Property Rights

Editing in Progress

2006-10-12T09:29:00.000-07:00

Any or all posts and archives are routinely edited, regardless of their (apparent) Date Stamp(s). Suddenly, there have been zero visitors to this blog for many months. I wonder what is wrong with it.

The Sovereign Racist State

2006-09-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

Arbitrary hypocrisy (we can and you cannot) is the most readily recognizable, and simultaneously, the most appealing method for promoting a supremacist ideology among the simple minded, since it disregards the requirement of verifiable or substantial evidence for holding said belief or doctrine, and so, all similar (supremacist) ideologies or theologies seek to create some manner of sovereign [racist] state for [their] indoctrinated members, naturally conferring all privileges, opportunities, and "Rights" ( eg. Property Rights) exclusively on it's certified adherents, while discriminately or capriciously denying the same for infidels/apostates. Theocratic laws generally are directed towards creating arbitrary inequalities among persons, whereas secular laws are generally intended to establish the highest level of equality possible between individuals. Where a creed driven cult or group succeeds in reaching a critical mass of adherents, they will typically attempt to establish arbitrary laws for the purpose of segregation, or, in a worst case, advocate genocide, in addition to their other attempts to coerse conformity.

In the absence of abundant examples of unfair (arbitrary) hypocrisy and discrimination, protective Human Rights legislation and Property Rights legislation, at least as [it] exists today, would consequently be far more limited in it's scope, in so-called democratic "secular" States.

Even though it might be novel (and seem passing strange) to characterize "bungalow dwelling" as an ideology,or creed, non-the-less, some bungalow dwellers insist that: Only bungalow dwellers ( like-appearing and like-minded persons), can and should have, the exclusive and insulting legal "Right" to live "near" other bungalow dwellers, and will conspire with other like-minded ( shallow-minded) individuals, in an attempt to enforce this exclusionary belief/credo.

Notably at odds with this "credo", most people have been brainwashed into believing that the "opportunity" of private ownership is accompanied by the burden of "paying" for such things as you wish to privately "own" and exercise "ownership control" over. This legally "protected" and predictable circumstance is effectively bypassed when a government chooses to impose "capricious" restrictions on private property use, for the supposed "benefit" of a favored few. A hypothetical example of a capricious restriction would be: You can own any vehicle you wish, but you cannot operate or store it unless it is a Rolls Royce, or, equally unaffordable "basic" transportation. Since this "rule" applies to everyone "equally", it obviously cannot be discriminatory.

Warped logic intended to fit the cause.

Speaking of "not discriminatory": Both the "Canadian Human Rights Act", as well as, the "Ontario Human Rights Code", should be interpreted as recognizing the "Right" of everyone to live in the place (owned or rented accommodation) they choose, however, the "Ontario Human Rights Commission", staffed by individuals indoctrinated into an "alternate" (supremacist) ideology, resort to diversionary tactics (incomprehensible interpretations) or petulant silence, hoping for the matter to be relegated and fade into the ever darkening shroud of antiquity, in order to avoid "inclusive"[ness] in this alleged "Universal Right"( includes everyone equally), when they are informed of an infringement of that clearly stated "Universal legal Right", which has been contemptuously imposed on an allegedly "culturally inferior" and undeserving of respect, minority group or individual.

They (for example) insist that accommodation, in any way connected to land "use" (land bound "basic" accommodation), is: [A] land use dispute with a "Municipality" ( not captured by the "Code"), neatly avoiding the inescapable conclusion that: ONLY luxurious (exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. floor area) accommodations are included in their "legal" interpretation of accommodations. This blatantly politically convenient interpretation (if consistently applied) would/could provide an "opportunity" to deny a person intending to "rent" a room which is less than 1,000 sq. ft., their legal "Right" to accommodation/occupancy of that room.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Consistent with this clumsily camoflaged racist hypocrisy, "Prince Edward County" resorts to inconsistent interpretations of it's "By-Laws", in order to create exclusive neighborhoods ( defacto racist sovereign states) for bungalow dwellers, which would or should (by dint of disciplined or "secular" reasoning), include a written or unwritten provision for "basic" accommodations, incorporated within the ordinarily allowable (sufficiently benign) "zoned" land uses.
The technique for accomplishing their goal, is: to inconsistently interpret "By-Laws" which require the obtaining of a permit such as a well permit, septic permit, or building permits, as a prohibition ( not permitted=prohibited) whenever it is politically ( ideologically) convenient to do so, regardless of any and all relevent and applicable "Acts" or "Laws".

Ergo: [They] consider peasants a distinct and undesirable species (or race), inferior to and unacceptably different from what they define as real Humans, and resort to *persecution, and, *deprivation of ordinary and legal "services", by implying that "not permitted" in [their] By-Laws means "prohibited", if peasants attempt to occupy their own properties in an unduly benign (and therefore unlawful??) manner,... should those properties happen to be too close to ( exhalted supremacists) bungalow dwellers. In order to prevent such an unacceptable contamination, peasants will be subject to harassing intimidation (persecution) for even the most ridiculously bizarre and specious allegations like: Sleeping unseen is a punishable "Provincial Offense", and mendacious assertions that there is no "Constitutional Right" (express or implied) to basic shelter from the elements.

This combination of intrigues, if left unchallenged, would render ( expose?) the "Ontario Human Rights Code" as nothing more than political "decorative frosting" of no legal substance or consequence, on a cake made entirely of (surprise, surprise) unpalatable floor sweepings and fly droppings (empty promises of justice),... reflective of the contemptuousness of [a] Marie Antoinette, Leona Helmsley,... or their cold blooded equivalent! What heights of maladjustment and debauchery has a government scaled when it conspires and wrongfully attempts to "enforce" wallowing in imprudent ostentation as a "legal obligation" of all citizens?

It should be noted that under the conditions of what has recently become euphemistically refered to as a "Unitary Executive", there are no "Laws", in the sense of no enforceable "Laws", with the notable exception of those: cowardly (leading from the rear) and corruptly (and usually secretly) imposed by Force of Arms. It takes little character or courage (therefore lacks honor) to point a gun (intimidation) at an obviously harmless and unarmed civilian. One can hardly refer to such a circumstance as the conditions of "Rule of Law" or of a secular democracy.

"For Lies are sufficient to breed Opinion, and Opinion brings on substance."
Francis Bacon essay, 1625, "Of Vaine-Glory"

The Origins

2006-09-20T09:20:00.000-07:00

In societies where "Property Rights" are neither explicitly nor implicitly recognized, and literally everything belongs to the community, and therefore, where no single person or group has any authority what-so-ever over other persons or objects, conditions of slavery (at least theoretically) cannot exist. Under such conditions, there would not even be a recognized "Right" of self defense, although, some manner of opportunity or advantage would in some cases continue to exist under the Law of Fang and Claw (force of arms). Even if it might be a somewhat casual assignment of definitions, it does not seem like too much of a stretch to characterize this as a Lawless state.

In such a Lawless state, even if the need of "Courts" existed, their actualization would be a matter of evolutionary developments, likely as a result of two or more individuals finding a way to co-operate in mutual self defense. This co-operation may, or may not have been, the result of a conspiracy to overcome a disadvantage in the face of a perceived threat, like a large predator or overcoming an environmental hazard, or perhaps had it's origins in [a] successful hunt.

