You’re completely out of your mind. If conservative politicians called for violence to the left. Liberals would lose their minds. Yet Waters, Schumer, Waltz, and several other left wing politicians have openly called for assassinations for ALL maga republicans. Except for the idiot that assassinated the Minnesota democrats. All other assassinations have been at the hands of far left individuals. January 6th was bullshit, although a few right wing individuals supposedly stormed the capitol. There was only 1 death. A thug drugie is killed by police and leftists burned, rioted, looted to billions of dollars in losses. A conservative christian debater who tried to find common ground is assassinated. And NO riots, looters, fires or deaths happened. They prayed. Other than white supremacy, which the majority of conservatives have denounced. The left is hugely responsible for political violence in this country.

Then, as a corporate bylaw, the ordinance acquires the force and effect of law where appropriate. While the county’s jurisdiction may extend from border to border for comprehensive zoning, it does not necessarily extend to every property or person within its borders. If it were otherwise, it would constitute a gross deprivation of all rights and render all laws, as well as both the Federal and State Constitutions, invalid.

“An agency of government (DEP is not the government or a department or an officer of it.” U.S. ex rel Salzman v. Salant & Salant, K.C., N.Y., 41 F Supp. 196, 197.

Regulations sought to be imposed by laws or ordinances must have real and substantial bearing upon the public health, public safety, public works or general public welfare, and a belief, no matter how fervently or widely entertained, that municipal authorities can assert some communal control over privately owned lands, is at variance with the fundamental nature of private ownership and in derogation of the protection of private ownership. – Cooley Const. Lum. 7th Edition, page 245; Truax v. Corrigan 257 U.S. 336, 66L. Ed. 264, 27 A.L.R. 376; 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124.

It has been held that the exercise of police power under an ordinance may be proper in a general sense but unreasonable and confiscatory as applied to particular property.

“And the right of the landowner to build on his property according to his own desires, free of unconstitutional or arbitrary restraint, is a property right.” Bryan v. Kennett, supra, Ind; Adams v. Merrill, 85 N.E. 114; 87 N.E. 36, 45 Ind. APP. 315; 50 C.J.S., P. 740, note 85.

The permit process has three primary purposes. First, to induce the property owner, by intimidation, to voluntarily waive his rights by signing a contract which places him within the jurisdiction of the governing board. Second, to ensure compliance with ordinances. And third, to notify the assessor’s office of new construction or alterations so that property taxes may be adjusted and/ or applied accordingly.

The State legislature provided for a hearing process before the agency, but how can he be successful if the appeals board has already decided against him?

Every property owner should understand that all zoning is contractual. When you voluntarily apply for a permit, you are signing a contract; you acquiesce to the corporate jurisdiction; you request to be regulated and restricted, as a proper corporate member, by the corporate bylaws.

The heading of a provision of the code may be APPLICATIONS REQUIRED, but the heading is not part of the provision itself. Read the provision itself, and you will find instructions on how to apply, but nothing about the class of persons required to apply.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code’s Purpose in Section 105 is to protect and promote safety, health, and morals, PROVIDE for general welfare by GUIDING and protecting amenity, convenience, future GOVERNMENTAL, economic, practical, and social and cultural FACILITIES, [not private facilities], as well as improvement of GOVERNMENTAL processes and functions [not private processes and functions]; to GUIDE [not impose private property] uses of land and structures, type and location of streets, PUBLIC grounds and facilities; [not private grounds and facilities]; to PROMOTE [not require] the effective utilization of renewable energy sources; and to PERMIT municipalities to minimize such problems as may presently exist or which may be foreseen.

In Section 107. Definitions. the word “applicant” is defined as “a landowner or developer, as hereinafter defined, who HAS FILED [past tense] an application FOR development, including his heirs, successors, and assigns. Landowner is defined as “the legal or beneficial owner or owners of land. Developer is defined as “any landowner, agent of such landowner, or tenant with the permission of such landowner, who makes [past tense] or causes to be made a subdivision of land or a land development.”

Section 617. Causes of Action states, “… an officer of the municipality, or any aggrieved owner or tenant of real property who SHOWS that his property or person will be substantially affected by the alleged violation, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such building, structure, landscaping or land, or to prevent, in or about such premises, any act, conduct, business or use constituting a violation.”

It seems to me there must be evidence that the use of one’s private property for one’s private non-public use would have to be alleged to have harmed the public’s health or safety before instituting an appropriate action or proceeding. The failure of a landowner to voluntarily apply for a permit would not harm the public health, safety, or welfare.

I don’t think failure to apply for a permit is relevant. Actual evidence of harm to another’s property or person would have to be proven. But, living under a de facto government, what does truth have to do with anything today?

I couldn’t agree more with your critique of these people. If they were ever to gain power in this country, it’ll look like Gilead.

That really is prophetic.