New York City couple faces criminal charges for violating Skaneateles rental law

[loveunderlaw]

Authorities say a New York City couple faces criminal charges for refusing to obey a new Skaneateles village law banning short-term property rentals, such as those advertised on the website Airbnb.

The village has accused Nicholas E. McKeon III and Kathryn McKeon, of renting out their properties for less than 30 days in violation of the law banning short-term rentals. They own 35 Jordan St. and 21 E. Lake St, two of about a dozen properties village officials say are in violation of the law.

Onondaga County property records also show them as owners of 46 East St., but that home is not on the village's list of properties that village officials says are violating the new law.

http://tinyurl.com/zcthvjv


As Ron Paul used to say, "the banks own everything, you don't even own your own home".

[allodial]

As Ron Paul used to say, "the banks own everything, you don't even own your own home".

If they had a mortgage on the property and the property was effectively signed over to the bank in the deed of trust, the bank would be the effective owner. The bank as a creature of state then would be subject to every law to which creatures of state would be subject. Furthermore, the 'borrowers' would likely be deemed to be servants/employees (ala debt) to the bank.

***

The short-term rental "law" sound like the village is becoming as annoying as an invasive HOA.

[David Merrill]

I am associating the encroachment on property rights to home rule. Home rule is turning global anymore and seems to be a very high municipal jurisdiction. I believe that when the home rule legislation becomes contradictory to the constitutions that form home rule, then the authority becomes force.

[allodial]

I am associating the encroachment on property rights to home rule. Home rule is turning global anymore and seems to be a very high municipal jurisdiction. I believe that when the home rule legislation becomes contradictory to the constitutions that form home rule, then the authority becomes force.

I recall discussing that case with you. Good point. The impression I get of home rule cities and independent cities is that they are akin to colonies of the state. The Organic Laws of the United States of America, it seems still apply. I suspect if Rick Stanley could have asserted being in the county it might have been quite different. Also, I get the impression that in order to be "in a city" one has to have corporate existence. Wouldn't surprise me if he was likely regarded to be a resident of the city already. Wasn't that the case?

In Missouri, you have St. Louis County (a county which contains lots of municipal corporations), St. Louis City (a county) and The City of St. Louis (a municipal corporation and independent city that is technically contained in the county called St. Louis City). If your address is something "...St. Louis, Missouri" it could be any of the three.

The governmental structure of the City of St. Louis is unusual in the United States. Since 1876, St. Louis has been an independent city, meaning it is not part of any county. St. Louis operates as both a city and a county. St. Louis is the only city in Missouri which operates its own "county" offices. St. Louis is a home rule city, but it is not a home rule county, thus county functions and offices are subject to state restrictions on county governments. (St. Louis City government website)

So there is a county and there is an independent city. The city of course only operates on that which is surely in its jurisdiction (city buildings, city parking lots, etc.). The city does not have arbitrary power or jurisdiction over everyone in St. Louis City (county). If a person that is a member or subject of The City of St. Louis municipal corporation has a complaint, then likely the sheriff will tell that person to complain to the mayor.

On Missouri revenue forms, the filer is asked what COUNTY they reside in. <<<

I believe that when the home rule legislation becomes contradictory to the constitutions that form home rule, then the authority becomes force.

I suspect that such force could only lawfully operates on things corporate. If you fail to associate with the blood or with life...then perhaps you're fair game?

***

The City and County of Denver, the County of St. Louis City, the City of St. Louis and the City and County of San Francisco all have one thing in common AFAIK: there are city officers and there are county officers even when the city's external boundaries coincide with the county's external boundaries.

In St. Louis City, for example both the sheriff and the revenue collector are county officers. The treasurer is technically the Treasurer of the St. Louis City (county officer) but is also treasurer with respect to The City of St. Louis (ex officio).

Police officer: Do you live in the city?

Of course, there are the Five Boroughs of New York City. Even upon close inspection, I suspect one will find county officers lurking between the lines.

Five of New York's counties are each coextensive with one of the five boroughs of New York City and do not have county governments. They are: New York County (Borough of Manhattan), Kings County (Borough of Brooklyn), Bronx County (Borough of the Bronx), Richmond County (Borough of Staten Island), and Queens County (Borough of Queens).

Lacking government as in "executive departments", doesn't mean the sovereignty authority isn't there in some other form.

[David Merrill]

Yes. That reminds me of a point. The City of Denver consumes the entire County of Denver.

Downtown Denver has the university where the Municipal League is archived. I spent a few hours there. Somebody from Sui Juris paid me to collect METRO 1313 information and the archives were in transition so the archiver just let me go to town. I recited an entire book about METRO 1313 here and so will not elaborate again.

I wonder about your model, about colonies. A UN Colony?

[allodial]

Yes. That reminds me of a point. The City of Denver consumes the entire County of Denver.

Downtown Denver has the university where the Municipal League is archived. I spent a few hours there. Somebody from Sui Juris paid me to collect METRO 1313 information and the archives were in transition so the archiver just let me go to town. I recited an entire book about METRO 1313 here and so will not elaborate again.

I wonder about your model, about colonies. A UN Colony?

I came across one or more articles or books on home rule cities. One went as far to suggest the home rule city to be just the same as a colony of its state. In Missouri, the legislature regards the independent city called The City of St. Louis to be in its 'territory' or to be its territory. Considering various factors such as the ignorance that has caused governors ant state actors to yield to U.S. territorial jurisdiction which is inapplicable to the several sovereign states of America, it is likely that the UN territorial jurisdiction has crept in with misconstruction of the limits of U.S. territorial jurisdiction.

The 14th amendment I suspect made citizens of the United States resident of the district wherein they reside. Territorial jurisdiction could be unsightly unless adequately restrained.

