persons, including rival claimants, and not disturbed by any forcible attempt at ouster, nor by adverse suits to recover the possession or the estate.”

Now, in Vermont, for example, you go and read Title 12 Section 4911, to wit:

“Entry or detainer with force; forcible entry prohibited

A person shall not make entry into lands, tenements or other possessions,except where entry is given by law; and in such case, not with strong hand nor with multitude of people, but only in a peaceable manner. A person who violates a provision of this section shall be fined as hereinafter provided.”

That pretty much tells me that they can’t even legally enforce a forclosure or tax sale, or anything, until the person in actual possession can be duped into voluntarily vacating. Now, go and read the definition of “vacant possession”.

“ Vacant possession.

An estate which has been abandoned, vacated, or forsaken by the tenant. The abandonment must be complete in order to make the possession
vacant, and therefore, if the tenant have goods on the premises it will not
be so considered.”

That pretty much tells me that in every property seizure situation, they need you to voluntarily pack up your worldly belongings and walk away, leaving them an empty house that you abandoned.

Sincerely,
truth

[wirlwind]

I have heard of people refusing to leave even when the sherriff comes to "forceably remove" you from your property. They are still in their houses. Most people get scared, and leave when the sherriff comes to their door. Often the sherriff will actually pull a weapon. If they come to my house, they had better be ready to use it, because that will be the only way they will get me out.

[Camino]

whirlwind,

I'm with you in standing up against the use of force. My investigation of this leads me to believe that it is perfectly legal for you to use force but that your intentions of this must be posted on the property as a trespass warning and a claim of right must be made. The claim of right is a Canadian thing taken from the Criminal Code Of Canada, as per:

{R.S., c. C-34, s. 38.

Defence with claim of right
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

Defence of dwelling
40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.}

I believe there is something similar for the U.S.