[DocTim420]

Originally Posted by Ununionized

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]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

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]

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]

Originally Posted by EasyGoing

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DocTim420

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.