Posted on 09/18/2024 8:05:35 AM PDT by Red Badger
Agreed. That’s just gross.
The Thing That Wouldn’t Leave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHpFFHNRwS4
(It’s the closest thing I could find)
The Judicial Branch is out of control.
Where is the Kentucky AG? Governor? State legislature?
Good time to fumigate. Cover it with a tarp first. Bugs, ya know.
Well Said.
Property
Intrusion
https://prophecywatchers.com/videos/billy-crone-the-planned-destruction-of-america/
Around Labor Day, Toma put up a 30-day eviction notice which further escalated tensions among the tenants.Sencuk and one of Toma's roommates got into a fight, resulting in Sencuk filing for an emergency protective order against Toma.
Squatters rights in Kentucky do not kick in until 15 years of continuous residence. After 15 years, the resident may claim adverse possession. This is not an adverse possession or squatters rights case.
The owner has no legal right to self-execute an eviction. He may go to court and obtain an order for government authorities to execute an eviction. The owner skipped this requirement.
If the owner engages in fisticuffs with the unwanted tenant, the tenant may obtain a protective order against him.
Squatting is when someone enters a vacant or abandoned property and settles there without the owner's permission. This is not a squatting case.
Until the owner takes steps to legally evict the tenant, no Kentucky law has been violated.
After an eviction notice has been served and ignored it is trespassing. It is a trespassing case when Toma gets himself to court and obtains an eviction order.
The eviction order comes from a court, not from the owner.
The court did not rule the tenant may stay or not. That issue was not before the court. What was before the court was a request for a protective order.
The court ruled that the owner must obtain a court order for eviction, and must stay away from the tenant.
It is *INSANE* to have a system that works to deprive the owner of his property on behalf of a (for lack of a better term) "squatter."
Judges should take it upon themselves to look at the entire situation, not the narrow minded little nitpicky point that they have become accustomed to dealing with because of "procedure."
This little bit of idiocy would seemingly invoke the takings clause of the constitution. Court needs to pay the costs for their idiot decision.
Yes, I grasp that all this legal nonsense follows a methodology, but natural rights are the entire foundation of our system of government, and they are just ignored.
"All that legal nonsense" is the actual law that must be followed.
"Natural rights are the entire foundation of our system of government" is legal nonsense, which is what some prefer when they disagree with the actual law. Perhaps you can cite a single case in our juridical history in which natural law was held to preempt constitutional or statute law.
As was observed in the movie Any Which Way But Loose, regarding the leader of the Black Widows,
Wyoming Trooper: " Son, you are a walking violation of the laws of nature, but we don't enforce them laws."
Judges often decide what is "the law" on the fly and based on whatever they feel like at the time.
5th amendment is also the law, yet the courts ignore that in favor of some stupid state statute.
Perhaps you can cite a single case in our juridical history in which natural law was held to preempt constitutional or statute law.
I have been meaning to start a conversation with you about Prigg v Pennsylvania.
I think this is a case where a lot of things started going off the rails.
“The trick is to dig it extra deep, and put something non-incriminating down about six feet. That looks like all there is in the hole. Y’know, I’ve heard. ;^)”
Plant tomatoes or some other lovely aromatic plants over the spot. Nobody will dare dig it up or disturb it, right? And tomatoes have a very strong, distinctive aroma.
“It is *INSANE* to have a system that works to deprive the owner of his property on behalf of a (for lack of a better term) “squatter.””
In a normal, sane world... that would be true. However... considering that the globalist elite PTBs want us all either dead or owning nothing....
I have yet to see a clear, coherent explanation of how this phenomenon is allowed to occur.
Please don’t answer “democrats”, I’m sure they aren’t helping.
Every state has landlord-tenant laws. They probably exist for good reason. Are these laws being misinterpreted?
Flip the script. Say you are a legal tenant with a real lease which expires in six months and contains clauses about early termination, the landlord tells you to get out in 24 hours because someone offered him more money but needs to move in tomorrow (just pretend for a second). You stand on your lease, the police show up tomorrow, you show them your ID and your lease.
I assume nobody here thinks the correct thing is for you to get arrested or tasered and your stuff put at the curb, correct?
I also presume nobody here thinks the landlord should shoot, shovel, and shut up, also correct?
So the question becomes, who is supposed to adjudicate a situation in which the lease is fake, the squatters are obviously not supposed to be there, and you have proof of ownership (so you don’t have to go get it somewhere).
Should the cops drag ‘em out, or sho;uld it go to court?
And in court, what should the judge do?
The problem with the MC gang, as I see it, is the squatters with the fake lease are more likely to have MC gang friends to drag YOU out than vice-versa.
Typically the first thing found is regarded as the bottom of the hole. I think I saw this on an old detective show episode, maybe Columbo.
Judges often decide what is "the law" on the fly and based on whatever they feel like at the time.
You do that on a regular basis. You lke to claim that all court opinions are nonsense, and yet you enjoy citing them endlessly, especially on those rare occasions when they happen to have said something you agree with.
5th amendment is also the law, yet the courts ignore that in favor of some stupid state statute.
Here is an example of you citing utter nonsense.
The dimwit never went to court about his property. As he never asked the court for an eviction order, the court has never considered an eviction order regarding his property.
Dimwit was in court only in response to his tenant's request to the court for a restraining order due to Dimwit's physical violence. The court advised Dimwit to request an eviction notice from the court.
