Property Rights Archives - Page 3 of 5

Henniker ZBA says Screw RSA 21:34a

September 26, 2018February 8, 2013 Steve MacDonald

The Henniker ZBA has decided that state law does not apply to that particular bit of Henniker known as Forster’s Christmas Tree Farm. From Steve Forster: … We lost our argument on RSA 21:34a and Agritourism last night.. We plan to appeal and more than likely, on to a higher court.. The town still does … Read more

Stand With Stephen Forster & Forster’s Christmas Tree Farm (Again!) [Updated][Bumped]

September 26, 2018February 7, 2013 Steve MacDonald

(Originally posted yesterday morning 2-6-2013- but it’s important, and the meeting is tonight.)

The next Henniker zoning board meeting (Noooo-body expects the Spanish Inquisition) is this Thursday (tonight) at 7pm, and Steve Forster will once more be brought before the local arsitocray on the matter of the proper use of his property.

Forster’s Christams Tree Farm was cited by the town for engaging in activities defined as legal by the state (agro-tourism).

We’d like you to make the effort to get there, cameras and recorders in hand, to capture the event, and if you have the knowledge and the will to lend your support, not just to Steve, but for the right to the legal use of your property, please make the time to do that.

See this link as well for more details on how the Henniker ZBA (and committee fiefdoms all over the state) think they own your property.

Vicious Dogs

September 26, 2018December 28, 2012 Rick Olson

“Truth is a good dog; but always beware of barking too close to the heels of an error, lest you get your brains kicked out.” —Francis Bacon

In New Hampshire if you are even slightly “nipped” by a dog, you can make a pile of cash! We are not talking about a Pit Bull Terrier or a Rottweiler or a German Shepherd Dog. Nope. We are talking about a 15-pound Jack Russell Terrier. It is of no consequence the injury was only minor….or, non-existent. If a nasty little ankle-biter dog breaks your personal space that is worth thousands of dollars.

It is of no consequence that you entered onto the

Stand With Stephen Forster & Forster’s Christmas Tree Farm

September 26, 2018November 12, 2012 Steve MacDonald

The Town of Henniker has cited Stephen Forster (Forster’s Christmas Tree Farm) with illegal use of his property. But State law provides that Mr. Forster may use his property for Agri-tourism, also known as “agriculture,” a legitimate use of the land. Henniker has apparently acknowledged this but will not rescind its citation unless they are … Read more

Notable Quote: Max Eastman (Socialism Doesn’t Jibe with Human Nature)

September 26, 2018October 15, 2012 Steve MacDonald

“It seems obvious to me now–though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion–that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free-and-equalness that Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough, Marx was the first to … Read more

There Are No Republicans For Obama

September 26, 2018August 29, 2012 Steve MacDonald

Back in 2008, and I may have shared this story before, I was discussing with a longtime friend my conclusion that then candidate John McCain was not really a ‘Republican.’ He could not understand why so I asked my baptist minister friend…”there are a lot of ‘interpretations’ of Christianity, and for the most part each is reasonably accepting of the others…but isn’t there a point at which what it is they are “practicing” is no longer Christianity?” He said yes. I said, “OK, same with being a “Republican.”

Believing in abortion, global warming, stifling paid political speech (to name a few) and…most importantly, the very strong belief that the federal government must regulate things from a central location, to mandate policy to the states and the people from on high….that is what progressives and socialists do, no matter what they call themselves. That is not what it means to be a Republican. We have a different party for people who think that way. They are called Democrats.

A Jail Sentence For Drinking Water

September 26, 2018August 10, 2012 Rick Olson

“All oppression creates a state of war.” —Simone de Beauvoir

Gary Harrington Goes to Jail for Collecting Rain Water

On Wednesday, July 25 Skip featured a Guest Post from Ken Eyring. The central thesis of Mr. Eyring’s post was that the NH Water Sustainability Commission gave a low-profile public notice seeking input from the public regarding management of Granite State water resources over the next 25 year period.

On Sunday July 29, Skip followed up with a response from House Democrat Representative Judith Spang to Ken Eyring. As shown, Spang made several, “The state owns the water, not you,” implied assertions.”

Water Sustainability Commission (a subset of the Granite State Future Plan, aka Sustainable Communities Initiative) – their own words. First Rep. Spang in her own words

September 26, 2018August 1, 2012 Skip

UPDATE before publishing: Apparently, Judith has responded to Ken and invoking both International Law and the World Court? That’s only by email, but THIS I have to see!

