PDA

View Full Version : TX-Woman pulls gun, runs off power company employee trying to install "smart meter".




Anti Federalist
07-19-2012, 11:55 AM
H/T to InfoWars for the story.




Power struggle: Local woman uses gun to stop worker from installing smart meter.

http://www.khou.com/news/Harris-County-woman-uses-gun-to-stop-worker-from-installing-smart-meter-162948266.html

Posted on July 18, 2012 at 5:58 PM

HOUSTON – Thelma Taormina didn’t want a new electric meter, and she went to great lengths to keep her old one.

When a worker showed up at her northwest Harris County home to install a smart meter, she grabbed her gun.

"He just kept pushing me away," the 55-year-old Taormina, who is licensed to carry a weapon, said. "He saw it, and went back the other way."

CenterPoint Energy has nearly completed installing more than 2 million smart meters in the Harris County area.

But Taormina says she shouldn’t be forced to get one.

The smart meters digitally count kilowatts and wirelessly transmit information.

"Our constitution allows us not to have that kind of intrusion on our personal privacy," she said. "They’ll be able to tell if you are running your computer, air conditioner, whatever it is."

"I am very upset with it," her husband said.

The Public Utilities Commission is now considering allowing homeowners to have the smart meters removed.

Meanwhile, the Taorminas have formed a group called "We the People," which is asking for hearings that could change when and where smart meters are placed.

For now, the Taorminas get to keep their old meter. But that might not last – despite the warning signs they’ve posted at their home.

"We are deeply troubled by anyone who would pull a gun on another person performing their job," a CenterPoint spokesperson said. "CenterPoint will be taking additional steps – including court actions – because what happened is dangerous, illegal and unwarranted."

The Taorminas and the group "We the People" plan to continue asking the PUC to not force people to use the new meters.

Kylie
07-19-2012, 11:58 AM
Well we are deeply troubled that people have to go to that length to get you to understand we dont want your shit.

LibertyEagle
07-19-2012, 11:59 AM
Good for her!

aGameOfThrones
07-19-2012, 12:06 PM
"We are deeply troubled by anyone who would pull a gun on another person performing their job," a CenterPoint spokesperson said. "CenterPoint will be taking additional steps – including court actions – because what happened is dangerous, illegal and unwarranted."

"We agree."~GOAT(Guild Of American Thieves)

angelatc
07-19-2012, 12:18 PM
I wonder if they're going to take any action against their guy for pushing the woman ?

kathy88
07-19-2012, 12:28 PM
Silly mundane. Now you're a terrorist.

RickyJ
07-19-2012, 12:29 PM
The problem is that most power companies are monopolies, they have no competition. This needs to change and people need to start realizing that they they can produce their own electricity with solar and windmill technology today much more efficiently and cheaper than it could be accomplished just 10 years ago. You don't have to and shouldn't rely on one source of electricity.

Tod
07-19-2012, 12:50 PM
Well we are deeply troubled that people have to go to that length to get you to understand we dont want your shit.


^this

muzzled dogg
07-19-2012, 01:29 PM
NH SB266 - Prohibiting electric utilities from installing and maintaining smart meter gateway devices without the residential or business property owner's consent.

satchelmcqueen
07-19-2012, 04:58 PM
"We are deeply troubled by anyone who would pull a gun on another person performing their job," a CenterPoint spokesperson said. "CenterPoint will be taking additional steps – including court actions – because what happened is dangerous, illegal and unwarranted."

and pushing intrusive things on us is illegal and unwarranted as well.

TheTexan
07-19-2012, 05:30 PM
This story gives me great hope. Thanks for posting.

However small a victory it may be, it's a real step towards freedom, and as they say... the first step is always the hardest

Anti Federalist
07-19-2012, 06:24 PM
NH SB266 - Prohibiting electric utilities from installing and maintaining smart meter gateway devices without the residential or business property owner's consent.

I really do love living here.

MelissaWV
07-19-2012, 06:27 PM
She ran off?

Anti Federalist
07-19-2012, 06:30 PM
She ran off?

Eats, shoots and leaves.

Thank you dear.

