From: legal_reality
Subj: Fwd: Florida woman is told she has one month to 'plug in' to the grid
Subj: Fwd: Florida woman is told she has one month to 'plug in' to the grid
26 February A.D. 2014
She's been "off the grid" for a year or so. She's being told to "hook up."
Can the municipality compel it?
Probably.
It's not a matter of whether a municipality has authority to compel anyone to do anything, because no such "legislative" authority exists. The appearance of such authority derives from the reality that "federal" means "federal." In other words, it's a question of whether there's a commercial nexus, and it's possible that there is.
In the area of water, in particular, it's a matter of sanitation, and if there's a working septic tank system on that property, then the sanitation issue is reduced. If the property is recognized in "this state," then there are possible "gotcha agreements" that this lady isn't aware that she may already have entered into.
This "rain water" collection angle is "everywhere," these days. "Rain water" is possible to "tax" and its use subject to regulation if - but only if - the land is still being rendered subject to the "choice of law" of the "place" called "this state." There are agreements in that whole stack of papers presented only immediately prior to closing that no one reads that create the very obligation(s) at issue in such a matter. If those papers were properly negotiated, then the owner stands a shot at keeping "1984" conditions at bay. If those papers were not properly negotiated, then chances are high that there's a "gotcha agreement" that'll end up supporting the municipality's position.
Key -- no municipality (or "governmental" unit at any level in this system) has mandamus "legislative" power. There are even judicial rulings that tend to suggest that "legislative" mandamus actually exists, and there simply is no such thing. Where the "legislative" language is "shall" or "must" language, then we know, instantly on inspection, that we're talking about "gotcha agreement" language. The municipality (and any other "governmental" unit at any level) may definitely enforce any and all agreements entered into that involve or benefit that municipality (etc.). But, the "power" comes commercially, as in by agreement. That "power" in no way arises just because that language exists. The point is that, because their appearance of "power" is commercial, this is where the legal analysis needs to focus in order to address (successfully) the problem for what it is. Down that same path, where there is an agreement, the terms may be enforced to the hilt. Key, then, at the threshold is knowing (A) that such language can't be enforced but for an agreement and (B) that when one knows that he/she is dealing with an agreement far enough in advance, one may marshal the FACTS so as to not have that agreement and be able to prove that no such agreement exists (which is possible to do when one realizes that an agreement is necessary and one avoids that agreement).
This author fully expects that this "independent"-thinking woman in FLORIDA is headed in the "right" direction but is still thinking in terms of law and legal philosophy of independence, rather than in terms of our present legal reality and the commercial nature of the obligations that this author expects will be successfully enforced against her stated political philosophy.
She's been "off the grid" for a year or so. She's being told to "hook up."
Can the municipality compel it?
Probably.
It's not a matter of whether a municipality has authority to compel anyone to do anything, because no such "legislative" authority exists. The appearance of such authority derives from the reality that "federal" means "federal." In other words, it's a question of whether there's a commercial nexus, and it's possible that there is.
In the area of water, in particular, it's a matter of sanitation, and if there's a working septic tank system on that property, then the sanitation issue is reduced. If the property is recognized in "this state," then there are possible "gotcha agreements" that this lady isn't aware that she may already have entered into.
This "rain water" collection angle is "everywhere," these days. "Rain water" is possible to "tax" and its use subject to regulation if - but only if - the land is still being rendered subject to the "choice of law" of the "place" called "this state." There are agreements in that whole stack of papers presented only immediately prior to closing that no one reads that create the very obligation(s) at issue in such a matter. If those papers were properly negotiated, then the owner stands a shot at keeping "1984" conditions at bay. If those papers were not properly negotiated, then chances are high that there's a "gotcha agreement" that'll end up supporting the municipality's position.
Key -- no municipality (or "governmental" unit at any level in this system) has mandamus "legislative" power. There are even judicial rulings that tend to suggest that "legislative" mandamus actually exists, and there simply is no such thing. Where the "legislative" language is "shall" or "must" language, then we know, instantly on inspection, that we're talking about "gotcha agreement" language. The municipality (and any other "governmental" unit at any level) may definitely enforce any and all agreements entered into that involve or benefit that municipality (etc.). But, the "power" comes commercially, as in by agreement. That "power" in no way arises just because that language exists. The point is that, because their appearance of "power" is commercial, this is where the legal analysis needs to focus in order to address (successfully) the problem for what it is. Down that same path, where there is an agreement, the terms may be enforced to the hilt. Key, then, at the threshold is knowing (A) that such language can't be enforced but for an agreement and (B) that when one knows that he/she is dealing with an agreement far enough in advance, one may marshal the FACTS so as to not have that agreement and be able to prove that no such agreement exists (which is possible to do when one realizes that an agreement is necessary and one avoids that agreement).
This author fully expects that this "independent"-thinking woman in FLORIDA is headed in the "right" direction but is still thinking in terms of law and legal philosophy of independence, rather than in terms of our present legal reality and the commercial nature of the obligations that this author expects will be successfully enforced against her stated political philosophy.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
No comments:
Post a Comment