The Uncaring Tyranny of Government

[Crazed Rabbit]

A man in Wisconsin is going to have his house, which he owns with no money owed on a loan, foreclosed on by the city because he parked a van without license plates in his driveway:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=779234
Milwaukee man faces foreclosure because he didn’t pay parking fine
The ticket went unpaid for four years, eventually amounting to $2,600 in fines
By RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Peter Tubic ignored a $50 parking fine in 2004, and on Monday, it cost him his $245,000 house.

Among other health issues he's dealing with, Peter Tubic has had headaches dealing with his van, which is parked in his driveway without a license plates. He faces foreclosure on his home and is in a dispute with the city over citations he received for the van's lack of plates.
Nitty Gritty
A Milwaukee man received a $50 fine for parking a van with no license plates in his driveway. He ignored the ticket for more than four years, and last week the city foreclosed on his house.

In what city officials believe is the first case of its kind, the city foreclosed on Tubic's house on W. Verona Court after repeated attempts to collect the fine - which over the years had escalated to $2,600 - had failed.

"Our goal isn't to acquire parcels," said Jim Klajbor, special deputy city treasurer. "Our goal is to just collect taxes. . . . It is only as a last resort that we would pursue . . . foreclosure."

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Richard Sankovitz technically stayed the judgment to give Tubic one last chance to explain why he hasn't paid or even responded, but Sankovitz ruled in favor of the city's foreclosure.

"The city was entitled to a judgment," Sankovitz told Public Investigator on Thursday. "There hadn't been an answer to the complaint."

Tubic takes the blame for disregarding the 15 or more notices he received seeking payment and warning of the pending foreclosure on the house, which was fully paid off, but says he had good reason.

He was physically and psychologically unable to handle the situation, he says.

According to the Social Security Administration, Tubic, 62, has been disabled since 2001. He has been diagnosed with psychological disorders that limit his "ability to understand, remember and carry out detailed instructions," according to documents from the administration.

In addition he suffers from chronic pain caused by degenerative diseases of the knees and spine, as well as chronic respiratory disease, diabetes and obesity, among other ailments.

In several lengthy conversations with the P.I. Team spanning two weeks, Tubic frequently grunted in pain and broke down in tears.

"They're trying to take my house away for a parking violation," Tubic said. "I know it was my own fault for letting it drag on, I've been under mental duress. I haven't been able to handle this."

Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice and law professor at Marquette University, called the case a human tragedy and an example of how people can fall through the cracks in the system.

"It seems like a drastic remedy," Geske said of the city's foreclosure. "But on the other hand the city has to enforce its zoning laws. I don't fault the city for that.

"It's a shame someone didn't intervene to help him. . . . It would be nice if someone who worked for government would take the time and say 'let's look at this and see if we're doing the right thing.' . . . It would be nice if they would remember the human factor here."

Tubic first got the fine for parking his Ford E150 with no license plates in the driveway of the home, which belonged to his parents at the time . The radiator had broken and Tubic couldn't get his plates renewed unless the van passed an emissions test. He didn't have the money to make the repair and had more pressing worries, he said.

His father was suffering from dementia. His mother was battling cancer, and he was their live-in caretaker. He needed to shop, cook, clean, maintain the house and tend to his parents' needs.

The van repair could wait, he thought.

Then a man from the city showed up and told him otherwise. It was February 2004. Tubic would have to move the van or get license plates for it within 30 days, per city zoning codes, the man said. Somebody had complained.

Several days later Tubic's dad died. Tubic was overwhelmed, he said.

"It was a combination of things financial and emotional, my caregiving role, all heaped themselves on me at the wrong time," he said. "I still don't function well."

Month after month the city Department of Neighborhood Services sent an inspector to the house to see if the van had moved or had license plates. Each time a new fee was assessed. And a letter was sent to Tubic's home.

At no time did Tubic call or write to object or explain his circumstances, city officials said. So the bureaucratic cog kept turning.

Tubic's $50 fine escalated to $1,475, and after it was clear he wasn't going to respond, the city filed a tax lien. While Tubic paid the property taxes, he never paid the $1,475 for the zoning violation. With interest and penalties, he owed $2,645 before the city foreclosed on Monday.

Ronald Roberts, a code enforcement manager with the Department of Neighborhood Services, said the zoning code that prohibits people from parking unlicensed vehicles in their driveways is aimed at keeping residential properties from looking like junkyards.

The city issues about 1,500 fines for such "nuisance" violations - which also include illegally placed trash - every year. Many are for repeat inspections.

"Put yourself in the position of the neighbors," Roberts said.

Turns out in this case the neighbors weren't the ones to complain. Tubic had not been getting along with his brother, and his brother made the call. His brother, Jovon Tubic, said he called at the request of their mother, according to a letter from Jovon to Peter Tubic.

"One day in a very bad mood, Mom told me to get rid of the cars in the driveway right away," he wrote.

Peter Tubic, who ran unsuccessfully for the 97th District state assembly seat in 1996 and again in 1998, said he tried to explain to city inspectors that this was an internal family dispute but that inspectors "didn't want to hear it."

"If a violation exists, a violation exists," Roberts said. "We're going to enforce a violation.

"If someone says, 'I'm dealing with a death,' we're going to be reasonable and give them a 30-day extension," he said. "But $1,475, that's a lot of months mourning - not to be insensitive."

Roberts noted that every notice sent to Tubic had clearly written instructions on how to contest the fines.

Roberts said inspectors were not aware of Tubic's mental health issues. When contacted by the P.I. Team before the foreclosure, city officials appeared split over how to handle the case.

"If you're telling me we had a mentally anguished individual and that inspectors made no attempts to get at that, that can be considered," Roberts told P.I. "There will have to be some serious evidence. But if we were . . . deaf to that point, I would be willing to reconsider some of those fees."
Not much left to do

Don Schaewe, supervisor of the city's nuisance section, said he recently spoke with Tubic and that Tubic "provided a whole lot of excuses as to why he didn't comply."

"At this point," Schaewe said. "There's really not too much that would allow us to reverse those charges."

A court hearing is scheduled for Sept. 11. If the city retains ownership of the house, Tubic can remain there as a renter until the house is sold, said Andrea Rowe Richards, spokeswoman for the Department of City Development. After that, the new homeowners can decide if they want to continue renting out the house.

Tubic said he set aside $2,600 in an escrow account "to protect the estate in case I die" but didn't want to use it to pay for the parking violation.

Judge Sankovitz called the case a shame and said it demonstrates the need for judges to have authority to appoint attorneys for people involved in civil litigation.

"If you were a criminal, we'd take care of the whole problem for you, get you an attorney," he said. "But if you're involved in civil litigation - in jeopardy of losing your house or your family . . . what we do is make you go out and find your own attorney.

"If we gave people the help they needed near the beginning of their problem, their problems wouldn't snowball the way they do."

Because the city busy-bodies wouldn't let unlicensed vehicles be parked in driveways (and because they are obviously morons without empathy for the peasants), the man is going to lose his house.

I cannot fathom how people view more government as the answer to solutions.

CR

[Papewaio]

If enough voters become aware, and government becomes aware that they are aware. Then the government of the day will put pressure on the civil service, they will make sure the pressure is seen and that their voting bloc stays.

[Tribesman]

A man in Wisconsin is going to have his house, which he owns with no money owed on a loan, foreclosed on by the city because he parked a van without license plates in his driveway:

No , the man was going to be punished for ignoring 4 years of requests for payment .
Unless of course there is an intervention before the 11th of next month ...wow there is an intervention already that was quick , wasn't that nice of the judge to put in the delay on foreclosure due to special circumstances to allow for intervention .
Why didn't you go for the other story Rabbit , the local authorities taking someones house away because their tennants are a pain and they havn't done anything to sort their nasty tennants out ?
Its tyranny I tell ya tyranny , I am outraged .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I cannot fathom how people view more government as the answer to solutions.

CR





Judge Sankovitz called the case a shame and said it demonstrates the need for judges to have authority to appoint attorneys for people involved in civil litigation.

"If you were a criminal, we'd take care of the whole problem for you, get you an attorney," he said. "But if you're involved in civil litigation - in jeopardy of losing your house or your family . . . what we do is make you go out and find your own attorney.

"If we gave people the help they needed near the beginning of their problem, their problems wouldn't snowball the way they do."


Like this?

[ICantSpellDawg]

No , the man was going to be punished for ignoring 4 years of requests for payment .
Unless of course there is an intervention before the 11th of next month ...wow there is an intervention already that was quick , wasn't that nice of the judge to put in the delay on foreclosure due to special circumstances to allow for intervention .
Why didn't you go for the other story Rabbit , the local authorities taking someones house away because their tennants are a pain and they havn't done anything to sort their nasty tennants out ?
Its tyranny I tell ya tyranny , I am outraged .

Haha. Who would have thought that Tribesman would defend unreasonable villainy? The man didn't put a license plate on his van while it was in his mothers driveway. His brother thought the authorities could convince him to do it, so he alerted them.

They initially gave him a small ticket that turned into a massive one and eventually converted itself into a lien on the house that his parents left him. He is suggesting that he has had mental and physical problems for a long time, but the State doesn't seem to care one iota.

Long story short - the government is taking this man's house because he didn't have a license on his van sitting in his driveway. He wasn't driving the van and the neighbors never complained, but the government believes that it is equitable to take his house for the offense.

Dress it up with red tape and legalities if you'd like, but the reality is that they have taken the home of a disabled man over a bs ticket.

Just when I thought private industry was a crap heap I started dealing with government organizations. It is unbelievable how little gets done and how little the employees care about other people.

[Xiahou]

Long story short - the government is taking this man's house because he didn't have a license on his van sitting in his driveway. He wasn't driving the van and the neighbors never complained, but the government believes that it is equitable to take his house for the offense.Yup, that's what it boils down to. Ridiculous. :yes:

[Fragony]

Kinda scary how a disgrunted civil worker can do that to you. There really isn't that much difference between normal organised crime and the governherd, you have the right to remain silent and pay protectionmoney.

[Tribesman]

What a pile of crap , they are not taking his home for having a unlicenced van , thay are seeking redemption of a debt by sale of assets .
Boo hoo look at what the evil government is doing ....bollox it is no different than if he hadn't paid his local or state taxes , its no different from it he hadn't paid his credit cards bills .
The only difference in this case is that the judge had granted extra time for intervention due to the circumstances and the intervention has come very quickly from the local government .
None of which even goes anywhere near the fact that he had the money anyway and could have chosen to pay at any time but didn't want to .
Simple case , pay your debts or have that debt reclaimed by siezure and sale of your assets .
Tyranny of government ....bollox .

[Andres]

How sad this story may be, why didn't he just pay the 50 $ fine? If he's lying to the press about his "condition" to cover up his own stupidity then I have no sympathy.

However, if the man is indeed disabled and not in a condition to manage his own finances, then why did nobody help him?

And I'm not pointing fingers at the government. No, I blame the brother. Instead of acting childish by calling the police to get his brother fined, he should have helped him out while he was taking care of their parents.

