By Jim Bigos, unverified — Sat, 08/22/2009 - 12:24
Hi everyone, I forgot one important fact, a Goverment Fact, Please log on to youtube and check out the Goverment Documetary "Hemp for Victory", very interesting!!!!!!
>just type the title into the youtube search box (hemp for victory)
By Jim Bigos, unverified — Sat, 08/22/2009 - 12:11
To Gautier,
You dont know the facts about marijuana laws. In fact possesion of marijuana up to 2 1/2 ounces is a misdemeanor, civil offense, no different than traffic violations and no criminal record. My second point I would like to make is, that marijuana (cannabis) has been used sinse 700BC and was legal in the U.S. from 1776 until the mid 1930's, Presedents Jefferson, Washington,Lincon, Taft and others had thier own private marijuana patches. The federal goverment (Treasury dept.) had the Marijuana tax Act of 1936. It was encouraged by the Goverment for farmers to cultivate marijuana and the gov. paid for thier expences and provided farmers with new technological advances in equipment for it's harvesting. In 1934 the U.S. goverment inventors came up with the most newest technological advacement, a combine machine that would seperate the seeds from the rest of the plant.
The American medical assoc. states that marijuana is the most safest theraputical drug known to mankind, also to this day the federal goverment thru the DEA and other U.S. agencies have marijuana grown at the University of Mississipi for 7 patients who enrolled in a federal program in 1978 whereby the goverment provides these patients with thier yearly supply of medical marijuana, this goverment grown marijuana is rolled into 300 joints and placed in a tin canisterand shipped to each patients pharmacy on a monthly basis, and this isbeen ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, that the goverment must comply with the program and its original patients, to supply them marijuana!
I in fact, I was in Court Friday august 21, 2009 for a hearing on a ruling by the Oxford County Superior court Judge Roland Cole which ruled that the Maine drug enforcement Agency and the Oxford Co. Sherriff's Dept. Illegally confiscated my legal amount of Useable medical marijuana and order in open court to the AAG. to return it along with rolling papers,six marijuana plants and pruning shears. This was agreed to by the AAG prosecutor. On friday the case was continued, I believe the property ordered returned has been destroyed, which means I will have to be reimbursed it's value, and according to the proffessionals of the State,the MDEA(Maine drug Enforcement Agency) just the value of the six plants exceed $24,000.00. And because of my legal property being illegaly seized I had no supply for the year , so my physician had to put me on the prescription for synthetic THC(marinol). I am disabled and on Mainecare so it cast the Taxpayers of Maine for my 12 months of the prescription at $1500.00 per month, you canfigure that price out, thank you Gautier for paying!
By Jim Bigos, unverified — Thu, 07/16/2009 - 12:06
Dont let the Town selectmen fill your ears with bullshi...t, we have Laws to proptect us and our property, and we also have this thing their unaware of called the constitution!!
File a small claims case against the Town of Peru and let a judge determine if they owe you! Its not God driving those plow trucks, and why does the State of Maine require all the Towns vehicles be insured? which we the taxpayers fund!! Stick up for yourself, the Town or any else wont!!
_____________________________________________
16 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0016
Longtime Buildings and Fences Law
The boundaries of a road may be changed by the long existence of buildings and fences in the right of way (23 M.R.S.A. § 2952). The length of time required will depend on whether the road boundaries are known or unknown in the first place. This law is an exception to the well established rule that public property cannot be taken by adverse possession (Town of Sedgwick v. Butler, 1998 ME 280, 722 A.2d 357) or by prescriptive use (Libby v. Tobey, 82 Me. 391 (1890)). This law is not really a method to establish road boundaries; it is more accurately a limitation on the town's ability to set road boundaries. Boundaries Unknown. Where the road boundaries are unknown and cannot be made certain by records or monuments, any buildings or fences fronting the road which have been in existence more than 20 years will be deemed to be the true bounds of the road. For example, if the road boundaries are unknown, and there is a IOO-year old stone wall abutting each side of the road, those walls will be the boundaries. This law should not be used by the town to take property for highway purposes. For example, where the boundaries ofa road are unknown, but there is a stone wall 200 feet back from the travel way, the town should not claim that the stone wall is the road boundary, because that wall does not really "front" the road. In that situation, it is more appropriate to use the Lost Boundary Statute or some other method for determining the true bounds.
Boundaries Known. Where the road boundaries are known, any building or fence which encroaches within these bounds and is allowed to remain there for 40 years or more will be deemed to exist legally, and thus will narrow the true boundary of the road. It is very important, therefore, to prevent such encroachments. Note that this provision applies only to the extent that the building or fence physically exists. For example, a road is 2 miles long and 40 feet wide (boundaries are known). A 20o-foot long chicken barn was built 50 years ago and it encroaches 4 feet into the road boundary. The barn is now legally allowed to remain, and the road width is 36 feet for the length of the barn. The remainder of the road is still 40 feet wide.
