Masic beach village code 380 unconsti...

Masic beach village code 380 unconstitutional

Posted in the Center Moriches Forum

Truth is

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1 Jun 27, 2014
Look at this,

"The expanded village code 380 requires landlords to disclose the identity of residents living in their dwellings to village hall before any rental permit or renewal can be issued."

www.facebook.com/IssuesWithMBV

"Resident" WTF does that mean ?

Homeless people have the right to vote. Ahh ya they do and every other right a "resident" has.

Just because there are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as "government," and call the noises and scribbles that emanate from their mouths and pens "the law" which "must be obeyed." Just because they alter definitions of words in their "law" books to their supposed advantage, doesn't mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words "person," "address," "resident," "dwellings" "landlord" and many others, in ways so as to be associated with a subject or a tax slave status, means nothing in real life.

"Resident" and "landlord" LOL !!! Sounds like role play games or something.

If you have $1,200 for me every month you can have a key to my door and go inside. What you do in there and where you "live" is not my responsibility and it is obviously not my responsibility to report what you do in your life to the government or to check your "ID".

Or to tell the Government who is or is not on my property.

There is no law requiring people to have IDs in America.

Or that you need to "reside" anywhere.

Their is no law defining how many people can live together in America or who stays in who's room. The most commonly used regulation is how a local jurisdiction defines “family.” No local government may limit the number of adults who choose to live together. This is due to a 1980 case, City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson , in which the California Supreme Court, based on California privacy laws, ruled that people that want to live together have the right to do so.

I act in accordance with the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
land of the slaves

Shirley, NY

#2 Jun 28, 2014
In the new world you can't even rent a motel room without proper ID. That matchs your picture llicense and vehicle your driveing , and when your at the registry desk smile your on candid camara . I do agree what goes on behind closed doors is private . But renting a home in a neighborhood or village collecting State or Fedral checks, or cash, is not like being an owner full time resident . Get used to it . No one is free in the land of the slaves .
Truth is

Tampa, FL

#3 Jun 28, 2014
land of the slaves wrote:
In the new world you can't even rent a motel room without proper ID. That matchs your picture llicense and vehicle your driveing , and when your at the registry desk smile your on candid camara . I do agree what goes on behind closed doors is private . But renting a home in a neighborhood or village collecting State or Fedral checks, or cash, is not like being an owner full time resident . Get used to it . No one is free in the land of the slaves .
land of the slaves wrote:
In the new world you can't even rent a motel room without proper ID. That matchs your picture llicense and vehicle your driveing , and when your at the registry desk smile your on candid camara . I do agree what goes on behind closed doors is private . But renting a home in a neighborhood or village collecting State or Fedral checks, or cash, is not like being an owner full time resident . Get used to it . No one is free in the land of the slaves .
"is not like being an owner full time resident" You don't get it. It's difficult at first to see how phony the use of words like "resident" are just semantics. The homeless man sleeping under the tree has the right to vote and all the other constitutional rights everyone else has.

Hot poo ! I was just looking for a web page explaining the phonyness of the words like "resident" and its called using "slavespeak" !

Check it out http://www.google.com/search... ;

Anyway I won't be reporting to the govt who is or who is not on my property cause of 380, it violates my constutional rights.

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." — 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, Sec. 177; late 2nd edition, Sec. 256;
hoo doo you think you are

Savannah, GA

#6 Jun 28, 2014
Al Dente wrote:
Barring rentals from flood prone areas, unless the houses are raised above the FEMA flood zone height will be challenged, no doubt. This law devalues every rental in the flood zone. It's OK for a buyer to purchase the house for he and his family to live, but not ok to rent it. If there is a C/O, it will be unconstitutional to deny the owner his right to legally rent it. Again, this law has an error. The village code uses FIRM flood elevations while the rental law alludes to Slosh zones which are not comparable.
Another dumb idea! Please forgive my poor English.
Really Brady, will this diminish the value of the rental property at 106 Cranberry?

The magic bus is coming.
Huh

Stamford, CT

#7 Jun 28, 2014
Al Dente wrote:
Barring rentals from flood prone areas, unless the houses are raised above the FEMA flood zone height will be challenged, no doubt. This law devalues every rental in the flood zone. It's OK for a buyer to purchase the house for he and his family to live, but not ok to rent it. If there is a C/O, it will be unconstitutional to deny the owner his right to legally rent it. Again, this law has an error. The village code uses FIRM flood elevations while the rental law alludes to Slosh zones which are not comparable.
Another dumb idea! Please forgive my poor English.
well, he thing is.... You all voted yes to a village. Soooooo........the "village" can do what they want with 3 people voting yes. Didn't you know that? So, to all that voted yes to this village, you have no one to blame but yourself.
say

Bronx, NY

#8 Jun 29, 2014
But this law was bruces idea... not the three
hoo doo you think you are

Savannah, GA

#9 Jun 29, 2014
say wrote:
But this law was bruces idea... not the three
So, those three didnt vote for it and it wasnt passed? The same three that helped throw VodkaVick under the bus.

The magic bus is coming.
Huh

Stamford, CT

#10 Jun 29, 2014
say wrote:
But this law was bruces idea... not the three
what a dumba$$. It passed by a 5 to 0 vote. All are to blame, including the idiots who voted yes to a village that allow 3 people to decide our fates. Let me guess.. You voted YES to a village, just "not this village"? What a moron. Why don't you vote Paul B in as mayor next election when he runs again. Maybe then you can get your utopia of a village.
land of the slaves

Shirley, NY

#11 Jul 1, 2014
Be kind HUH --we are not all dumba$$'s or Idiots just slaves in the land of the slaves .

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Center Moriches Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Teenager gets 38 years (Mar '07) 2 hr ster_--- 67
The Mastic Book of Why 17 hr Barney Sangi 1
Dans Horse dead farm (Aug '13) Tue Jen 512
Lets play what has Gary lied about! (Mar '13) Sun Foff 66
My car was stolen and I'm looking for the carlo... Apr 22 Slow Learner 4
All Star Horse Farm Apr 19 Jenny 2
Yaphank Jail (Aug '12) Apr 16 Jaws 49

Center Moriches Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Center Moriches Mortgages