If the brother would have helped him out by taking care of the parents together with him, then he would have noticed the mental illness (or depression or temporary state of not being able to handle his own affairs, whatever it is/was he is/was suffering from) and, if he would have been a good brother, he would have made sure that his bills were getting paid in time or that a professional would have taken care of him.

Tribesman is right, the government is doing what they are supposed to do: making sure that debts are payed.

This story is not as simple as "evil government takes house from poor guy", it's more "man prefers to act as a :daisy: instead of helping his parents and disabled brother".

[Tribesman]

And I'm not pointing fingers at the government. No, I blame the brother. Instead of acting childish by calling the police to get his brother fined, he should have helped him out while he was taking care of their parents.
Perhaps he was annoyed that his brother was inheriting the property .

[Andres]

Perhaps he was annoyed that his brother was inheriting the property .

Maybe if he would have been there for his parents, like his brother, he would have gotten his share...

[Sigurd]

They are going to sell his house worth $250K to pay for a $2,5K ticket?
Will the man be given back the difference?

:no:

Expensive ticket ... Why not just take the car?

[Andres]

They are going to sell his house worth $250K to pay for a $2,5K ticket?
Will the man be given back the difference?

:no:

Expensive ticket ... Why not just take the car?

Why not just paying the fine?

Or apply for a loan to pay the fine if he hasn't got the money right now, a loan which he surely will get, since he has a house without a mortgage on it...

If he pays what he has to pay right now, nobody will sell his house.

[Sigurd]

Here is an idea... Why not use his $2600 savings to pay for the ticket. That way he need no loan, can keep the car and the house. :thinking:

The Van in question (http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/graphic.asp?graphic=http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/aug08/pi_tubic_080308_big.jpg).
I thought the Americans were all about "I can do whatever I want on my property" ?? :smartass2:
This would never happened here. Hmm ... the neighbour has a car with no licence plates. Maybe ... :mellow:

[Husar]

Here's an idea, why not pay the 50$ ticket and park the car in a garage? Or pay the 2500$ ticket now and blow the car up in front of some government building? Just to show them that you are not going to drive aound with it of course.

[KukriKhan]

Ever since the Kelo Decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London), it's been clear to me that "property ownership" by individual citizens in the US is and has been a delusion under which we've labored, and that da gubmint can do any bloody thing it wants to do, whenever and wherever it wants to do it. "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" is just a slogan; welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of North America.

A $245,000 asset siezed to satisfy a $50 fine of dubious legality. Pah. What's that sound? Comrade Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

[Andres]

A $245,000 asset siezed to satisfy a $50 fine of dubious legality. Pah. What's that sound? Comrade Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

So, the government should just gently ask to please pay your fines and in case you refuse, no biggy, nothing will come of it?

When is the government allowed to actually collect a fine then? If the culprit owns something that is not worth more then let's say 150 % of the amount of the fine?

Or would you prefer that the government would drop each and every fine that's not high enough in case the culprit doesn't pay?

Or would you rather have 500.000 $ fines for minor infractions, so that seizing a house would be justified?

The guy broke the law, didn't he? A law that has been voted in a democracy. As long as the law is valid, you have to obey it. If you don't like the law, vote for somebody who will change it or become a politican yourself.

If everybody could happily break the law without consequences because actually punishing the offense would be "ridiculous" or "unreasonable", then you can say bye bye to your freedom (unless total anarchy sounds like utopia to you).

[HoreTore]

Well, debt collection is a pickle. On one hand, our financial system will collapse if everyone chose to pay whenever they felt like it, just ask any small business how important it is for them that people pay their bills on time.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as proportion. The goal cannot be to make people pay through the nose, but to reach a reasonable deal that both parties can be happy with when bills aren't paid. In this case, it's clearly beyond that. You don't take someone's house because of a 50 dollar fine, that's just ridiculous.

Especially when you factor in this guys life.

[Andres]

On the other hand, there is such a thing as proportion. The goal cannot be to make people pay through the nose, but to reach a reasonable deal that both parties can be happy with when bills aren't paid. In this case, it's clearly beyond that. You don't take someone's house because of a 50 dollar fine, that's just ridiculous.



You guys are all acting like its' the government who is being unreasonable.

Pay the 50 $ fine like you're supposed to do and obey the law.

If the guy doesn't respond to a shipload of reminders, then he's the one being unreasonable.

Not paying 50 $ to let it escalate into this, that's being unreasonable.

That ánd his brother behaved like a jerk.

[KukriKhan]

If everybody could happily break the law without consequences because actually punishing the offense would be "ridiculous" or "unreasonable", then you can say bye bye to your freedom

"Freedom's just another word for: nuttin' left to lose...". Once he's been relieved of the burden of his home and vehicle, then he'll be free. He should thank his benificent overlords for helping him achieve economic Nirvana.

Seriously tho': if this kind of thing keeps happening, authorities should remember that eventually the populace will have had enough of over-reaching government, stop obeying any laws, and start picking up pitchforks and torches.

[Tribesman]

They are going to sell his house worth $250K to pay for a $2,5K ticket?
Will the man be given back the difference?

When assets are siezed to pay a debt in this manner he gets all the money that isn't used to pay the debt , unless he owes money elsewhere and those people put in a claim for money from the sale .
A little lesson for stupid people isn't it , don't ignore legal letters sent to you and if you are in doubt then seek legal advice .:yes:
And of course a little lesson for clever people , given the huge number of forclosures in Wisconsin the market is flooded with properties for auction , its probably time to buy .
Though of course if you buy then take a lesson from the other foreclosure story that I mentioned , choose your tennants with care as you don't want the local government taking your property because you rented it to drug dealers and prostitutes and failed in your civic responsibility to keep the area nice and decent for good citizens who don't want their property devalued by your mess .


Seriously tho': if this kind of thing keeps happening, authorities should remember that eventually the populace will have had enough of over-reaching government, stop obeying any laws, and start picking up pitchforks and torches.

Pitchforks ???? I thought you had guns for that ...oh yeah I forgot , thats just a myth isn't it .

[KukriKhan]

If the guy had been clever, he'd have taken a can of spray-paint, marked up his van, and declared: "It's not an unregistered vehicle, it's a former pollution machine rescued from our clogged roads, now converted into an Ecological Work of Folk Art." . Charge a nickel to see it.

Point taken, tho': many 'problems' just go away all by themselves. Government problems never do; they, like day-old fish, just get worse (and smellier) with time.

[Andres]

If the guy would have been clever, he would have paid the 50 $ fine...


Seriously tho': if this kind of thing keeps happening, authorities should remember that eventually the populace will have had enough of over-reaching government, stop obeying any laws, and start picking up pitchforks and torches.

Taking up pitchforks and torches because the government enforces the law?

When I got a 50 € fine for driving 6 km/h too fast on an empty highway, I cursed, I complained about the stupidity and injustice of it all, oh the drama! and... I paid the fine and fanatically stick to the speed limits ever since.

[KukriKhan]

The end result of ridiculous laws and onerous penalties is: disrespect for all law, and the eventual encouragement of protest, then resistence, then revolution.

And so, off to work. Play nicely fellas. :bow"

[Andres]

The end result of ridiculous laws and onerous penalties is: disrespect for all law, and the eventual encouragement of protest, then resistence, then revolution.

And so, off to work. Play nicely fellas. :bow"

But is disobediance the right answer?

You live in a democracy, so you can vote for the guy who will change the ridiculous laws or, if such a guy doesn't exist, start your own political career and change things yourself.

As for the case at hand, is it the law that is ridiculous in this case? Cars need to have a license plate and there are several good reasons why a car should have a license plate.

The fine for not having a license plate seems to be 50 $, not really an onerous penalty, is it?

What is ridiculous is that it escalated to this.

But the Government is not the one to blame for that :shrug:

[HoreTore]

Disobedience is indeed the answer. But thinking you'll get away with it and whining about it when you don't is not, however...

Civil disobedience FTW! I think we're all very happy Rosa Parks decided to break that ridiculous law back in the 60's....

[Andres]

Disobedience is indeed the answer. But thinking you'll get away with it and whining about it when you don't is not, however...

Civil disobedience FTW! I think we're all very happy Rosa Parks decided to break that ridiculous law back in the 60's....

It is disobedience that turned something as simple as a small fine for not having license plates into a social drama.

[Kralizec]

As far as govenment tyranny cases go, this is by far the least convincing case I've seen on this board. I agree with Andres.

[Dîn-Heru]

The man should have paid his fine from the start, no doubt about that.

But it is still allowed to show some common sense from the side of the bureaucrats.. You do not forclose on a house worth 250 thousand to pay a debt of 2500.. You take the car, or freeze his bankaccounts, or make him work it of doing community service.. But to even threathen to take someone's house away over something that is basically a cosmetic issue about how the neighbourhood should appear is simply ridicullus..

[Tribesman]

But it is still allowed to show some common sense from the side of the bureaucrats..
It is common sense , they could have hit him with a GF148 and throwed him in jail , putting people in jail costs money so this foreclosure is more fiscaly prudent . I would have thought someone like Rabbit would being favour of the govrernment saving tax payers money by siezing assets of lawbreakers instead of wasting money jailing them in Americas luxury prisons for a small mistake .

Does anyone kinda get the impression that in the main this topic has not gone in the direction the OP wanted:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Dîn-Heru]

It is common sense , they could have hit him with a GF148 and throwed him in jail , putting people in jail costs money so this foreclosure is more fiscaly prudent .

Hehe, fair enough, perhaps common sense was the wrong term, (what the hell is common sense anyway), but the point still stands that there are different options that must be more preferable to both parties than the hassle for the government to get rid of the house and for the man to lose it ( even if it is caused by his own/(his brother's) stupidity.. )

[Hosakawa Tito]

Many communities have laws requiring license plates on vehicles simply because if they do not some people would allow their properties to look like a junk yard.

Seizing assets to pay for fines or taxes owed is reasonable, but in this case, the disparity between the asset seized and the minicule fine owed is not reasonable at all. They could seize the vehicle, garnish his disability/social security check or tax returns whatever. Making him homeless for a paltry $2600 is excessive in the extreme. Where is Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton when you actually need them? poor Pete must be white

[Tribesman]

Seizing assets to pay for fines or taxes owed is reasonable, but in this case, the disparity between the asset seized and the minicule fine owed is not reasonable at all. They could seize the vehicle, garnish his disability/social security check or tax returns whatever. Making him homeless for a paltry $2600 is excessive in the extreme.
Well I doubt that van would fetch much in the way of cash so why would the city want a pile of junk , as for taking it from other sources good idea , thats what they do when you co-operate , they come to an arrangement which you stick to to pay them their money , but when you don't co-operate and don't attempt to do a deal then they are going to do whats easiest for them and what guarantees they get the money .
In this case its siezing for sale the most obvious asset .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Does anyone kinda get the impression that in the main this topic has not gone in the direction the OP wanted:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I see people saying one of 2 things:

A. The fine was absurd in the first place and the government shouldn't have done this.
or
B. The fine was appropriate but the seizure of the home was unconscionable.