It is when this necessary and seemingly innate ability to co-operate, mutates into a conspiracy to join in a predatory attack against members of ones' own group, that a wide-spread propagation of mutual alliances and institutions becomes necessary for survival. In time these institutions become formalized as written Laws, enforcement organizations, and adjudicating "Courts", in order to prevent, or contain otherwise unrestrained abuses, or in a worst case, even slaughters.

All this, to recognize that there are vulnerable individuals or groups, who at the very least, are in dire need of protections from aggression and predation, provided in the form of institutionalized and diligently enforced "Legal Rights".

Where have we been?

2006-09-15T19:30:00.000-07:00

A single, well armed predator, should theoretically be self-sufficient in the "hunt" for prey, have little need of communication skills, and require the unbeckoned co-operation of little other than marginal to acceptable environmental conditions, unlike predators with fewer inherent deadly "weapons".
Prior to the development of more advanced language skills, when grunts and gestures were sufficient for organizing the "hunt" amongst groups of these less-well-armed predators, conspiracies were limited to serving immediate, short-term goals, and generally were of benefit to the group as a whole.
Since then, language has evolved beyond simply directing the hunt for food, into areas of persuasion, manipulation, intimidation, and even deception, permitting a wider spectrum of potential "victims", and farther reaching objectives, often as not serving an ever shrinking proportion of the "group".
At the same time it has developed into a handy and rapid method for transfering and storing various other insights or information.

Hanging a "bell" on the cat's neck.

2006-08-12T05:40:00.000-07:00

View across the road, 1966-2005

2006-07-25T07:15:00.000-07:00

An obviously serious and dangerous "situation"! A neglected, and therefore nature-blighted hell-hole, at the very periphery of: the outermost limits of nowhere. If this area is not covered with bungalows and other "objects of worship" immediately, then society as we know it is in imminent danger of collapse.

Peasants naively paying for property means nothing.

2006-04-18T14:48:00.000-07:00

It violates our occult Satanic covenants, if: Peasants are seen to be enjoying views like this on OUR land as if THEY owned it. We believe that most citizens of Ontario, indeed most of the people of the world, would like to own, as well as "use", a property with a view like this, which makes it an asset, rather than a useless burden.
Clue: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours assets.

Click on any picture to enlarge

or like this!

2006-04-18T14:46:00.000-07:00

Peasants may only see views like this...

2006-04-18T14:40:00.000-07:00

This is a much improved state, compared with the original condition of our property. The first 100 ft back from the road is cleared and backfilled. Note the beautifully efficient, recently installed culvert at the lower left corner!... O.K., just a bit sarcastic.___Believe it or not, the "lake" is not in this picture. It is out of view to your lower left corner. Why hurry to harass anyone who is just beginning to upgrade, and attempting to make "use" of a property which is in this condition?

A terrific view or what? A site (sight?) suitable for peasants to foolishly upgrade. Let them fix it up,... and then we'll run 'em off.

and this !

2006-04-18T14:35:00.000-07:00

Damn lazy peasants,... don't look like they will ever get done.
We now have "dry" access to the shore, 250-300 ft. away from the road.

Continued in the archives.

Municipal Act 1990, excerpt,... Who knew? How about people who routinely (indicates foreknowledge) deal with terms like "not permitted"?

2006-04-06T02:58:00.000-07:00

The ordinary "status" of "not permitted", established by multiple precedents is: a "permit" or "license" is required, consistent with the "Municipal Act". Accompanied by an "order" to remove trailers,... is an attempt to imply a draconian and fraudulent "prohibition".

The use of trailers on privately held lands except Municipally licensed trailer camps, in other words: the non-commercial "use(s)" of trailers on private property
[A done-by-hand cut and paste] In order to create the world's most berserk and malicious "Provincial Offense", Prince Edward County will disregard any "inconvenient" guidance contained in any higher lawful authority.

Salvaging a seasonally flooded jungle!

2006-04-02T18:27:00.000-07:00

Besides the unrelenting aggravation of trying to get spring run-off directed past our property ( a legal duty of the municipality) in a sensible and competent manner, like everyone else seems to be able to arrange, rather than, directed onto our property,...we have over 250 X 75 feet of clearing and backfilling on a single "building lot" to get done! An "opportunity" for peasants, if ever there was one! Fall of 1985; the "dry" season.

Getting settled in....temporarily!

2006-04-02T18:21:00.000-07:00

After our lot, which happens to be 25 km. from the nearest town, is cleared of overgrowth, and back-filled high and dry, down to the shoreline, so it will "accommodate" something other than amphibians.

Photographic"proof" of infidels to the creed of mammon, defiantly "sleeping unseen" on OUR "creeded" (ha ha) property, during broad daylight!

2006-04-02T18:11:00.000-07:00

Note the spectacular "cult(urally) acceptable" hovel next door to us, which entitles the occupants to sleep indoors, unoppressed. Peons and peasants are the only category of persons subject to "officially sanctioned" demonization and gleeful harassment by all other "groups". Click on picture to enlarge.
Get this; We have been publicly accused of lowering property values, even though the property tax assessments, which are a matter of public record and knowledge, say different. Clue: Bearing false witness. No percentage in letting facts intrude when you're conducting a scatter-gun smear campaign.
Demonizing and hate mongering is a typical precursor to land seizure. See: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/
thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html

Smashing good times,...a jackboot minuet in the twilight zone.

2006-03-31T09:55:00.000-08:00

Last Update: Oct. 12/2006___THE TRUTH ALREADY EXISTS,... A FALSEHOOD MUST BE CREATED___ High up in the rarified airs of societies hierarchy, featherless vulture-like entities observe the goings on below, furtive and alert for the slightest stumble, or, hint of inattention down below. This shadowy flock includes: those who are already affluent (yet dissatisfied non-the-less), conniving autocrats, and gluttonous bureaucrats,... aided and abetted by their see-no-evil underlings, in spite of it being well known that: "We were just following orders", doesn't wash as a defense anymore. Their collective strategy is to resurrect and re-impose " The Divine Right of Kings", to which we need only add the suffix of: et al.

Down on the lower lands, dwell more ordinary ( less nettlesome and malicious) folk, upon whom rains the territorial "markings" and such, of the reigning "upper" classes. It is always best not to be too far down-hill, where their foam-mouthed sputtering and venomous rants (which may be an occasional annoyance for whomever the fates happen to have provided the escape of slightly higher ground), becomes a torrent of intimidation and defamation, the further downhill one gets,..., which makes life for those unfortunates, foundering and wallowing at the bottom, oppressive and unpleasant indeed.

In an effort to somewhat alleviate this radical and embittering disparity, an attempt has been made to arrange for a more fair society, premised on restraining undue influence and unaccountable governance. A significant risk to this "plan" occurs if a group of conniving scoundrels or aspiring criminals, somehow succeed in laying claim to special "entitlements" or "immunity", under a colourful banner like Illuminati ( enlightened ones), The Chosen Ones, or similarly grandiose titles, in order to uniquely excuse or justify, contemptuously interfering with the proper workings of a democracy, by escaping accountability for exercising abusive and unsanctioned, predatory conduct.
Imagine if you will, a "State" which exists primarily to provide sanctuary and sovereign immunity for an elite class of criminals!

It is the worst of ideas to have a "cult" or "creed" with it's narrow exclusionary beliefs or covenants, grip the jugular of a supposedly secular government, and thereby, gain a heavy-handed "facility", for enforcing it's discriminatory whims and caprices, brandishing (actually feigning) the "colour" of law.

It is obvious that: hypocrisy ( we can and you can't) embedded in legislation, is evidence of a corrupt attempt to distinguish between a "better" and a "lesser" class of persons in "Law", and to impose insulting and degrading conditions on the "lesser" classes. In this vein, one must be careful to determine if: the stated purpose of [a] written or proposed law, is in fact [the] true and limited purpose of that law, and, not just a ruse,...surreptitiously creating a legal "trap" or "loop-hole", which might for example, deceitfully legalize theft and fraud for a select few, through the use of unduly vague or esoteric weasel words, benefiting a small nefarious clique, at the expense of true "public" interests, i.e., a falsehood must be created.

Most people, would certainly be shocked to find such odious demands explicitly written into allegedly enforceable "Law", and, appalled at the assertion that despicable interpretations leading to "selective entitlement", could ever be attempted in "good conscience" by those in the "public" Legal community.
A deceitful government ( includes everyone who gets a government paycheck, even indirectly, for service rendered), under the "influence"of a creed or cult, inexorably abandons it's proper role as: the trustworthy and impartial servant of "all" the people, and will be at least inclined, and, maybe obsessed with: conspiring to impose hypocritical restrictions, on anyone not "blessed" by [their] malignant creed.

ANYONE WHO CANNOT OR WILL NOT MAINTAIN A SPECTACULAR LIFESTYLE, DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED AND PERSECUTED

We have unfortunately stumbled upon a situation, where the truth has become enshrouded in a web of "institutionalized" fiction.
In part, due to the success of incessant promotion and mass marketing of a __ keep up with the Jones's __ culture of over-extended credit and ostentation, a few indoctrinated self-aggrandizing poseurs, who dwell an incredible 25 Km from the nearest town, have somehow mentally equated the rather mundane and ordinary activity of living in a "real" house ( over 1,000 sq. ft. floor area) with: Pre-eminent social rank, and,... legal entitlement to unlimited dictatorial powers over anyone and anything they choose.

In the context of a democracy, this sort of excessive self-importance could be characterized as: A person in possession of the (self-pleasing) voice and musical instincts of a standard jackass,... harbouring delusional ambitions of successfully auditioning for the singing lead in a major opera company. No-one is legally entitled to subject anyone else to abject subservience (ie) treatment as a slave.

Moreover, this overblown presumption of elite status, is also presumed to self-justify or entirely excuse going public with various defamatory provocations, directed at us, and others, like: "infesting" the neighbourhood, and, sends the "wrong message", simply because in this case, [we] do not choose to needlessly subject ourselves to the discomfort, or, to the risks of: sleeping and eating "outside" on "our" own property,... deprived of the privacy and security ( the fundamental purpose) of at least basic shelter from the elements.

We would be interested in hearing a more comprehensive disclosure about the genus or species of inferior life forms that might: "infest" neighbourhoods, and perhaps, a more detailed explanation of what: the "wrong message", means.

Integrated within their malignantly perverse mindset, they seem have taken to imagining that they have some sort of inherent or legal "Right" to live in a "real" house themselves (Rights, do not require "permits" like: "building permits" issued by Municipalities), and, have presumed an entitlement, enforced by obedient proxies ( a.k.a. local government) to compel or restrict other property owners to: Building ( as immortalizing tributes/monuments to themselves) or living in what they would designate as "real" houses;... or, in the aloof parlance of autocrats: "roofed" accommodations.

So,...In their tiny self-centered world: The imposition ( on others) of imprudent luxury, is their enforceable legal Right, and that, basic accommodation is merely an offensive and preventable non-option; In other words: if you don't live in a real house ( like us) by "permission" of a Municipality, then, you don't have any enforceable legal Right to privacy and personal security ( like us).

This vacuous twaddle, which should by any reasonable standard be considered empty and fatuous bluster, is being flaunted as having the status of legitimate argument, and, implys that everyone else's fundamental necessities and "Rights" must take a back seat to their willy-nilly dictates.

Contrasting their spinny whimsy-go-round, ever shrinking universe of Munchausens byproxy, against the reality observed by ordinary citizens,... Even those convicted of the most heinous "Criminal Code" offenses, are not, and cannot be "legally" deprived for extended periods ( 30 days) of fundamental necessities ( written as "necessaries" in the "Criminal Code") like "basic shelter", by anyone including the "Courts" under the "legal" punishment guidelines.

Thus, it appears that: In their opinion: Anyone who is a dirt rich peasant/dirt poor peon, or at least appears to be a peasant/peon, has an assigned or generally acknowledged "lower than low" legal status, and therefore, entitled to less empathy and legal protections than even the most hardened or heinous convicted criminal.

What could possibly explain this poisonous attitude?

How about: Appearing to be a peon or peasant, is a rejection and an affront to everything their cult/creed stands for, like pridefulness and idolatry, thus, peons et. al. attract their unmitigated rejection and revulsion as automatically as a bodies immune system attacks a viral invasion,... unlike their attitude towards convicted felons.

Curious it is,... their inclination to arrogantly attempt to jackboot stomp on all "free" (in spite of no obvious wealth) persons fundamental necessities and equal legal "Rights", while remaining silent on the "Rights" of what the "Criminal Code" refers to as detainees. Do they not mind cozying up to and coddling criminals? Shouldn"t criminals be chained to a stake outside, at least to save on winter heating costs?

Ordinarily, we want to allow a generous amount of latitude for making a fool ( or creep extrordinaire) of ones-self in public, however, there is such a thing as going too far in the use of insulting and degrading comments, and/or, untruthful insinuations. One can only wonder: What other bizarre harangues can we expect to spew forth next from these self-inflating windbags? Maybe more of the same sort of outlandishly imprudent edicts, contemptuously portrayed as "enforceable" By-Laws,... something like:
Need or not,... everyone else is hereby ordered to: Drive a sufficiently garish (florescent scarlet?) Rolls Royce,... use $100/sheet toilet paper,... Only wear diamond studded "designer" clothing,... or, some other exuberantly frivolous nonsense; the ostensible purpose being: Their sardonically self-amusing intimidation and harassment of peasants; relying on the expectation that [they] can get away with it. No doubt their cronies in government believe that they have the legal Right to intimidate every-one into driving Rolls Royces and the like, but refrain from doing so because of the predictable political fall-out, however, intimidating minorities like peasants does not seem to pose such an unmanagable hurtle.

At any rate, their derisory boasting implies that: Trailer park trash, even if they technically own their own property amidst "us", "they" are legally(?) forbidden to play, and by "play" we mean eating or sleeping unseen,... in the same sand-box as everyone in our self-styled gilded class,... an elite class before the Law no less, in which we generously deign to include, and respect, anyone who "lives" in a rented bungalow as well.