In view of23 M.R.S.A. § 2952, municipal officials should be attentive to buildings and fences near or within road boundaries, and should take steps to remove them (see Chapter 6) before the statute protects their encroachment. MOOT has the authority to establish he boundaries of state and state aid highways under 23 M.R.S.A. § 653.
By Jim Bigos, unverified — Thu, 07/16/2009 - 11:45
b§7551-B. Trespass damages
1. Prohibition. A person who intentionally enters the land of another without permission and causes damage to property is liable to the owner in a civil action if the person:
A. Damages or throws down any fence, bar or gate; leaves a gate open; breaks glass; damages any road, drainage ditch, culvert, bridge, sign or paint marking; or does other damage to any structure on property not that person's own; or [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
B. Throws, drops, deposits, discards, dumps or otherwise disposes of litter, as defined in Title 17, section 2263, subsection 2, in any manner or amount, on property not that person's own. [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
2. Liability. If the damage to the property is caused intentionally, the person is liable to the owner for 2 times the owner's actual damages plus any additional costs recoverable under subsection 3, paragraphs B and C. If the damage to the property is not caused intentionally, the person is liable to the owner for the owner's actual damages plus any additional costs recoverable under subsection 3, paragraphs B and C.
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
3. Damages recoverable. The owner's damages include:
A. Actual damages, as measured by subsection 4; [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
B. Costs the owner may incur if the damage results in a violation of any federal, state or local law or ordinance and, as a result, the owner becomes the subject of an enforcement proceeding. These costs include attorney's fees, costs and the value of the owner's time spent on involvement in the enforcement proceeding; and [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
C. Reasonable attorney's fees for preparing the claim and bringing the court action under this section plus costs. [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
4. Measure of damages. For damage to property under subsection 1, paragraph A, the owner's damages may be measured either by the replacement value of the damaged property or by the cost of repairing the damaged property. For damages for disposing of litter, the owner's damages include the direct costs associated with properly disposing of the litter, including obtaining permits, and the costs associated with any site remediation work undertaken as a result of the litter.
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
5. Other actions barred. A recovery from a defendant under this section bars an action to recover damages under section 7552 from that defendant for the same specific damage.
bosefus
Jim Bigos's Comments
Hi everyone, I forgot one
Hi everyone, I forgot one important fact, a Goverment Fact, Please log on to youtube and check out the Goverment Documetary "Hemp for Victory", very interesting!!!!!!
>just type the title into the youtube search box (hemp for victory)
To Gautier, You dont know
To Gautier,
You dont know the facts about marijuana laws. In fact possesion of marijuana up to 2 1/2 ounces is a misdemeanor, civil offense, no different than traffic violations and no criminal record. My second point I would like to make is, that marijuana (cannabis) has been used sinse 700BC and was legal in the U.S. from 1776 until the mid 1930's, Presedents Jefferson, Washington,Lincon, Taft and others had thier own private marijuana patches. The federal goverment (Treasury dept.) had the Marijuana tax Act of 1936. It was encouraged by the Goverment for farmers to cultivate marijuana and the gov. paid for thier expences and provided farmers with new technological advances in equipment for it's harvesting. In 1934 the U.S. goverment inventors came up with the most newest technological advacement, a combine machine that would seperate the seeds from the rest of the plant.
The American medical assoc. states that marijuana is the most safest theraputical drug known to mankind, also to this day the federal goverment thru the DEA and other U.S. agencies have marijuana grown at the University of Mississipi for 7 patients who enrolled in a federal program in 1978 whereby the goverment provides these patients with thier yearly supply of medical marijuana, this goverment grown marijuana is rolled into 300 joints and placed in a tin canisterand shipped to each patients pharmacy on a monthly basis, and this isbeen ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, that the goverment must comply with the program and its original patients, to supply them marijuana!
I in fact, I was in Court Friday august 21, 2009 for a hearing on a ruling by the Oxford County Superior court Judge Roland Cole which ruled that the Maine drug enforcement Agency and the Oxford Co. Sherriff's Dept. Illegally confiscated my legal amount of Useable medical marijuana and order in open court to the AAG. to return it along with rolling papers,six marijuana plants and pruning shears. This was agreed to by the AAG prosecutor. On friday the case was continued, I believe the property ordered returned has been destroyed, which means I will have to be reimbursed it's value, and according to the proffessionals of the State,the MDEA(Maine drug Enforcement Agency) just the value of the six plants exceed $24,000.00. And because of my legal property being illegaly seized I had no supply for the year , so my physician had to put me on the prescription for synthetic THC(marinol). I am disabled and on Mainecare so it cast the Taxpayers of Maine for my 12 months of the prescription at $1500.00 per month, you canfigure that price out, thank you Gautier for paying!
