I see dead people
Nov 3, 2017 08:12:42 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
WND EXCLUSIVE
Woman told her 90 acres now public after anonymous claim of grave
Legal team questions where 'warrantless searches,' 'unbridled trespassing' are in Constitution
Published: 11 hours ago
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
A Pennsylvania woman is fighting a government’s arbitrary decision to open her private property to the public and its threat to fine her if she doesn’t. Meanwhile, she’s demanding to know where in the Constitution does it provide for the “warrantless searches” and “unbridled trespassing” involved.
The case is being presented to the U.S. Supreme Court since the woman’s fight also has been against the court systems. State courts say precedent doesn’t allow them to rule, and federal courts say they won’t take action until the state courts do something.
The case involves Rose Mary Knick, a woman who lives alone on about 90 acres of Pennsylvania land that has been in her family for nearly half a century.
Officials in Scott Township, which includes her land, abruptly decided to create a law taking away the private property rights of landowners if anyone even thought there was an old gravesite there.
No proof was necessary for the law to then require that the landowner provide daily public access for anyone to trespass.
Knick is asking the high court to overturn the law as a violation of her property rights, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.
“Scott Township’s graveyard law forces property owners to allow warrantless searches by government and unbridled trespassing by the public,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney J. David Breemer. “The Supreme Court should take Ms. Knick’s case to make sure the township does not get away with its flagrant abridgement of constitutionally protected rights.”
“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality” chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state, and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!
Her land is used for a farm and grazing for cattle, horses and other animals. It’s bounded by fences, stone walls and “No Trespassing” signs.
“There is no cemetery mentioned in the chain of title going back hundreds of years,” said the PLF, which has won numerous property rights fights at the Supreme Court already.
“Nevertheless, in 2013, a town enforcement officer entered the property searching for graveyards. Soon after, Ms. Knick was issued a notice of violation claiming her property contained an old burial ground that had not been kept open to the public. She later received a second notice of violation.”
Knick said: “It was unbelievable that the town would trample all over my rights this way, making it open season for trespassing on my land. I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court will take a stand for the Constitution, and for everybody’s property rights, by striking down this outrageous law.”
Isolated grave sites are not uncommon in parts of the country where there is no ban on burials on private ground. And, indeed, sometimes burials date back to before rules and regulations were in place. So the plains of Pennsylvania do, in fact, contain small burial plots for families and such.
However, the records simply don’t show any such location on Knick’s land, PLF said.
The township simply adopted procedures for its “code enforcement” agents to search her land without permission, and while trespassing, they claimed to have found stone evidence of burial plots.
The lower courts then decided the township had created a “right-of-way” for the public.
The township issued her citations, but when the arguments began in state court, suddenly withdrew them. The state court then said it couldn’t make a decision until an enforcement action was pending.
When Knick then went to federal court, the judge there claimed an adjudication in state court was required first.
“What a mess,” the petition to the high court said. “The Constitution requires a ‘reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation.’ But this is exactly what [precedent] prevents. It creates a chaotic and unworkable system for adjudicating federal takings claims.”
“Pacific Legal Foundation fights for individual liberty, a core component of which is protection from unconstitutional government intrusion on one’s property and privacy,” said PLF President Steven D. Anderson.
“Defending property rights also means insisting that landowners who have suffered constitutional wrongs have direct access to federal court for redress. Securing these protections requires determination and vigilance, and we look forward to vindicating these vital principles.”
The demand for access to Knick’s land came after an anonymous “citizen inquiry” claimed there was a burial ground there.
Woman told her 90 acres now public after anonymous claim of grave
Legal team questions where 'warrantless searches,' 'unbridled trespassing' are in Constitution
Published: 11 hours ago
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
A Pennsylvania woman is fighting a government’s arbitrary decision to open her private property to the public and its threat to fine her if she doesn’t. Meanwhile, she’s demanding to know where in the Constitution does it provide for the “warrantless searches” and “unbridled trespassing” involved.
The case is being presented to the U.S. Supreme Court since the woman’s fight also has been against the court systems. State courts say precedent doesn’t allow them to rule, and federal courts say they won’t take action until the state courts do something.
The case involves Rose Mary Knick, a woman who lives alone on about 90 acres of Pennsylvania land that has been in her family for nearly half a century.
Officials in Scott Township, which includes her land, abruptly decided to create a law taking away the private property rights of landowners if anyone even thought there was an old gravesite there.
No proof was necessary for the law to then require that the landowner provide daily public access for anyone to trespass.
Knick is asking the high court to overturn the law as a violation of her property rights, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.
“Scott Township’s graveyard law forces property owners to allow warrantless searches by government and unbridled trespassing by the public,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney J. David Breemer. “The Supreme Court should take Ms. Knick’s case to make sure the township does not get away with its flagrant abridgement of constitutionally protected rights.”
“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality” chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state, and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!