Daring to suggest that: True, "Law respecting" citizens, do not in fact support their puffed-up view of themselves, or "worship" bungalows ( verbally gussied up to masquerade as palaces and castles ), is undoubtedly, no lesser apostacy than say ...: Galileo venturing to "erroneously" argue in favour of heliocentricity,... challenging the received ( imposed) wisdom of the day.

It is not hard to figure out that houses are simply cumbersome if not immoveable chattels, which by themselves, have very little influence on property ( land) values, since they are valued independently of [the] property, especially 25 Kms from the nearest town, where there is very little appealing infrastructure to justify a convenience premium, and, a very thin potential market to sell into, when and if, [you] make that choice. Imposing demonstrably senseless and capricious land "use" restrictions, unnecessarily constricts the working of a free and open marketplace, providing an unusual opportunity for vultures to "low-ball" offers, due to artificially restricting the number of potential buyers. Of course, this might work quite well for anyone who can get artificial restrictions modified or lifted at their convenience.

As a sidenote, the properties within the area in question, were subdivided in approx. 1966, and about 20% or more are still vacant, suggesting that whatever so-called "plans", are or were being harboured for this area, are/were largely the product of grandiose delusions and fantasizing, in stark defiance of realistic expectations. If there were any known "plans" for the County to be installing municipal water supplies, even within the span of the next 25 years, then it might be a little more credible to suggest that some such plans were a matter of "public knowledge", at least in it's broader sense, rather than privately concocted delusions.

Even if publicly known "plans" did exist, they are not always legally enforceable, since they may have been founded on legally insubstantial justifications like "planning convenience", or, intentional or inadvertant discrimination. Contrary to the wishs of some, these justifications do not have primacy in Law.

UNDERSTANDING THE REASONED GUIDANCE AND RELEVENT PROVISIONS OF THE "MUNICIPAL ACT''
Most reasonable persons would agree that: A typical"vacant", natural state property, poses no undue hazard to themselves, or, to society at large, otherwise, there probably would be no such thing as a natural state, or near natural state, "public" park of any sort, available for "use", because of the significant and inherent danger that it would represent. Who knows what a moron might propose, however, it is scornful and contemptuous dissembling, for anyone of moderate to exceptional intelligence to venture that: the "storage of a trailer"(mobile residence) on that afore-mentioned, otherwise vacant property, would amount to anything more than, a very modest "use" of that property, where ever that property might be located,... and, it is also, a verifiably "lawful" use. See exerpt above: The Municipal Act, Ch. M45, Sec. 210, s.s. 101(b)(c), 1990, Ontario, Canada:- {The use of trailers on private lands except Municipally licensed trailer camps}. Note: By-Laws must conform to, not circumvent or conflict with, inconvenient provisions of "The Municipal Act".
The use of the term "may", indicates that all of the relevant guidance (or restriction) is being provided by a higher "lawful" authority. Also note that "Courts" are not entitled to: "write" (new) Law as they please, or, to disregard, or intentionally misinterpret existing Law,... or, to sit in biased judgment. (More about this later.)

Nothing in this relevent Provincial legislation ( authorizing By-Laws) suggests that trailers are sufficiently "unattractive" that an outright ban on their sale, purchase , or storage is valid and/or mandatory, any more than "unattractive" persons must be required to wear brown paper bags over their head(s) in order to not give offense.
Apparently, the Municipality regards By-Laws which are intended to insult and humiliate, as valid and /or mandatory. We are eagerly awaiting such a "brown paper bag over the head By-Law", ratified and uniformly enforced.

PLUTOCRATIC CONTEMPT FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OTHERS - IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF INDICATING - NON SPECIFIC OR OCCULT RACISM AND HATRED
This probably explains why a previous land owner, in order to privately enforce their own vile and despicable, personal hate agenda, attempted to impose a private restrictive covenant on potential puchasers/new owners, effectively extending or continuing his own defacto property ownership, by denying the so-called "new owners", the sensible option of using trailers, even beyond when he no longer "legally" owned the land(s). We have good reason to believe that the previous owner had a uniquely intimate knowledge of the existing By-Laws, and non-enforceable interpretations, as well as the "Law" generally, and was therefore, forced to resort to the devious tactic of a private restrictive covenant, only (doubtfully) enforceable using contract or tort Law. This would mean opting for the less desirable option of having to hire lawyers privately, out of his own pocket, in an attempt to enforce this malicious, immoral, and unethical agenda, masquerading as a "gentleman's agreement", rather than conveniently having [the] taxpayers fund the enforcement of this hate based discrimination and social apartheid, relying on hate and insult based By-Laws. For reasons that no-one has divulged, the usefulness or effect of these covenants (if any where actually signed), conveniently and mysteriously expired in 1981, just prior to the ratification of "The Constitution".
Could it be that: arbitrary and unjustifiable draconian restrictions, which cannot be demonstrated to serve an overwhelming public interest, rather than merely a trivial private dictatorial interest, are "Un-Constitutional", therefore "legally" unenforceable and vexatious, every which way from Sunday?

If a government engages in making unwarranted threats against, or, making unjustified claims against citizens, then [it] is engaged in an attempt to legitimize or disguise extortion for solely political or economic purposes. Not everything done in the name of profit is legal,... not even by governments. To rise to the level of enforceable "legal validity", proposals or arguments must clear certain hurtles, and/or bear certain burdens, and frivolous demands simply do not cut muster.

Since our property was purchased in 1983, we were not made aware of these expired covenants at that time, however, we did accidentally discover their existence while doing related research.

SIMPLE LOGIC
IF,... someone "slept"(unseen), or, "ate" in that "trailer", one would need X-Ray eyes, to detect any optical difference compared with: simply storing an empty trailer. It still qualifies as a quite modest "use" of that property, which incidently, is a much more modest "land use" than: the arbitrary minimum floor area (and presumed "use"), required for the building of a so-called permanent type (house with a foundation) "residence", which would ordinarily be "permitted", and,... the use of a trailer, or, other basic shelter, is an economically prudent "use" of a small property which, as it happens, is 25 Km. from the nearest town.
See: the "Criminal Code", definition of: residence. A trailer is a "residence" for the purposes of this "Code", and, no-one ( even acting in an "official capacity") is entitled to deviate from or disregard [it's] definitions. Actually, there is no substantial reason to dismiss anything from an igloo/cave... to a castle, as: not qualifying as a "residence". At any rate, permanent implies that a substantially similar, more aggressive/intensive "land use", is allowable,... and is in fact allowed (precedence), without getting into the legal "hair-splitting" of whether someone is at the same address for "six months plus a day" or not.

This is clearly an attempt to cause economic harm to less affluent land owners ( in addition to myriad other insults), by unnecessarily and unreasonably imposing the burden of forcing them to seek "alternate" accommodation(s),... without compensation.

What kind of government, which knows full well that: Driving down a highway at 100 Km./hr is allowable behavior, in spite of the danger posed to others, as demonstrated by accident statistics, yet, has the unmitigated gall to conclude that sleeping in your own bed, on your own property no less, is sufficient grounds for prohibition and prosecution? Only two possibilities suggest themselves: A corrupt, and/or, an insanely malevolent government.

THE GUARDIANS OF THE HUMAN RIGHT TO CLEANSE YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.
Could an even nominally sane person propose that: sleeping unseen bothers your neighbors?
Should the legal council for a Municipality completely escape accountability if they advised that [it] is completely legal to engage in a stunt as malicious as: threatening prosecution for an allegedly *unduly benign(!?),... and therefore illegal(!?) *land use? What sort of unearthly ridiculous (inviting ridicule) accusation is *unduly benign(!?) except to showcase daring and mocking contempt for ordinary citizens. Feel free to check with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Before wasting your time, keep in mind that: Evidence is meaningless and reasoning has no merit, if [it] in any way infringes on a lawyers freedom to do as they damn well please.

Would the "Ontario Human Rights Commission" agree that unnecessarily humble ( code for: infidels to the creed of mammon) is a good enough reason to discriminately deprive a person of basic shelter, i.e., a residence in the place they choose to live? You will discover that peasants only have the "Right" to live where they are told to live, by someone ( i.e. anyone) else, unlike true humans. Feel free to check with them.

Is it within the ordinary guidelines of punishment, for a competent "Court" (besides their authority to impose "proportional" fines), to seriously consider forbidding basic shelter,... knowingly and cavalierly ordering someone by default, to sleep outside, as "unintended" punishment for something as dangerous to the public as sleeping indoors (unseen),... and thereby, expressing wanton disregard for the insulting and degrading, total loss of privacy and personal security that would ensue?

A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
There is no discernible logic in suggesting that: a small number of persons "sleeping unseen" on their own property should cause any more anxiety, or, attract any more attention than say,...some gently fluttering leaves ,... much less, urgently needs to be forcefully extirpated; by coaxing (us) with the spectacularly contemptuous overkill of threatening $25,000 ( or greater) fines,... and prohibition of all property use. Try to imagine the ridiculous and equivalent disproportionality of a $1,000,000 parking ticket! Would you be outraged?
However, a "larger" population occupying an area for extended periods, likely would increase the demand for government services, and thus, reasonably justify (consistent with the Constitution) recovering those expenses, via "user" fees. User fees are even charged in Provincial parks, "used" by umpteen millions, safely sleeping (or whatever) unseen, in every sort of shelter from the elements.
IF,... under the existing or reasonably predictable circumstances, straight forward logic does not even tenuously support "prohibition", then: The reason for proposing prohibition must be: illogical, maliciously contrived, and decidedly suspect, or more simply: insulting.
It may well be justifiable to "prohibit" such acts as are demonstrably "unduly aggressive", however, it makes no obvious sense, to prohibit such acts, which are by default, "unduly benign".

This be-speaks a cabal of diabolical flatterers, mendacious advisors and corrupted law makers, so self-enraptured that they must think: Surely [we] are a wonderous sight to behold, like unto a new dawn beaming, whenever we come swaggering and strutting down a walkway,... or something to that effect. Fact is, they and their encrypted hate message, represent little other than a wretched clutch of ill-advised, hyper-inflated egocentrics, magically cloaked in pixie-dust finery,... strongly reminiscent of another vainglorious and ultimately humiliated Emperor who, imagined himself incomparably resplendent in his "new" robes, until his "advisors" could no longer sustain the illusion through managing the news!

BAD TOTO... PULLING THE THE CURTAIN ASIDE !
The Municipality has no interest in whether or not you actually are a thief, a liar(fraud), or a prostitute, since these are Criminal Code interests. The Municipality is only concerned to the extent of assuring that you maintain the appearance of being a thief, a liar, or a prostitute, so as to aesthetically "blend in" to your(?) neighbourhood, and thereby avoid disputes or disruption. The Municipality feels entitled to humiliate and insult anyone who does not blend in.
The "Law" in a democracy does not normally sustain insults to reasonableness.
See: (1) Canadian Human Rights Act, re: Accommodation
(2) Charter of Rights and Freedoms, re: proscription against unreasonable search (privacy) or seizure (use of chattels), and security of the person
(3) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17.
Note: All of the above, at least strongly imply a "Right" or "opportunity" to a modest "use" of private property or chattels; a "Right" or "opportunity" not willingly or customarily bestowed on slaves (or gleefully persecuted minorities) by contemptuous tyrants or masters. The customary and historical Rights and opportunities of slaves, include such generous allowances as: You may toil tirelessly, You may endure all suffering quietly, You may consider a "bronx salute", be it written, spoken, gestured, or deafness to pleadings, as all the respect you deserve, and, You may refrain from thinking that you own anything, after all, slaves are themselves property ( mindless chattels), to be disposed of ( including their(?) personal "possessions") or relocated at will... etc. Also: Any indication of objection will be punished.

Additionally, anyone who does not meet certain arbitrary "style" or "appearance" criteria established by high-born fiat, shall also be burdened and hobbled by the "Rights" and "opportunities" of slaves as well.

SPOTTING NASCENT TYRANNY(S)
When cabals aspire to tyranny, they carefully select out other persons or groups as inferior, sizing them up for their potential as victims, sustaining or adapting some of the predatory ethics and tactics of the jungle, and suppressing or rejecting the ethics ( fairness and justice) of a viable democratic civilization. This phenomenon if left unchecked, ultimately results in a "Unitary Executive", where: All Laws are meaningless, except those imposed by "Force of Arms".

Pre-empting tendencies, which revert back towards plutocratic, or other types of tyranny, seems prudent to us, since annulment after the fact, is getting rather too late in the game,... placing an much lengthier, and, monumentally onerous burden on those near the bottom of the food chain.

THE ROLE OF THE COURTS
The "Courts", in an alleged democracy, at least theoretically, are supposed to be competent and independent, rather than submissively compliant and uncritical; trained to recognize, and obliged to limit, unjustified governmental "excess(es)", or, other misanthropic oppression and abuse. They must of course be fiercely protective of this mandate in order to maintain their relevence. Anything less in the defence of justice would be as frustrating and infuriating as say,... Waking up one fine morning, only to find yourself arbitrarily and inescapably compelled by "Law" to drive a "lemon", on the grounds that a person of a higher social rank sought some manner of personal benefit or delight in [it's] pitiless and capricious imposition.

To demonstrate the importance of the separation of powers between legislative and judicial, we should examine the example of circumstances presented thus far.
Let us start with the question: Would anyone but a pathologically abusive tyrant(or cabal), even contemplate demanding punishments for someone who may have merely slept in their own bed,...on their own property? It is obviously rhetorical to ask if you threaten your own children with punishment, for acts as benign as sleeping in their own beds.

If,... faced with such a demand;... Unquestioned sustaining (by a Court) of a "wild-eyed" prosecutor's arrogant assertion of: Our completely senseless alleged "Law" is valid and enforceable, simply because [we] are possessed of a irrepressible whim, to: Disregard and disorder the priorities in established logic and "Law", in order to prove we can enforce the desires of any "friendly" ( or princeling) that [we] choose to favour ( no matter what the consequences of enforcement),... would certainly undermine confidence in the "Courts".

Likewise, said another way: Unwarranted and disproportionate punishment would exquisitely pleasure the dark and sadistic souls of the Council of Tyrants,... who have here-to-fore exercised restraint by relying on secret ridicule and private braggadocio, however, they have now decided that they prefer to waggle their obscenely engorged sense of entitlement (imagined legal authority), in full public view, under the colour of: "the Divine Right of Kings", and now insist that [you] punish peasants if they are alleged to have been: "seen" [sleeping or eating] "unseen" by reliable(?) witnesses,....Would definitely not display an adequate level of competence and independence by the "Courts"!
It would indicate something more like craven political subservience and supplication, or, indoctrinated bias; disregarding the conflicting evidence and failing to apply rigorous reasoning in the tradition of impartial secular Law. Obsequiously having its' ( the Court ) meandering and lackadaisical attention, diverted or deflected by "bait and switch" tactics, is not especially confidence inspiring either.

The spontaneous generation of "alternate " offense(s), inserted during proceedings, leaves a defendant unarmed and battling an multiplying army of ghost-opponents.
Subjective civilian dress or appearance codes or personal "style" rules, are not civil "Laws" within the jurisdiction of, and are not subject to "validation" by the opinions of "Courts", nor, enforceable by the "Courts". It is an unwelcome intrusion into the lives of citizens, for either legislators or the "Courts", to expand their offices to the extent of telling us what colour we are allowed to paint our toe-nails on Tuesdays, or imposing any other ridiculous and frivolous "personal" preferences.

We have repeatedly opined that such conduct, or, the appearance of such conduct, would bring the Administration of Justice into disrepute, [if] we were limiting the discussion to the strictly hypothetical.

Take a wild guess where this seemingly spontaneous insight welled up from. You guessed it; being traumatized by The Court from Hell, which amazingly stated (we are paraphrasing): It was "laid back" and "reasonable" of the neighbours to allow us to "use" our property (in such an unduly benign manner), for as long we did!!

Not withstanding the fact that we, not the neighbours, paid for our property, and therefore had at least some business (we say, "Right") in being there, the Court, unleashed like a bull in a "china shop" of common sense, seemed to find(?) that we were the equivalent of aesthetically (implies that something can be seen) offensive vermin "infesting" a "proud" neighbourhood, and therefore, in order that we(?) all get along, [we] must be made an example of, and punished for: Being "seen" sitting in the "wrong seats" on the bus,... so to speak, and discouraged from being "seen" in this "proud" neighborhood again, because these "proud" complainants don't like the look of peasants.

This rambling diatribe ( finding?) utterly avoids addressing the original complaint, and even contradicts a complaint of "sleeping" unseen, and further self-contradicts by requiring us to remain unseen as a remedy for a complaint of being unseen. False and deceptive arguments produce contradictions. It did not even matter that the "County" had in answer to a query in 1996, and entered as evidence ( Council minutes), that there was: "no By-Law in effect, prohibiting the use of trailers"!

Seemingly lost in a teary-eyed sentimental reminiscence, harkening back to an idyllic long past era of autocratic rule, the "Court" went on to find that: If we had moved our chattels ( trailers which were designed to be mobile) as alleged by the prosecution ( the "Court" is compelled to believe and draw implications from, anything and everything the prosecution even hints at) , then: This was evidence(?) of an "knowing offense", to wit: Attempting to create a condition of invisibility for an unspecified length of time, and simultaneously, an admission ( or defacto admission) of guilt.
Huh??

As any proud ( and therefore reasonable) person would agree: Peasants simply cannot be allowed to conduct themselves in such a disrespectful and independent manner (i.e. an unlawful manner), after all, anything that peasants ( slaves) do, or don't do, is [a] punishable offense.
It should come as no surprise that the "bench" in this fiasco, was not even a member of the legal "Bar".
It appears that the only qualification for the "bench" in Prince Edward County, is familiarity with, and adherance to the "Law of the Lemmings": If the first lemming carelessly goes off a cliff, or foolishly swims out to sea over it's head, then, we must all follow suit, for we are all lemmings. Feel free to substitute "kook", or any other appropriate appellation, in place of lemming.

Translation
Except to preserve a tradition of pomp and circumstance, it is unnecessary to actually go through the fuss and bother of actually accusing or charging peasants with anything at all. It is sufficient and compulsory that they voluntarily submit to extortion or intimidation.

WHO'S BEING A NUISANCE ?
In spite of societies' typical discomfort with the idea of pestering individuals over trivial matters,... the Council of the County of Prince Edward would have us believe that they are "legally authorized" ( acknowleging superior deities?) to knowingly inflict malicious and unwarranted prosecutions alleging the authority of the "Planning Act", offering ridiculously flippant excuses ( fig leaf), which,... on closer examination and boiled down to their essence, effectively interpret or translate to: Peasants(small land owners) are suspected of sleeping unseen, or, possibly engaged in other unduly benign activities normally associated with "ordinary" living, while seen or unseen on their own properties.

Interestingly, and needless to say hypocritically, [their] own By-Laws attempt to restrict unnecessary annoyances in the form of: a "nuisance" proscription. Hmmm.
IF,... due diligence is done, searching for written authorities sanctioning the threat of transparently malicious prosecutions i.e. discriminatory and unnecessary harassment, or, theocratic persecution, no such authority can be found (nor should they exist).

MORE ABOUT THE COURTS
The Supreme Court of Canada, has already ruled that comparatively trivial bureaucratic imperatives like Planning "convenience" is not a valid, uniformly enforceable justification, nor is "economic benefit" alone ( not everything is justifiable in the name of profit), and more recently, that Human Rights have primacy in Law.
Fortunately, the Court of last resort, has demonstrated not just the ability to recognize a frivolous, or worse ( ignoble) argument when it hears one, but the willingness to dismiss insubstantial complaints regardless of the source, and has thus, maintained the integrity and reputation of the justice system. We hope that they do not get around to ruling that implied or alleged "delicate aesthetic sensibilities" constitute primacy in Law, anytime soon.

Since the justifications which initiated this smear campaign ( masquerading as a complaint), have all turned out to be worthless (no legal validity), it exposes this fiasco as a sleazy attempt to elevate defamation to a status ordinarily reserved for substantial grievances. Legitimizing trivial justifications or fraudulent accusations, is a direct and unobstructed path to anarchy; a homeland or playground for the malevolent, but, a disaster for everyone else.

Belligerent threats of malicious prosecutions(intimidation) for such singularly trivial reasons as "sleeping unseen", are therefore by default: unwarranted and contemptuous harassment,... the tactical equivalent of persistently and callously blaring: the "Ride of the Valkyries" at 2:00 a.m. (psychological torment), as an element of persuasion, directed at attempting the "removal" of apparently vulnerable persons, from their own property.
Moreover, at the unprecedented level of triviality that sleeping unseen represents, it appears to obliquely ridicule the Courts as well, as if to imply that they would be willing participants in such a pretentious and malicious prosecution.

INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATION
Inconsistent interpretation ( departs from well known and documented interpretations or precedents), is a tawdry hoodwinking technique of incomplete disclosure (omission), which intentionally rejects adhering to a principle commonly known as: "fair and full disclosure".

Relying on the demented theory that we all benefit from an attempt to engineer the highest degree of certainty in the irrationality of "Law", the diabolical practice of inconsistently interpreting existing By-Laws, by: sometimes interpreting the term "not permitted" as: "prohibited" whenever it happens to be politically convenient,... and alternatively as: "requires a permit, or licence";___ is: a decidedly exasperating and unpredictable standard for interpretation, and, and inadequate standard for "full disclosure" of the ordinary interpretation(precedents) of an entirely routine encounter with the phrase "not permitted" as it applies to private wells, septic systems, building permits, and many other "licensing" authorities, authorized by the "Municipal Act".
Is this the standard, legal or otherwise, to which Prince Edward County aspires?

This is a somewhat long-winded way of explaining how the affluent and/or politically connected, are entitled to: have or do anything they want, and how it is the duty of the government to at least appear to be corrupt.
The government is knowingly utilizing and misrepresenting excessively vague ( to the point of being misleading ) terminology, in advancing a devious and underhanded scheme to arrive at conclusions not supported by any logic-driven reasoning process, and thereby creating an unpredictable ambush to unnecessarily harass and intimidate the poor. This yet another lame and failing attempt by an extremist right wing racist cult with delusions of superiority, to "sell" or disguise monopoly and tyranny as "Law and Order".

THE GLEEFUL OPPRESSION AND HUMILIATION OF PEASANTS
One of the charming results of the Countys' inconsistent and malicious interpretation is that: a seventy year old lady was dragged into Court accused of the supreme apostacy and/or high treason (disguised as a "Provincial Offense") of: sleeping in a trailer(unseen),... in other words, she was fined for not sleeping outdoors in a well lit area, so as to avoid being unseen,... which, if we can extrapolate, would have been "approved of" and required no "action" be taken. One can only guess that being additionally charged with sleeping under the cover of darkness would have been considered redundant, as the time of day or night does not substantially alter the alleged facts very much, since she could just as well have been in another country altogether at the time, and still be proveably unseen.

However, the ordinary standards for evidence could have been dropped altogether, simpifying and shortening the proceedings, as no photos of trailers and no witnesses (expert prevaricators) would have been necessary.
It is an extraordinary adjustment to accepted "legal" arguments to rely on and say that: tantamount to offense is a vague enough legal standard to allow for the broadest possible latitude for punishment, since peasants do not have protections under the Geneva Conventions during the (fictitious or not) War on Poverty.

MAMMONS' WISDOM - thou shalt steal, but first, invent a cover story
There are only a limited number of ways to gain an ownership level of "control" over property that [you] do not already have title to:
(1) Inherit [it] or win it in a lottery
(2) Pay too much for [it]
(3) Pay a "fair" price for [it],... or
(4) Find [a] way to apply pressure, antagonize, or, harass the "real" owner, in order to expedite or force a distress sale or forfeiture ( including military conquest).
During the ordinary course of business, most people reasonably expect that: all properties, or chattles, can and must be "legally" purchased, and subsequently transfered, without any parties resorting to illegal pressure tactics (duress), like: Artificially imposing senseless "use" restrictions by remote control ( harassment by government proxies) on someone else's property or chattles, before they are actually "bought and paid for".

This type of sleazy stunt would avoid the troublesome burden of actually paying a "fair" price out of [your] own pocket for [it] first,... and only then,... autocratically imposing whatever desirable ( i.e. senseless) "use" restrictions might "pop" into one's head.
Of course, being seen to be doing anything legal or ethical, could cause a serious loss of face in certain circles, where perverted psychologies depend and thrive on tawdry practices, and thus, must be avoided at all costs. It certainly would among those who regard dishonesty and misrepresentation as their most treasured cultural imperatives, and/or, legal duties.

Deceitfully implying, through the use of linguistic trickery, like cynically misinterpreting vague and confusing language, that: Prohibiting "sleeping unseen" [is] a "reasonable" restriction ( i.e. a valid and enforceable legal complaint), and then stonewalling ( obstruction of justice) in response to challenges, is surreal in it's audacity; an elaborate colour of Law hoodwink and ruse (Mammon approved), driven by the vain hope of cloaking a cabal of predacious hucksters trying to foist their personal agenda of hate and harassment for self-benefit ( defacto ownership), on an unsuspecting public. The principle of defacto ownership allows anyone who wishes ( for example) to build a house so large that it encroaches on adjoining properties, to arbitrarily invalidate the objections to property confiscation made by "lower caste" owners, in order to showcase and impose their own superior social status, and confiscate without notice or compensation, whatever they please in order to demonstrate that pre-eminence.

The fore-going is not representative of: The simple, good faith enforcement of any "legal duties" like: reasonable land "use" restriction, rather, it is a chilling text book example of microscopic tin-pot tyranny, treachery against the public trust, and predacious over- reaching, in all it's hideous glory, even as diminutive as this example might be.

GRATUITOUS AND PROBLEMATIC PROSECUTIONS
Because, "sleeping", and, "eating", are not necessarily simultaneous phenomenon, this invites the laying of at least two trivial "complaints", and risks setting a precedent, for a virtually unlimited number of trivial "complaints" (barratry) about matters that are so natural and common place, that few "living" persons could credibly refute such allegations(no defense available). Try telling a "Court" that you never sleep or eat!

It is wholly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of justice, to: "guarantee" a conviction; which is what happens, if a simple accusation or allegation of: [We] did not actually "see" that ridiculously trivial, so-called "offense" occur,... [we] merely sort of suspected that a contrived and ridiculously trivial unseen "offense", could have "occurred";___ is blithely misconstrued and accepted as irrefutable, material "proof" of: a significant and punishable offense. It's not even a "reasonable probability" of guilt, and moreover, [it] elevates literally any ludicrous/contrived allegation into a punishable offense.

One cannot help but wonder: What is it, in the minds of the Council of the County of Prince Edward, which confirms the satisfactory interpretation and/or legal validity of a law? Is it... When [it] is forseeable, by it's aversion to, and studious avoidance of logic, that no-one outside of their group of gleefully depraved conspirators, would ever dare to predict it's existence??
What does this mean? Peasants are denied any respite even for a moment from politically or economically motivated ( unjustified) harassment, and their own tax dollars are contributing to, and being arbitrarily used for that malicious purpose.
Failing to place, or failing to recognize restrictions on the opportunities of the government, to engage in unnecessary observation, or, antagonism of citizens ( either in legislation, or, by the "Courts"), effectively amounts to condoning the stalking of persons, for political purposes.

AMBUSHED IN THE WILDERNESS
Putting the above in context: On all of the surrounding lots (including ours), the government does not inflict the menace of malicious prosecutions, even if [it] knows of an intolerably modest land "use" like: simply owning a vacant, natural state property.
Neither does the government ordinarily seek to inform land owners, that: more immodest or aggressive land "uses" like: building 6,000 sq. ft. residences, are offensive and absolutely prohibited,... yet, behaving like programmed zombies,... by some leap of illogic, THE MOST BENIGN AND MODEST,__ from among all of the possible middling and logically inoffensive land uses,... ARE belligerently "prohibited", and the ambushed owners are hounded with the threat of unnecessary prosecution.

