Congress Quietly Passed A Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes

DocTim420 · Sep 2, 2017

Ununionized said:
The door is already opened, and has to do with right to inspect a utility...

...If you haven't been familiar with that sorta thing much it's kinda spooky.

LOL...where do I start? If you ever purchased real estate you would know there is a thing called "property title" (bundle of rights) that delineates your "property rights" (and sometimes what you cannot do).

I believe the phrase you are looking for is "utility easement". What is an easement? It is a written agreement between the property owner and the utility company that is filed with the county land office and becomes part of the "property title". Utility companies do not have unfettered access to anyone/everyone's land..."to inspect the property" (silly wabbit, tricks are for kids)...lol.

From LegalZoom--

An easement is an agreement that allows one party to use the property or land of another party for the specific purpose stated in the easement itself. Electric power easements are agreements between a landowner and a utility company that allow the company to use part of the owner's land for activities and equipment related to providing electricity. However, the landowner does have some rights regarding the use of his land for easement activities, and he keeps ownership of the easement area on his property.

Creation and Features

An easement is created once the easement agreement is filed in the land records of the property's county. The agreement lists the current owner as the grantor, or giver, of the easement, with the power company shown as the recipient. An easement agreement includes a description of the property and the easement area, with the easement area being that part of the property affected by the agreement. The description might be words that describe the property's measurements or some other identifying reference, such as the recording information for the grantor's land deed, the property tax account number or the street address.

Terms

A section of the easement states the terms of the agreement, including who is responsible for damage to the owner's property and what type of damage might occur because of the easement. The terms list what repairs the power company will do at its own expense if the easement activity is the cause, as well as maintenance that might have to be done because of the easement. These terms give the property owner the right to hold the power company liable for easement-associated damage or maintenance needs, such as replanting worn grass, that the company didn't address. A property owner can request that the power company keep accident insurance for the easement area, as the owner can be held liable by others for accidents arising from the easement or on the easement area.

Considerations

Some easements are only temporary, with an end date or qualifying event given on the agreement. A qualifying event is usually the completion of the power company's project. Other agreements are permanent and "run with the land." This means each property owner after the grantor is subject to the easement and all its terms. An easement agreement is decided on through discussions between the power company and the property owner. The power company typically compensates the owner for the privilege, and both parties negotiate the terms of the easement and the compensation amount until an agreement is reached. If the grantor or any subsequent owner wishes to end the easement, he can ask the power company to release the land from the agreement.

Misconceptions

An easement isn't always by agreement, despite the common name for the document. A utility company can take a property owner to court if he refuses to sign the agreement and the company can't avoid accessing his land to provide service. If the court finds the easement is necessary, the court may grant the easement to the power company by court order. While easements and rights-of-way are sometimes referred to as the same thing, a right- of-way is actually different. The easement refers to the power company's right to use the land, while a right-of-way refers to the land itself.

LOL..."right to inspect utility", too funny, thanks for the chuckle this morning.

EasyGoing · Sep 6, 2017

Jhhnn said:
Wait... Obama pardoned fascist wannabees & exalted their virtue? Because he's the real fascist, or what?

January 17, 2017. On January 17, 2017, Obama commuted the sentence of 209 individuals (109 of whom faced life sentences). These included Chelsea Manning and Oscar López Rivera, enabling them to be released from prison on May 17, 2017.

Wiki

Like I said, all presidents do it. Lets stop with the dem this and rep that. It's just not productive.

St. Phatty · Sep 6, 2017

Well, perhaps the People could vote to allow a Warrantless search of ... Dianne Feinstein's underpants.

Not that I personally would want to go there.

It's just SO FVCKING OBVIOUS that our elected leaders have a massive case of amnesia about why they have the title "Representative" or "Senator".

Jhhnn · Sep 6, 2017

EasyGoing said:
January 17, 2017. On January 17, 2017, Obama commuted the sentence of 209 individuals (109 of whom faced life sentences). These included Chelsea Manning and Oscar López Rivera, enabling them to be released from prison on May 17, 2017.

Wiki

Like I said, all presidents do it. Lets stop with the dem this and rep that. It's just not productive.

Riiiight...

I mean, uhh, what are we talking about here other than authoritarian overreach & the role of the federal judiciary in defending the Constitution & the Rights of the People?

I contend that the statute as written simply will not withstand judicial review. Well, unless Trump gets to appoint the "restore law & order" judiciary he wants. If any DC Metro cops ever enter w/o a warrant or probable cause they'll get slapped back.

I object to the wording of the bill as much as anybody else. OTOH, we still have the federal judiciary to prevent excesses & the charge of criminal contempt to back it up.

Well, except when it comes to Arpaio, every fascist white supremacist's dream lawman & Birther. Trump's pal gets a pardon precisely because he violated the rights of God only knows how many people & defied a federal court order to cease & desist.

The message? "You done good, Joe, real good."

Fuck the courts. Fuck the Constitution. Hail Trump! Don't look like a Mexican, either, because the Hair Furor endorses the cops fucking with you.

DocTim420 · Sep 6, 2017

I guess we can suggest the same thing regarding Marc Rich...who was a thousand times worse than Sheriff Joe. BTW, Eric Holder is the attorney that brought the pardon to Clinton and Company....small world!

From wiki--

In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted on 65 criminal counts, including income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo (at a time when Iranian revolutionaries were still holding American citizens hostage).[7][18] The charges would have led to a sentence of more than 300 years in prison had Rich been convicted on all counts.[18] The indictment was filed by then-U.S. Federal Prosecutor (and future mayor of New York City) Rudolph Giuliani. At the time it was the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history.[19]

Learning of the plans for the indictment, Rich fled[8] to Switzerland and, always insisting that he was not guilty, never returned to the U.S. to answer the charges.[Notes 1] Rich's companies eventually pleaded guilty to 35 counts of tax evasion and paid $90 million in fines,[7] although Rich himself remained on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most-Wanted Fugitives List for many years,[21] narrowly evading capture in Britain, Germany, Finland, and Jamaica.[22] Fearing arrest, he did not even return to the United States to attend his daughter's funeral in 1996.[23]

On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, U.S. President Bill Clinton granted Rich a highly controversial presidential pardon. Several of Clinton's strongest supporters distanced themselves from the decision.[24] Former President Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat, said, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful."[25] Clinton himself later expressed regret for issuing the pardon, saying that "it wasn't worth the damage to my reputation."[8]

resin_lung · Sep 6, 2017

DocTim420 said:
I guess we can suggest the same thing regarding Marc Rich...who was a thousand times worse than Sheriff Joe. BTW, Eric Holder is the attorney that brought the pardon to Clinton and Company....small world!

From wiki--

1000X worse? Your entitled to your opinion but I personally don't see it.

I am curious if there is anything about his pardon of the former sheriff that strikes you as odd or different?

I thought there was quite a few things that made this pardon odd?

Conversations involving easements aren't very easy to have!barump bump!

moose eater · Sep 6, 2017

I suspect a MAJOR difference between the two cases involves a -DIRECT- violation of the Public trust and violation of boiler plate civil rights by the perpetrator. In my world, that's worth something, and I'm neither a Trump or a Clinton supporter.

DocTim420 · Sep 6, 2017

Let's start off with the offenses--what's worse:

Felonious federal crimes that total 300 years prison time if found guilty on all charges...or a misdemeanor "criminal contempt crime" with a 6 month jail time. (Prison vs Jail).

A rich asshole that ran away and never appeared in court and then bought his freedom (Clinton cash machine)...or an elected Sheriff that was man enough to appear in court, got convicted and planned to appeal his conviction.

When Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, majority of the Dem base thought it was a bad idea. With Sheriff Joe, majority of the Rep base think it was a good idea.

