Not the same situation. The county decided promptly, once asked to review the case, that the permit was issued in error. By then, the building expansion was completed. (I think it may have been at the time an occupancy permit was requested, and it was not granted due to the complaint.) Jack John Ferrell wrote: > 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