On the other hand, if given a more normal scenario, [the]prohibiting of unduly aggressive land "uses", is a logical enough duty, as to be essentially self-explanatory, and generally beyond reproach.
Such an obvious and inexplicable discontinuity of logic in this instance, is a compelling contra-indication of good faith, and indicates the privately beneficial exploitation of: a purpose-built litigation ambush,... intended to intimidate selected victims; forcing the poor to face off against the unlimited resources of city hall.

It follows that: They are executing on a cold blooded and xenophobic "plan" to: discriminately impose sufficiently intolerable conditions, such that: "undesirable" individuals, or "undesirable" families, who are singled out simply on the basis of: some modestly affluent persons in your area, who seem to think that their every utterance represents primacy in Law, self righteously or contemptuously feel that the floor area of your residence is not up to snuff,... and therefore, because you are regarded as less worthy (social/economic impurity) peasants/vermin, you have no valid objection to being intimidated off of your own (snicker, snicker) property, and forced out of their exclusive neighborhood.

Apparently, in this neck of the woods, there exists some type of weird belief system, which leads to some into thinking that: If you are fortunate enough to have been granted a building "permit", or, some other "permit", a legal Right to force the less fortunate to sleep outside accompanies it,... sort of like a drivers "permit", allows you to mow down apparently less fortunate pedestrians at will! Their kind of "Law" reads like an exerpt from a "Monty Python" script, yet, they expect to be taken seriously.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
If a group of persons think that they have a "Right", which suggests that they have at least a very strong desire, to be surrounded by nothing but houses,... then, why are they voluntarily living 25 Km. from the nearest town among a scattering of vacant lots, instead of, "in town" or in a city, which by any measure, would have constituted something resembling Nirvana, where they would have already been surrounded by houses? Were they involuntarily forced into this nearly"natural- state" or nature-plagued, hell hole, at the very periphery of: the outer limits of nowhere?

If [the] working theory is that: The presence of houses appreciably raises property values, then: Why can peasants still afford properties in the same general vicinity, and why hasn't this clever elite purchased and developed ( under the theory of certain "profitability") all of the vacant lots? Surely, the banks would be eager to finance such a "bullet-proof" plan.

How about,... If you arbitrarily forced your own family to sleep outside when, at least basic shelter was readily available,... Would they think that there was something wrong with your head?

Also: Would we be prohibited from erecting a fence, on the grounds that we don't actually own(?) our property,... and therefore, should not even consider interfering with, and there-by insulting the real ( actually defacto) owners, by attempting to place restrictions on their trampling wherever, and whenever, it suits them?

Speaking of real,... Don't real humans, with real credibility, live in real palaces (instead of (ugh!) bungalows?

Why does the County allow/permit building houses in this area? Is it because houses meet a basic necessity like shelter from the elements, and it is therefore considered a reasonable land use? Will nothing other than a house adequately meet this basic necessity?

If the County will allow the building of a 6,000 sq. ft. house, without unnecessary objection, then why will they also allow the building of a 3,000 sq. ft. house, even though it also meets the criterion of an unduly benign land use?

Why is it that no-one in the so-called justice/legal system, wants to touch this matter with a ten foot pole? Is it that they have dis-ordered priorities? When did suddenly become a good/legal idea to arbitrarily deprive someone of their basic necessities?

SUMMING UP
One of the better reasons for engaging in "benign" activities is: Any sort of reasonably predictable "Law", will not senselessly and needlessly hold you to account for your harmless behavior or activities.
Therefore: It undermines confidence in the "Law", by eroding it's predictability and assumed impartiality, if the government is allowed to have carte blanche "artistic license" to commit mischief with impunity like: imposing totally capricious restrictions.

Without a doubt, Prince Edward County has come up with the most singularly capricious and evil interpretation of any written "Law", in the entire history of the planet. The larger problem that this presents is: that governments tend to immitate what other governments have been able to get away with, and attempt to "re-use" those precedents or techniques,... in some (most?) cases for wrongful purposes, introducing the risk of an unwelcome contagion.

Meanwhile (as matters stand), ANYONE could merely RENT the house next door, and park a RENTED car in the driveway, without title to anything,... and not be legally oppressed by anyone, and worse yet, they would be treated seriously, if they "complained" to the government about___ OUR "unduly benign" land use!!
Oh... and by the way, the "complaint" is still good, even if there are chattels of paupers like trailers, RV's, etc. visible on that rented property,... which is OK and allowed of course.
Not discriminatory harassment? Oh please !!

In the malevolent twilight zone of Prince Edward County, not paying for something, entitles you to absolute monopoly rule and full ownership Rights over its' use______...but only if your cronies are governing, and, other willing miscreants aid, abet, or cover-up this sordid departure from "ordinary expectations"! Extrapolating using this insanely malicious illogic, peasants should not even recieve the proceeds from the sale of their chattels, since they are not the defacto owners of those chattels,... merely the real owners!

Even though this matter is legally simple,... so simple in fact, it is doubtful that it would take anyone with the ability and willingness to exercise reason, acting in good faith, more than half an hour, to figure out who is in the right here, it is taking an inordinate amount of time to get [it] sorted out because of it's politically vexatious nature.

So now, their scheming antics are exposed for all to see,...and horror of horrors, by someone whom they estimated that they would have no problem in: flim-flamming and re-locating.
Likewise, a wolverine's den is also not all that intimidating,... until you stick your meddling, arrogant, and unwelcomed snout in it.

Everyone in the government acts (the Emporor's robes again) as though they believe, in spite of the evidence that they have been provided with, that the foregoing represents honourable and reputable conduct by all the "officials" involved. It shows how far corruption ( which ( quel surprise) has been removed from the "Criminal Code") is embedded into our "systems", and it makes you want to puke!

This brazen, feigned ignorance (willful blindness) and bad faith by every branch of government contacted to date, has been going on for more than four years in some cases, and it has been almost eight years since this malevolence inspired quagmire began, with no end in sight.
Adopting ( enforcing?) an "institutionalized" doctrine of sticking your head in the sand as deeply as possible, leaves very little anatomy showing, and could potentially result in an unflattering "identification by association", which some citizens with an interest in their "legal/cultural environment" and institutions, might regard as insulting and objectionable.

When we can observe vast numbers of lard-assed bureaucrats forcing their own families to sleep outside in order to save on winter heating bills, then we will have a good enough reason to reassess our priorities, and consider if basic shelter from the elements should not in fact play second fiddle to someone else's alleged delicate aesthetics, or any other exquisitely frivolous and demeaning argument which might be cynically advanced in some public forum. When every opportunity and freedom, even the intent to think has been extinguished by edict, how will anyone appreciate the crystalline perfection that thoughtlessness hath wrought.

This is just a general outline of this alleged "abomination", with many related facts, and suspicious circumstances left out, for the purpose of brevity.

As far as we are concerned, this matter represents more violations of Law and legal practices than you can shake a metaphorical stick at!

Solicitations by qualified lawyers are welcome.