Dont let the Town selectmen
Dont let the Town selectmen fill your ears with bullshi...t, we have Laws to proptect us and our property, and we also have this thing their unaware of called the constitution!!
File a small claims case against the Town of Peru and let a judge determine if they owe you! Its not God driving those plow trucks, and why does the State of Maine require all the Towns vehicles be insured? which we the taxpayers fund!! Stick up for yourself, the Town or any else wont!!
_____________________________________________
16 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0016
Longtime Buildings and Fences Law
The boundaries of a road may be changed by the long existence of buildings and fences in the right of way (23 M.R.S.A. § 2952). The length of time required will depend on whether the road boundaries are known or unknown in the first place. This law is an exception to the well established rule that public property cannot be taken by adverse possession (Town of Sedgwick v. Butler, 1998 ME 280, 722 A.2d 357) or by prescriptive use (Libby v. Tobey, 82 Me. 391 (1890)). This law is not really a method to establish road boundaries; it is more accurately a limitation on the town's ability to set road boundaries. Boundaries Unknown. Where the road boundaries are unknown and cannot be made certain by records or monuments, any buildings or fences fronting the road which have been in existence more than 20 years will be deemed to be the true bounds of the road. For example, if the road boundaries are unknown, and there is a IOO-year old stone wall abutting each side of the road, those walls will be the boundaries. This law should not be used by the town to take property for highway purposes. For example, where the boundaries ofa road are unknown, but there is a stone wall 200 feet back from the travel way, the town should not claim that the stone wall is the road boundary, because that wall does not really "front" the road. In that situation, it is more appropriate to use the Lost Boundary Statute or some other method for determining the true bounds.
Boundaries Known. Where the road boundaries are known, any building or fence which encroaches within these bounds and is allowed to remain there for 40 years or more will be deemed to exist legally, and thus will narrow the true boundary of the road. It is very important, therefore, to prevent such encroachments. Note that this provision applies only to the extent that the building or fence physically exists. For example, a road is 2 miles long and 40 feet wide (boundaries are known). A 20o-foot long chicken barn was built 50 years ago and it encroaches 4 feet into the road boundary. The barn is now legally allowed to remain, and the road width is 36 feet for the length of the barn. The remainder of the road is still 40 feet wide.
In view of23 M.R.S.A. § 2952, municipal officials should be attentive to buildings and fences near or within road boundaries, and should take steps to remove them (see Chapter 6) before the statute protects their encroachment. MOOT has the authority to establish he boundaries of state and state aid highways under 23 M.R.S.A. § 653.
b§7551-B. Trespass
b§7551-B. Trespass damages
1. Prohibition. A person who intentionally enters the land of another without permission and causes damage to property is liable to the owner in a civil action if the person:
A. Damages or throws down any fence, bar or gate; leaves a gate open; breaks glass; damages any road, drainage ditch, culvert, bridge, sign or paint marking; or does other damage to any structure on property not that person's own; or [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
B. Throws, drops, deposits, discards, dumps or otherwise disposes of litter, as defined in Title 17, section 2263, subsection 2, in any manner or amount, on property not that person's own. [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
2. Liability. If the damage to the property is caused intentionally, the person is liable to the owner for 2 times the owner's actual damages plus any additional costs recoverable under subsection 3, paragraphs B and C. If the damage to the property is not caused intentionally, the person is liable to the owner for the owner's actual damages plus any additional costs recoverable under subsection 3, paragraphs B and C.
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
3. Damages recoverable. The owner's damages include:
A. Actual damages, as measured by subsection 4; [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
B. Costs the owner may incur if the damage results in a violation of any federal, state or local law or ordinance and, as a result, the owner becomes the subject of an enforcement proceeding. These costs include attorney's fees, costs and the value of the owner's time spent on involvement in the enforcement proceeding; and [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
C. Reasonable attorney's fees for preparing the claim and bringing the court action under this section plus costs. [1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW).]
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
4. Measure of damages. For damage to property under subsection 1, paragraph A, the owner's damages may be measured either by the replacement value of the damaged property or by the cost of repairing the damaged property. For damages for disposing of litter, the owner's damages include the direct costs associated with properly disposing of the litter, including obtaining permits, and the costs associated with any site remediation work undertaken as a result of the litter.
[ 1995, c. 585, §1 (NEW) .]
5. Other actions barred. A recovery from a defendant under this section bars an action to recover damages under section 7552 from that defendant for the same specific damage.
bosefus