John F Kennedy III
07-21-2012, 06:46 PM
Woman Pulls Gun To Prevent Smart Meter Installation


Homeowners reject unconstitutional intrusion

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, July 19, 2012

A Harris County woman pulled a gun on a CenterPoint Energy worker to prevent the installation of a smart meter in a confrontation that highlights concerns about the devices being used to spy on Americans’ energy use, as well as possible health impacts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojBr4zqYmFk&feature=player_detailpage


55-year-old Thelma Taormina has signs posted on her front gate warning utility employees not to trespass on her land, as well as another that reads, “No smart meters are to be installed on this property.”

However, that didn’t stop a CenterPoint Energy worker from attempting to replace Taormina’s old electricity meter with a new device that wirelessly beams back information on each home’s energy use to a central hub.

When the worker began physically pushing Taormina out of the way in an effort to install the smart meter, Taormina drew her gun and demanded the worker leave the property .

“Our constitution allows us not to have that kind of intrusion on our personal privacy,” Taormina told KHOU 11 News. “They’ll be able to tell if you are running your computer, air conditioner, whatever it is.”

Indeed, privacy experts have warned that smart meters could be used to spy on consumers in a myriad of different ways, including “what appliances are being used in individual homes, and even what programmes are being watched on TV.”

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) warns that the rollout of smart meters will allow “massive collection of personal data” by utility companies and governments, tracking what “households do within the privacy of their own homes, whether they are away on holiday or at work, if someone uses a specific medical device or a baby monitor, or how they spend their free time”.

Taormina and her husband also expressed fears about the potential health impacts of the smart meter.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine and other health bodies have voiced concern about potential damaging effects of radio waves emitted by the smart meters and have have urged a moratorium on installing the devices.

The group recently warned that people suffering from “neurological, neurodegenerative diseases, genetic defects, cancer, and other conditions,” should avoid smart meters because they could be “adversely impacted by electromagnetic frequency (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) fields,” emitted by the devices.

The Public Utilities Commission is now debating whether to allow homeowners who have already had smart meters installed to have them removed. In other areas of the country, utility companies are forcing residents to pay an extra charge to stay on conventional analogue meters.

CenterPoint Energy is now threatening to take Taormina to court over her actions in forcing the utility worker off her property.


original article here:
http://www.infowars.com/woman-pulls-gun-to-prevent-smart-meter-installation/

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 07:21 PM
I posted this in another thread while it was being merged, I guess.

But, this is BULLSHIT!

The power company owns the meter and they were not trespassing! In fact, in order to obtain electricity from the power company, she had to sign an electric service agreement which indicates she will allow access to her meter and her service. So the first point is bogus!

The second point, these utility workers are trained to leave if they receive any sort of interference. I highly doubt he was the one instigating the confrontation. He wouldn't be pushing her out of the way to do his job, he would have been doing his job when she tried to push him out of the way. Point 2, most likely false.

Because of the highly sensitive nature of these programs, I doubt the utility company will press charges, but she's damn lucky if they don't.

Look, I don't want smart meters any more than the next guy, but this is NOT the way to prevent them. You talk to your politicians that are making companies install them. You talk to the PUC's and tell them to stop pushing this crap! But leave the utility workers alone! From their perspective, they are simply removing an old piece of the company's equpiment and installing a new one. They've done this for years.

As an expert, I've given many tutorials about the dangers of smart meters. The health concerns are extremely low, but the privacy concerns are real. Stop smart meter programs. But don't assault utility workers. Remember, you asked them to come when you agreed to buy power from them.

donnay
07-21-2012, 07:25 PM
NH SB266 - Prohibiting electric utilities from installing and maintaining smart meter gateway devices without the residential or business property owner's consent.

Thank you that is good to know, but I know they are trying their damnedest to get people to accept them. These things are bad news!!

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 07:25 PM
CaptUSA, I disagree 100% with everything you just said. Except the part about smart meters being bad. You got that part right.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:26 PM
Can't the utility company change their rules and only sell electricity to people agree to smart meters? Is there any law or contract that forces them to do business with people like these?

donnay
07-21-2012, 07:27 PM
I posted this in another thread while it was being merged, I guess.

But, this is BULLSHIT!

The power company owns the meter and they were not trespassing! In fact, in order to obtain electricity from the power company, she had to sign an electric service agreement which indicates she will allow access to her meter and her service. So the first point is bogus!