*********************

Our mission here at the ‘Grok is to promote and to protect Individual Freedom, Liberty, and Rights. Period. Sure, we do other things as well, but that is our main focus and raison d’etre. I’ve been focusing on that my last few posts as the Federal mandate of the Sustainable Communities Initiative by the Federal Government (HUD / EPA / DOT) has, all of a sudden, climbed its way up the ladder from the muck in which it was derived. And muck it is, and it has spread.

As Ken Eyring has pointed out, the Granite State Future Plan is being spearheaded by the NH Legislature spawned 10 Regional Planning Commissions with the intent, now funded with Obama money, to override local control here in NH by pushing for new zoning laws (back up with threats of lawsuits). These are a fourth level of Government, creatures totally created by legislative statute that have no connection to the NH Constitution. It is staffed by locally appointed members (for instance, my DPW department head is my town’s representative on the Lakes Region Planning Commission) with some paid staff. They get State funding and also go around grubbing for town taxpayer monies by “billing” on population (e.g., “you have X number of people on town; based on $XX.XX / person, you should give us a total of….”). Starting off as simply a way to “coordinate” transportation usage, they now do all kinds of things (when did road management make them experts in broadband deployment?) that stray far from their original mission (like all good bureaucracies do!).

One of the things the zoning changes are going to do is push for higher density “center of town” living; whether or not it makes sense, these Federal clowns want “livable centers” where you can walk from your home above places of business, walk to work, and walk to work. Need to go somewhere else? IF you take the time, you will find out that you will be “nudged” to use public transportation. Mass transit isn’t even ‘sustainable’ in cities already – how would that work out here in rural NH – Oh yeah, they have a solution for that, too, but that’s for another post.

And it will be done, bit by bit. In a later post, I go through and use some of what the Water Sustainability Commission and others have said, in their own words, to “shape the battlefield“. In the mean time, let’s start with what has already been posted. Even Judith Spang, in her response to Ken, starts with the individual but then immediately goes to the Town level, as if the individual Right never existed:

1. Groundwater Law in NH is based on Common Law, not statutory law. The common law (dating back to English Common Law) says unequivically that a riparian landowner has the right to “reasonable use” of water flowing under or abutting his land. “Reasonable use” is a limitation: you cannot take so much water that you are depriving someone else who has riparian rights to the same groundwater or surface water. Neither you nor a foreign water bottling company who may own the land next to you has the right to take so much water out of your (or their) well that it dries up abuttors’ wells.

2. When the Commission talks about the need for a water policy that respects the inter-municipal nature of water supplies, it is based upon the above legal principle.

And then explicitly denies the Individual their property Rights:

Are we all about to start losing our private property rights? A parting gift from Gov. Lynch? Guest Post by Ken Eyring

September 26, 2018July 25, 2012 Skip

Did you know that there is an executive commission that was set by Gov. Lynch to talk about water? No big deal you say – yes it is. Many homes in NH, if not most, depend on the water on their land for wells – or to be more technically correct, under your land. Common law has been that what resides under your land belongs to you. Period. How do you think all those “shale millionaires” are now rich? Wildcatters and energy companies are paying big bucks to explore and to frack the natural gas that lays under their land – and because they own it.

This “Lynch’s Last Gift” (“LLG”) wishes to administratively change this. No House debate. No Senate debate. Just poorly noticed “listening session” (mostly during the day when ordinary people are working – but certainly attended by those that have NO problem in determining that your water belongs to them, er, all of us – the Collective. THEY may not own the water, but they, sure as shootin’, are going to be the ones that will make the rules on how you can (or cannot) use that water.

That is under your property. That you paid for when you bought your property (know it or not). Ken Eyring has been tracking this situation for a little while and saw that they are looking for comments, so this is what he wrote (emphasis mine):

My Reply to the NH Water Sustainability Commission’s Request For Public Comment

The Water Sustainability Commission is seeking input from the public regarding management of NH’s water over the next 25 years — but unfortunately, they are not consistent with their collection methods. They have published an online survey using Survey Monkey, and the questions are written in a way that can be easily skewed to support almost any conclusion. There is no way to ensure the integrity of the results, since anyone can log on and take the survey multiple times. In addition, from the beginning of July until July 19th, they accepted Public Comments without requiring identification.

Because of the importance of water to so many aspects of our lives, including life itself, my concerns were elevated as it became clear that the commission perceives all NH water as property of the state — disregarding our riparian water rights to the water in the wells on our personal property.

