Then again, in fscking Virginia, you can make your neighbor help pay for your fence.

The feud started like this: In 1989, about four years after he’d arrived in Caroline, Ames sent each of his neighbors a registered letter announcing his plans to build a new fence. He informed them that, under an 1887 fence law, they would be required to pay for half of whatever section of it ran along their shared property line. Some neighbors would be on the hook for $6,000, some for $12,000. Perry Brooks’s share would be more than $45,000.

Rule of law my ass.

you almost got that right: The law is an ass.

Every wonder why old homes in the South have large oak trees surrounding them, because it is a lot cooler in the shade even with steambath humidity. Not to mention all the photosynthesis from the foliage saves you from having to drive your Prius with the A/C on high down to the oxygen bar for an inhale with the other Smug bastards.

Are you sure they were criminally prosecuted for having the tree? I suspect if you look you will find that they were found in criminal contempt for failing to obey a court’s lawful order.

This isn’t going to sound very cordial, but what the hell is the difference? The homeowner was still deprived of his Constitutional rights under color of authority by a criminal. That the thief was wearing a black robe matters not to me.

Remember: when a jackboot is crushing your larynx, it would be wise to set aside your argument about whether it’s the left boot or the right boot until you can breathe.

If they don’t like the law, they should either work to change it or move.

Mark me down for the second fucking option, if that is how this bloody state is going to handle patently idiotic situations such as this one. Actually, mark me down for the second option, period – living in Kalifornistan is, in no way, worth it.

Just remember, this state is the one that will start controlling your thermostat next year, was instrumental in the banning of incandescent bulbs of just about any variety, is trying to ban smoking in mutli-family complexes (like condos and apartments) due to possibilities of the chemicals leaking through the walls (Yes, that is their rationale – not sure if the law made it, though.), and all manner of other patently stupid, intrustive, nanny-state-ish, controlling laws.

Yes, the rule of the law is the rule of the law. However, the law is here to serve the people, not the other goddamned way around.

Didn’t think it could happen here? You would be wrong.

Rule of law my ass. This is about using force to impose the values of one person upon another. Rule of law would have respect for private property — something that is absent in both of these stories.

Obey a judge no matter what he says? When and where did they get made King of their domain?

Are you sure they were criminally prosecuted for having the tree?

I’m 100% not sure since it’s a news account. But the original article said they were.

While I agree that there should not be an implied easement for light and air, that is the law in California. This isn’t about the trees, it is about the rule of law. If they don’t like the law, they should either work to change it or move. They do not have the option of civil disobedience unless they are willing to accept the risks inherent in that tact.