Unless the OP was trying to get Tribesman to agree with people as to a reasonable understanding of an obviously bad situation, he seems to have relayed the point well. I can assure you that he had no such expectations for you - why would he going on experience?

[Tribesman]

Unless the OP was trying to get Tribesman to agree with people as to a reasonable understanding of an obviously bad situation, he seems to have relayed the point well.
Really ??? the uncaring tyranny of government :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The judge delayed the implimentation of the siezure when during the hearing questions first surfaced about the mental state of the debtor , when the hearing relayed information they recieved on the day concerning the mental state of the debtor to the local government , the local government acted quickly with an intervention .
Where is the bloody tyranny ?
The only suggestion of "more government" making things better is the judge saying perhaps there should be a provision for legal representation for people who are too thick to read their own mail .

tyranny eh , pay up or lose your assets or come to an agreement before september to pay up and protect your assets .
Bloody hell the local government bent over backwards to accomodate this person once issues of his mental state were raised .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Really ??? the uncaring tyranny of government :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The judge delayed the implimentation of the siezure when during the hearing questions first surfaced about the mental state of the debtor , when the hearing relayed information they recieved on the day concerning the mental state of the debtor to the local government , the local government acted quickly with an intervention .
Where is the bloody tyranny ?
The only suggestion of "more government" making things better is the judge saying perhaps there should be a provision for legal representation for people who are too thick to read their own mail .

tyranny eh , pay up or lose your assets or come to an agreement before september to pay up and protect your assets .
Bloody hell the local government bent over backwards to accomodate this person once issues of his mental state were raised .

"through due process, the state enforced the original $50 ticket and eventually decided to kill the Appellant and eat his bones". I don't care what the due process was and I'm pretty sure that nobody who decided on the law had home seizure in mind. If any type of punishment is cruel and unusual - this is it.

[Goofball]

Long story short - the government is taking this man's house because he didn't have a license on his van sitting in his driveway. He wasn't driving the van and the neighbors never complained, but the government believes that it is equitable to take his house for the offense.

Funny, if I were making this long story short it would read:

A man receives a ticket for being in violation of the law, and chooses to ignore it. At any time during the 4 years that he ignored the ticket he could have stopped the foreclosure process by picking up the phone and calling city hall, but he chose not to. Now the city is taking his house as they have been left with no choice, as opposed to the scofflaw, who had a choice the whole time, but chose not to do the right thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Funny, if I were making this long story short it would read:

A man receives a ticket for being in violation of the law, and chooses to ignore it. At any time during the 4 years that he ignored the ticket he could have stopped the foreclosure process by picking up the phone and calling city hall, but he chose not to. Now the city is taking his house as they have been left with no choice, as opposed to the scofflaw, who had a choice the whole time, but chose not to do the right thing.

The guy has had quite a few physical and emotional issues. The reporter responded that the man frequently broke down and couldn't complete sentences in interview.

I'm the bleeding heart this time. If they guy had driven without a license - that would be one thing. He was literally minding his own business with serious physical illnesses, his parents died and he was having nervous breakdowns. My father has diabetes. If he were less of a man with the kind of stresses this guy was going through I wouldn't be surprised if he killed us all and danced on our graves.

I agree that his Federal payouts could have been garnished. That would have been a reasonable response.

I frequently disagree with both you and Tribesman. Why would this time be any different?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's a pretty petty law.

Submit citizen, for submission means freedom!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Many communities have laws requiring license plates on vehicles simply because if they do not some people would allow their properties to look like a junk yard.

Seizing assets to pay for fines or taxes owed is reasonable, but in this case, the disparity between the asset seized and the minicule fine owed is not reasonable at all. They could seize the vehicle, garnish his disability/social security check or tax returns whatever. Making him homeless for a paltry $2600 is excessive in the extreme. Where is Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton when you actually need them? poor Pete must be white

They didn't kick him out, he still lives there and pays rent. The only problem here was outlined by the judge--the government has no way of knowing if someone has a disability that interferes with there ability to pay the fine.

[m52nickerson]

The man should have payed the fine. If he needed help to pay the fine he could have called the local code enforcement to see if he could pay over the phone in in some other way.

Then if you want a law like this over turned you have to organize.

[Tribesman]

They didn't kick him out, he still lives there and pays rent.
He still lives there and still owns the house .
If he doesn't do a deal by the 11th of september then he can still live there and pay rent but not own the house .
All this arises becauseTubic decided he was going to fight the fine which he thought was unfair , but his idea of fighting the fine was to ignore it and do nothing .
Given that he is mentaly competant to pay all his other bills when they come in , keep up to date on his property taxes and choose to make donations to local politicians election funds it appears that his "mental illness" angle on this issue may just be a ploy .
Then again making donations to politicians does bring his mental state into question .

[Papewaio]

Proportional response is required.

If the guy is not mentally nor physically ill nor has been for the length of the fine. And had not stated that he was then selling his house is not proportionate for littering. Which essentially the fine is to stop people littering on their own property with an unlicensed vehicle.

If the guy states he was very sick and wasn't then seize and take the house if that is the result for perjury which is a separate issue.

If he has been mentally & physically ill. Been the primary care giver for his parents and otherwise a good citizen then they should wave the fine. Society should at all times look after its weakest and applaud those who do so as well. Also investigate if the brother was making malicious mischief with the law for personal reasons.

The escalation path for this should be something like this:
Fine $50.
Failure to pay:
Go to court:
Then pay a higher fine say $50 +court costs +cost of towing the offending unregistered vehicle away.
Vehicle impounded for six months. Then the vehicle disposed of. If any money is made from it then it can pay the costs of any outstanding fines and the rest returned to the original owner.

In short make the punishment gain the outcome in which the law was intended. They don't want old cars littering the suburb then have as part of the fine escalation should be getting rid of the litter.

As it stands the current outcome doesn't clean up the place and only has a heavy handed response way out of proportion to what the problem is.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You guys are all acting like its' the government who is being unreasonable.

You think it reasonable to fine people because the vehicles they have on their property do not have license plates, little sheets of metal and paint, on them? Is it reasonable a man cannot keep a van on his property without paying out to the government for a license plate? Is that what you consider reasonable?

What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?

No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.

As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.


The guy broke the law, didn't he? A law that has been voted in a democracy. As long as the law is valid, you have to obey it. If you don't like the law, vote for somebody who will change it or become a politican yourself.

The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?

You mentioned a democracy, though this is a republic. But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?

What a pathetic concept. Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.

Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.

And meek acceptance of the government as arbitrator of what is right will lead only to further erosion of liberty.

And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

It is hard to fathom the mind which assumes, which takes as a starting position that the government is always correct, that it's actions to enforce whatever ridiculous law are reasonable. How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.

Oh, but they cry, they weren't required to. As if someone who was so insensitive to the suffering of others, so uncaring of people, should be able to rule.

I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?

CR

[KukriKhan]

Papewaio's solution is wise in a proposed measured solution, but ignores the central issues: the 'litter' is on so-called private property. What is the state's compelling interest in regulating that, and what is the state's right in enforcing that interest?

I agree that this fellow is not the most sympathetic poster-boy for property rights, for the reasons cited by Tribesman


All this arises becauseTubic decided he was going to fight the fine which he thought was unfair , but his idea of fighting the fine was to ignore it and do nothing .
Given that he is mentaly competant to pay all his other bills when they come in , keep up to date on his property taxes and choose to make donations to local politicians election funds it appears that his "mental illness" angle on this issue may just be a ploy .
Then again making donations to politicians does bring his mental state into question .

as well as the fact that he inherited the property vs having paid it down over a 30 year mortgage himself personally.

And both Andres and Hosakawa Tito make persuasive argument for compliance with the rule of law, no matter how silly or unjust that law may seem.

Bravo! for HoreTore's Rosa Parks reference. Well played Sir. :thumbsup:

Many other posters want to solve the problem via Tubic's compliance with the pay-orders at various stages.

But - it - was - his - property.

Parked 20 feet southward of it's current position, on a public street, I can see the citation and fine, and the state taking action to remove a nuisance and impediment to public use of the public road, possible safety issue, and apparently-abandoned property revenue source.

But it's on his (inherited, but nevertheless: his) property. Why can his friends and neighbors, fellow citizens, dictate to him what he can and cannot display on his property? And then, seeing resistance to that claim to a right to dictate, levy onerous fines, and sieze, assume, and dispose of any and/or all properties of the alleged perpetrator?

To 'prove' the rule of law? To enhance ( or prevent the un-enhancement of) local property values? To punish a scofflaw, and deter other non-compliers from daring to challenge the right of society-at-large, which knows best, to impose it's will by force, on the individual property owner?

Granted, this is the 21st century, so such imperial confiscations and usurpations of "The American Dream" (tm) have become normal-ized. Two hundred years ago, we'd have reached for our pitchforks and torches (and yes, Tribesman, flintlocks) and defended miserable little Mr. Tubic's right (yes: right) to do whatever the hell he wanted to do on his personal property.

It's the big draw for immigrants here, legal and otherwise. Come here, work hard, eventually earn thru that hard work a chunk of land you can call your own, that nobody can take from you.

Except, now 'they' can.

Rights aren't given or bestowed, or granted, or levied. At least, not here. They just 'are'. Take your pick whether they 'are' because of some natural or divine inclination, or by agreement among men. They are in any case, unalienable; incapable of being alienated/separated from their holders.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But it's on his (inherited, but nevertheless: his) property. Why can his friends and neighbors, fellow citizens, dictate to him what he can and cannot display on his property? And then, seeing resistance to that claim to a right to dictate, levy onerous fines, and sieze, assume, and dispose of any and/or all properties of the alleged perpetrator?

This has been the most amusing thread for years based on the topsi-turviness of expected positions. But your post in its entirety, and this quote specifically provide a clue to help me understand why the conservative members are so keen to defend a law-breaker.

Americans clearly have a very different view of property than those of us from the other side of the Pond. It appears that there is a belief that property in private hands should be inviolable and safe from encroachment by the state - and by extension, the law.

So it appears that one may own slaves on one's own property, abuse one's own children therein and perhaps build a brothel there with appropriate displays. Am I correct? Or is there perhaps a reality that laws apply across even private property rights, when those laws are designed to preserve the balanced rights of neighbours and other interested parties?

The fact that the law in question may well be unjust is a side issue, to be fought in political discourse and protest with the relevant city hall. This fellow broke the law, tried to avoid the punishment and is now facing a - frankly over-fluffy and lovey-dovey librul - judge about to impose the final draconian penalty to solve the problem and serve as an example to others.

Had this chap been a young entrepreneur running a crack den I fear we would have heard somewhat less of inviolable property rights.

[Papewaio]

I'm not sure using criminal law scenarios apply in what would appear a civil law issue.

That is like comparing marriage :ballchain: with a french kiss. :date:

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's the big draw for immigrants here, legal and otherwise. Come here, work hard, eventually earn thru that hard work a chunk of land you can call your own, that nobody can take from you.