With all that in mind, I wanted to make sure I provided my concerns to the misguided direction the commission has taken since its inception — and to encourage everyone else to do the same by using this email address: watersustainabilitycommission@gmail.com, or via US Mail to the address below. The deadline to provide feedback is July 31st.

Here is the letter that I sent to them:

Water Sustainability Commission
c/o Synchrony Advisors, LLC
10 Myrtle Street
Exeter, NH 03833

July 18, 2012

Dear Commissioners,

You have asked for public comment regarding “managing the water challenges faced by New Hampshire over the next 25 years.”

I’ll begin by expressing my belief that everything you eventually propose to the Governor should be based upon respect for our Constitutional Rights. In one of your recent meetings, one of your commissioners raised a concern for Constitutionality… and I was stunned to hear another commissioner dismiss those concerns by stating they will let the courts decide. That is a reckless disregard of the responsibilities that you have been entrusted with.

Your commissioners have also made statements that disregard our riparian rights to the well water on our personal property. Some examples include:

Idiots And Cowards Who Complain About Gun Ranges

September 26, 2018July 24, 2012 Rick Olson

“Once you’re able to look like an idiot and be OK with it, it opens up your potential.” —Nicole Sullivan

Irascible Cowards are idiots willing to spew their opinion as if it means something, is always a great source of amusement to me. And sometimes they do so anonymously. Such is the case with this Silly_E-mail I received this morning.

Such e-mails are instructive in helping the reader observe the depths of ignorance to which some have succumbed, in spite of any tone, word usage or voice which might suggest otherwise.

The e-mail received is errant on two levels: factually and conceptually. An argument could be made this particular entry is a waste of time…a, “suffering of fools,” if you will. I do think its necessary because tom-foolery like this is reaching epidemic proportions. And if conversations with idiots are the order, then we need to present at least one intelligent side.

The mystery e-mailer refers to my previous entry, Anatomy Of Gun Range Neighbors, and she states,

Read more

UN Calls For Tax on Wealthy to Help Poor – Still Wont Work

September 26, 2018July 6, 2012 Steve MacDonald

The UN want’s more money. They are after the global wealth tax again, a tax favored by Obama, and the social/environmental justice movements who benefit from it. But we know that the money will never actually get to the poor, not enough of it. Nor will it alleviate anything but the misery of some NGO functionary or UN lackey paid to make sure pennies on every dollar end up in the hands of third world dictators. So perhaps the UN could suggest a policy that will actually help the poor?

Instead of taxing people why not encourage things that actually reduce poverty. Property rights and rule of law. People who know that their labor will produce things that will not be seized or stolen by capricious warlords or uncontested acts of theft or intimidation, are more likley to work to improve their lives; because they know that the work may actually…you know…improve their lives.

The Law Can Never Be Philanthropic

September 26, 2018June 26, 2012 Steve MacDonald

tipping the scales The law (justice) can never be philanthropic. It cannot guarantee property of any kind to anyone because the law has no property to give. The law does not create property. The Law does not summon property out of thin air-where none previously existed. The Law can only take from someone else what is theirs.

It therefore behooves those charged with writing and managing the law (and more importantly those who elect or appoint the stewards) to ensure that philanthropy is not the foundation of the States interest. The only way to fulfill that interest is through the progressive accumulation of other people’s property under the cover of legalized plunder. The only way for the law to be philanthropic is to legalize theft.

‘Properties’ of Marriage

September 26, 2018May 18, 2012 Steve MacDonald

Marriage is always a great topic to visit in New Hampshire. It irritates so many people on so many sides. But if we ever put it to a vote of citizens, New Hampshire would join the ranks of every other state to define “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman. Which is why the left would never want to allow that. And bigotry or inequality has nothing to do with it. And it certainly has nothing to do with love.

Love, as it turns out, is not a state’s interest. There is no ministry of love. No state department of love. No state director of love. And no one in their right mind would want the State organizing, defining, taxing or regulating it. Love is not a state’s interest.

And the idea that you “can’t help who you fall in love with” is total rubbish. Of course, you can. I haven’t fallen in love with anyone since I got married 18 years ago unless I count falling more in love with my wife. People fall in and out of love all the time. They can help it. So what the gay marriage lobby means to suggest by this is that sex is love and that you can’t help who whom you want to have sex. But neither of those things is true either.