***

In the St. Louis area, St. Louis County balked at issuing "Gay Marriage Licenses". The mayor of The City of St. Louis got word (from the Feds or from the State AG) that the City of St. Louis could issue them due to lack of any legal impediments (really they were admitting that the Feds had zero authority to tell the states to issue marriage licenses and probably were hoping the mayor of St. Louis's issuance of the would have cognitively impaired herd follow). Since the City of St. Louis is a territory, the state constitutional restriction does not apply--although it DOES apply to the county called St. Louis City. That the mayor was issuing marriages licenses not the county is tacit admission that SCOTUS cannot legislate to anything but the territories. Those not getting the differences between The City of St. Louis and the counties of the state of Missouri might make major cognitive errors. Keep in mind the city has zero authority over the county (which is a subdivision of the state).

(Might the whole gay marriage thing is really a 'smoke test' for the encroachment of territorial jurisdiction? Terra nullis, civil death presumed up to the county external borders, international jurisdiction: same thing?)

So while it may be unlawful for SCOTUS to legislate to the several states, the same restriction may not apply with respect to the territories or the District. So if one sees SCOTUS legislating, then perhaps its rather easy to know who its legislating to.
***

P.S. It might be worth noting that when it came to the divide between St. Louis City and St. Louis County, the dividing line was heavily like this: the Protestants went with St. Louis County and the Roman Catholics went with the City. Stark racial dividing lines that exist in the City (i.e. the St. Louis City and The City of St. Louis 'cojoint') don't quite exist in the County (i.e. St. Louis County and its municipalities) although the attorneys that sit in municipal courts in the County aren't necessarily county folk. It would be most interesting if judges and cops were required to make their religion and nationalities public.

My take is that the Constitution for the United States of America and/or the Northwest Ordinance established a territorial government of the United States. As in "districts" are "states" but they are neither free, sovereign nor independent states. The power of the president of the United States or the U.S. Congress to bind territories does not extend to the sovereign states. However, "dead zones" caused by municipal corporations 'consuming' counties might give rise to a kind of territorial jurisdiction: METRO.

[allodial]

Here's a start on the home rule city as colony connection:

Dillon's Rule -- The Birth of Home Rule
.

In any case, territorial authority of the United States Congress, POTUS or SCOTUS would be by definition strictly limited to the territories of the United States. And any treaty or executive agreement pertinent to the United Nations might necessarily have the same limitations. If it be true that states of America by joining the Constitutional USA yielded (i.e. merged) their territorial jurisdiction (and merged their respective territories), then it would follow that in a home rule city, a home rule 'consumed county' or an independent city would be akin to a territory outside of the state constitution but still subject to the organic laws of the United States of America. Is that not the case?

Do you live in "the City"?

[David Merrill]

I believe I broke that down with the default and bonding paid ($11T) around this state court prayer.

The CITY OF XXX being a colony of the State through the home rule constitutional authority is quite helpful. Thank you. I am still fuzzy on the Triumvirate, District, State District, Federal Reserve District, METRO, Municipal League etc. What and where are the boundaries?

Is drawing the line mental? Is it that easy? Understand it and it is yours? This reminds me of watching the entire serial Fringe. Walter and William were tripping on LSD in college and decided that if they could imagine an alternate universe they could create it!

I had already made that distinction you point out. Colorado Springs does not cover the entirety of El Paso County but Denver County, the model in the state constitution is completely covered by the City of Denver. There seems to have been and may still be a religious model (Protestant and Catholic) distinction on Saint Louis - where apparently the County is much larger than the CITY OF...

That model is being integrated. I enjoy this website immensely.

[allodial]

The CITY OF XXX being a colony of the State through the home rule constitutional authority is quite helpful. Thank you. I am still fuzzy on the Triumvirate, District, State District, Federal Reserve District, METRO, Municipal League etc. What and where are the boundaries?

As to the boundaries and such, I suspect that you already have it sussed: Bretton Woods & c. (i.e. monetary unions) and assorted mental models and imaginary lines. Private credit vs. lawful money. Is the Federal Reserve System a monetary union internal to the United States? Note that each of the Federal Reserve banks is in a CITY.

The Governments signatory hereto,
...
(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact: and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.[/B]

Government as in executive departments, as in 'executive agreements' between the executive departments of disparate states? Compacts between territorial bosses? Territorial merger?

Is drawing the line mental? Is it that easy? Understand it and it is yours? This reminds me of watching the entire serial Fringe. Walter and William were tripping on LSD in college and decided that if they could imagine an alternate universe they could create it!

I had already made that distinction you point out. Colorado Springs does not cover the entirety of El Paso County but Denver County, the model in the state constitution is completely covered by the City of Denver. There seems to have been and may still be a religious model (Protestant and Catholic) distinction on Saint Louis - where apparently the County is much larger than the CITY OF...

That model is being integrated. I enjoy this website immensely.

Consider that the "Catholic-Protestant paradigm" (or is it really a Subject-Born -- Freeborn paradigm?) had Canada in flux: re. Upper Canada (non-Catholic and Protestant, English common law), Lower Canada (Roman Catholic, French civil law) and the Act of Union of 1840 (aka British North America Act of 1840). Consider, what are freeborn sovereigns supposed to do with the natural-born subjects of another sovereign since dissimilar things cannot join together? Rome doesn't want to lose its subjects to other ideologies. Life doesn't want to be swallowed up of the dead. How do the living and the civilly dead get along? Quandry? Is it impolite to wake the dead? There seems to some interesting parallels with: the doctrine of original sin -> born dead / born in debt vs being born innocent. Debt as a transmittable disease seems to be a very much related to a style of doctrine of original sin.