View for sale: $30,000 New owner of a lake fences it off when homeowners wouldn't pay.

St. Petersburg Times ^ | May 14, 2002 | ROBERT FARLEY

[palo verde]

rofl tom
I think judge should determine the intent is to scam his neighbors
and fine him $300k or whatever it is he is ''holding up'' his neighbors for
or alternatively, let neighors reimburse him the $1000 he paid
and merely fine him 10k
if he doesn't come out the loser, he will do this to others
he has a talent for making a crooked buck, it should be nipped in the bud
Love, Palo

[Roscoe]

How would you characterize them ripping out his property markers and throwing them in the lake?

Criminal.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Would you be so kind as to point out where in the Bill of Rights or in any civil or penal law that you have this 'right of privacy'?

Sure. Roe V. Wade.

You're both half-wrong and half-right. "Privacy" doesn't exist as a right, but rather an "implied" right based on the BoR and the Constitution.

[the bottle let me down]

bump for later

[Protagoras]

I wonder why no one on this entire thread mentioned the word libertarian or tried to make a lame connection to it before you dolts showed up. Could it be just another attempt to turn another thread into an anti-libertarian screed? Man you guys are boring. Why Robinson allows you to continue on with this disruption is anyone's guess.

[Protagoras]

I disagree palo

Love, Tom

[Roscoe]

I wonder why

Ask tacticalogic.

[CharacterCounts]

We typically see scum like this in action in this area when a news article describes them as buying to homes out from under some senile old coots to evict them and take their property for pennies on the dollar.

The analogy is innacurate. These homeowners never owned anything. It was not their lake any mor than it was yours or mine.

[Jay W]

If the owner decided to erect a statue of himself in the lake or build an ugly boat, I doubt anyone could say anything.

The mental image you have of this guy is becoming more amusingly clear. First, he was going to dump cars on the lake. Then, he was fixin' to dump motor oil into the lake. Now, it's a statue and an ugly boat. What'll he contemplate doing next? LOL!

[Protagoras]

I won't be the one to stand by while my neighbor's ox is gored, and here there is a ox that has been gored -- by a fence post and the fence between posts.

So you are advocating criminal acts to "solve" the problem?

[bvw]

There's room for judgement, and that judgement stops far short of the Korean store owner's rights to charge what he can -- for no one of his customers is forced to shop at his store only.

Here we have a neighborhood, built around a lake, centered around the lake, landscaped to the lake, with the people having bought the lots in a planned subdivision where the lake was part of the plan. Now those folks have an ugly, naught but view-blocking fence in their backyards, built by a man who built the fence just for the sake of having them pay to take it down.

You might have a fine Jewelery store downtown someday. And maybe then some stinking ragged grifter will come to sleep near your entryway and p&ss against it. And the grifter wants $1,000 to move away. Would ask the city to pass a law against such, or will you advocate the right of freemen to stink, sleep and p&ss where they may?

[Lazamataz]

"Would you be so kind as to point out where in the Bill of Rights or in any civil or penal law that you have this 'right of privacy'?"

Sure. Roe V. Wade.

I knew you were going to respond with this, so I carefully worded my request. This is a court interpretation; it is not a civil or penal law, nor is it in the Bill of Rights.

I disagree with the 1972 Supreme Court's interpretation of the 'emanation from a penumbra'. I also disagree with the 1857 Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, so it is not the only time I have disagreed with their interpretation of law.

However, they only interpreted these two laws. There is not direct law stating that privacy is guarenteed on your (outdoor) property whatsoever. Nor is there any guarentee of privacy in the BoR, the 1972 blunder nonwithstanding.

Sorry, I'm not a legal scholar. I'm afraid you'll have to settle for "Don't Tread On Me."

I agree with your first statement. I'm not sure how your second statement applies in any way to this argument.

[palo verde]

tom, I agree with an earlier post bout spirit and letter of the law
it was intent of our founders to protect our individual liberties
his intention is not to enjoy his liberties
but to defraud his neighbors
it is not same thing
Love, Palo

[Sloth]

If we only follow the 'spirit' then what is the point of having laws in the first place? Everybody might as well just do whatever makes them feel good.

[Protagoras]

Ask tacticalogic.

If I wanted to ask him/her a question I would have. The question should be rightfully asked to Robinson, but he runs the place and allows it so I'm sure he wouldn't be a source of enlightenment about it. It is of no consequence in any case, I merely wondered aloud to highlight the practice in case anyone here didn't already recognise the tactic.