Even in the States it is simply not true that you can "do what you like" with your own land. Some things are illegal in themselves, for example running a brothel (in most states) or growing cannabis. Other things are a nuisance to the neighbours such as being noisy at night or running certain types of business. Once you admit the principle that your neighbours have a right to limited control on how you use your property because the impact of your activities on their enjoyment of their land and homes then this case is about degrees and reasonableness rather than fundamental rights.

You could make an argument that insisting that vehicles parked in your own drive are licensed is a step too far. Certainly in the UK no such restriction exists and to me it seems over the top. It would be interesting to know what the history of the particular zoning law that has been invoked. Was the clause introduced following complaints from householders about neighbours turning their streets into mini scrapyards or was it simply some officials adding restrictions because they though it was a good idea?

However if you argue that he should be able to keep his car their because he can do what he likes with his land then you have to concede to your neighbours the rights to allow their properties to fall to wrack and ruin, knock down their houses and build convenience stores or abattoirs, pile up rubbish on the front lawn, play loud music until 4 am or dance naked in the drive. It is their property after all.

Remember the seizure of his house is to settle a debt. It is the result of his failure to pay fines, not his failure to licence the van. He could avoid the loss of his house by paying the fine with money he has placed in escrow. He has until the middle of September to do this.

This is not an example of the government oppressing one of its citizens. At worst it is an example of an overstrict zoning law that the people of Milwaukee could overturn through the democratic process if they wished.

Peter Tubic is no 21st Century Rosa Parkes. Even mentioning them in the same thread demonstrates that whilst a terrible situation for Mr Tubic, this is not a significant issue in terms of fundamental rights.

[Andres]

You think it reasonable to fine people because the vehicles they have on their property do not have license plates, little sheets of metal and paint, on them?

Yep, because it's the law.

Like I said, if everybody could happily break the law without consequences because they deem it "unreasonable" or "ridiculous", then you'll find yourself in a state of total anarchy and you can say bye bye to your precious freedom.


Is it reasonable a man cannot keep a van on his property without paying out to the government for a license plate? Is that what you consider reasonable?

You call it "keeping a van on his property" others would call it using a residential property as a car cemetery or a trash heap. And wasn't the offense taking place while his mother was still alive? He inherited the house, so as long as his mother was still alive, I assume it wasn't his property, but the property of his mother (correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I interpreted the article incorrect).

Anyway, a law has to be obeyed. If a certain law is stupid or silly, then it has to be changed in a democratic way. As long as the law is legally valid though, it has to be obeyed.


What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?

He's a US citizen living in the US. US legislation applies to him :shrug:

Are you saying that nobody living in the US has to obey the law because nobody signed an agreement with the US authorities?

~:confused:


No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.

But it has that power! And luckily for us westerners, only the government and no one else has that power.


As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.

Don't worry, I don't live in your country. My subversive opinions won't have any influence on your freedom ~;p

But I'm not a government apologetic. If the government breaks the law, it should face consequences too imo, but let's stick to the topic now.


The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?

So the law is just a piece of paper to ignore or obey as you see fit, depending on what's most beneficial for you? Do you consider total anarchy as utopia?

Besides, is it right or just to let a small fine for a simple offense escalate into this while a simple phone call or a transaction of 50 $ would have prevented all this?

If we're talking about freedom, than we're also talking about responsibility for your own actions...


But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?

Nope. But in this particular case, I don't see anything immoral and inacceptable. From a different point of view one could argue that it's not moral and acceptable that citizen A does not have to pay his fines because he tells a sad story to a newspaper and citizen B has to pay his fines because he does not want to hide behind a sad story.

(Don't forget, the guy was taking care of his parents, doing their groceries, cooking and cleaning for them. The article doesn't speak of other non payed debts, so he seems perfectly capable to handle his affairs. That and his brother is a jerk.)


Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.

"Justice"? How beautiful it may sound, basing laws on a vague and abstract concept as "justice" doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Many bad things happened in the name of "justice".


Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.

Ok, let's get rid of democracy then. What better alternative do you propose? Personally, I'd prefer myself to be your malevolent ruler :evil:


And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

He can go to court and try to invoke "freedom of expression" and let a court break that law?


How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.

The man could have easily prevented this himself by a) paying the fine, b) going to court and trying to convince the judge that he did not break the law, c) if he feels the law itself violates his basic human/constitutional rights, contest the law as such in court (in Belgium we have a Constitutional Court, that can break laws which violate certain basic constitutional rights, I assume the same possibility exists in the US?) Responsability...


I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?


To put an example? Not punishing the man, would set a bad precedent don't you think?

The law, made by the democratically elected legislative body, is perfectly clear: don't do A, get fined, no room for discussion. Don't pay your debts, we will seizure your assets, sell them and use the money to pay the debts you are unwilling to pay. The excedent is for the culprit of course (no, the government won't keep the 275.000 $, they will just keep what the guy owes them).

Would you prefer the executive body and its' employees to apply the law as they see fit? Than you would have an arbitrary government.

[Tribesman]

You think it reasonable to fine people because the vehicles they have on their property do not have license plates, little sheets of metal and paint, on them? Is it reasonable a man cannot keep a van on his property without paying out to the government for a license plate? Is that what you consider reasonable?

Yes , its perfectly reasonable .

What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?


The agreement , that would be the agreement a property owner has with the local authorities , you know the sort of agreement that says there are local laws for local people and if you want to be a local you live by the local laws .


No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.


Errrr..... No the government has that power , it always has had the power , it always will have that power , its what a government does .


The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law?
Errrrr...since the laws and compliance with laws are central to the theme then the law is important to this topic .


And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

Ah an extreme example , perfect , thank you Rabbit .:2thumbsup:
There was this fella who bought a big castle next to a lake on the outskirts of town , a rather nice castle but in need of lots of repair .
Being a rather old building there were lots of laws that meant that all his renovations on his home which was his private property was very expensive .
Since he wanted all the comforts of home he decided that a coat of render would make his big stone house more weather proof .
The government said no a castle is a big stone building you cannot plaster it as it would look funny and not like a historic castle at all .
Did he plaster it and say bollox to your silly laws and ignore them ?
No he fought the decision and showed that these buildings were rendered and the reason people think they were not is because it had all fallen off over the years and not been replaced .
So he won that little one but on the condition that he only used lime based render in keeping with the historic concept of the building .
Then he decided to paint it ...bright pink .
Now you can imagine how the government acted about this huge 6 story bright pink box next to a scenic lake set against tha backdrop of the hills .
They were not happy bunnies at all .
Did the owner say bollox and ignore them when they said to change it ?
No he fought their decision and showed that the pink was a natural colour based on paint made from the local soil which is exactly what the local people would have used in past times .
So did he garner support to change the laws of the country ? No .
Did he just sit back , say bollox and do nothing like Tubic did ? No
He worked within the law and complied with the law .
And got his property just how he wanted it .
Well Rabbit I heartliy thank you for unwittingly providing a perfect example of what to do if you think the governments interpretation of the law is wrong .

Whoda thunk it , I suppose you thought a silly example like a paint job would be a good idea to support your views eh :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:





Had this chap been a young entrepreneur running a crack den I fear we would have heard somewhat less of inviolable property rights.
What you mean like the other story from the same paper about the same town where the evil government was taking someones property not because she was a drug dealer but because her tennants were engaged in prostitution and drug dealing and despite repeated requests she had done nothing to resolve the problem .
No takers on the poor victim of tyrannical government there eh ?

[KukriKhan]

Our European friends are correct, of course. America has moved, in fits and starts, toward the euro model of property ownership since the 30's and FDR. We like to think that the object of our years of blood, sweat and tears (our land) is "inviolable and safe from encroachment by the state"... but in practice, as we see, it is not.

We just don't like it. Some of us 'just don't like it' a lot. For if personal property is not inviolable and safe from encroachment by the state, then the truth is that the state is the actual owner of all property, and we so-called "owners" are not that at all, but merely stewards, caretakers, serfs, beholden to our sovereign (and hopefully benevolent) Lords, who know better than we what is best for us.

A couple hundred years ago, we fought revolutions and civil wars over this. Today, it's not so likely, I guess.

[HoreTore]

Bah, Kukri. For a society to function, you need some level of regulation. It's simply because humans are very good at being inconsiderate idiots.

Let's take the example of storing trash in your yard. Let's say you buy a house for 300k. The price on any home is affected by the neighborhood, by the view, etc. If some guy moves in next door and basically turns his property into a sewer, the price of your house will fall dramatically, and you'll lose quite a lot of money. And so will the rest of the neighborhood. Not very nice, eh? That's the reason for regulations like this, people don't like to lose 100k because the guy who moved in next door is a complete jackass.

However, in this case, the regulations are way to strict. If he had like 10 wrecks stored in his yard, it would be something else... But one car without license plates is nothing.

[Andres]

A couple hundred years ago, we fought revolutions and civil wars over this. Today, it's not so likely, I guess.

Revolutions and wars because of property rights and land.

Because people have the illusion that the land and what's built on it belongs to them.

We humans can be such idiots, can't we? The land was there before humankind and will still be there after all of us died yet we think its' ours because we gave some pieces of paper called "money" to another guy who had the illusion of being the owner.

From a certain point of view, the importance we adhere to the ownership of material things is absurd. We say "we don't have time" and "we have a house and some land". When we die however, the house and the land will still be there, but you won't own it anymore, somebody else will. The only thing related to the house and the land that was and always will be really exclusively yours was, ironically, the time you spent in the house and on the land.

Sorry for derailing the thread with cheap random pseudo filosophical thoughts.

Back to work so that I can continue to pay Mister Mortgage, because if I don't, he'll sell "my" house ~:joker:

[KukriKhan]

Bah, Kukri. For a society to function, you need some level of regulation. It's simply because humans are very good at being inconsiderate idiots.


I stipulate that. But: the less, the better. This guy's case is something much more; it points to the fact that we only own what we can successfully defend. And what we can, as individuals, defend is becoming smaller and smaller, in the interest of 'the public good'.

What is the state's compelling interest in regulating property values in particular neighborhoods?

[LittleGrizzly]

Could americans really do what they wanted in thier own properties before the 30's ?

Obviously crimes against others are still covered but i would assume there would be issues with some drugs and errm prostitution ?

The law in this case does seem overly strict, im not sure we have similar laws here in the UK, i do see old cars without plates but mainly on farms rather than in residential areas, to clarify would it have been ok if it was parked in a garage, is it just the public display at the front of the house of an unused vehicle that caused the fine ?

I can sympathise with the intent of the law, you wouldn't want your nieghbour having the equivelent of a scrap yard out in his front garden, or most people wouldn't.....

What is the state's compelling interest in regulating property values in particular neighborhoods?

I would say its the wellbeing of others that the goverment is protecting rather than property values, seen as the property values go down when someone makes the place a worse place to live, just because someone owns the land next to you does that mean they should be able to wreck it and drag your nearby plot down by association, im fairly sure this would be covered by other laws these days but imagine your nieghbour who was usually downwind from you regularly had fires in his back garden, in doing so you have a constant barrage of ash and smoke coming at you the moment you step outside your house, it is of course a case of degrees....

[HoreTore]

What is the state's compelling interest in regulating property values in particular neighborhoods?

