The permit said it was OK with the county. As I recall from a business law class long ago, a property owner has a specific time period (7 years?) after DISCOVERY of the encroachment to require relief from the circumstance. John Ferrell W8CCW "My Competition is not my enemy" http://DixieNC.US ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Smith" To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [OT] Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime ..psi > >> Which basically seems to mean that (at least in the US) people don't have >> a >> right against seizure without being (criminally) guilty of any >> wrongdoing. >> >> Is this correct? Anybody knows how this is handled in other countries? I >> always was under the (obviously innocent) impression that for the >> government (any democratic government) to be able to seize anything from >> me, I have to be guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of /something/. >> >> Gerhard >> > Gerhard: > > There are a host of matters that fall under "civil" law that can result > in seizure. (I mean civil in the sense of not criminal, in the > traditional British and American legal systems.) > > For example, suppose you build an new room on your house. (This is a > true story recently covered in the local newspapers) And, suppose you > submit the plans to the county authorities and receive the proper > building permits. And, finally, suppose you build the new room in exact > accordance with the plans you submitted. > > Then, after it is built, a neighbor complains to the county that the > permit should not have been granted because it failed to meet some part > of the building code, in this case, it is too close to the property > line, so the problem cannot be fixed by a small change to the new room. > The county investigates and decides that yes, the building permit should > have never been granted and orders the home owner to tear down the new > room at the owner's expense. > > This is not a criminal matter, and if the home owner goes to court to > challenge the tear down order, the county does not have to win "beyond a > reasonable doubt." Rather, all the county has to show is that it is 50% > plus a small amount that the county is correct. (Very easy to do, since > no one seriously disputes the fact that the permit should not have been > granted.) > > If the home owner refuses to tear down the new room, the county could > ask the judge to assess a civil penalty (monetary fine of, say, $1000 a > day for every day not in compliance) or to find the home owner in > contempt of court (if there is a court-issued tear down order), and to > imprison the home owner until the room is torn down. Since the purpose > of the imprisonment would be coercive, not for punishment, most of the > criminal procedural safeguards would not apply. (Usually said that a > person in jail for civil contempt "has the keys to the jail house in his > pocket" since all that is required to be released is to agree to follow > the court's order. > > Still, sitting in jail works the same whether you are there for a > coercive purpose or a retributive purpose. > > And, by the way, in this particular case, the home owner will not be > able to recover any money from the county for incorrectly issuing the > building permit. > > So, in this (real) example, the home owner is probably out of pocket > $150,000 or more and has zero possibility of getting it back from > anyone. If if he refuses to comply, the county can have him locked up > until he does comply. (A few years ago, a local golf course owner spent > about 60 days in jail for refusing to plant trees on his property that > the county demanded. He was released only after planting the trees. > Since this was a civil contempt, no "beyond a reasonable doubt" stuff > nor a jury trial. Just a judge who sent him to jail, to remain there > until he decided to plant the trees. [Some cases that say at some point > a civil contempt jail sentence stops being coercive and becomes punitive > and crosses into criminal contempt of court and has some additional > procedural safeguards.]) > > Jack > > > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist