The subject of Law has always been a fascinating subject. I am not a lawyer, but have a library of law books. Because I have always stood up and fought for that which I believe in, the story of my life involves more than one legal battle. And anytime I retain a lawyer for anything, I have usually laid out my course of action, and collected a great deal of information on any particular subject. I view a lawyer as one I hire to work for me. In the course of my association, if at any point I think he’s not acting in my best interests, I fire him.
I think I was about 21 years old when I had my first encounter with lawyers and the legal system, a dispute over hospitalization insurance relating to a company I was employed by. Being denied benefits, I went to the company lawyer, and he sided with the insurance company. I was living in Florida and the insurance company was in Connecticut. Getting no place with the company and lawyer, I went directly to the company. I argued my case directly with the company, and was awarded benefits. That single encounter taught me a number of things. I discovered I could go over the head of a large corporation, a lawyer and their objections and win my case on my own efforts. Secondly, it was my first on-the-job training to understand the “Battle Plan.” Something I used many times thereafter, to win.
A couple of years ago I got into a discussion with a blogger friend about natural law, using the law of gravity as the basis of my argument, when my friend branched off with a rebuttal about outer space. At that point, I went no further, because the parameters of my position stop at the boundaries of this planet, the Earth. In this connection, I can come on strong and back off in a hurry.
In my latest article, titled CONTRACT LAW – LIFE – FREEDOM & PROPERTY – PERSONAL RIGHTS – POWER OF INDIVIDUAL & U.S. EMPIRE,” I point out that there are two kinds of laws, namely, Universal Natural Law and Man-made Laws. Sometimes they are parallel and sometimes they are contradictory. It’s my position, from a moral standpoint, when there is a conflict in meaning, Universal Natural law takes precedent. That which is right and that which is wrong.
There is so much going on in this country relative to the crisis we face, it appears to me there is a great deal of conflict and misunderstanding about about Right and Wrong. So much of the narrative is based upon this misunderstanding. For me personally, when I view things from the paradigm of Universal Law, a clear picture comes into focus.
All of this is leading up to a current situation, involving property rights, specifically, a huge pin oak tree, at the property line of my residence. It is so large, huge limbs from the tree extend across the property line. One very large limb extends across the entire top of a dogwood tree on my front lawn, and other large limbs extend over the roof across my living room on to a large pecan tree on the opposite side of the property boundary line. During the recent tornadic weather system which swept across the state, with high winds traveling at breakneck speed, the large limbs swayed over the top of my residence as if they were broom straw weeds. Quite frightening and threatening.
I lease the property in which I have resided the past five years. The owner lives out of state. I contacted him and explained my concerns about the threat I perceived, after the storm passed. Pointing out the fact the large oak tree is on the property of the next door neighbors’ property, and it is the huge limbs from that fixed tree, extending over the house I live in, which I perceive as a threat. I expressed my belief that the responsibility for resolving the threat lies with the owner of the tree. I went into great detail about property lines and property ownership, to support my position that the onus of action to resolve the threat lies with the next door owner. The neighbor property is also a rental, and I have never met the owner. But I argued it was his responsibility, as if I were in court.
Yesterday my son came for a visit, and we sat in the backyard having a glass of tea, and discussed a number of things. I related the tree limb story and he could see the large limbs looming over the top of the house. Before going into business for himself, my son was a real estate broker, and quite familiar with the man-made laws relating to the matter I described.
Unbeknownst to me prior to a response from my landlord, the problem of the over-hanging limbs had been addressed before, and the position of the neighbor owner was, he had no intention of trimming the limbs, but my landlord could remove the limbs if he chose to do so. I thought the neighbor was wrong, basing my position on natural laws relating to property ownership. Imagine my surprise, when my son explained, the neighbor owner was correct in his position, according to man-made laws and property lines, and the real-estate business.
Explaining to me the way state law reads, in such cases where over-hanging limbs extend across property lines, the owner of the tree has no responsibility for trimming the limbs, but the owner of the threatened property has the authority to have the limbs removed, so long as there has been no damage and is only a threat. On the other hand, if there is damage caused to the adjoining property by the limbs if not removed, the owner of the tree is responsible for damage.
News and pictures on TV showing damage to houses where trees crashed a number of residents, and some were killed across northeast Georgia, reveal the truth about the possibility of damage, from the images. Therefore my aha moment was the realization that according to state law, the owner of property, which presents a threat to non-owners, has no responsibility legally until after the fact of damage. Even if the tree limbs are positioned over the roof and could smash the house structure down and kill.
A glaring example where man-made laws run counter to natural laws. Specifically, defying ownership of property as a total concept, portraying the state with its man-made laws, relieving the owner of responsibility for property ostensibly owned.
Hypothetically, if someone knocks on my door, and I open it, facing a man with a gun who shoots me, does this mean as owner of my body, I acted irresponsibly by not having a gun in my hand when I opened the door? And it’s my fault because I failed to have a gun in my hand when I opened the door? Is it reason and rationale to assume a non-owner of property has the responsibility for the irresponsibility of an owner, in the face of imminent danger?
Is the unforeseen threat of a man with a gun at the door, different from an obvious foreseen threat of large limbs of an over-hanging oak tree? If it is our individual responsibility to protect ourselves, and I believe it is, does this mean as state law dictates, we are responsible for the the property belonging to another? Universal law states: Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill. To do so is a trespass on one’s property. Are heavy-duty limbs over-hanging one’s head, as a result of another’s property, a trespass? A situation shown from recent storms, is a real threat to one’s life and property.
A trespass is defined as crossing the boundaries of another’s property in violation of the will of the owner. As I see it, from the standpoint of Right and wrong, as a Principle, it is wrong for one to trespass on the property of another in violation of the will of the owner. There is that area of “forgiven trespass,” when the perpetrator unknowingly crosses the boundaries of another. But in the case of the over-hanging limbs, when the owner has been informed of the objection, then it becomes a knowing and willful trespass.
In a civilized society where it is clearly understood we are endowed by our Creator to the Right of Life, Liberty, and Property ownership, and if ownership of property is a total concept, which means the owner has control and responsibility for that which one owns; if there are man-made laws which permit trespassing in some situations, it defies the totality of ownership. It suggests we are in essence share-croppers, and others, i.e., non-owners, can dictate the terms.
Tree-trimming is an expensive venture. In the situation I describe, the man-made law supports the notion that the owner of that which constitutes a trespass, is given a pass to say it’s not my responsibility, and if you want the threat removed, you pay for it and deal with it. And he is within the statutes of the man-made law with the actions and attitude.
I decided to write this article, not to accuse a man I never met of violating a man-made law, but to point out some man-made laws are in conflict with natural law. And in this case, I believe the state statute violates U.S. Constitutional law. If, as history records, when the founding fathers, establishing inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty and Happiness,” meant happiness to mean property Rights, a trespass of one’s property violates that happiness property Right.
So far so good, no real harm from the looming limbs, but the threat is quite real. And the issue is an interesting one, defining how we act and re-act to the Principles of property ownership as a civilized society.
Here’s an interesting quote from the great American writer and economist, Thomas Sowell: “The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busy-bodies to impose on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices—paid by others.”
LET FREEDOM RING
JUST ME AC