It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
countercurrentnews.com...
Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin ruled that Robin Speronis is not allowed to live on her own private property without being hooked up to the city’s water system.
He admitted that she had the right to live without utility power, but said that her alternative power sources must always first be approved by the city.
The city’s argument is that the International Property Maintenance Code was “violated” by her reliance on rain water rather than paying the city for water. The IPMC also would make it a crime for her to use solar panels instead of being tied into the electric grid.
The local Press-News newspaper said that Eskin “admitted that the code might be obsolete.”
“Reasonableness and code requirements don’t always go hand-in-hand… given societal and technical changes that requires review of code ordinances,” Eskin told the paper.
He argues, however, that he has an obligation to enforce the code. Still, he acknowledges that some of the charges against her are unfounded.
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
If there were enough people who wanted to live "off the grid", they could move into a rural area somewhere and take over the local politics. Once they have the majority, they can change the laws (zoning in particular) and give the finger to the big utilities. It's a struggle against the big players who have the politicians in their pockets. They need an off grid community in big enough numbers to have political control and change the laws in their favor. Having a lot of money to work with would be a big advantage in the struggle. Even with all that, they would be in for a big fight to freely live their alternate lifestyle.
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
If there were enough people who wanted to live "off the grid", they could move into a rural area somewhere and take over the local politics. Once they have the majority, they can change the laws (zoning in particular) and give the finger to the big utilities. It's a struggle against the big players who have the politicians in their pockets. They need an off grid community in big enough numbers to have political control and change the laws in their favor. Having a lot of money to work with would be a big advantage in the struggle. Even with all that, they would be in for a big fight to freely live their alternate lifestyle.
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
I think it is unwise to believe that it is any easier to live free in the UK either. Five people were removed from forest in Wales, where they had been living in a low environmental impact commune for some years. This was a couple of years back.
The rules are no less restrictive here than they are in the States, and what is worse, there is less space to get lost in here!
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, if you aren't hooked up to sewer, you're going to be dumping your waste on your land in ways that may not be very safe. Your waste could leech into the subsurface groundwater and contaminate other people's property, or the entire town/city's itself.
This isn't just "we're scared you're independent" -- this is looking out for the common good of everyone, and chances are that these people won't take the proper case to dispose of their toilet and brackish water waste in a responsible manner.
There's always more to the story. The government isn't always out to oppress you and keep you in a cage because it's fun for them.
originally posted by: NerdGoddess
I will never understand why local/state etc.. authorities treat people this way. Growing up I was always under the impression that sinks/ bath tubs/ electric to the house were for people who weren't resourceful enough to have their own water supply, or generators. I always imagined that if you could do it on your own, you wouldn't have to pay. That by paying you were saying "Hey thanks for that water, and electric etc.. I couldn't have done it myself!"
However... If you CAN do it your self why should you not be allowed to? It just makes no sense to me. If someone has a good reason that anyone should not be permitted to live off the grid please tell me. Thanks.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: maddy21
I did read the article--at least there's this:
The local Press-News newspaper said that Eskin “admitted that the code might be obsolete.”
“Reasonableness and code requirements don’t always go hand-in-hand… given societal and technical changes that requires review of code ordinances,” Eskin told the paper.
He argues, however, that he has an obligation to enforce the code. Still, he acknowledges that some of the charges against her are unfounded.
Having been in the legal profession (non-lawyer) for nearly a decade's worth of time, I empathize with the judge's point. The problem isn't the ruling, it's the overreaching codes for which he is forced to rule per his job.
The burden of changing the code lies in the residents and their elected legislators, not the judge. I'm glad to see a judge not legislating from the bench, even if I disagree with the result because of the code that is in place.
originally posted by: ISawItFirst
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: maddy21
I did read the article--at least there's this:
The local Press-News newspaper said that Eskin “admitted that the code might be obsolete.”
“Reasonableness and code requirements don’t always go hand-in-hand… given societal and technical changes that requires review of code ordinances,” Eskin told the paper.
He argues, however, that he has an obligation to enforce the code. Still, he acknowledges that some of the charges against her are unfounded.
Having been in the legal profession (non-lawyer) for nearly a decade's worth of time, I empathize with the judge's point. The problem isn't the ruling, it's the overreaching codes for which he is forced to rule per his job.
The burden of changing the code lies in the residents and their elected legislators, not the judge. I'm glad to see a judge not legislating from the bench, even if I disagree with the result because of the code that is in place.
I get that the law profession requires dismissal of this, but doesn't one swear an oath to become a judge?