Wow, just wow....

[TedH71]

http://offgridsurvival.com/chickenma...inggovernment/

[salmonslayer]

You know Ted, its stuff like this that needlessly radicalizes people and its why that we all need to be on guard against even seemingly innocent infringements on our property rights and individual freedoms.

I feel fortunate to live in an area where there is a very strong property rights movement that actively meets and helps fight against any infringement and all of us who farm or homestead need to be ever watchful.

[TnAndy]

If you're gonna off yourself, make sure you have company.

[Sawmill Jim]

Originally Posted by TnAndy

If you're gonna off yourself, make sure you have company.

Like the mayor and town clowns in the above case ?

[GunMonkeyIntl]

I'm by no means defending the actions of the local government - it souds like they were clearly out to get him, evidenced with the charge of improperly stacked firewood.

But, playing devil's advocte, this was spun-journalism- at least a little. This is why I hate journalism-with-an-agenda. When you see a story tainted with spin (especially one that probably didn't need spin to stand on its own, like this one) it makes the skeptical reader question the rest of the story - all of which may be legitimate but is now not as strong.

I'm sure others noticed:
•In 2011, the 84 year-old women who held Mr. Wordes mortgage was harassed by the city into selling Wordes mortgage for forty cents on the dollar. The city then began the foreclosure process.

So, not only did he not own the land, he wasn't even paying his mortgage on it. I don't know how hard they "harassed" the land-owner, but the article makes no mention of eminent domain - they simply bought it from her. Given the current housing market, a landowner accepting 40% of what they sold it for a few years back is not that unusual. Consider it from her perspective; the guy she sold it to went dead-beat and stopped paying her, and she had an offer from a cash-buyer to buy the land.

He was going into bankruptcy, was being foreclosed on, and probably any number of other associated issues that we don't know about. Being sentenced to a little community servce was probably a drop in the ocean. If it was the core issue, then he killed himself over rights to land he didn't even own. Sometimes it's best to just fold your hand and move on.

[am1too]

Originally Posted by GunMonkeyIntl

I'm by no means defending the actions of the local government - it souds like they were clearly out to get him, evidenced with the charge of improperly stacked firewood.

But, playing devil's advocte, this was spun-journalism- at least a little. This is why I hate journalism-with-an-agenda. When you see a story tainted with spin (especially one that probably didn't need spin to stand on its own, like this one) it makes the skeptical reader question the rest of the story - all of which may be legitimate but is now not as strong.

I'm sure others noticed:
•In 2011, the 84 year-old women who held Mr. Wordes mortgage was harassed by the city into selling Wordes mortgage for forty cents on the dollar. The city then began the foreclosure process.

So, not only did he not own the land, he wasn't even paying his mortgage on it. I don't know how hard they "harassed" the land-owner, but the article makes no mention of eminent domain - they simply bought it from her. Given the current housing market, a landowner accepting 40% of what they sold it for a few years back is not that unusual. Consider it from her perspective; the guy she sold it to went dead-beat and stopped paying her, and she had an offer from a cash-buyer to buy the land.

He was going into bankruptcy, was being foreclosed on, and probably any number of other associated issues that we don't know about. Being sentenced to a little community servce was probably a drop in the ocean. If it was the core issue, then he killed himself over rights to land he didn't even own. Sometimes it's best to just fold your hand and move on.

From what I read he was cheated out of his ability to pay by defending himself in the legal system against harassment and frivolous law suits. I paid $6,000 to absolve myself of a false arrest by a local retailer who accused me of stealing my own box of nails. I'm now a criminal simply because my name appears on the court record even though documentation shows no guilt. No I don't do business with them anymore.

[salmonslayer]

Originally Posted by GunMonkeyIntl

I'm by no means defending the actions of the local government - it souds like they were clearly out to get him, evidenced with the charge of improperly stacked firewood.

But, playing devil's advocte, this was spun-journalism- at least a little. This is why I hate journalism-with-an-agenda. When you see a story tainted with spin (especially one that probably didn't need spin to stand on its own, like this one) it makes the skeptical reader question the rest of the story - all of which may be legitimate but is now not as strong.

I'm sure others noticed:
•In 2011, the 84 year-old women who held Mr. Wordes mortgage was harassed by the city into selling Wordes mortgage for forty cents on the dollar. The city then began the foreclosure process.

So, not only did he not own the land, he wasn't even paying his mortgage on it. I don't know how hard they "harassed" the land-owner, but the article makes no mention of eminent domain - they simply bought it from her. Given the current housing market, a landowner accepting 40% of what they sold it for a few years back is not that unusual. Consider it from her perspective; the guy she sold it to went dead-beat and stopped paying her, and she had an offer from a cash-buyer to buy the land.