The state = the society.

[KukriKhan]

The state = the society.

Exactly. That apparently works well for you guys, based on your history, culture, and inclination, and I'm glad for you. Over here we had something else in mind: the supremacy - to the maximum extent possible, of the individual citizen.

I paid $200,000 for the home I live in, 4 years ago. Last week, a similar home down the street sold for $156,900. Since the state feels compelled to control everything I do with my home, to whom do I send the bill for my $43,100 "loss"? It's loss in value is certainly not due to any action or inaction on my part, or that of my neighbors.

[Andres]

I paid $200,000 for the home I live in, 4 years ago. Last week, a similar home down the street sold for $156,900. Since the state feels compelled to control everything I do with my home, to whom do I send the bill for my $43,100 "loss"? It's loss in value is certainly not due to any action or inaction on my part, or that of my neighbors.

Aren't you exaggerating now? The state doesn't control "everything" you do with your home.

Besides, did the government create the real estate bubble? I thought free market did that...

[LittleGrizzly]

Exactly. That apparently works well for you guys, based on your history, culture, and inclination, and I'm glad for you. Over here we had something else in mind: the supremacy - to the maximum extent possible, of the individual citizen.

Im sure that works great in sparesly populated areas but when people live in such close proximity to each other laws have to made to force people to be considerate to each other, it would be great if we didn't need such rules, it would be great if we didn't have to stop people trying to kill each other, unfortunatly its the few bad apples that spoil it for the rest.

Is it paticularly this case that has you bothered ? or is it your rights in your own home in general ?

Because im sure if you had a new neighbour move on who let the place become rat and other pests infested and dumped all his waste out on his garden you would soon be unhappy and calling up the goverment to help....

[KukriKhan]

Aren't you exaggerating now? The state doesn't control "everything" you do with your home.

Besides, did the government create the real estate bubble? I thought free market did that...

Heh. I've been exaggerating, as most here have, this entire thread, with the purpose of examining, discussing and testing these ideas of individual rights vs the collective well-being.

So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?

[LittleGrizzly]

So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?

No place to get a refund, but no need to pay the goverment the value of your house they saved but stopping mr rogers down the road starting his garden scrapyard, mrs jones who finds the walk to the trashcan a bit too far and just dumps it on the garden and the crack dealer down the street they busted who brings all kind of disreputable people to the neighbourhood

Im not sure on American house prices but im assuming that you live in a decent area, i would assume these kind of rules that force consideration of your neighbour mainly protect the people at the lower end of the market, as they have less space between each other and generally live next to less considerate neighbours... (im assuming lower end of the market more criminals, more young people which can mean partys and excessive drinking let alone other drugs....)

[KukriKhan]

Im sure that works great in sparesly populated areas but when people live in such close proximity to each other laws have to made to force people to be considerate to each other, it would be great if we didn't need such rules,...

You make an important point there, my friend. Maybe this "american experiment" only works well with seemingly unlimited frontier. And the more we urbanize, the more control must be ceded to the state.

So, can you see where such condition would chafe our citizens, accustomed (at least mythically) to "no borders"-type freedom, now having to give up some of that liberty?

[Andres]

Heh. I've been exaggerating, as most here have, this entire thread, with the purpose of examining, discussing and testing these ideas of individual rights vs the collective well-being.

So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?

Nope, your real estate loss has nothing to do with the government and its' laws. You couldn't have a trash heap on your front garden before you bought the house and you still can't have a trash heap in your front garden now. So it's not the government regulation that made you lose money.

The free market did.

You were/are free to spend your money on whatever you wanted/want. With freedom comes responsability and facing the consequences of your own, free, actions.

The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.

[LittleGrizzly]

You make an important point there, my friend. Maybe this "american experiment" only works well with seemingly unlimited frontier. And the more we urbanize, the more control must be ceded to the state.

So, can you see where such condition would chafe our citizens, accustomed (at least mythically) to "no borders"-type freedom, now having to give up some of that liberty?

That is basically what came to mind, here in britian we are fairly closely packed so forced consideration through rule of law isn't really objected to (as far as im aware or as much)

I can see more now why mainly americans find this shocking but i think it is something people must accept if they live in such close proximity to each other, out in rural america where you can have neighbours miles apart noise, pollution or a big scrapyard wouldn't really affect anyone but the house owner. I see it as the price you pay for living so close to other people, you have to be considerate, and seen as theres always a few bad apples who don't care how inconsiderate they are, so you have to define what is inconsiderate for nieghbours to do under law...

[HoreTore]

The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.

The government created the kind of free market who allowed such things, so yes, imo they are responsible for it.

[Andres]

The government created the kind of free market who allowed such things, so yes, imo they are responsible for it.

Did the government force people to buy houses?

[LittleGrizzly]

I wouldn't put full responsibility on the goverment but they could have stepped in at some point and done something... so you could call them at least partly responsible for not acting...

[Tribesman]

So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?
Only if you bought the house with a written guarantee that it would increase in value and be immune from market fluctuations .
You don't buy a house to make money if you live in it , you either get someone else to live in it and make money off of them or if the house is a real bargain then sell it on quick for an instant profit .
Its been funny here for the past 10years listening to idiots saying how much money they have made on their home , then selling it and buying another home that has increased by the same proportion as their other house had .:dizzy2:
Its just like britain during the Thatcher years , a sure sign to sitback and wait to make a big killing when the idiots lose their property and the banks are just dumping them at auction .


The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.
Well it is really , its the typical tried and failed method of a credit fueled boom that they keep on repeating in the vain hope that perhaps this time it will work .
But there is no comeback for you against the government as it is your own choice if you want to believe the buy now while you can and watch your proerty soar in value bull , you cannot sue the government for your own sillyness .
You can sue under certain circumastances though , like with the endowment scam a while back where people were buying homes but not being told that they were taking a big gamble on top of a big gamble , but the government got out of that by blaming the banks for misleading people about the policy and making the banks pay if people could prove they were duped .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Papewaio's solution is wise in a proposed measured solution, but ignores the central issues: the 'litter' is on so-called private property. What is the state's compelling interest in regulating that, and what is the state's right in enforcing that interest?


Well, when they put the law in place they never imagined it would go past the $50 fine, and it's not the job of the justice system to say "well, they didn't mean for it to go this far so we'll ignore it". I also don't think the law is just about littering--I imagine there are law enforcement concerns as well. If it is just about littering then it's a bad law but at $50 I'm not surprised that it's gone unnoticed.


You think it reasonable to fine people and throw them in jail because they smoke marijuana, take ecstasy, trip on acid and shoot heroin on their property? Is it reasonable a man can't smoke what he wants on his property without getting arrested? Is that what you consider reasonable?

What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?

No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.

As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.



The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?

You mentioned a democracy, though this is a republic. But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?

What a pathetic concept. Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.

Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.

And meek acceptance of the government as arbitrator of what is right will lead only to further erosion of liberty.

And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

It is hard to fathom the mind which assumes, which takes as a starting position that the government is always correct, that it's actions to enforce whatever ridiculous law are reasonable. How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.

Oh, but they cry, they weren't required to. As if someone who was so insensitive to the suffering of others, so uncaring of people, should be able to rule.

I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?

CR


Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.

[LittleGrizzly]

Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.

Exactly what i was thinking, many conservatives are happy to cry civil liberties but then when it comes to recreational drugs they are strong on crime. This is why i practically choke everytime i hear a conservative lecture on civil liberties, give me gawain, this guy can lecture on civil liberties without being a hypocrite...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I love topics like this. Just when I thought we were getting less and less intellectually diverse!

You cry hypocrisy. Who would have thought? I see the same thing in your arguements.

The Socialist Euro-Lunacy is palpable.

[LittleGrizzly]

The Socialist Euro-Lunacy is palpable. The best left Europe a long time ago to form a better Nation and left the theives and vagabonds behind.

Fortunatly after 2 world wars we battered some sense into each other, i think you joined a bit late as there was no time to batter any sense into you lot
(i joke)

Out of interest where is the hypocrisy ?

[Goofball]

Maybe one of you "private property should be inviolate" Americans can explain this one for me then:

It's my understanding (and I might be incorrect in this understanding, so please point it out if I am) that authorities in the U.S. can confiscate a person's private motor vehicle and sell it at auction if they find even small quantities of controlled substances in that vehicle.

So, for example, a guy could have his brand new $75,000 SUV taken and sold because a cop caught him with a few dime bags of pot in his glove compartment.

That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?

[Goofball]

Just found an article that backs up what I'm talking about:

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=3384

Some of the highlights:


"We've done polls," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Two things about asset forfeiture the public dislikes: first, that when cops and prosecutors seize property they get to keep it for their own departments, the public finds that corrupting ... and second, that you could lose your property without a criminal conviction."
How can the government take your money or property if you haven't been convicted of a crime? "These are civil cases," Gameli said, and they differ from criminal ones. "It bolsters the case if he's convicted [of a crime]," Gameli said, but "a civil case has a lower standard of proof ... I know of cases where the guy walked on the charges, but still lost his car or his money."


Remember Gameli's hypothetical "knucklehead" who enriched the local constabulary? Chances are he had drugs on him too. But not necessarily — under asset forfeiture laws, the simple possession of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.
You'll find no shortage of examples throughout the country. Two recent examples, chosen only because they're so unremarkable, are as follows: in October 2006, two men driving through Davidson County, North Carolina, were stopped by sheriff's deputies and found to have $88,000 hidden in their car. The men told the sheriffs they were on their way to buy a house in Atlanta. Although no drugs were found, the sheriffs confiscated the money anyway. And just last August, a truck driver at a weigh station in El Paso had $23,700 confiscated; once again, no drugs or contraband were found, but the cash led to an assumption of guilt.
Naturally, police and the DEA insist they're not infringing upon the rights of innocent people. "The police won't take [the money] if they have a good excuse," says Steve Robertson, a DEA spokesman down in D.C., when asked about cases like the one in El Paso. "I would assume he was listed in a database where he might be drug-related."

And my favorite:


He's talking about asset forfeiture, one of the more devastating weapons in the government's drug war arsenal. The rationale behind it sounds sensible enough: if you make money from criminal activities, you shouldn't get to keep your ill-gotten gains. And whether you agree with the law or not, intoxicants other than alcohol are illegal, so money made from the sale of such is (legally) fair game for confiscation.
But so is anything else that has any involvement with drug activity. If you want to buy a joint, you can lose the car you drove to make the deal. The same holds true if a friend or spouse borrows your car for the same purpose. The confiscated car is sold at auction, and the police force that nabbed it gets to keep 70 or 80 percent of the proceeds, depending upon the car's value.

Disproportionate, no?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe one of you "private property should be inviolate" Americans can explain this one for me then:

It's my understanding (and I might be incorrect in this understanding, so please point it out if I am) that authorities in the U.S. can confiscate a person's private motor vehicle and sell it at auction if they find even small quantities of controlled substances in that vehicle.

So, for example, a guy could have his brand new $75,000 SUV taken and sold because a cop caught him with a few dime bags of pot in his glove compartment.

That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?

You guys are comparing property seizure due to questionable civil transgressions with property seizure due to criminal offences. The vehicle with illegal controlled substances is a vehicle carrying illegal controlled substances. It is a tool being used for a criminal offense.

For minor transgressions with weed, I've never heard of a car being taken and sold by the government.

I would defend them to an extent, but I have less patience with someone using a vehicle for criminal activity.

If the truck or car was being used while containing a dimebag for personal use, I would oppose confiscation and re-sale. If it was being used to haul kilos of heroin or bricks of marijuana I would support seizure and re-sale. Did you expect me to have a different response, Goofball?

I agree to allow the government weapons such as asset seizure, but they should rarely use them and only in the most egregious criminal cases. Ie: if you suspect someone of hauling kilos, but pull the guy over and find only a dimebag at that particular time - maybe seize the car and auction it off.

I've had countless friends that havn't lost their car for having marijuana or a DUI

[LittleGrizzly]

Disproportionate, no?

I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Disproportionate, no?

I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....

Aha! Hit liberals where they are able to empathise and they can see where you are coming from!

You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home? I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.

[LittleGrizzly]

Aha! Hit liberals where they are able to empathise and they can see where you are coming from!

You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home? I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.

I did say the response by the goverment is ott (or i thought it, can't remember whether i said it)

The guy commited a crime, whether it should be a crime is debatable but he did break the law.

He had a fine which he did not pay, which is never usually a good idea, the costs spiralled and now they are taking his house(or may if he doesn't pay up soon) to pay the fine and giving him back the difference. This is far different from the storys in goofball's article and way different from his example at the end as there is no fine or court costs and penaltys they are trying to recover, they are simply taking the property and selling it with no choice for the criminal, to make this example fit the case from the op goverment would seize this guys house and keep about 70 - 80 % of the value of the house (and the van though im assuming the guy doesn't really care for the van) but what the goverment is actually doing is just recovering thier costs through the sale of his possession and returning any money they aren't due

It would be a different story if you had a $50 fine for possession and then later down the line because penaltys built up and then court fee's they took your something of yours sold it and then paid back the difference, surely you can see the difference here ?

This guy probably thinks he should be able to keep his van on his drive without a lisence plate, just as i think i should be able to smoke cannabis, and well it might not seem fair if the goverment fined me and i repeatedly avoided it until the goverment seized something of mine and sold it i would grudgingly understand, if i simply used my car to go and buy a small amount of weed for personal consumption and it was taken and sold and i was given 20-30% of its value then i would be violently inclined...

Surely you can see a clear difference in the op case and the hypothetical from goofball's articles ?

I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.

Next time the police try to confiscate my weed (not going to happen) you'll be the first person i call ;)

[LittleGrizzly]

Intresting, were your family some kind of minor (or major i guess but minor seemed more likely) nobility ? or just wealthy land holders...

[PanzerJaeger]

Actually, a hundred years before those revolutions, you went and stripped this land everyone's so fond of from the then so-called "owners".

Much of that land was bought and payed for with hard earned trinkets and other shiny bits of trash, thank you very much. ~:pissed:

[Tribesman]

You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home?
This guy did commit a crime and wilfuly committed a crime .
While the ticket was only for an infraction which is only a really really small crime hardly called a crime at all , but non payment of a ticket is a crime .
It the non payment that is the legal issue the courts dealt with , the courts dealt with it because the idiot ignore all his earlier chances of dealing with the infraction and committed a crime instead .
If he thought the fine was unfair and he wanted to fight it he should have done so , he had plenty of opertunities , instead he was stupid and now pays the price .


I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....
Of course you have something like that in the UK , its normal , completely usual and long established just about everywhere ever since there were laws and governments .
Take for example your road tax in Britan , if you don't have road tax they send you a letter saying get the tax or we take your car , impose a fine , destroy the car and then charge you for taking the car away storing it and destroying it ...absolutely outrageous isn't it , completely out of order , outright tyranny and disrespect for your private property by an evil government .
Unless you read the rest of the letter which says fill in the form at the bottom and send it back freepost if you have a reason for not taxing the car .
Then again you did have the other extreme over there with the taxman and smuggling , where they went well over the top on blanket siezures from people doing the cruise and ended up screwing lots of ordinary people over ...but people objected against that and the laws were clarified and those who showed that they were not smugglers were reimbursed .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.

It's only the leftists in the thread defending any law as a commandment from God. But I wouldn't disown what you wrote in the first paragraph. Seizing a house for doing drugs in it, or even punishing the person, I do not support.


That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?

Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.


However if you argue that he should be able to keep his car their because he can do what he likes with his land then you have to concede to your neighbours the rights to allow their properties to fall to wrack and ruin, knock down their houses and build convenience stores or abattoirs, pile up rubbish on the front lawn, play loud music until 4 am or dance naked in the drive. It is their property after all.

My current neighbors are allowing their house to fall to ruin and have a dozen or more cars parked in the field around their house.

I feel people should be able to do as they wish on their property as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of their neighbors or fellow man - and by rights I mean such God-given rights as the right to property, freedom, self defense, etc., not any such 'right' to make your neighbors clean up their yards to enhance your home's value. And so, Banquo, it means a person cannot coerce another on their property.


Yep, because it's the law.

So all laws are automatically reasonable?

CR

[Tribesman]

It's only the leftists in the thread defending any law as a commandment from God.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.

So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .
So then rabbit how long in prison does someone deserve for non-payment ?
Now work out how much that imprisonment you decide on costs the taxpayer .
Or do you perhaps have a miracle solution to the problem of people choosing not to pay fines ?
Labour camps perhaps .

Here lets make it easy for you , what do you do if someone owes you money and won't pay ?
You could go round and break their legs , though I don't think governments should do that really and while it might bring some satisfaction it can still leave you out of pocket.
You could screw them over in a really nasty way that costs them a lot of money , a lot more money than they owe, though I don't think governments should really do that , but depending on how you do it you can sometimes work it that as part of screwing them over you do get their money .
You could go to court and get an order that they either pay or have assets siezed to make the payment...the sensible option which is what both normal people and governments do and is perfectly acceptable but you in some strange way think is some evil tyrannical scheme .

Get with reality or get your gun and overthrow the oppressive dictatorship like it is your god given right to do :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .
So then rabbit how long in prison does someone deserve for non-payment ?
Now work out how much that imprisonment you decide on costs the taxpayer .
Or do you perhaps have a miracle solution to the problem of people choosing not to pay fines ?
Labour camps perhaps .

Here lets make it easy for you , what do you do if someone owes you money and won't pay ?
You could go round and break their legs , though I don't think governments should do that really and while it might bring some satisfaction it can still leave you out of pocket.
You could screw them over in a really nasty way that costs them a lot of money , a lot more money than they owe, though I don't think governments should really do that , but depending on how you do it you can sometimes work it that as part of screwing them over you do get their money .
You could go to court and get an order that they either pay or have assets siezed to make the payment...the sensible option which is what both normal people and governments do and is perfectly acceptable but you in some strange way think is some evil tyrannical scheme .

Get with reality or get your gun and overthrow the oppressive dictatorship like it is your god given right to do :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You've taken CR's opinion as a sign that he wishes debtors prison was back in style.

Off-topic and addressed to nobody in particular: What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be biologically fused with their arse? When getting it out isn't a realistic suggestion? I'm just curious.:beam:

[Tribesman]

Off-topic and addressed to nobody in particular: What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be chemically fused with their arse?
Don't talk about Rabbit like that . Naughty boy Tuff :whip:


You've taken CR's opinions as a sign that he wishes debtors prison was back in style.

Well its quite simple isn't it , if you don't approve of asset siezure for non payment then you must either go for imprisonment or forced labour as punishment for non-payment .
Unless of course you go for the other option which is no-one has to pay anything at all if they choose to not do so .
Yay freedom of choice .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .

You have no clue what Goofball was talking about, do you?


What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be biologically fused with their arse? When getting it out isn't a realistic suggestion? I'm just curious.

I just laugh. For example:

This guy did commit a crime and wilfuly committed a crime .

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Of course you have something like that in the UK , its normal , completely usual and long established just about everywhere ever since there were laws and governments .

I was referring to the bit about being able to seize a car with a small amount of drugs in it or seize a car which was used to get small amount of drugs and sell it keeping 70-80% of its value. If something like that happened to me and i could afford it i think i would simply rip the car to pieces and then stand outside with a smirk waiting for it to be picked up "no the thing won't drive anymore, you'll need a van or something to pick it up, somehow it fell apart last night and is in little pieces, damn kids eh?"

[Craterus]

You'd regret that if they came round to tell you they'd let you off...

[m52nickerson]

Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.

I feel people should be able to do as they wish on their property as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of their neighbors or fellow man - and by rights I mean such God-given rights as the right to property, freedom, self defense, etc., not any such 'right' to make your neighbors clean up their yards to enhance your home's value. And so, Banquo, it means a person cannot coerce another on their property.

CR
I would tend to agree with you on those points CR. That does not give a person the right to ignore the laws that are currently in place.

[LittleGrizzly]

You'd regret that if they came round to tell you they'd let you off...


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: i can imagine myself standing there feeling proud of myself... and then my face would just drop... :furious3::wall:

[Andres]

So all laws are automatically reasonable?

CR

Did I say that? I didn't say that all laws are reasonable.

I said:


if everybody could happily break the law without consequences because they deem it "unreasonable" or "ridiculous", then you'll find yourself in a state of total anarchy and you can say bye bye to your precious freedom.

And I also said:


Anyway, a law has to be obeyed. If a certain law is stupid or silly, then it has to be changed in a democratic way. As long as the law is legally valid though, it has to be obeyed.

And:


So the law is just a piece of paper to ignore or obey as you see fit, depending on what's most beneficial for you? Do you consider total anarchy as utopia?

And:


The man could have easily prevented this himself by a) paying the fine, b) going to court and trying to convince the judge that he did not break the law, c) if he feels the law itself violates his basic human/constitutional rights, contest the law as such in court (in Belgium we have a Constitutional Court, that can break laws which violate certain basic constitutional rights, I assume the same possibility exists in the US?)

[Duke of Gloucester]

I feel people should be able to do as they wish on their property as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of their neighbors or fellow man - and by rights I mean such God-given rights as the right to property, freedom, self defense, etc., not any such 'right' to make your neighbors clean up their yards to enhance your home's value. And so, Banquo, it means a person cannot coerce another on their property.
CR

The trouble is, CR, which rights are God-given and how far do they extend? For example you will find thousands of lawyers in the US (and elsewhere - this is not a dig at ) who are willing to argue that your neighbours neglect of their property is infringing on your right to enjoy yours. You might even find a few judges that agree with you! Do I have a god-given right to not have my sleep disturbed at 3 am? Do I have a god-given right not to have my house infested by rats because my neighbour is careless with his rubbish?

At the heart of the arguement you have a point. There is a natural tendency in governments to over-regulate the lives of citizens and if citizens are not careful this can lead to citizens serving the government and not the other way round. If they are not kept in their place government officials can become petty oppressors. Your reminder that democracy can lead to the tyranny of 51% is an important one. However in your quest to defend the rights of the individual over the state you could have chosen higher ground than this case.

