Posted on 09/17/2003 8:54:30 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Landowner, militia vow armed defense of property
Wednesday, September 17, 2003By Ted Roelofs
The Grand Rapids Press
HORTON BAY -- On the surface, Lyle Barkley hardly seems the type to provoke an armed standoff.
At 55, the silver-haired, grandfatherly Charlevoix County excavator says he never has been in real trouble with the law. He does not advocate violence.
But as he leans by a sign on his property that says "Honk For Your Constitutional Rights," it becomes clear Barkley is ready for a fight.
"I don't want no bloodshed unless they shoot the first shot," Barkley said. "All I'm doing is standing up for my rights."
As if to underscore the point, Barkley stands just a few feet from a 6-foot-deep trench he dug on the perimeter of his land in the hill country about 10 miles southeast of Charlevoix.
Barkley says armed men from across the country are ready to occupy that trench to defend him, as he approaches a Thursday court deadline to remove three mobile homes he installed on his land.
In April, District Judge Richard May found that Barkley violated the zoning laws of Bay Township when he brought in the homes without permits. May reaffirmed that ruling Tuesday afternoon, denying a petition by Barkley to rescind his order.
The case has drawn widespread interest from local media outlets, not to mention radio talk shows from Arizona to Texas to Washington.
It also has attracted the scrutiny of patriot and anti-government groups, including a Colorado-based organization that threatens to send 600 armed members to protect Barkley.
Denver resident Rick Stanley, founder of the Second American Revolution Militia Mutual Defense Pact, vowed Barkley will not stand alone.
"They have subverted the intentions of what our forefathers say our government should be," he said. "We have a fascist tyranny.
"I call it the police state of America, and we are going to stop it one way or another," Stanley said.
On his Web site, Stanley warned about the consequences of the standoff with Newaygo County resident Scott Woodring, killed by state police in July after authorities tried to serve him with an arrest warrant that accused him of trying to solicit sex from 15-year-old girls.
Stanley said he got involved in the dispute when he was contacted by Barkley, a member of his group.
A statement faxed to The Press quotes Norman Olson, the self-described senior adviser to the Michigan Militia, saying the dispute "stinks of crooked politics, corruption and favors."
"I admire his spirit," Olson said of Barkley.
Charlevoix County Sheriff George Lasater said he is prepared to enforce the law. But he also said he hopes to avoid confrontation.
"We will do everything in our power and jurisdiction to make sure nobody is hurt on their side," Lasater said, adding, "the sheriff's department will do what it has to do to make sure the court orders are followed. We won't be intimidated by them."
Lasater would not say what action he might take if Barkley refuses to back down.
Township officials say they are doing nothing more than enforcing the law.
"This is a simple, blatant disregard for the law," township attorney James Murray said of Barkley's actions. "You can't just disregard ordinances."
According to the township, Barkley applied for a permit to build additions on to two mobile homes on his 4-acre property. Barkley instead moved two additional mobile units onto his property, attaching one to the mobile home in which he lives with his wife, Shirley, 50, and one to the mobile home where his daughter, Kim, 22, lives with her boyfriend and three children.
Judge May found that both homes violated building codes.
The court also found Barkley allowed people to move into another modular unit on the property without a permit.
To Barkley's way of thinking, he is just doing what every property owner has every right to do.
He has tangled with the township before. About 13 years ago, he was cited because of numerous barking dogs on his property. Barkley said he was acquitted.
About five years ago, he had a dispute over stumps he wanted to bury on his property. Barkley said that was resolved amicably.
He has had no criminal brushes with the law, felony or misdemeanor, according to state police records.
Barkley believes he is backed up in his latest dispute by his discovery that his property is "patent land," stemming from an 1871 act by President Ulysses S. Grant.
He said he has several weapons on his property, including a high-powered rifle and shotguns. He has plenty of ammunition.
"I myself am not going to be armed," Barkley said, adding he will leave that to others.
Barkley said he has had plenty of local support, including lots of honking horns in response to the sign in front of his driveway.
