Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

Court: Man Can’t Live Off Grid On His Own Land

Court: Man Can’t Live Off Grid On His Own Land

A court has ruled that a veteran does not have the right to live off the grid on his own land.

Marine veteran Tyler Truitt has 14 days to move his home or face legal action from the city of Huntsville, Alabama.

“Maybe they’ll raid our house and shoot our dogs, and us, too,” Truitt told TV station WTVM.

Truitt, his dogs and his girlfriend live in a trailer on a wooded lot in the city. Huntsville officials want them out because they use solar panels for electricity, are not connected to the sewer system, use composting toilets, and use rain barrels for water — and they don’t have the proper permits.

Get Free Backup Electricity — That Works Even During Blackouts!

Last week’s appellate court ruling upheld a lower judge’s ruling that ordered the couple to move the trailer. Both courts found Truitt guilty of violating the city’s codes and ordinances. The ruling upheld a lower judge’s ruling from last year.

The city is alleging that Truitt and Hamar are violating a zoning ordinance that restricts living in trailers to areas designated trailer parkers, WTVM reported. It also alleges he is living off the grid, without the proper permits.

“There is nothing illegal about living ‘off the grid,’ provided interested citizens go through proper channels,” a letter from Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle stated. “We encourage green environmental living, and our departments stand ready and willing to guide citizens through the appropriate permitting process. We have several residents in the City utilizing solar power and some are actually putting power back on the grid.”

Story continues below video

WTVM.com-Columbus, GA News Weather & Sports

Battle added, “Contrary to some of the public comments via email and online, the source of Mr. Truitt’s electricity (solar panels) is not an issue. No resident is required to buy electricity from Huntsville Utilities.

“Every property owner, however, is required to meet the building codes that are enforced across the city,” Battle said. “The systems Mr. Truitt has attempted to put in do not meet these codes and his sanitary situation violates state health code. Mr. Truitt also did not apply for any building permits as required by law.”

The city considers the home “unsafe.”

Truitt, though, believes his rights are being violated. He also says his home is safe and sanitary.

“They won’t even give us the permits because they say our house is a manufactured home,” Truitt told WTVM.

Truitt and Hamar do not know when they will need to move. The two are planning to file a lawsuit against the city over the ordinances.

“We’ve yet to have any of those arguments be heard in court, so that’s what we’re trying to do with the civil suit, to fight directly against the city’s ordinances and the way they’re enforcing them,” Truitt said.

He told the TV station he is not afraid of the city.

“How much is this fight worth to them? I know what it means to me. It’s my home, it’s everything and I’m not moving the house,” Truitt said.

Truitt has set up a Go Fund Me page to finance his fight.

What do you think of this story? Whose side are you on? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Are You Prepared For A Downed Grid? Read More Here.

© Copyright Off The Grid News

6 comments

  1. So basically the city is upset because they haven’t collected any money from this couple. Boohoo…..

  2. HEY MY WIFE AND I
    Considered moving to Huntsville Alabama but after reading this article American showcase Huntsville take your City and stick it up the mayor ass
    The Mayor must have voted for Barack Obama want to run everybody’s life
    You’re just a money-grubbing politician the word politicians come Latin
    And if I’m not mistaken the definition for politician is blood sucking ass you’re sucking blood out of a veteran
    After reading this I will not even to pass through Hauntsville
    Alabama
    THE mayor should be ashamed of him self for treating a veteran this way

  3. One must learn what all laws/codes/regulations/treaties/etc are REQUIRED to follow in order to be lawfully binding on the American people. What authority did we delegate to the state we live in is listed in that statte’s Constitution. It is the highest LAW of the state, and the second, and second most important contract that those that serve within the state government at all levels are under.

    The FIRST contract that ALL who serve within our governments are under is the US Constitution. They are lawfully bound to it and the state Constitution as they both define our separate governments.

    US Constitution, 9th Amendment – Remember (or learn) that the Bill of Rights does NOT give us our natural and other rights listed here, it lists the powers “We the People of the united States retained, did NOT delegate to any branch, position or office in either of our governments. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

    Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    “Right of property antedates all constitutions. Every person has right to enjoy his property and improve it according to his own desires in any way consistent with rights of others.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

    “As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

    “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.

    “Right to possess and protect property is not more clearly protected by constitution, than right to acquire it. Right to acquire is right to use proper means to attain end; and use of such means, cannot be prohibited by legislature, except peace and safety of state require it.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

    “Constitutional guarantee securing to every person right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property refers to right to possess absolutely and unqualifiedly every species of property recognized by law and all rights incidental thereto, including right to dispose of such property in such manner as he pleases.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

    “Right of property is invaded if owner is not at liberty to contract with others respecting manner in which and terms on which his property shall be improved.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

    “Constitutional guarantee securing to every person right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property refers to right to possess absolutely and unqualifiedly every species of property recognized by law and all rights incidental thereto, including right to dispose of such property in such manner as he pleases.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

    “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

    “Constitutional provisions and amendments to the Constitution relate to the fundamental law and certain fixed principles upon which governments are founded. Constitutions are commonly called the organic law of a State.” State ex rel. Halliburton v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408, 130 S. W. 689.

    “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

    “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first SECURING [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

    “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

    U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

    Not sure if this will assist in this problem because we have a lot of those who serve within our state and general (federal) governments using – and enforcing (which is *Terrorism) – color of law. But you are taking the correct steps to regain those authorities not delegated to either our state or general governments. It is important to understand that if you do not know the contract (highest and supreme) that those who serve within our governments are under, then they can tell you that they have any power/authority imaginable and you will not know differently, unless you bother to look – see how intelligent that the framers were to put all of that in writing for ease of reference.

    The central principles that animated the movements that led to independence and the framing of the Constitution concerned property rights and the right of self defense; for it was threats to property rights, in the form of taxation without representation, that started the crisis that led eventually to independence.

    It was largely the undermining of property rights by state legislatures under the Articles of Confederation, and the refusal of lords and kings to allow those in their kingdoms to defend themselves, family, and firends that prompted the framing of a (at that time) new national constitution that would protect the individual right to property and the natural right to self defense against infringement by national and state government power. (Remember that no one EXCEPT for the lords, kings, etc were ALLOWED to own property prior). Matter of fact, those who lived on the lands of those “royals” were also owned by them, and not allowed to defend themselves from them. Ownership of, and the decision HOW to use property, and the right to defense of ourselves, families, property – of all types – was a huge reasons for America to be/was created. Most of that authority was kept by us, and NOT delegated to those who serve within our governments because the framers were very familiar with those concepts having lived under them.

    The Founders made little, if any, distinction between property rights and other individual rights, they insisted that property rights were at least as important as personal rights and made sure that they were PROTECTED from those who serve wtihin our governments. In Federalist 54, James Madison made this clear: “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.” He felt that property rights are as important as personal rights because the two are intimately connected. The right to labor and acquire property is itself an important personal right and entitled to governmental protection; and the property acquired through the exercise of this personal right is entitled, by derivation, to an equal protection.

    James Madison also made that clear in his “Address at the Virginia Convention”, saying:”It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.”

    Federalist 10, James Madison wrote that the protection of “the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate . . . is the first object of government.”

    Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

    The founders and framers understood the right to property to be a form of liberty rather than liberty a form of property. Our American ancestors did not believe so because of “consumerism”, they who willingly risked their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” for the sake of their country’s freedom obviously did consider that the accumulation of material goods to be the end of human existence because they put it all on the line for freedom, including their lives.

    The founders and framers viewed property rights as important for two reasons; with the first one found within Federalist 10′s discussion of the problem of faction (what we today call “party”, ie Republican and Democrat).

    Madison, Federalist 10, defines faction as a number of citizens “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests in the community.” He said that “from the protection of these different and unequal faculties, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results,” and additionally pointed out that “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distributions of property.” Basically saying that the rights most often threatened by faction are the rights of property, with which the right to acquire and own is synomous with freedom and equality, so threaten our natural rights of freedom and defense of ourselves, our families, our property from those who serve within our governments.

    Second was that property rights were viewed as important was that they served as a practical guarantee for other rights. Basically, not only were property rights the most vulnerable, they were also the first line of defense for the other rights – the canary in the mines, the warning of bad things to come. According to the Founders, property was not only a right in itself, but it was/is also a means to the preserve all of our other rights from those who serve within our governments that might be corrupt and treasonous.

    They understood that the personal economic independence afforded by private property instilled within the American people a spirit of personal independence, of responsibility for their own lives which is a virtue absolutely necessary to a self-governing people. They felt that – and I feel are proven correct in those assumptions today – that economic dependence “begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition,” Jefferson said. The virtue of the people that comes from personal independence is important because, as Jefferson also noted that: “It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

    The ownership and use of property was considered extremely important because, as stated here byGouverneur Morris argued: “Give the votes to people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich, who will be able to buy them. . . . The man who does not give his vote freely is not represented. It is the man who dictates the vote.”

    Is that not proven true by what is going on today in our nation? Those who serve wtihin our governments have unlawfully made the ownership of, and use of, our own property to be difficult as they can get by with by the use of color of law and those dumbed down or willing to enforce those unlawful edicts. Whyis it color of law? Because ALL who serve wtihin our governments – state and genral – are required to support and defend the US Constitution before orders of superiors and the duties of the position they occupy. Our ownership and use of, as long as what we do harms no other, was never delegated to them, WE retained that authority as a free and independent people.

    Color of law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.”” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    • I couldn’t have said it any better. People should print this off and post it on the front gate yes u need a gate and a huge fence all the way around……

  4. This is Agenda 21 clear and in your face. I expected more fight out of freedom leaning states in the face of the global edict but alas, the citizens are yet on our own.

  5. TheSouthernNationalist

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but when I read this story I got the impression that this couple is not setting up a new trailer (house) but are currently living in a trailer (house) that was already set up and had been on this property for a while.
    Wouldn’t this home already be “grandfathered” in?
    What permits would be needed since the mayor said no one has to take power from the power company if they don’t want to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*