The second point, these utility workers are trained to leave if they receive any sort of interference. I highly doubt he was the one instigating the confrontation. He wouldn't be pushing her out of the way to do his job, he would have been doing his job when she tried to push him out of the way. Point 2, most likely false.

Because of the highly sensitive nature of these programs, I doubt the utility company will press charges, but she's damn lucky if they don't.

Look, I don't want smart meters any more than the next guy, but this is NOT the way to prevent them. You talk to your politicians that are making companies install them. You talk to the PUC's and tell them to stop pushing this crap! But leave the utility workers alone! From their perspective, they are simply removing an old piece of the company's equpiment and installing a new one. They've done this for years.

As an expert, I've given many tutorials about the dangers of smart meters. The health concerns are extremely low, but the privacy concerns are real. Stop smart meter programs. But don't assault utility workers. Remember, you asked them to come when you agreed to buy power from them.


You should watch the video above. The woman quotes the Texas law, and they cannot just walk up on your property and change meters without your consent.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 07:27 PM
Thats like saying I signed a contract with a lawn care company that says they can access my lawn, so therefore if they wanted to, I should let them install cameras in my lawn??

Fuck that, CaptUSA

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:28 PM
Thank you that is good to know, but I know they are trying their damnedest to get people to accept them. These things are bad news!!

Electricity is not a right, nor an obligation, so all they have to do is stop selling to people who don't consent, and see who wants to stall or install.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:30 PM
You should watch the video above. The woman quotes the Texas law, and they cannot just walk up on your property and change meters without your consent.

Is there a law that says utility companies have to sell electricity to anybody they dislike?

donnay
07-21-2012, 07:38 PM
Is there a law that says utility companies have to sell electricity to anybody they dislike?

If it were a truly free market, no they would not have to sell anything to anyone they disapproved of. However, we do not have a free market.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 07:39 PM
Thats like saying I signed a contract with a lawn care company that says they can access my lawn, so therefore if they wanted to, I should let them install cameras in my lawn??

Fuck that, CaptUSAListen, I know you don't like it, but the electric company owns the meter. It's their equipment. You cannot tell them they cannot have access to their property. We're all about property rights here, right?

If this were my business, I would cut the power at the pole, and take my equipment back. Then she wouldn't have to worry about anyone from the power company changing equipment out, but she wouldn't have power. She can go off the grid.

Again, I don't like the idea of smart meters being forced down people's throats, but you can't assault an employee for doing their job. It is NOT trespassing. The proper place to stop this is at the ballot box and with phone calls to reps. If you really want it stop, stop buying power! You don't have a right to electricity! It's a product you purchase. If you don't like the way it's being sold, stop buying it! Don't pull a gun on the guy selling it to you!

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 07:41 PM
Listen, I know you don't like it, but the electric company owns the meter. It's their equipment. You cannot tell them they cannot have access to their property. We're all about property rights here, right?


They can take it out, but I don't have to sit there and watch them install a spy machine on my property


Again, I don't like the idea of smart meters being forced down people's throats, but you can't assault an employee for doing their job.

It wasn't assault according to the story. She asked him to leave her property. He didn't.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:46 PM
If it were a truly free market, no they would not have to sell anything to anyone they disapproved of. However, we do not have a free market.

So they are currently forced to sell and you are ok with it because we don't have a truly free market?

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:47 PM
They can take it out, but I don't have to sit there and watch them install a spy machine on my property

It wasn't assault according to the story. She asked him to leave her property. He didn't.

At least you are willing to live without it. I'm not sure if this woman was.

Pericles
07-21-2012, 07:50 PM
Is there a law that says utility companies have to sell electricity to anybody they dislike?

problem is there is one company that owns the meters and lines in a given area,and the electric companies compete for delivery contracts from customers, and then have a deliver agreement with the company that owns the meters and lines.

But is probably the best news I will hear all day.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 07:50 PM
You don't have a right to electricity! It's a product you purchase. If you don't like the way it's being sold, stop buying it!