And be careful about which rights God actually gives. If you read Mt 5:38-40 you will find that Jesus has some inconvenient things to say about the right to self-defence.

[Tribesman]

I just laugh. For example:

Quote:
This guy did commit a crime and wilfuly committed a crime .

Poor rabbit doesn't understand .
Tubic wilfully chose to ignore all requests and chose not to pay the fine , the fine was an infraction , non-payment of a fine is a crime , even when it finally went to court he told the judge he wouldn't pay even though he had the money to be able to pay .

The siezure of assets is not for parking his van without plates , the siezure of assets is for not paying fines .


You have no clue what Goofball was talking about, do you?

Rabbit you have no clue at all what your topic is about , is that why you cannot answer questions ?
they are simple questions
If you object to siezure of assets for the crime of non-payment then what legal punishment do you approve of ?
AImprisonment
B forced labour
Cno punishment at all
Dabsolutely clueless and didnt think about the topic in the slightest but decided to get outraged anyway .

I am guessing that you would be a D but I really don't know why I would get that impression:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Poor rabbit doesn't understand .
Tubic wilfully chose to ignore all requests and chose not to pay the fine , the fine was an infraction , non-payment of a fine is a crime , even when it finally went to court he told the judge he wouldn't pay even though he had the money to be able to pay .

The siezure of assets is not for parking his van without plates , the siezure of assets is for not paying fines .


Rabbit you have no clue at all what your topic is about , is that why you cannot answer questions ?
they are simple questions
If you object to siezure of assets for the crime of non-payment then what legal punishment do you approve of ?
AImprisonment
B forced labour
Cno punishment at all
Dabsolutely clueless and didnt think about the topic in the slightest but decided to get outraged anyway .

I am guessing that you would be a D but I really don't know why I would get that impression:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You could garnish his private pay for the 50 dollars and be done with it or take the car in the last resort. THat would get him off of his butt. Why should the fine be worth more than the car itself? 2600 dollars and the ownership of the home? Find me a majority of people who voted for that law who think that is an acceptable punishment. I'd also like to see where it is specifically written and not through a series of technicalities unrelated to the law itself.

The law is stupid and outside the scope of government interest, but it is the law. The actions taken as a last resort are unreasonable in this case and should be questioned seriously.

What is the punishment for not showing up to Jury Duty? Should someone take your home for that too? What about littering?

We need to keep people like you out of government and put in people who understand its role in a functional society - to protect its citizens.

[Ironside]

The law is stupid and outside the scope of government interest, but it is the law. The actions taken as a last resort are unreasonable in this case and should be questioned seriously.

What is the punishment for not showing up to Jury Duty? Should someone take your home for that too? What about littering?

We need to keep people like you out of government and put in people who understand its role in a functional society - to protect its citizens.

What are the consequences of not paying a 50$ bill (in 4 years) to any company?

While there's a considerble excalation (the case shouldn't been allowed to go this far), there's still a logical case. The payment needs to be done (or refuted in court) and the state needs to ensure that there will be a payment (it might exist better ways of doing it, but I can't bother reading up on the regulation. Can the state debt-tax your income without your consent for example?).

Tuff, two very important parts of protecting it's citizens it to ensure that they obey the laws (the fight about the validity of the laws is done at court) and to ensure that all kind of payments is working. Bit of a crux is it. ~;p

[Tribesman]

While there's a considerble excalation (the case shouldn't been allowed to go this far),
Well they could have left it to go further , they could have let it go up to $5000 , and they could have given him up to 5 years in jail .
Now if they had let it go up to the $5000 he would have lost more of his assets , and if he had gone to jail he may have lost all his assets entirely .
The only reason this case went so far is because the bloke was an idiot who wouldn't pay and even when it was put to him by the judge what the consequences of non-payment were he still chose not to pay even though he had the money available .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Anyway, a law has to be obeyed. If a certain law is stupid or silly, then it has to be changed in a democratic way. As long as the law is legally valid though, it has to be obeyed.
I know this is dragging slightly further off-topic, but depending on your definition of "legally valid", your statement is demonstrably false.

[LittleGrizzly]

I know this is dragging slightly further off-topic, but depending on your definition of "legally valid", your statement is demonstrably false.

Seen as the laws to allow for fines for unlisence plated vehicles and then futher action because of non payment im not sure how.... unless it is unconstitutional...?

[Papewaio]

I also believe in liberty not personal freedom. One is for societies the other for anarchists. But I believe that laws are only valid if they are just in both jurisdiction, application and outcome. That the law applies to one and all, and as such the easiest way to determine if a law is just is to put yourselves in the shoes of someone who is accused and then see if you would like the outcome if found guilty of a law that you break. I don't think littering justifies losing a house. I think it is a petty use of resources and only diminishes peoples respect for the law.

That is one of the key things with being a parent. Do not make false dangers for children, when they break the taboo and find that it is harmless and fun, the children will go on and break a taboo that is harmful and painful. Society should not create laws anymore that mimic deportation for stealing bread. These laws lead to people disrespecting the silly laws and then disrespecting all laws and those who uphold them. Civil laws should be there to create a civil society of free individuals and intra-dependent groups. Civil laws should be used to head off potential conflicts that if left to fester would create criminal repercussions. Civil laws however should not be used to make people to conform to a narrow definition of social behaviour, nor should they be used as a means to create conflict.

By overuse of law we dilute its effect and we make people then act to the intent of law in general. That is to create a just and happy society that has safety valves in place so that we don't act like animals red in tooth in claw.

Which is a better citizen:
Case A:
Is a good citizen one who obeys all laws?

OR

Case B:
Is a good citizen one who makes their society more just?


I think case B is more important. There are ways to get laws changed, one of them is to vote for people who will change them, another is to demonstrate against them, another is to go to trial over it and get it tested.

The last option is civil disobedience. And is often the arena of some of our most naughty and self indulgent social members but also the stage for some of our most respected and upstanding citizens.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Everything you say is true, Pape. However, as has been said before, the unlicenced plates cost him a $50 fine. He lost his house by refusing to pay said fine. The two issues are separate although the difficulty people have in distinguishing between these two issues may contribute to the disrespect for the law that you talk about.

Your test of one's own reaction to the law being applied is a good one but you need to add how you would feel if someone else did the deed in question and was not punished. If I look at the two issues separately and use your own tests of jurisdiction, application and outcome this is what I see: the local authorities do have jurisdiction over how you use your property because, as a society, we need to make sure that people behave as good neighbours. Preventing someone from keeping their own car on their own drive because it is not licensed is, in my view, over the top but it is not fundamentally unjust. There does not seem to be any problem with application in this case and the outcome - a $50 fine is not disproportionate.

For the second issue, the authorities certainly have the jurisdiction to collect unpaid fines, again no problem with application but as far as outcome is concerned their are some problems with the outcome. Clearly the authorities hae an obligation to persue those who refuse to pay otherwise those who have paid up will feel resentful and others fined in the future will also ignore demands. This, too, will increase disrespect for the law. I do wonder whether seizing the home is the only way to recover the debt but again it is not fundamentally unjust.

So I would advise your Citizen B to find another law to challenge. On a personal level it is difficult to feel sorry for the person involved. He could easily avoid losing his house by paying what he owes.

[Tribesman]

I do wonder whether seizing the home is the only way to recover the debt but again it is not fundamentally unjust.

Well thats where it gets funny , it is not the only way to recover the debt , the idiot could just pay the debt , bu failing that it is the most effective .
However as some have mentioned the option of garnishing his income that is an interesting option , highly practical and effective , yet not in this case because of the laws regarding garnishing of income in this idiots case ...he is exempt from such measures under laws to protect him .

[Duke of Gloucester]

I am not sure from the details given whether garnishing his income is the best thing to do. It may be that his income is very low and the house is his only asset. In that case garnishing his income and leaving him unable to pay basic bills may not be such a good idea. However the fact that he was able to place money in escrow suggests he does have a decent income or other assets. Of course, as you say, the best way to avoid losing the house and pay the fine is for him to stop being a fool and pay up.

[PBI]

Seems to me this thread should be called "The Uncaring Tyranny of Compound Interest". If the guy had a $50 credit card debt, he buried his head in the sand and refused to pay it, and ended up losing his house, I seriously doubt that this thread would have struggled on for four pages. Why should a debt owed to the government be any less valid than a debt owed to anyone else?

As for the argument that he should be able to do whatever he wants on his own land, that doesn't fly with me because the fine was for what he did with his vehicle, not his house. Vehicle ownership is not a right (God-given or otherwise), it is a privilige and if you want to do it you have to play by the rules or face the consequences. To be clear, the way the law works in the UK is that if you have a car you do not intend to drive you need to go down to the Post Office and fill in a free form, to get a SORN for the vehicle. Then, you can do whatever you want with it, you don't need licence plates, an MOT, car tax or anything else, you can leave to rust in your garden for all the authorities care.

If you don't fill in the form, however, the authorities assume that the fact you own a vehicle means you intend to drive it on the public roads, so they will fine you if it isn't roadworthy. I simply don't see why that is unjust, you bought the car and it's your responsibility to know the rules of the road. Perhaps rather than simply ranting about how hypocritical liberals are someone could explain this to me?

[Xiahou]

Seems to me this thread should be called "The Uncaring Tyranny of Compound Interest". If the guy had a $50 credit card debt, he buried his head in the sand and refused to pay it, and ended up losing his house, I seriously doubt that this thread would have struggled on for four pages. Why should a debt owed to the government be any less valid than a debt owed to anyone else?You'd be right- mainly because you can't lose your house over a credit card debt. They used power that was uniquely of the government and put a tax lien on his property. That in itself is a head scratcher, since I didn't think fines were a form of tax revenue but nonetheless... :shrug:




If you don't fill in the form, however, the authorities assume that the fact you own a vehicle means you intend to drive it on the public roads, so they will fine you if it isn't roadworthy. I simply don't see why that is unjust, you bought the car and it's your responsibility to know the rules of the road. Perhaps rather than simply ranting about how hypocritical liberals are someone could explain this to me?That was not the issue. It is a zoning law that is supposed to prevent people from accumulating junk cars on their property. He wasn't fined because he might be driving an unlicensed vehicle, he was fined because he had a vehicle on his property that couldn't be driven as it was unlicensed. To me, one car, sitting unused in a driveway does not a junkyard make and it certainly doesn't seem a good reason to seize ones home.

[Andres]

To me, one car, sitting unused in a driveway does not a junkyard make and it certainly doesn't seem a good reason to seize ones home.

They are not seizing his home because his car didn't have a license plate...

The home seizure and the fine are not directly related to each other.

Maybe it's a good idea to clearly analyse the situation:

1) he got fined $50 because his car didn't have a license plate. Apparently, that's what the law in question says: no license plate = get fined.

He could have a) paid the fine ; b) gone to court because he believes he did not break the law ; c) go to court because he believes the law in question is in violation with another law (e.g. he could have contested the law in itself e.g. because it violates his constitutional/human rights (at least, that's what he could have done in Belgium, but I assume the same possibility exists in the US).