BTW, mathematically, 6 months compared to 300 years is exactly 600 times worse--so my 1000x times statement is probably understated--after you pile on the politics and the timing that caused Sheriff Joe to not be reelected for a 7th term (Dem Judges filed charges 1 month before the 2016 election).

So...now please explain to this old fucker, how is a misdemeanor (6 month) rap worse than a felony (300 year) rap?

resin_lung · Sep 6, 2017

That's definitely one way to look at it for sure. 300 vs .5 years......

Another way to look at it would be 90milion dollar judgement and an admission of quilt vs zero remorse.

How about victim for victim basis? How do those numbers stack up?

It's also gotta be tough to add up shit that isn't exactly in the books, if you catch my drift?

Like what happened to the all sheriffs before him that forced women to give birth in chains?

I don't know? I'm trying to figure this shit out. To me... if you look at all the American lives impacted by the two of them.....

I never even heard of this guy.

@Doctime- Im still curious if there was anything odd about that pardon to you?

Nothing?

moose eater · Sep 6, 2017

The contempt of court charge stemmed directly from Arpaio's refusal to honor the court's cease and desist order, highlighting Arpaio's attitude toward the boiler plate civil rights he systematically violated.

We more or less expect crooks to be crooks. They should be held accountable. But even more so, we expect public figures, LAW ENFORCEMENT figures, to honor the oaths they took, and that includes obeying court rulings addressing their misbehavior, and not routinely addressing citizens, saying, "Hey!! You look Brown to me! Out of the car, and prove to me you're the right kind of Brown!!"

So contempt wasn't simply for the judge telling him to clean his license plate off, and Sherriff Joe saying, "Up yours, Judge." it was for the Judge(s) telling Joe to stop routinely violating the basic rights of those he harangued on a daily basis, and Joe saying, "I'll do as I please, Judge.'

Last I checked, over 60% of America thought the pardoning of Arpaio was a bizarre and flagrant move.

My attitude toward Arpaio? Archie Bunker shouldn't be elevated to a position of control over -anything-. Arpaio was sure as Hell no friend to dope smokers or growers! I personally think he needed to wear some of those pink undies for a while that he was so proud of.

As far as the Clintons go, I'm well aware of the unprosecuted crimes committed by them, the quid pro quo bribery in the form of Clinton Foundation donations from 17 foreign entities while she was Sec. of State, the authentic WikiLeaks docs re. the operation of the Clinton Foundation and more, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

My belief is this place needed flaming barricades in the streets decades ago, but for sit-coms and sports events interfering in any real awareness of the concept of civic duties for the masses, and toxic partisanism providing blinders to those who partake in such folly..

I'm not a Dem or a Rep. I've been both for very limited periods during times of strategic actions, and that's all in the rear-view. I'll never soil myself again with blind, partisan, lock-step BS.

Jhhnn · Sep 6, 2017

DocTim420 said:
Let's start off with the offenses--what's worse:

Felonious federal crimes that total 300 years prison time if found guilty on all charges...or a misdemeanor "criminal contempt crime" with a 6 month jail time. (Prison vs Jail).

A rich asshole that ran away and never appeared in court and then bought his freedom (Clinton cash machine)...or an elected Sheriff that was man enough to appear in court, got convicted and planned to appeal his conviction.

When Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, majority of the Dem base thought it was a bad idea. With Sheriff Joe, majority of the Rep base think it was a good idea.

BTW, mathematically, 6 months compared to 300 years is exactly 600 times worse--so my 1000x times statement is probably understated--after you pile on the politics and the timing that caused Sheriff Joe to not be reelected for a 7th term (Dem Judges filed charges 1 month before the 2016 election).

So...now please explain to this old fucker, how is a misdemeanor (6 month) rap worse than a felony (300 year) rap?

Marc Rich was a big time crook. Arpaio is a Fascist Pig. The difference is obvious.

DocTim420 · Sep 7, 2017

LOL...that's the best you got Jhhnn? BTW, I pronounce the name of your group "Anti-FAH", not "Ant-teafah".

Jhhnn · Sep 7, 2017

DocTim420 said:
LOL...that's the best you got Jhhnn? BTW, I pronounce the name of your group "Anti-FAH", not "Ant-teafah".

Did I say something that isn't true?

resin_lung · Sep 7, 2017

https://youtu.be/CfGTw_z-LTI

DocTim420 · Sep 8, 2017

Jhhnn said:
Did I say something that isn't true?

Hmmmm, yea. You assumed your opinion of Sheriff Joe is factually correct. IMO, it is impossible to debate beliefs and opinions...but debating facts/positions is possible and done around the world everyday.

Believing something is "true" does not make it so.

I was a hippie during the 60s when the term "fascist pig" originated and it referred to the incident of LEO beating us hippies as we protested Vietnam War, free speech movements at Berkeley, Kent State, etc...not to forget massacre outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Violence is part of the equation--not immigration.

resin_lung · Sep 8, 2017

DocTim420 said:
Hmmmm, yea. You assumed your opinion of Sheriff Joe is factually correct. IMO, it is impossible to debate beliefs and opinions...but debating facts/positions is possible and done around the world everyday.

Believing something is "true" does not make it so.

Isn't a guilty verdict reached based on the BELIEFS of a jury? Isn't a judges sentencing based on their OPINION?

If you can't debate beliefs or opinions.... wtf you talking about amigo?haha

Am I missing something? go ahead and clue me in here Doc420. No need to limit it the # of characters that fit in the rep sec.

And last I checked, beyond a shadow of a doubt isn't the same as fact either. Just sayin.haha

I was a hippie during the 60s when the term "fascist pig" originated and it referred to the incident of LEO beating us hippies as we protested Vietnam War, free speech movements at Berkeley, Kent State, etc...not to forget massacre outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Violence is part of the equation--not immigration.

Were you really there in Kent state?!? You were at the 1968 massacre?getting shot at!?!? God damn! You have been around and at all the right times too. I ask because I have a lot of friends who are like "fuk fascist! Fuk Nazis! We whooped there ass in ww2 and we'll do it again!!! Except WE weren't in WW2. WW2 was over for 30+ yrs when we were born!haha

Just making sure what you mean by "us" and "we"?

moose eater · Sep 8, 2017

One of the earlier uses of the term fascist was in reference to Mussolini's Fascism in Italy; a reference to Nationalism married to corporatism, which is certainly something Arpaio seems to support.

The term 'fascist pig' was undoubtedly used by less-then enamored Italians, in reference to Mussolini and his political views. When they finally strung him up next to his concubine, et al, with concertina wire, in the villa square, after dragging him through the streets, and spitting upon him and his entourage, many of the Italians present had made their statement re. their regard for 'fascism.'

Arpaio wasn't simply dealing in immigration issues. He was having his Boys in Blue stop folks who LOOKED Mexican, or spoke with an accent or dialect as though they were from Mexico, & demanding documents he had no right to request in those circumstances (many of them being U.S. citizens), in stops they often had no -valid- authority to make.

We call those kinds of behaviors unconstitutional violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments, and amount to what have also been called 'shake-downs.'

Engaging in such behavior based on the color of one's skin, or the accent or dialect they present with, is racist and ethnocentric.. Those aren't opinions, they are facts. Legal facts. Which is why the court ruled against the fascist pig in the first place.... telling him to knock that shit off. (They didn't stutter. They were pretty clear).

Now I'm waiting for someone to slap a successful Section 1983 beef on his ass in civil court, filed against him and his department, citing both his professional capacity and his personal capacity in these piss poor decisions he's notorious for.

Then maybe we can get the miscreant out of the media's eye for ever after the judgement bankrupts his goofy, Archie Bunker-emulating ass, and remember him for what he really was guilty of; violating civil rights under color of law, and impersonating Archie Bunker better than anyone I've met in recent years...

resin_lung · Sep 8, 2017

Great post moose. Outta rep.

Looks like I'll be reading up on Mussolini before bed.lol a little refresher course.

On a side note-the theme song to All in the family used to annoy the SHIT out of me when I was a lil kid!

Or the theme song to Taxi!!! Had me contemplating suicide at 8-9 yrs old! And I didn't even know suicide was possible.

Speaking of suicide.... what about the theme song to MASH!!!

Or 60 minutes!hahaha

Edit: More of a side track than a side note I guess

moose eater · Sep 8, 2017

Just a piece of history, resin.

Somewhere in my family's heirlooms (all of my family of origin are dead now), from back when I was about 7 or 8, I still have an old crinkly, yellowed-with-age book that I would look through back then, titled something to the effect of 'America's History in Pictures.'

It had more than pictures in it, but every chapter was based in a black and white pictorial accounting. And it wasn't entirely about America's history. It had all sorts of land-mark occasions in it. One bit was dedicated to Mussolini's demise. His death was deservedly horrible. His own people dragged him through the streets, spitting on him, kicking him, and more, and they hung him upside-down with concertina wire, blood dripping from him; his girl friend, I think his chauffer, etc. Same fates. (*Note; always be aware of the karma of those you party with..)

Nationalism is at the very center of immigration laws in any country. Balancing nationalism, in my opinion, is crucial to remaining compassionate and humane... Again, in my opinion. Being overly proud of anything is toxic, and leads to toxic actions in many cases. Again, my opinion.

Excessive pride in one's Country, perceiving one's Country as having rights that the same prideful person would deny to other countries/persons, is where Nationalism becomes a cancer.

I had no say where I was born, when or where I was conceived, by whom, what my citizenship would be, or anything else during those times. I, like every person born on this planet, is, to some degree, a 'victim of circumstance,' for better or for worse.

I've long believed that in the concept of 'freedom of movement' (and I've traveled to places that demonstrate a whole lot more 'freedom of movement' than our Country practices), that what we might ought to do is ban governments and their sycophants/cheer-leaders from moving about the globe (governments seem to be much of the force behind a myriad of crises anyway), and let the People be free to roam where they will.

Years ago, had I been able to do as I chose with minimal barriers, and the concept of nationalism weren't the wall it often is, I'd have likely been spending the remainder of my days laying on a grassy knoll in the highlands of Nepal, smoking premium hand-rubbed black velvety hashish, or hooking giant lake trout in the early morning hours of any given sunny day in the Yukon Territory. But there's this whole nationalism thing.

resin_lung said:
Great post moose. Outta rep.

Looks like I'll be reading up on Mussolini before bed.lol a little refresher course.

On a side note-the theme song to All in the family used to annoy the SHIT out of me when I was a lil kid!

Or the theme song to Taxi!!! Had me contemplating suicide at 8-9 yrs old! And I didn't even know suicide was possible.

Speaking of suicide.... what about the theme song to MASH!!!

Or 60 minutes!hahaha

Edit: More of a side track than a side note I guess

DocTim420 · Sep 8, 2017

Resin, I don't think using stoner logic to differentiate the difference between "fact" and "opinion" is the way to go. Perhaps this little blurb from Auburn University might help-- ww.auburn.edu/~murraba/fact.html

(add 3rd w to make link read "www.")

How Do You Separate Fact from Opinion?

According to Webster's Dictionary a fact is "anything that is done or happens; anything actually existent; any statement strictly true; truth; reality."

Three examples of facts that are concrete and that could be documented include:

1.The house was painted on November 18, 1999.
2.Today is Saturday.
3.My son had a temperature of one hundred and two degrees this morning.

Whereas an opinion is defined as "indicating a belief, view, sentiment, conception."

Obvious indicators of opinion are when sentences include words such as:

"Generally, it is thought" , "I believe that", "It is a sad day when."