But standing on a deck on a bluff that overlooks Barkley's property, neighbor Carol Hellstrom said she backs the township.
"I have no sympathy for him whatsoever," Hellstrom said. "There's reasons for the laws. That's what this whole country is founded on."
Hellstrom's deck faces west, where she has a postcard view of Lake Charlevoix. But she's weary of looking down on Barkley's property, which is cluttered with old tractors, backhoes, numerous vehicles, a sizable wood pile, piles of discarded siding, old tires and rusted engines.
To her way of thinking, Barkley brought this on himself.
If things proceed toward showdown Thursday, Hellstrom said she is making plans of her own.
"We're having a kegger. You might as well enjoy the show."
And if one has six or eight trailer homes to put on his one acre parcel, one should fit right in.
The Federalist papers are not law. They were propaganda intended to sell a carefully sabotaged Constitution to the public, a bait and switch.
It is unlikely that we would disagree with each other that the things you listed are NOT Constitutional.
No, everything I named is explicitly Constitutional and this was the very intent of the Founding Lawyers who, after all, were writing their future job descriptions.
I can not address your information about the shutting down of the news papers for the anti-Federalist views, that is the first time that I have heard of that.
Government school? Ah well, I suppose it was "neccesary and proper" or in the interests of the "general welfare".
. If we allow every word to be that elastic then we get Federal intrusion at every level. It is bizzar for the Senate to assume that they can treaty in areas where they have no authority to legislate. That is what it appeared to me that you were indicating that the Constitution was - elastic.
The words are intended to be elastic. The Founding Lawyers were smart enough to write an inelastic document but they didn't. They could have stated that troops could not be quartered without an home owner's consent PERIOD, but they didn't did they? They could have insisted on a right to a public jury trial in all cases whatsoever but no they reserved this only to cases deemed criminal by the government itself. This is why you do not receive a jury trial when you go up against the IRS.
After reading your homepage (not sure of it's official name here at the site) here at Freerepublic I am really suprised that we differ in views on this topic. Everything you stated I feel that I could also state as my position.
Weird, huh?
Look either the Constitution was designed to create the sort unlimited, unaccountable government we suffer from today OR it is powerless to prevent it.
Which is it?
Congressmen try and impeach *themselves* there is no mechanism for the citizens to hold them accountable for abuse of office. Again, this is not a mistake. The Federal Government was specifically designed to be both extremely insulated from the public and capable of defying their wishes.
The mechanism is democratic and will only lead to more entitlements, class war, bread, circuses, guns, butter, and free drugs for granny.
Just as a curiosity what would be your solution to our present dilemma?
A government limited to solely the defense of life, liberty and property. Oh, there are things you could dream about doing with the current system, for instance, an amendment stating "If you receive a government check, you lose your ability to vote". Naturally these sort of fixes are not viable in a mobocracy.
Here's your cluecheck: The 1st Amendment regarding free speech states that CONGRESS may not enact a law that would restrict your free speech. A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION which you sign a contract with can! If I were to go to work for someone, then I start bad mouthing him in front of his customers, do you think I would be fired or could I sue him for "violating my free speech" rights?
If he wants to fly the American flag he can, he just needs to move first. I personally think that anyone who makes a long-term home in an area with a Homeowner's Association is pretty stupid in the first place.
Thanks for making my point. Civil disobedience was against the government, not someone whom they had entered into a contract with. Tell you what, refuse to pay your mortgage and then try civil disobedience when the bank comes to seize your house. The bank seizing the house might be morally WRONG, but you entered into a contract agreeing to abide by certain rules and the bank has the right to evict you if you fail to abide by your contract.
That's up to each individual, but you should be prepared to pay the consequences. If I get a ticket for driving 75 in a 55, I pay the consequences. If this guy wants to not abide by the HoA's guidelines which he agreed to when he signed on the dotted line, then he should cough up the money that he is being fined.
By buying the property in that particular area and agreeing to the terms of the Homeowner's Association, he is indeed not allowed to universally use his property as he sees fit.
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.