Neither the 5th Amendment, nor whatever unidentified state law you are muttering about, legally empowers Dimwit to punch on the tenant or any guest of the tenant. That earns Dimwit a restraining order against him to prevent recurrance.
No court has violated the property rights of Dimwit. The court has not even ruled on any property rights of Dimwit.
If and when Dimwit requests and the court issues an eviction notice, the tenant will be evicted by the authorities, forcibly if necessary. Once the punchee has been removed from the premises, the puncher make his triumphant return to the scene.
I have been meaning to start a conversation with you about Prigg v Pennsylvania.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep041539
Prigg v Pennsylvania, 41 US 539 (1842). The Opinion of the Court begins on page 608 and ends on page 626. Prigg was correctly decided. It upheld the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution and struck down a repugnant State law. Whatever objections one may have held to the Fugitive Slave Clause, it was the supreme law of the land. Why you would want to discuss a nearly 200-year old court decision, when you dismiss all court opinions that do not agree with what you hold to be thew way things ought to be.
Prigg struck down state law repugnant to the Constitution.
In Dimwit, neither the Constitution, State property law, nor conflict of law was at issue. Dimwit went punching on someone. A restraining order was sought from and granted by a court.
The restraining order apparently restrained Dimwit from coming within a certain distance of the Complainant. Dimwit's penchant for punching people is not a constitutional issue.
Dimwit's dilemma is not unlike had he punched his dear, sweet wife and she had obtained a restraining order. The restraining distance may have moved him off the couch and all the way off the property. That will not be a state law overruling the Constitution.
As a legal man, you are familiar with the concept of "Statements against interest."
And no, I do not claim all court decisions are nonsense. I simply lament that far too many of them are, especially modern court decisions.
The dimwit never went to court about his property. As he never asked the court for an eviction order, the court has never considered an eviction order regarding his property.
Because it's too much trouble for the court to consider it at the time the usurper is trying to kick him off of his own property.
Dimwit was in court only in response to his tenant's request to the court for a restraining order due to Dimwit's physical violence. The court advised Dimwit to request an eviction notice from the court.
Court should have issued summary judgement in favor of the homeowner. Usurper had no right to be there at all.
Neither the 5th Amendment, nor whatever unidentified state law you are muttering about, legally empowers Dimwit to punch on the tenant or any guest of the tenant.
It does (or should) preclude the Judge from depriving the owner of his own property without going through due process.
That earns Dimwit a restraining order against him to prevent recurrance.
Should have resulted in an instant eviction for the trouble maker to prevent recurrance.
No court has violated the property rights of Dimwit. The court has not even ruled on any property rights of Dimwit.
Ordering a man to stay off his own property is depriving him of the use of his property.
Prigg struck down state law repugnant to the Constitution.
It allowed states to ignore the enforcement of Federal laws. It allowed them to refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of Federal laws.
Much disaster has resulted from States being allowed to ignore Federal laws they don't like.
Dimwit's penchant for punching people is not a constitutional issue.
His being ordered off his own land by an idiot court, *IS*.
And the idiot should have been punched, and the law should recognize the provocation which led to the punch.
Dimwit's dilemma is not unlike had he punched his dear, sweet wife and she had obtained a restraining order.
Except for the fact the wife has a right to be there, while the parasite has no right to be there.
Prigg struck down state law repugnant to the Constitution.It allowed states to ignore the enforcement of Federal laws.
States do not enforce Federal law. Federal statute law was not at issue. The State violated the Constitution, the organic law of the country.
States are separate sovereigns. The State police are not servants of the Federal government. Perhaps you would prefer a national police force from coast to coast, because the FBI does such a fine job.
Prigg struck down a State law which was repugnant to the Constitution.
As you cite absolutely nothing in Prigg to support your outrageous claims, I will quote what the court actually did hold.
These are some of the reasons, but by no means all, upon which we hold the power of legislation on this subject to be exclusive in Congress. To guard, however, against any possible misconstruction of our views, it is proper to state, that we are by no means to be understood in any manner whatsoever to doubt or to interfere with the police power belonging to the states in virtue of their general sovereignty. That police power extends over all subjects within the territorial limits of the states; and has never been conceded to the United States. It is wholly distinguishable from the right and duty secured by the provision now under consideration; which is exclusively derived from and secured by the Constitution of the United States, and owes its whole efficacy thereto. We entertain no doubt whatsoever, that the states, in virtue of their general police power, possess full jurisdiction to arrest and restrain runaway slaves, and remove them from their borders, and otherwise to secure themselves against their depredations and evil example, as they certainly may do in cases of idlers; vagabonds, and paupers. The rights of the owners of fugitive slaves are in no just sense interfered with, or regulated by such a course; and in many cases, the operations of this police power, although designed essentially for other purposes, for the protection, safety and peace of the state, may essentially promote and aid the interests of the owners. But such regulations can never be permitted to interfere with or to obstruct the just rights of the owner to reclaim his slave, derived from the Constitution of the United States; or with the remedies prescribed by Congress to aid and enforce the same.Upon these grounds, we are of opinion that the act of Pennsylvania upon which this indictment is founded, is unconstitutional and void. It purports to punish as a public offence against that state, the very act of seizing and removing a slave by his master, which the Constitution of the United States was designed to justify and uphold. The special verdict finds this fact, and the State Courts have rendered judgment against the plaintiff in error upon that verdict. That judgment must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; with directions to carry into effect the judgment of this Court rendered upon the special verdict in favour of the plaintiff in error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.