He was going into bankruptcy, was being foreclosed on, and probably any number of other associated issues that we don't know about. Being sentenced to a little community servce was probably a drop in the ocean. If it was the core issue, then he killed himself over rights to land he didn't even own. Sometimes it's best to just fold your hand and move on.

I think I must have read a different article than you did; sounded to me like when the city bought the mortgage they called the note, not that he wasnt paying it...of course if your put in jail for that long its kind of hard to pay anyway.

The guy won two court cases against the city but they found a way to get him in the end and I just dont see where its fair to call him a dead beat. At some point unchecked governments get out of control and to me this is a classic case.

[Andrei]

The "City" is made by individuals.
By American individuals that are crooks and thieves and make a living ripping taxpayers of.
And I have few of those in my family.
I have never meet a honest government worker.

[chewie]

horrible, just horrible

[Pinetop Hunting]

After 12-13 years working for cities and counties and with "local" politicians,courts and administrators ill be the first to tell ya the vast majority are self serving,shady and will sacrifice anybody to stay in "power". Court proceedings are far too often unfair and slanted towards those who are "known". So much taxpayer money is wasted. It's just crazy. I got sick of seeing it and as a law enforcement officer feeling more like a government revenue agent than a citizen assistant. Never again.

[TNHermit]

I cn tell you after 5 years of fighting the banks and lawyers wanting to take my place illegally I know just about what went /is going through this guys mind. Untill you been there hard to make assumptions

[jesirose]

Originally Posted by GunMonkeyIntl

So, not only did he not own the land, he wasn't even paying his mortgage on it. I don't know how hard they "harassed" the land-owner, but the article makes no mention of eminent domain - they simply bought it from her. Given the current housing market, a landowner accepting 40% of what they sold it for a few years back is not that unusual. Consider it from her perspective; the guy she sold it to went dead-beat and stopped paying her, and she had an offer from a cash-buyer to buy the land.

He was going into bankruptcy, was being foreclosed on, and probably any number of other associated issues that we don't know about. Being sentenced to a little community servce was probably a drop in the ocean. If it was the core issue, then he killed himself over rights to land he didn't even own. Sometimes it's best to just fold your hand and move on.

If it was as simple as buying the land from her, why did they harrass him at all in the first place? Why bother with ANY of the other processes if all they had to do was buy the land from the lady? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to do that than spend months attempting to get him on all these other issues?

So logically, it is not that simple.

"then he killed himself over rights to land he didn't even own" - Most people consider it land they own even if they are paying a loan on it. The same applies to cars. I have a mortgage on my house, and a loan on my car. I can still do things on my property and my car. I can build a new garage. I can plant a tree. I can raise chickens. The city can't just go buy my land and home from my bank. The bank may be able to kick me out if I don't pay, but I'm pretty sure the bank can't sell my mortgage to my neighbor who then kicks me out for no reason. If someone asks me if I own or rent - I say I own. I own my land and home, not the bank. The only way the bank owns it is if I stop paying.

I think it's pretty clear that the reason he had trouble paying was the harassment by the city!

I've been being harassed by a neighbor via code enforcement. Animal control is sent out for non-existent roosters and "loose chickens" (I personally don't consider a hen perched on my own fence to be loose. It's still on my property!) Code enforcement knocks on a regular basis and says that something we have in our driveway (behind our home) is "unsightly" and we must move it or get a ticket. My husband is basically unable to work on his truck because of this so we have a non-running vehicle in the garage and no way for him to get it running. They basically told us if we want to do anything (work on the truck, use power tools, etc - to get a commercial lot to do it on.)

I'm sure that if the city wanted our property, they would have given us the ---- ticket by now. The reasons we aren't fighting back are: Finances (fighting tickets is expensive), We plan to move within a year, and most importantly - I worry if we ---- off the city by fighting back, they will come after us in this manner. They could find something we've done wrong and take our dogs, chickens, whatever.

If it was the city that was out to get me and not a neighbor, I'd be scared as hell.

[hercsmama]

Check this one out. While I certainly don't agree with what he did, it does seem that if they want your property, they can and will take it.
Not a pleasant thought....
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search;...ockne%20newell

[foxtrapper]

Originally Posted by hercsmama

it does seem that if they want your property, they can and will take it.

As a whole lot of indian tribes can attest to.

[GunMonkeyIntl]

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

I think I must have read a different article than you did; sounded to me like when the city bought the mortgage they called the note, not that he wasnt paying it...of course if your put in jail for that long its kind of hard to pay anyway.

The guy won two court cases against the city but they found a way to get him in the end and I just dont see where its fair to call him a dead beat. At some point unchecked governments get out of control and to me this is a classic case.