For example, how the three facts above can be changed to opinions would be to add a belief or view. For example:

• The house was painted recently on November 18, 1999, so it looks as good as new.
• Today is Saturday and Mark always sleeps in on Saturdays, so that is why he is late for the game.
• There was no way for me to go to school because my son had a temperature of one hundred and two degrees this morning.

Sometimes it is challenging to tell the facts and opinions apart. For example, is the following a fact or an opinion?

"Abraham Lincoln was the most eloquent writer of all the U.S. Presidents."

This is an opinion, but you have to know that eloquent is a descriptive word to for this to become clear. Descriptive words are subjective, or state someone's opinion. It can become unclear how to separate fact and opinion when many people hold the same opinion. This is when it becomes important to understand what the word bias means.

A bias is an opinion or an attitude we have for or against something. A bias usually stems from our feelings rather than from rational thought. What is very important to realize is that ALL of us are biased. We are biased for or against certain people, activities, and ideas. We become biased because certain people, activities, or ideas do not appeal to us at some level. Of equal importance to realize is that we have "good biases" as well, that is we favor certain people, activities, or ideas. In these cases, our biases are still irrational, just like our negative ones. (Chapter 6: Recognizing fact, Opinion, Bias, and Propaganda, p.214)

Most of the time we keep our biases inside and use them to decide who to vote for, what to study in school, and how we want to appear in public. Other times, however, people can let their bias or opinions guide them to do dangerous acts. Issues such as racism, gun control, abortion, and patriotism provoke many people to act on their biases and do things that harm others. As long as biases are peacefully shared, there is little harm. But, when they are uncontrolled, strong biases can bring out anger and create hatred toward those who disagree. That is when facts and opinions become very challenging to separate.

Many of our biases are not based on fact or reasoned judgement but on opinions handed down to us by parents, teachers, and friends. Unfortunately, we don't always take the time to examine the source of our biases, and many
of us carry unhealthy opinions and prejudices because of it.

As you can see....Bias + Opinions ≠ Fact

The use of "descriptive words" usually indicates "opinion" or "bias", not "fact". (Nice shortcut to remember when debating opponents).

And no I was not at Kent State (May 1970), rather I was in Los Angeles area as an active protester against the Vietnam War (you see, there was a thing called "draft" going on and I was finishing High School and really did not want to got to war that was started by stupid politicians...my views at that time were super liberal).

Just so you know, in 1966 I was a long haired radical (hair longer than Jesus') and wrote "peace-nick" articles for our high school's "underground newspaper" and helped organize free speech/anti war protests (and flipped 4 finger lids).

Moose--the term "fascist pig" did not originate from Italy, rather the derogatory term originated as a result of cops (pigs) using their billly-clubs to beat war protestors to submission at the behest of the "fascist establishment".

You might say, the anti-war movement of the 60s sparked the "free speech" movement--with everyone protesting against "authoritarian establishment"....who wanted their students to shut up, sit down and get a hair cut. My experiences are first hand (since I was there) which may or may not agree with what you were taught. History has a way of being rewritten overtime.

IMO, to equate Sheriff Joe's "criminal contempt" (no jury--just a single liberal judge rendering this verdict) with bully-club swinging cops of the 60s that beat us anti-war teenagers merciless (aka "fascist pigs"), not only distorts the term "fascist pig", but, IMO, it also cheapens the efforts/progress we made nearly half a century ago.

In other words, please don't stand on the shoulders of giants (those before you) and then cheapen their accomplishments...just so you can "painlessly" advance your particular point of view.

Search

Congress Quietly Passed A Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...

EasyGoing

Member

St. Phatty

Active member

Jhhnn

Active member

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...

resin_lung

I cough up honey oil

moose eater

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...

resin_lung

I cough up honey oil

moose eater

Jhhnn

Active member

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...

Jhhnn

Active member

resin_lung

I cough up honey oil

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...

resin_lung

I cough up honey oil

moose eater

resin_lung

I cough up honey oil

moose eater

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...

Latest posts

Latest posts