House Bill 1339: Union Leader Editorial Doesn’t Get It

September 26, 2018February 23, 2012 Rick Olson

“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” —James Madison

Granite Grok Writer Rick Olson during Pheasant Season 2011 with his Hunting Dog "Chloe" a six year-old German Shorthaired Pointer

On Tuesday a Union Leader editorial called House Bill 1339, “preposterous”. In the UL Editorial entitled, “Contract Hunting,” The UL aptly describes why the bill is problematic. HB 1339, sponsored by Representative Paul Mirski, Joe Duarte and Gary Hopper, is an effort to keep access to hunting, fishing and trapping accessible to all, irrespective of economic and social strata.

The Union Leader points out,

Read more

Inebriated William Jasmin Who Fell Out Of A Tree Stand Drops His Lawsuit

September 26, 2018November 21, 2011 Rick Olson

“A lawsuit is a fruit tree planted in a lawyer’s garden.” —Italian Proverb

William Jasmin of Manchester, the drunk, non-licensed hunter who sued a landowner following his own demise in falling from a tree stand, has dropped his lawsuit.

Jasmin suffered partial paralysis when the tree stand he attempted to enter failed, causing him to fall. Jasmin initially proffered in his original pleadings that he was “hunting” but in August amended his pleadings to assert that he was, “scouting.” while present on the land owned by Charlie Corliss, of Epsom,

Jasmin friend Randy Howe had said Corliss had given them permission to use the tree stand, however, Jasmin’s lawyer now asserts the friend had spoke to someone else who mistakenly believed it was on his property.

This very case stirred concerns and tensions within the hunting community that farmers, foresters and other large landowners might potentially close their property to hunting and other recreational uses, for fear they could be potentially held liable for recreational injuries.

Jasmin’s lawyer B.J. Branch, told The Associated Press, “this suit was never about access to land; The suit was about holding the owner of a defective product accountable.” Baloney! This suit was about William Jasmin finding the deepest possible pockets to compensate him for his own failures to act responsibly, ethically and within the laws of this state. And, while doing this, he was willing and ready to throw the entire hunting community under the bus. Eighty percent of all available hunting land is private property in New Hampshire. Clearly, this lawsuit became about access.

ONE Vote NH Censoring Facebook Comments?

September 26, 2018October 11, 2011 Steve MacDonald

My Objection to the underlying agenda of the ONE Campaign should be well known. ONE is part and parcel with the UN Millennium Goals (MDG) which use poverty (in the case of ONE Campaign) to milk western democracies in support of global governance and the entire UN MDG agenda. (Ugly details here, and here)

Why bring it up? Recent remarks were posted on the ONE Campaign New Hampshire Facebook page asking if their group was the same one that promoted global redistribution of wealth. A follow-up comment indicated that this was correct. Both were promptly "vanished." Deleted from the page. Kind of the way political opponents are ‘vanished’ in many of the countries struck by the kind of poverty ONE campaign claims to be fighting against.

No arguments to the contrary? No debate. No challenge to the assumption that ONE is party to global redistribution of wealth or is connected to the UN and its Millennium Development Goals agenda? An agenda that would deny the right to self defense, implement anti-American treaties and awful UN education policies (to name but a few)? Just delete the comments and hope it goes away?

Oops. That’s not going to happen.

Lynch angry that lawyers got what he couldn’t….pulls hissy fit

September 26, 2018September 11, 2011 Skip

Gov. Lynch is still peeved that he couldn’t get his sticky fingers on $110 million the Joint Underwritering Association ("JUA") that he decided was his from sheer dint that he couldn’t balance his budget. Now that the Judiciary has smacked his knuckles with their ruling, as the actual owners of the fund decided to, you know, defend their private property, he still can’t let go:

CONCORD — Attorney General Michael Delaney is urging lawmakers to block a proposed settlement that will pay lawyers $27.5 million out of a $110 million malpractice insurance fund.

…Attorney Scott O’Connell of the Nixon Peabody law firm in Manchester said Delaney’s arguments are off the mark. Since the JUA is not part of state government, he argued, there is nothing in state law that requires the Legislature to bless the deal.

Still, Lynch and his mouthpiece (hey, remember, another member of the media that went to work for a liberal Democrat – how often does that happen??) still believe the money really belongs to them:

Lynch spokesman Colin Manning said the proposed settlement is a bad one for taxpayers.