My point was not that the "chicken man" was wrong, or that the city was right. I was only stating that the article was clearly written with a healthy dose of spin, and that that harmed the credibility of the details cited by the article. If you re-read my post, I think it is pretty clear that is all I was saying - if I wasn't clear, then I apologize.

One of my considerations for selling my last home and buying my farm was that I lived in a very restrictive village and had an HOA on top of that. I am quite sympathetic to the plight of those bullied by the rule-makers. However, I have learned not to take the word of any journalist, especially when their work is spin-heavy, even when their spin suits my own sensibilities.

A perfect example of the spin in this article is the use of the term harassment. Even one of the responders here said:

Originally Posted by jesirose

If it was as simple as buying the land from her, why did they harrass him at all in the first place? … I think it's pretty clear that the reason he had trouble paying was the harassment by the city!

The only evidence that we have that it was harassment is the “journalist’s” statement that it was so. It’s possible that his firewood was stacked outside of approved offsets, or was a danger to the public somehow – the fact is that we don’t know. Rather than tell us the dry facts and let us make our own judgment, the author colored it in hopes that we would come to his desired conclusion. Which some of us obviously did without question.

Originally Posted by jesirose

Most people consider it land they own even if they are paying a loan on it. The same applies to cars. I have a mortgage on my house, and a loan on my car. I can still do things on my property and my car. I can build a new garage. I can plant a tree. I can raise chickens. The city can't just go buy my land and home from my bank. The bank may be able to kick me out if I don't pay, but I'm pretty sure the bank can't sell my mortgage to my neighbor who then kicks me out for no reason. If someone asks me if I own or rent - I say I own. I own my land and home, not the bank. The only way the bank owns it is if I stop paying.

You are absolutely correct on a couple points there. I agree that when you are paying a lien holder on loan for a piece of property, then you rightfully consider yourself the owner. And we agree that the lien holder can give you the boot if you stop paying. But, the disconnect seems to be on how the city bought the property, and why they initiated a foreclosure.

To salmonsayer’s point:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

…sounded to me like when the city bought the mortgage they called the note

They can’t do that. When you buy a note, you also assume the terms of that note. Modern mortgages have provisions against the lender being able to call in the note whenever they choose. Unless the lady that sold this guy the land had it stipulated in the loan that she could call it in at anytime (which would make this guy a complete idiot for signing it), then the city could not either after they bought the note from her. Whether he stopped paying his mortgage before or after the city bought the note, the rules of foreclosure would have been the same.

Again, I am not trying to, nor am I interested in defending what the city may (or may not) have done to this guy. I was simply rebuking the tactics of the story’s author. I believe that we’re all adults and capable of making our own judgments based on the facts – and accept the holes where we do not have them because we were not there.

Originally Posted by am1too

I'm now a criminal simply because my name appears on the court record even though documentation shows no guilt.

Huh? Does not compute. Nevermind, don’t want to know.

[Murramarang]

There is always two sides of a story (sometimes three)...but in cases like this, you only ever hear one.

[TrainChaser]

"I'm sure others noticed: In 2011, the 84 year-old women who held Mr. Wordes mortgage was harassed by the city into selling Wordes mortgage for forty cents on the dollar. The city then began the foreclosure process.

So, not only did he not own the land, he wasn't even paying his mortgage on it."

What the 'ELL are you talking about?????

A private contract of sale is a completely legal sale, the property owner (the old lady) was simply the person holding the note, not a bank. This takes place all over the U.S., all states, every day. In fact, my neighbors next door are buying their house under just such a contract.

The city coerced the old lady into selling them the mortgage, then they called it in for payment in full, which he obviously couldn't do.

Here's a brief outline from Wikipedia, and all points are as I have understood them for the last 20 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_contract

And I do agree that he should have taken some of the city SOBs with him.

[wharton]

Originally Posted by hercsmama

Check this one out. While I certainly don't agree with what he did, it does seem that if they want your property, they can and will take it.
Not a pleasant thought....
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search;...ockne%20newell

I was just wondered how long till this showed up? The issue in the link provided is NOT about property rights, or anybody trying to take anything, it's about mental illness and a sick desire to live in sub-human conditions, while flaunting it, on the edge of a fairly busy road in the suburbs. This guy comes from a really screwed up clan, with a long history of living in squalor, while giving the civilized world a big middle finger. We are talking about kin who started a 2nd story addition to a house on a major highway, then were shocked to see a serious rise in property tax due to doubling the size of the place. Like any rational person wouldn't of seen that coming? To " to teach them revenuers a lesson" they abandoned the project, left the walls standing, and continued to live in the roofless house until it collapsed into itself. Another relative was living in an old tractor trailer parked in the yard with an "addition" built on. The mass murderer started his battle in 1990 by spending a few hundred bucks for a patch of swampy ravine in a hollow. The property is divided by a stream and tight to a road that is a heavily traveled route to a large housing development. The title to the property clearly indicated that it was wetlands and not suitable for habitation. He then gets a permit to put an addition on a storage trailer on the property to increase his storage space, and moves in after lying about his intentions. He spends the next 22 years in a battle with neighbors, the county, the township, the fish commission and countless others while he hoards garbage and defecates in drywall buckets he stores on the property. After decades of attempting to resolve the issues the township finally has enough and puts the property on the auction block to settle the thousands in unpaid fines.

Please don't confuse this guy with any rational loner, hermit, prepper, or sane anti-government crusader. This was somebody who wanted to live with less dignity than a typical animal, and endanger the health and safety of others by piling feces at a stream, building a substandard "bridge" and other activities.

It's easy to take a glance at a story like this and feel that it's another case of big brother government taking from the defenseless. In truth, the last thing the locals wanted was a needless battle with a crazy man, or to gain possession of an expensive dump that wasted tens of thousands in legal fees, and now needs a ton more spent for remediation. Three people died this week, and countless lives are forever changed because a mentally ill man decided to solve his problems by attempting to kill a room full of citizens attending a meeting. There are already nut jobs on the local comment boards talking about this guy being some sort of hero...... lots of sick people out there.

If you are wondering, as a local, I know one of the dead and one of the wounded. They didn't deserve any of this. Good folks just trying to do the right thing for their community.

[salmonslayer]

Originally Posted by GunMonkeyIntl

My point was not that the "chicken man" was wrong, or that the city was right. I was only stating that the article was clearly written with a healthy dose of spin, and that that harmed the credibility of the details cited by the article. If you re-read my post, I think it is pretty clear that is all I was saying - if I wasn't clear, then I apologize.

One of my considerations for selling my last home and buying my farm was that I lived in a very restrictive village and had an HOA on top of that. I am quite sympathetic to the plight of those bullied by the rule-makers. However, I have learned not to take the word of any journalist, especially when their work is spin-heavy, even when their spin suits my own sensibilities.

To salmonsayer’s point:

They can’t do that. When you buy a note, you also assume the terms of that note. Modern mortgages have provisions against the lender being able to call in the note whenever they choose. Unless the lady that sold this guy the land had it stipulated in the loan that she could call it in at anytime (which would make this guy a complete idiot for signing it), then the city could not either after they bought the note from her. Whether he stopped paying his mortgage before or after the city bought the note, the rules of foreclosure would have been the same.

While I agree with you about journalistic spin I think you really dont understand how some of these land contracts or privately held mortgages can get you into trouble. Calling a note is nothing new.

What I find interesting though is your comment that perhaps his stack of fire wood didnt conform to community standards and then Wharton posts about how he doesnt live live he thinks he should and that the guy has (according to Wharton) spent 22 years living in a way the community disapproves of...22 YEARS!

But then he came from a really screwed up clan and was mentally ill...and we all know those types dont have a right to live unless it conforms to someone elses norm. I mean he only lived there for 22 years.....he was obviously just a rabble rowser.

[wharton]

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

What I find interesting though is your comment that perhaps his stack of fire wood didnt conform to community standards and then Wharton posts about how he doesnt live live he thinks he should and that the guy has (according to Wharton) spent 22 years living in a way the community disapproves of...22 YEARS!

But then he came from a really screwed up clan and was mentally ill...and we all know those types dont have a right to live unless it conforms to someone elses norm. I mean he only lived there for 22 years.....he was obviously just a rabble rowser.

No, everything was great with this situation, just another good ole' boy crushed under the weight of government tyranny. Obviously, you are spot on with your deep thought on the subject. I'm sure that you agree that everybody should raise their children in an environment where the dwelling is awash with mold and the roof is caving in BECAUSE THEY ARE TEACHING THE TAXING AUTHORITIES A LESSON by letting their home rot into the ground on main street? Of course you are correct, the killer has a RIGHT to defecate in open buckets for years, and pile them next to a stream, obviously there is no way that that could have an impact on the downstream neighbor, right? At one point it was so bad that deputies were getting sick from the smell as they approached the property. Sounds like something you would be happy to see happen next door, right? As for your deep knowledge of the particulars, the situation degraded over the years as the court system and the township bent over backwards to help this guy out. As for YOUR twisted view that a I believe that a mentally ill person has no right to live, your words, not mine, and certainly not evident in the extraordinary patience the community showed to the killer. I guess in your twisted view it's OK to murder anybody who doesn't conform to your standards, and has issues with you endangering the community. Sad, and sick, but whatever does it for you?