Her land is used for a farm and grazing for cattle, horses and other animals. It’s bounded by fences, stone walls and “No Trespassing” signs.
“There is no cemetery mentioned in the chain of title going back hundreds of years,” said the PLF, which has won numerous property rights fights at the Supreme Court already.
“Nevertheless, in 2013, a town enforcement officer entered the property searching for graveyards. Soon after, Ms. Knick was issued a notice of violation claiming her property contained an old burial ground that had not been kept open to the public. She later received a second notice of violation.”
Knick said: “It was unbelievable that the town would trample all over my rights this way, making it open season for trespassing on my land. I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court will take a stand for the Constitution, and for everybody’s property rights, by striking down this outrageous law.”
Isolated grave sites are not uncommon in parts of the country where there is no ban on burials on private ground. And, indeed, sometimes burials date back to before rules and regulations were in place. So the plains of Pennsylvania do, in fact, contain small burial plots for families and such.
However, the records simply don’t show any such location on Knick’s land, PLF said.
The township simply adopted procedures for its “code enforcement” agents to search her land without permission, and while trespassing, they claimed to have found stone evidence of burial plots.
The lower courts then decided the township had created a “right-of-way” for the public.
The township issued her citations, but when the arguments began in state court, suddenly withdrew them. The state court then said it couldn’t make a decision until an enforcement action was pending.
When Knick then went to federal court, the judge there claimed an adjudication in state court was required first.
“What a mess,” the petition to the high court said. “The Constitution requires a ‘reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation.’ But this is exactly what [precedent] prevents. It creates a chaotic and unworkable system for adjudicating federal takings claims.”
“Pacific Legal Foundation fights for individual liberty, a core component of which is protection from unconstitutional government intrusion on one’s property and privacy,” said PLF President Steven D. Anderson.
“Defending property rights also means insisting that landowners who have suffered constitutional wrongs have direct access to federal court for redress. Securing these protections requires determination and vigilance, and we look forward to vindicating these vital principles.”
The demand for access to Knick’s land came after an anonymous “citizen inquiry” claimed there was a burial ground there.
Nov 3, 2017 08:37:02 #
no propaganda please wrote:
WND EXCLUSIVE br Woman told her 90 acres now publi... (show quote)
Seizure of her property is next.. and we all know how that works don't we?? Asset Forfeiture and Seizure bye local please is allowed...
Do we really own anything?? No....
Nov 3, 2017 08:41:03 #
no propaganda please wrote:
WND EXCLUSIVE br Woman told her 90 acres now publi... (show quote)
Without knowing the behaviors of the peoples involved, including the anonymous citizen who initiated the investigation; it would seem, surface wise, the township political board acted for political reason. Exactly what reasons, that would have to be investigated.
Nov 3, 2017 08:59:06 #
plainlogic wrote:
Without knowing the behaviors of the peoples involved, including the anonymous citizen who initiated the investigation; it would seem, surface wise, the township political board acted for political reason. Exactly what reasons, that would have to be investigated.
They probably found out she was a Trump supporter LOL
Nov 3, 2017 09:09:06 #
debeda wrote:
They probably found out she was a Trump supporter LOL
Yup!!! Lololl, good one!!!
Nov 3, 2017 09:32:38 #
Nah,The person,that made the graveyard claim,is waiting for the government,to take that property,using eminent domain,and graveyard clause, then buy it at a fire sale,BET YOU,he/her is somebody in that government.
Nov 3, 2017 09:49:10 #
plainlogic wrote:
Without knowing the behaviors of the peoples involved, including the anonymous citizen who initiated the investigation; it would seem, surface wise, the township political board acted for political reason. Exactly what reasons, that would have to be investigated.
Nov 3, 2017 10:52:15 #
no propaganda please wrote:
WND EXCLUSIVE br Woman told her 90 acres now publi... (show quote)
Without a Court Order, the investigation is unconstitutional... Without a Court Order the appearance of a possible grave is not sufficient proof there was a grave on the property... And if the Local Ordinance didn't state the grave(s) must be for humans, it opens the door for a grave for a cherished pet, or even a child's doll that had a terrible accident...
This type of diseased Government behavior needs to be amputated before it spreads...
Nov 3, 2017 15:59:05 #
JimMe wrote:
Without a Court Order, the investigation is unconstitutional... Without a Court Order the appearance of a possible grave is not sufficient proof there was a grave on the property... And if the Local Ordinance didn't state the grave(s) must be for humans, it opens the door for a grave for a cherished pet, or even a child's doll that had a terrible accident...
This type of diseased Government behavior needs to be amputated before it spreads...
This type of diseased Government behavior needs to be amputated before it spreads...
Nov 4, 2017 11:33:08 #
lindajoy wrote:
Seizure of her property is next.. and we all know how that works don't we?? Asset Forfeiture and Seizure bye local please is allowed...
Do we really own anything?? No....
Do we really own anything?? No....
Sad but true.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.