He chose not to go to court ergo he is considered to accept the fine.

So, due to his own free choice, the only possiblity left is a) pay the fine.

2) he does not pay the fine (reminder: a fine which he has never contested during any of the procedures whatsoever, ergo he accepted that he has to pay the fine! He had all the possiblities and every right to contest the fine or the law itself, yet he did not. Like it or not, but this means that he has accepted the fine.): the government is obliged to take whatever measure possible to collect the fine and the additional expenses it has to make in order to collect said fine.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if they just told him that his home ownership could not be transferred in the event of his death and that the government would seize it posthumously? No asset seizure in life followed by major revenue boost with nobody hurt by it. Of course he would have his entire life to pay the fine and the government would get its precious money over time.

What do you think? I don't have as much of a problem with asset seizure in death for refusing to pay a fine, I just refuse to see why a life needs to be ruined over a BS ticket. I question the sensibility of both the man who wouldn't pay it and the government who would depth charge the man. When the man who wouldn't pay seems to be rather looney and physically unable, I blame primarily a predatory and unsympathetic government.

[Tribesman]

I am not sure from the details given whether garnishing his income is the best thing to do. It may be that his income is very low and the house is his only asset.
No the issue is that in this case his income is exempt from garnishment under federal law , perhaps the dickhead tried to hide behind that but din't think it through and therefore the result is as it is .
I seen that happen in westminster when this crazy bitch from south Armagh was certain she could break the law because she was immune from the law but didn't understand the law .
As a side note that crazy fenian bitch who is godmother to one of my kids is next month being guest of honour at #10...but it don't mean she got away with it and she was punished in accordance with the laws as she should have been .
Now I could digress and link the reason why she is having a reception with the prime minister of Britain and the reason why Tubics income is exempt from garnishment but I don't think that is needed....unless of course some people are too thick to understand why under Federal law Tubics income is safe from garnishment .


Maybe it's a good idea to clearly analyse the situation:


Good idea especialy when a post like this is made.


You'd be right- mainly because you can't lose your house over a credit card debt. They used power that was uniquely of the government and put a tax lien on his property. That in itself is a head scratcher, since I didn't think fines were a form of tax revenue but nonetheless...
a pure example of someomne who doesn't undertand law and how to screw the law over if you want to .
Then again someone who thinks the difference between contempt of court and wilfully fleeing justice with the intent to avoid punishment is just a mere technicality that plays on legal details and is irrelevant is clearly incorrect .
But hey Xiahou keep on posting , you are funny when you try to be serious .:2thumbsup:

[Andres]

What if they just told him that his home ownership could not be transferred in the event of his death and that the government would seize it posthumously?

Maybe that possiblity doesn't exist? Or maybe it's a bad idea from the point of view from the debt collector.

What if the man applies for a loan with a mortgage, later on in his life and at the time of his dead, the value of the house is lower then said loan with mortgage?

Why would the government wait to collect its' money. They can get their money now, who knows in what shape the house will be when he dies and how many debts he will have when he dies? Why should the government take any risk when they are now certain that they can get the money by seizing his house?

Note that if the man lives for another 20 years, the amount due after his dead will be much higher than it is now (I assume that if the government has to wait, they will at least get some interest?)

Also, it seems like he can pay, maybe seizuring his house is just putting pressure on him, forcing him to use the money he apparently has to pay the debt to avoid the selling of his house?

And there's also the problem of debt expiration.


I just refuse to see why a life needs to be ruined over a BS ticket.

I refuse to see why a man would ruin his own life because he doesn't want to pay a $50 fine after he stubbornly refused to contest said fine when he had the chance to do so.


When the man who wouldn't pay seems to be rather looney and physically unable, I blame primarily a predatory and unsympathetic government.

If that is indeed his condition, than you should blame his brother who, instead of helping him out and share the burden of taking care of their parents, called the police over some van that annoyed their mother.

But considering the fact that he was able to take care of two elders, do their groceries, cooking, cleaning and paying all his other bills and debts, I think it's reasonable to seriously doubt that this man was not capable of paying or contesting the fine.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe that possiblity doesn't exist? Or maybe it's a bad idea from the point of view from the debt collector.

What if the man applies for a loan with a mortgage, later on in his life and at the time of his dead, the value of the house is lower then said loan with mortgage?

Why would the government wait to collect its' money. They can get their money now, who knows in what shape the house will be when he dies and how many debts he will have when he dies? Why should the government take any risk when they are now certain that they can get the money by seizing his house?

Note that if the man lives for another 20 years, the amount due after his dead will be much higher than it is now (I assume that if the government has to wait, they will at least get some interest?)

Also, it seems like he can pay, maybe seizuring his house is just putting pressure on him, forcing him to use the money he apparently has to pay the debt to avoid the selling of his house?

And there's also the problem of debt expiration.



I refuse to see why a man would ruin his own life because he doesn't want to pay a $50 fine after he stubbornly refused to contest said fine when he had the chance to do so.



If that is indeed his condition, than you should blame his brother who, instead of helping him out and share the burden of taking care of their parents, called the police over some van that annoyed their mother.

But considering the fact that he was able to take care of two elders, do their groceries, cooking, cleaning and paying all his other bills and debts, I think it's reasonable to seriously doubt that this man was not capable of paying or contesting the fine.

C'mon Andres. This isn't a simple debt collection. If you use a good or service and run up bills - an individual is using his-her money to give you that service and needs to be paid back. The government is not an individual. It can wait 60 years and get a house over a parking ticket and nobody is eating any less. If the guy really won't pay the fine the good people represented by the government could have a nice piece of property in a few years without ruining any lives.

No matter who you blame, a nasty brother, a crazy defendant or a predatory and uncaring government - one represents groups of people and should be better than this.

[Tribesman]

Why would the government wait to collect its' money. They can get their money now, who knows in what shape the house will be when he dies and how many debts he will have when he dies? Why should the government take any risk when they are now certain that they can get the money by seizing his house?

Because under the law they have first claim to the estate , thats what the court action ensured , Besides which the limit on the debt accumulated from non payment of an infraction of a civic code is also set . As you noted earlier with the wonders of compound interest in the case of the original fine plus penalties and interest they couldn't have waited much longer unless they were prepared to lose taxpayers money on indulging some idiot .
So in short the complications from this case arise not because of a tyrannical government , but because they gave the idiot too many chances in the hope that he would see sense .

[ICantSpellDawg]

All of these things won't matter if he can get a disability ruling either mental or emotional. What is the status of that determination? I can't find any more information on the topic.

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe we could narrow down what the actual issue is.....

The original law, i don't think anyone much cares for the law, i can see the purpose behind the law but i don't think anyones debating whether unlisence plated cars should be allowed to be parked in a garden.. so thats not the issue

One of the issues seems to be the fine and the escalation of it until the goverment was threatening his house, I don't think anyone here thinks people should just be allowed to ignore fines so thats not the issue (although if you thinkyou should be allowed to ignore fines thats a recipe for anarchy)

Does anyone here think that non payments of fines should not result in an escalation of the penalty ? in other words should the goverment cover all costs (court costs, costs of repeated contact through mail by phone or in person) or should these costs get passed onto the one refusing to pay the fine ?

making the goverment cover all these extra costs doesn't sound very conservative to me, sounds like a good way to waste resources that could be better spent or reimbursed to tax payers

Is the issue that in the US goverments effort to collect thier fine that they threatened his house ? if so how else would you like the goverment to achieve collection ? Im imagining that the van probably doesn't quite cover it, and as he is on disability benefit they can't really take it out of those checks as he is supposed to need that money to live in (whether he has money left over isn't the issue, technically thats what the goverment decided he needed) So as i see it the only thing the goverment could do is threaten to take the house as payment

In the interests of defining what the issue is could something who thinks this is the uncaring tyanny of goverment answer my questions...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Take the car and call it even. Then, change the law to butt out of insignificant details of peoples lives.

[Tribesman]

All of these things won't matter if he can get a disability ruling either mental or emotional.
Well for that he needs a decent brief , and given the case he won't be awarded costs so the brief might end up taking his whole house instead of the government just taking its dues and leaving him with the cash remiander from the sale .
tubic has through choice painted himself into a corner and is now complaining that the wet paint means he can't get out without making himself very messy .
Now that is not to say that I don't have some sympathy with his plight , about as much sympathy as I have with idiots that choose to ignore demands for payment .
Actually scratch that , I have less sympathy , normally pricks that owe you money claim that they have none *, this prick says he has it but isn't going to hand it over .
* Its amazing what a set of chains and a JCB can do to make money magically appear from people who claim on their mothers grave to be pennyless...and it doesn't cost you for the brief as long as you know enough of the ins and outs of the law .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh


Take the car and call it even.
So you are saying the local authority should take a wothless piece of jumk and expect the other local tax payers to make up the difference in cost ?
Hey why not ask the local taxpayers to voluntarily bail the muppet out of his self created mess as an act of charity

[LittleGrizzly]

Ill admit im not sure here but i had the feeling that the vehicle was not worth the amount of the fine, if he was happy just to leave the car in the garden it indicates an inexpensive vehicle.... If the vehicle could cover the fine then that would probably be the most sensible option...

Taking the vehicle just because it was the crime does not negate the fines that built up though, only if the vehicle covers the fines...

JCB and a set of chains... sounds like it has the potential to be highly illegal....

[Andres]

Also, does the government have a choice?

I don't know much about US law, but maybe it's a law that forces the government to collect the money by whatever means possible?

We have the "luxury" of dropping the case if we don't want to sell the house of a guy who doesn't want to pay a small debt, but maybe the government has an obligation to collect the fine?

Maybe the detested government official will lose his job if he doesn't collect the fine?

Maybe this obligation is written in a law created by persons the majority of the people voted for...?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let me be clear:

Accusations of muppetry (and variants) aimed at the subject of the thread are permissible.

Aimed at members, they become actionable and lead to the confiscation of one's posting privileges.

Oh the Tyranny of Moderation.

:devil:

[Tribesman]

JCB and a set of chains... sounds like it has the potential to be highly illegal....

Yes it does , thats where knowing the ins and outs of the law comes into play , plus you can raise your bet by gambling that the muppet in question hasn't got the faintest idea of the law and doesn't have a good brief on stand-by that will tell him exactly what I can or cannot do .
That being said even I can sometimes lose it , some dumb conny bog wog tried to take me when I was in a bad mood , luckily the wife called a friend and a patrol car in the area managed to stop me for a random questioning , during which the friend turned up in another patrol car and made some phone calls and got it all sorted legal and proper ...with the bonus that the dumb conny idiot got so scared of official involvement he paid me more than he owed .

[Tribesman]

Accusations of muppetry (and variants)
Is Fraggle a variation or an entirely different genre ?

[LittleGrizzly]

Your starting to sound like a loan shark or something... is it a habit people not paying you back ??

ohh and im a bit short of money at the moment lend us 50 quid will ya ? ;)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Is Fraggle a variation or an entirely different genre ?

No, I would say that Fraggle rocks. :wink: