Washburn’s War

Oh man… Germantown went and messed with the wrong dude…

Back in January, 2008, I raised the question on Boots and Sabers: Do building inspectors need search warrants.

I discovered late last week that the Village of Germantown did a warrantless search of my property back in August of 2007. The Village also used the inspection ruse as the color of laws under which the warrantless search was done. The Village agent claims to have not entered my house or out-buildings, but just walked about on the premises as if he owned it. When I asked him to see a copy of the search warrant he obtained prior to entering my property, his answer was, “I don’t need a search warrant”. Once the subject of warrants came up, his memory of exact dates and times became fuzzy.

Now that the question is not philosophical, but practical, I did some research. It turns out the Village did need a type onf non-criminal search warrant called a Special Inspection Warrant. The requirements for a when a Special Inspection Warrant is needed and how to obtain one is found in Wis Stats. 66.0119.

[...]

So, yesterday, Friday, July 18, 2008, I did what little I could to put the Village on notice that in my little corner of the Village I believe the state constitution is the supreme law of the land and is the authority under which the Village derives its just powers. I did so by delivering a Notice of Denial of Permission to Inspect to the 4 departments most likely to hold the attitude: “We are inspectors. We don’t need Warrants.”. These are the Village Inspections (Chief and assistant inspector), Village DPW, Village Treasurer (both Treasure and the apprasier), and the Village Clerk (as the Village record keeper).

Go get ‘em, John. 

1. Unless, of course, the federal government arbitrarily and capriciously declares him to be an “enemy combatant.” Then his 4th Amendment rights mean absolutely nothing, and no warrants are needed.

   Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 2020 hrs




2. And once again, a post about a local item turns into BDS-based commentary.

   apc, in case you missed the memo:  Undeterred by over 200 years of jurisprudence, the SCOTUS awarded your precious enemy combatants habeas corpus rights about a month ago.  That’s assuming you were actually trying to make an Article I, not a 4th Amendment, argument.

   Getting back on topic, it will be interesting to see how this Washburn thing plays out.  Doesn’t sound like he’s going to go away quietly.  G’town had better get some better legal advice.

   Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 2133 hrs




3. What would that be Tony, Bush Defensive Syndrome? I don’t believe I mentioned the president. Actually, I was mostly referring to the FISA bill (that’s the 4th Amendment part), which was enthusiastically passed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

   I’m not quite sure what you mean by your Article I comment, unless you’re pointing out that the executive has usurped yet another of the legislative’s enumerated powers, i.e., “make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

   And the thing about habeas corpus--without it, we don’t don’t know if the people held are actual enemy combatants or not. The ones that are actual enemy combatants--by all means deal with them to the furthest extent of the law. But all the evidence says that many of the people held at our various prisons around the world, like Gitmo and others, were simply swept up because they had the wrong name or were in the wrong place in the wrong time. Is it OK with you that we’ve held completely innocent people for more than five years with no evidence at all? Without even a chance to prove they don’t belong in a prison? How many innocent people have we tortured?

   Getting back on topic. I’m a big John Washburn fan, too. He held our governor’s feet to the fire on FOIA requests on e-mails that the governor’s office was getting rid of. You’re right; G’town better not count on hm going quietly away.

   Posted by on July 20, 2008 at 1315 hrs




4. Let’s think about this rationally.  Washburn doesn’t want to let the building inspector in his house or on his property.  That’s fine—he doesn’t have to.  The building inspector then makes a “guess” about the value.  No incentive for the inspector to “lowball” the value—in fact, human nature suggests that he “sock it to” Washburn.  That’s what goes on the tax roll and Washburn owes more in taxes.  Washburn contests the appraisal.  Then the Board of Review says to Washburn “OK, if you think it’s worth less, let the inspector inspect!” And that’s how the building inspector gets on the property.  I took a look at his blog.  At first glance he sounds like one of them that Posse Comitatus goofballs.  I could be wrong, that’s just the first impression.

   Posted by on July 20, 2008 at 1548 hrs




5. So Wally ... let me get this straight ... you’re saying we should allow government on our property without our permission or warrants because if we don’t we can assume that they’ll probably stick it to us if we don’t?

   Posted by on July 20, 2008 at 2049 hrs




6. Perhaps the language I used was too strong.  The property owner won’t let the inspector inspect, so the inspector makes his/her best guess as to value without setting foot on the property.  If the property owner is satisfied with the number picked, the story is over.  If the property owner thinks he or she got “highballed” and appeals, the remedy is an inspection.  You can’t have it both ways, folks!

   Posted by on July 20, 2008 at 2109 hrs




7. Actually the state law requires an inspection as part of the assesment schedule.  I am merely insisting the assessment be done according to law and according to Article 1 section 11 of the State Constitutiion.

   And yes I am aware the nail that sticks up get hammered down.

   Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2008 at 2316 hrs




8. I suggest that all further references to the squeaky wheel in question be made as, “Loophole Washburn.”

   The saga of one attention-starved man seeking to raise the cost of local government all while seeking to avoid paying his share of it.