“The people of New Hampshire will be outraged when they learn that a private law firm is being paid $27 million at a time when there have been severe budget cuts to human services. Those are services that could have been supported by these funds,” he said. “It is our hope that the Legislature will use its legal authority to reject this proposed settlement.”

Right – well, is Gov. Lynch now going to work for tort reform that would "fix" this problem? My take is that there is no problem for Government to fix, other than Lynch got

How About We Name It After Justice Souter?

September 26, 2018September 6, 2011 Steve MacDonald

Justice David Souter secured his place in history when he voted to allow New London Connecticut to take private property and give to a private entity. This fundamental abuse of property rights, as offensive as it was, could only be compounded when the seized property was never even developed. People were forcibly removed from their homes, kicked off their land, and for what? How about The Justice David Souter Memorial….Dump.

Evil Landlords Who Pick On Tenants

September 26, 2018July 27, 2011 Rick Olson

“I like to think of my behavior in the sixties as a ‘learning experience.’ Then again, I like to think of anything stupid I’ve done as a ‘learning experience.’ It makes me feel less stupid.“ -P.J. O’Rourke

I was at a housing office today dropping off some “required paperwork.” As I sat waiting to review the issues that brought me there, I was forced to listen to a couple of young women talk about how they were going to hire attorneys and, “get their landlords.” Their complaints ran the gamut of being forced to get rid of pets (they were not supposed to have in the first place)… to the landlord’s refusal to repair a door broken by a boyfriend during a quarrel. Those Landlord bastards! The nerve of them! how dare they?

It is such conversations that so amuse me. For certain, being a landlord is a difficult endeavor. Take Manchvegas, for example where the city mandates Certificate Of Compliance Inspections (COC); A process that takes place every three years for those of us ‘evil bastards‘ who own multi-family residential housing. This can be an annoying process. One year’s COC inspection I was informed of a requirement to upgrade smoke detectors to the AC type with DC battery back-up. The current smoke detectors were already hard-wired so this wasn’t a difficult task. However, upon reviewing the building code, I found myself needing to call the building department for clarification. I was unable to find that specific reference. I was subsequently told the requirement had not been adopted yet. Guess it didn’t matter, though. I had already spent the 500 bucks to purchase the AC/DC smoke detector units and install them. For me this was an object lesson in (a) waiting for the post-inspection report to arrive in the mail, and (b) verifying the very issues cited in the report.

Window screens are yet another challenge. I mean, how stupid is that? Window Screens? But, a COC inspection cannot pass muster without the proper window screens in place. I always ensure window screens are in place for COC so that is not an issue. But, despite that, there are often tenants who are fundamentally challenged by the mere existence of window screens. They break them, lose them or destroy them. After I’ve replaced a couple and receive yet another request to do so, I demand the screen-challenged tenant “pony up” 22 dollars for an entire frame and screen replacement and 12 dollars for a screen replacement. The tenant gives me a bunch of indignant static. “It wasn’t on purpose!” he or she exclaims… Standing my ground and insisting, the tenant calls the building department to report my, “refusal to replace a missing window screen.” The building department subsequently issues a “violation of the COC:” “failure to have the window screens in place.” A landlord keeping proper track of expenses will quickly conclude that spending $700 per year on window screens is excessive and unreasonable.

William Jasmin The Beer Hunter

September 26, 2018July 23, 2011 Rick Olson

“He uses statistics like a drunk uses lamp-posts, more for support than illumination…” ~Romano Prodi

“(Attorney B.J. Branch) acknowledged that Jasmin had been drinking on the day of the accident but said he had only consumed one 16-ounce Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and was at or below the legal limit for intoxication. He added that because of Jasmin’s serious blood loss, the blood alcohol test may not have been accurate.” -Concord Monitor, 7/20/11

If one reads attorney Branch’s comment to the monitor at face value, you might just have the initial reaction that I had: “I think this attorney is full of crap.” The comment on its face suggests that Jasmin’s blood alcohol concentration cannot be effectively measured because he had experienced significant blood loss immediately after his fall.

Blood Alcohol Concentration measured is always the current and existing level in the blood at the time of a serological draw. BAC refers to the percent of alcohol in a person’s blood stream. For example, a BAC of .10% means that the individual’s blood supply contains one part alcohol for every 1000 parts blood. That is the alcohol concentration existing in the blood stream at the proximal time of the draw. If a person consumed another several alcoholic beverages only minutes prior to the draw, that alcohol content has a higher probability of not being reflected in a test.