- Sad but true.

- Which is why I say "screw the law, screw asking permission, and focus on what you can get away with!"

- Chances are that the majority of homes and farms in the country are violating all kinds of ordinances, often without even knowing it. Call attention to yourself, and the authorities WILL find something to bust you on. Even if you're legally in the right, they'll still ruin you before they admit it.

- So do what you want and need to do, but don't call attention to yourself in the process. Don't do stuff that pisses off your neighbors. (Hell, you shouldn't need the law to make you be a good neighbor to begin with!) Don't volunteer information to the authorities on any subject, EVER.

- There are whole industries thriving in America which are all kinds of illegal. 99% of the time, when somebody gets caught, they're doing something just plain stupid and are as good as turning themselves in. Just stay below radar.

.

It would appear that you can only resort to insults to support your opinion.
However, if you can show ONE LAW that proves your point and disproves what I posted, we will all see how correct you are.
Furthermore, the "republican form of government" has nothing to do with the partisan political party known as the "Republicans".



If I may draw your attention to the FACT that people directly exercise sovereignty in the republican form of government. This FACT has been cleverly omitted from the indoctrination classes across the nation. It's in print, in any county courthouse law library.

In support of that I offer these court cites:

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people
of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states."
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

There are plenty more. But the point that American people are sovereign, has been part of the law since day one.

BUT, most Americans were tricked into surrendering that sovereignty, by various means.
One, is citizenship. Citizens, by definition, are subjects. There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. It is an oxymoron.

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion
of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

If you still don't believe that there are American nationals who are non-citizens, and retain their sovereignty, I hope you will read just a wee bit more.

https://www.pcip.gov/PreExistingConditi ... 10_508.pdf
On Page 1, Section 3: Quote:
[] I am a noncitizen national of the United States

In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.



That ONE CITE is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals. No mention of any civic duties, taxes, or compulsory regulations. Read the law yourself, find if I made a mistake, and let us all know. I am not infallible.

I hope this encourages you to read law and discover your lost heritage of sovereignty, freedom and independence, enshrined in the law, since 1776.

But if you remain a duly enumerated "human resource" and subject citizen, do not be surprised by the ill treatment that you receive by "your" sovereign government.


I left national socialism and U.S. citizenship in 1993, and haven't been bothered by public servants since then. I am an American national and non-citizen, without any compact with Socialist InSecurity. I am endowed by my Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and private property ownership. I still retain my natural and personal liberty. And the constitution bound government still honors their oath... so far.

I said REPUBLICAN form of government NOT Republic! It's you who are being insulting by suggesting that I don't know the difference between a political party and a type of government.

And to think all we have to do is declare ourselves to be a American national and non-citizen, and we can live free like you (like you claim).

Finally, I never gave my opinion, I gave a question and told you what you needed to do - which is take this law argument to the pit.

If you want my opinion - fine - this argument and your interpretation has no bearing on what's really going on in the REAL world, and you certainly don't understand Socialism. Picasso Moon could better explain it to you.

Megadoom

... buncha other pie in the sky...

Stop polluting a thread on housing with stuff that will only land you in court. We're looking for practical stuff here. Old Horseman's advice is better and more to the point.

It also helps if you know what the appropriate bribe is for a building inspector, etc. Many states are "pay to play."

So get practical or shut up. We're all kinda busy these days.

[ Interesting note for Australians. ]

We have a hole in between local council and national legislation that allows us to build whatever the hell we want (mostly), out of pretty much anything we want (there are rules if you want to use steel frames). The hole is ONLY viable on land classified as rural (all classifications a,b,c,etc). So, that tiny 5ac cow paddock with no dwelling rights can have a doomstead.

The loophole relates to a national building code that overrides council regulations on construction of farm and machinery sheds. If it 'looks' like a shed, -nobody- is even allowed to enter the property to verify that it's not even a dwelling. It gets better, under this national building code a different section (Work cover) specifies that if the building is to ever house workers (like seasonal farm hands, fruit pickers, livestock handlers) you MUST provide some basic services, like a shower, toilet, microwave and kitchette. Now, that barn is starting to sound a LOT like a dwelling how huh?

In addition, once the building is built legally under these codes, it cannot be removed, even if you start living in it full time.

There are a lot of councils annoyed about this, but since it's a national problem, it's pretty insurmountable for them to change as it was specifically put in place to counter the thousands of different codes the previously existed. Plus even if it IS changed, then it'll for new buildings.

Do you own research. Speak to a solicitor ONLY after volumes of your own research, as this is treading right along the line and he\she might not want to be bothered. Here is an example in the hunter valley of a guy who built a house... errr 'shed'.

http://www.jurds.com.au/property/details/402330072

Yes, he is selling above market and the land is only really worth about 140, the building maybe 60. Tops. But is an interesting idea that preppers might choose to employ.

About half the residences in Puna are unpermitted. That doesn't stop the county from assessing and and taxing them.

I live in rural australia, and everywhere I go I see "sheds" on rural land. Of course these are implement sheds, so fall within the law of building same without permit. It's funny how many implement sheds need television antennas, water tanks, solar hot water services, clothes lines, solar panels, rubbish bins and other more domestic accessories.

We live on a 5 acre rural block. Our house is an owner built mud brick. We can build as many sheds as we like without a permit, but we may not house a car in any of the sheds, as garages need a permit on rural land. Go figure. However if we choose to build a shed to house humans we do not need a permit, but must provide cooking, washing, and toilet facilities.

Pardon my delay in replying. Apparently, this thread was mislaid.

Re: Polluting thread.
It may be my opinion that the property taxes / zoning / code enforcement issues are limited in scope to estate (held with qualified ownership) while private property held with absolute ownership is not so burdened. But I have yet to find a law that refutes that opinion.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I am not infallible. But in all the State constitutions I read, they limit their delegation of power to tax and regulate to estate (aka "real and personal property") and if private property is mentioned, it is in regard to being protected. In that respect, there would be no nexus for the State to "haul into court" any owner of private property, on a violation of a law that only applies to estate.

In light of that, I submit that one who wishes to build a "doomstead" off-grid, and off the books, one had better investigate the local laws - paying attention to the jurisdiction, venue, and obligated parties.

References:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/454