   It’s a manifestation of moral weakness.  That’s what it is.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0609 hrs




9. As Homer Simpson said when asked why he picked a fight with the garbage men, “I have too much time on my hands.”

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0614 hrs




10. But when the ACLU is littering our courts with lawsuits on any number of issues ranging from legalizing child pornography and prostitution to, to preventing a student in a public school from mentioning ‘God’ in a commmencement speech, to extending constitutional rights to foriegn terrorists, that’s a manifestiation of moral strength I suppose?

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0823 hrs




11. If he didn’t go into any of his buildings (home, shed, or whatever) - the only thing he could possibly be guilty of is trespassing. Does he plan on arresting the UPS man when he walks on his property to deliver a package too?

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1125 hrs




12. The saga of one attention-starved man seeking to raise the cost of local government all while seeking to avoid paying his share of it.

    I’m thankful that your narrow-minded and short-sighted ass wasn’t alive when our Country fought for our independence, because you obviously would have wasted your time bashing them for their actions.

    The law defines how the government is supposed to work, and when the government does not follow that law, then we have the responsibility to stand up and put it on notice.  You’re more interested in passing judgment and attacking a fellow citizen, and that’s the true manifestation of moral weakness.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1226 hrs




13. Wow, Jason.  What a bunch of hooey.  To compare and conflate a righteous uprising against tyranny with chasing off the duly appointed assesor is just the tiniest bit megalomaniacal. 

    Don’tcha think?

    Sit down.  Get yourself a cold beer and a big old slice of perspective and rejoin the 21st Century when you’re ready.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1330 hrs




14. >with chasing off the duly appointed assesor

    I don’t know if you’re really this dense, or just maliciously trying to misinterpret Mr. Washburn’s actions, but since you have attacked him in this discussion, I’m leaning towards the later.

    He didn’t chase anyone off.  He is forcing his local government to follow the rule of the land, that’s all.

    I’ll grab a beer and a slice of perspective when you stop being a childish ass.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1419 hrs




15. Jason, I’m sure that all of the other kids are impressed with the moral strength of your argument.  In this case it’s just overheated puffery.

    Washburn is trying to make it tougher for the Village to do thier job.  He won’t stop them.  He’ll get nothing from it but a little satisfaction and maybe some applause from the other paranoids.

    For his effort he’ll just be adding cost to everyone else who has the misfortune to share his ZIP code.  If that makes him some sort of Zorro for the New Millenium in your book then have at it.

    Just understand that there are those of us who think he’s nothing more than a crank.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1452 hrs




16. grumps, I’m sorry that you think holding the government to the law of the land, the law drawn up and agreed upon by all citizens, is nothing more than crank.  You take your freedom for granted and you denigrate those who do stand up for their rights and yours as well.  You have nothing but my contempt, indeed the actions of every hardworking and loyal citizen of this country are wasted on the likes of you.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1509 hrs




17. In my naive opinion, I sense that Mr. Washburn is attempting to give the Village of Germantown a “low-cost” education (the need to study up on applicable laws instead of blowing hot air about things they maybe know nothing about) or a lesson in etiquette (how to treat the taxpayer/revenue producer with some kind of respect).  I don’t know that he is advocating for civil disobedience or that everyone should go through the process, but I think he is correct in pointing out that the granting of access is as much “privelege” as a “right”.

    At first glance he sounds like one of them that Posse Comitatus goofballs

    I think the whole “Tigerton” incident in Wisconsin (that goes a long ways back) was the tipping point for the Posse Comitatus movement gaining legs in Wisconsin.  And I think “ground zero” was the local zoning administrator or building inspector trying to deal with a bunch of mobile homes that the group installed on a bunch of land.

    If you look at the infamous cases where there have been shootouts with the authorities by these type of groups, I think you will find that somewhere in the beginning it started out as a pissing war with the local zoning administrator or inspector.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1628 hrs




18. RE: If he didn’t go into any of his buildings (home, shed, or whatever).

    The property assessor has become very sketchy on what he did or did not do on my property.  As best I can gather is was the usual walk around: Measure the permieter of the house with a measuring wheel and observing through the windows to see if there were any unrecorded improvements.  This constitutes a search.

    I hopeful will find out more details of the exact date and nature of the tresspass at the Board of Review held this Friday.

    And what color is the sky in the world that you equate an agent of the STATE (aka “peace officer") with the UPS man?

    I was offended by the attitude: “We don’t need no stinkin’ warrants”, and have taken about the only steps available to me to limit a second warrantless search of my property.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 21, 2008 at 1928 hrs




19. The saga of one attention-starved man seeking to raise the cost of local government all while seeking to avoid paying his share of it.

    Why would you assume I am not paying taxes or planning on not paying the assessed taxes?

    Insisting the state constitution and state statutes be followed is long, long leap from throwing tea into the harbor or not paying taxes which are legally due.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 21, 2008 at 1941 hrs




20. According to the 9 people wearing black robes in DC, peering in someone’s window does not constitute an illegal search.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 2125 hrs