Has this guys consttutional rights been violated?

I came across this and it made me really mad, they had to go onto this guys land, that's trespass , because they couldn't have reasonable cause unless he invited them on. So trespass must have occurred. So basically if you try and escape the system, the police wont let you .Where is the land of the free, because it isn't here anymore . thefreethoughtproject.com...

The source starts extremely intentionally vague.

What law did he break again?

Does it have anything more specific than:

"And the government can’t have that."

Otherwise it sounds like propaganda. Story might be true, the question is to what extent.

Like does he not pay taxes?

Then FINALLY it gets around to it being because his house is classified as a trailer, and those aren't allowed by anyone, or something.

So you might think his rights are being violated, but the reality is he wants special treatment.

a reply to: imjack

I mean, that's my unbiased opinion, it kind of irritates me too.

I would ask, if living on his own property without causing issues of any sort for his neighbors, why is this wrong?

Why should he be expected to pay for services he doesn't require/want/need? If he pays his property taxes, which are wrong as well, but a topic for another day, what business is it of the govt?

Is self-sufficiency a crime now?

Now, is there something else going on here? Don't know. On the face of it, he's being harassed, and wrongfully prosecuted.

a reply to: seagull


Yes it seems that if you are forced to purchase commodities you don't need. It seems that a questionable ,and civil commercial matter , is being enforced by the police, with prejudice. Which means what should be a free market is warped into a rigged market.

a reply to: anonentity

i have strong suspicions that a lot of inconvenient facts have been left out of this tail for various reasons

i know 3 people in tne USA who are running thier own private electricity , water and waste water systems totally independant of the utility infrastructure - and its legal

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: anonentity

i have strong suspicions that a lot of inconvenient facts have been left out of this tail for various reasons

i know 3 people in tne USA who are running thier own private electricity , water and waste water systems totally independant of the utility infrastructure - and its legal

It depends on where you live, and if a particular locality suffers from a corrupt local government. Many stories in California show that there are plenty of bureaucrats who will go after people who attempt to live even partially off grid. It is happening somewhere in most any state.

originally posted by: anonentity
Where is the land of the free, because it isn't here anymore .

Since when modern America is "the land of the free"? It's not the Far West anymore.

The laws of a democratic country are decided by the representatives which are elected by the people. If you don't agree with those laws you have only two solutions; move abroad or vote to change the representatives.

If someone wants to live outside of one law than he has to go to a place when such a law doesn't exist. That's the same rule for everybody.

a reply to: anonentity

Yeah, it's broken.
Freedom is hard to find- where I live I have a bill that comes in because it rains... And this is far from some of the worst local governments.

Best bet is to find an unincorporated town- no local officials.

a reply to: galacticgoat

Since when modern America is "the land of the free"? It's not the Far West anymore.

Since modern America is still governed by a Constitution that guarantees our natural rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness established in the Declaration of Independence,

The laws of a democratic country are decided by the representatives which are elected by the people.

And we don't have a democracy, we have a Constitutional Republic, which guarantees our natural rights no matter what rules others wish to impose on the people. In this case, this man violated no one's natural rights... and no one had the right to take away his freedom and liberty for any good reason.

If you don't agree with those laws you have only two solutions; move abroad or vote to change the representatives.

Nope. We have plenty of other options. Including -- but not limited to -- civil disobedience and other means of protest.

If someone wants to live outside of one law than he has to go to a place when such a law doesn't exist. That's the same rule for everybody.

Nope. Not the rule here. Some laws should never be made to begin with -- in accordance with our natural rights, and therefore Constitutional rights -- and it is our right to fight such laws.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: galacticgoat

Since when modern America is "the land of the free"? It's not the Far West anymore.

Since modern America is still governed by a Constitution that guarantees our natural rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness established in the Declaration of Independence,

The laws of a democratic country are decided by the representatives which are elected by the people.

And we don't have a democracy, we have a Constitutional Republic, which guarantees our natural rights no matter what rules others wish to impose on the people. In this case, this man violated no one's natural rights... and no one had the right to take away his freedom and liberty for any good reason.

If you don't agree with those laws you have only two solutions; move abroad or vote to change the representatives.

Nope. We have plenty of other options. Including -- but not limited to -- civil disobedience and other means of protest.

If someone wants to live outside of one law than he has to go to a place when such a law doesn't exist. That's the same rule for everybody.

Nope. Not the rule here. Some laws should never be made to begin with -- in accordance with our natural rights, and therefore Constitutional rights -- and it is our right to fight such laws.

Lol, Americans giving the world lessons about protests and civil disobedience; that's rich. Americans today are one of the most complacent nation in the world regarding the increasing restriction of freedom imposed on them.

Sorry if you still believe that your freedom and liberty can't be taken from you in the US.


It is. Daily. And no one moves a finger about it because everyone's too busy (like the guy in this story) to focus on his own selfish interest and situation instead of looking at the global picture.

Protests and civil disobedience doesn't happen in the US at the same scale as in the rest of the world become the American mentality is fundamentally self-centered.

a reply to: galacticgoat

Lol, Americans giving the world lessons about protests and civil disobedience; that's rich. Americans today are one of the most complacent nation in the world regarding the increasing restriction of freedom imposed on them.

What are you even on about? I wasn't even addressing the world, much less trying to offer any "lessons."

Sorry if you still believe that your freedom and liberty can't be taken from you in the US.

Again, what are you even talking about? Of course they "can," and have been and are being taken... hence, the OP... and it's all in violation of our natural rights and our Constitution.

And no one moves a finger about it because everyone's too busy (like the guy in this story) to focus on his own selfish interest and situation instead of looking at the global picture.

You don't even make sense! This guy did "move a finger"... obviously... and in this situation, neither he nor I gives a rats' patootie about the "global picture" because it has nothing to do with the global picture! So I really don't even know what point you're trying to make.

Protests and civil disobedience doesn't happen in the US at the same scale as in the rest of the world become the American mentality is fundamentally self-centered.

Oh, okay. Whatever. We're not in protest-and-civil-disobedience competition here. You do it your way, we'll do it ours. The Constitutional Republic way.

a reply to: anonentity

Yes, there is little doubt that his rights have been violated, lawyer up.

i like others find the story vague, plus they mention one county and two states. Alabama and Indiana.

now if they live in a city limits inside a county, that city and county may have laws. laws voted on by the people and or their representatives.

zoning, health,water, sewer laws and many others.

Madison County, Alabama is the third most populous county in Alabama, with over a quarter millions people, population estimated in 2015 at 353,089. county seat is Huntsville and it is the 4th largest city in Alabama.
Huntsville is part of what is considered to be a metro area that includes four other cities and the pop for that area is listed below

Huntsville is the fourth-largest city in Alabama and the largest city in the five-county Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL Combined Statistical Area, which at the 2013 census estimate had a total population of 683,871.[9] The Huntsville Metropolitan Area's population was 417,593 in 2010[10] to become the 2nd largest in Alabama.[11] Huntsville metro's population reached 441,000 by 2014.[12]
Huntsville, Alabama

Huntsville is also home to Redstone Arsenal, which also includes parts of NASA.

so chances are he's not out in the boonies, but in a area that is densely populated. so that being said, i can't say i agree with his choice.

now if he had moved out into the boonies where it costs a arm and leg to run the utilities out to your property i would say that yea their_____ with him.

Well, I went to find more information but there is none to be had. If the city is Indiana, AL, evidently it doesn't exist. Madison county should have nothing to do with it since they are talking about municipal utilities. It sounds like a municipal (town) law. In that case, then people need to stop gathering funds for legal help and start protesting city council members instead. Yeah that's right, don't fight the law, change it. And if that much of the community is against it, then it shouldn't be hard.

Just a small question for you. What if his property caught fire would he expect the local fire department to come and rescue him and put out the fire? If so the he is an hypocrite and should pay his taxes like everybody else.

Another thing. I don't know about the US law but in the UK there is no such law as trespass. Though land owners like to make you believe there is. When prosecuted you are not prosecuted for trespass but damaging property through trespass.
The damaging property thing can be treading down crops, knocking over a fence post or any minor damage they can lay on you. But trespass on it's own is not a crime.

don't live inside city limits....this isn't hard folks.....if you get certain city protections (police, fire, etc.) someone has to pay for that...by the way, why would this guy want to live INSIDE city limits?...move to the county and or quit bitching

I bet less than 1% of postings here consist of reading the veteran's letter.
Maybe I'm wrong. I like to be wrong.

Here's a guy that was gullible enough to sign up for military service, something he himself did in good faith...
He doesn't talk about the horrors on the battlefield, he talks about conversations he's had with fellow American's
who happen to be on public dole- exacerbating his condition that should not be a condition at all...

"I know this sucks bro, just wear the bracelets like a good boy."

He shouldn't have to move. He should be rightfully compensated- so as to afford his own fire security system.

I would guess the sewer used in days gone by is no longer practical?
That's an excuse I hope to muffle in advance.

a reply to: galacticgoat

WRONG... we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy and that is not our only recourse, nor is it within their authority to implement such controls. They are restricted to passing legislation within the confines of constitution to which they are bound. When they over reach, it is every citizen's responsibility to ensure that they use due diligence to, at the least, not contribute to it themselves. The idea that they are just doing their job is ludicrous. Their job is primarily to be good citizens and if they are sworn into a public office, it is their DUTY to NOT do anything that is against the constitution.

So basically we have a lazy, status quoesque populace who care more about themselves and their personal interests than the well being of the republic. What they don't realize is that this ultimately becomes a worsening of their self interest.

Jaden