Nice thought, but in many places, and I'm pretty sure Texas is one of them, you will have your dwelling condemned and seized if you do not maintain an electric hook up, regardless of off grid sources you may have.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 07:50 PM
They can take it out, but I don't have to sit there and watch them install a spy machine on my property



It wasn't assault according to the story. She asked him to leave her property. He didn't.These smart meters are being mandated by legislation. This is not something the power companies would do on their own. The cost/benefit ratio is still wrong. And her story is bullshit. He was there to do a job and was doing it. She may have asked him to leave, but he wasn't trespassing. They already failed on that part. They have a right to be there. Then, she admitted trying to interfere with him doing his job. Trust me, I train these workers. They are trained to leave if they are being harassed. I would guess he didn't think the harassment was too bad untiil she pulled a weapon.

You're right, you don't have to let them install a spy machine on your property. When they send you the letter telling you they are going to do just that, you can tell them you no longer want to buy their power. You don't assault the worker. Damn. Why is this hard to understand?!

donnay
07-21-2012, 07:51 PM
So they are currently forced to sell and you are ok with it because we don't have a truly free market?

Yes I am forced to buy their monopolized service. However, I can plunk down about $20,000 and use solar power and get of their grid.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 07:52 PM
Nice thought, but in many places, and I'm pretty sure Texas is one of them, you will have your dwelling condemned and seized if you do not maintain an electric hook up, regardless of off grid sources you may have.Again, not true. You may have to prove that you have a heating source, but it doesn't have to be electricity and it doesn't have to be generated by a power company. You can sustain your power through self-generation and they will not seize your home.

donnay
07-21-2012, 07:53 PM
These smart meters are being mandated by legislation. This is not something the power companies would do on their own. The cost/benefit ratio is still wrong. And her story is bullshit. He was there to do a job and was doing it. She may have asked him to leave, but he wasn't trespassing. They already failed on that part. They have a right to be there. Then, she admitted trying to interfere with him doing his job. Trust me, I train these workers. They are trained to leave if they are being harassed. I would guess he didn't think the harassment was too bad untiil she pulled a weapon.

You're right, you don't have to let them install a spy machine on your property. When they send you the letter telling you they are going to do just that, you can tell them you no longer want to buy their power. You don't assault the worker. Damn. Why is this hard to understand?!



So let me see if I get this right. My cable modem is not mine, it is the property of Comcast. Does that mean a Comcast worker come walk in my home and take it out?

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:53 PM
Yes I am forced to buy their monopolized service. However, I can plunk down about $20,000 and use solar power and get of their grid.

No you are not. You are not required to have any form of electricity. Otherwise homeless people would be fined or jailed.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 07:54 PM
So let me see if I get this right. My cable modem is not mine, it is the property of Comcast. Does that mean a Comcast worker come walk in my home and take it out?No. It is not part of your cable service agreement that they may need access to your modem. But if you buy power, they company owns the lines and the meter. They need to have access to their equipment for service and billing reasons. If you want service, you have to agree to allow them access.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:54 PM
So let me see if I get this right. My cable modem is not mine, it is the property of Comcast. Does that mean a Comcast worker come walk in my home and take it out?

Not without reasonable notice or proper procedures. Typically theydo not care if you keep it as long as you do not resell it or use it on other companies.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 07:56 PM
problem is there is one company that owns the meters and lines in a given area,and the electric companies compete for delivery contracts from customers, and then have a deliver agreement with the company that owns the meters and lines.

But is probably the best news I will hear all day.

Unless the constituon guarantees you a right to electricity, that is not a problem because nobody violated your rights

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 08:03 PM
No. It is not part of your cable service agreement that they may need access to your modem. But if you buy power, they company owns the lines and the meter. They need to have access to their equipment for service and billing reasons. If you want service, you have to agree to allow them access.

Just because its in a contract that they can access it does not mean you have to obey the contract. It's not against the law to break a contract.

Once she told him to get off her property... he absolutely was trespassing by staying.

She did break the contract though, and at that point, it's up to the power company whether they want to terminate the contract (and pursue any civil charges as applicable to the contract), or keep her as a customer.

I don't know about the legislation part of this, but if it was mandated by legislation... all the more power to her (no pun intended) for standing up for her rights.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 08:06 PM
Just because its in a contract that they can access it does not mean you have to obey the contract. It's not against the law to break a contract.


So tell me what is a contract if it's not against the law to break? What good is a contract?



Once she told him to get off her property... he absolutely was trespassing by staying.

She did break the contract though, and at that point, it's up to the power company whether they want to terminate the contract (and pursue any civil charges as applicable to the contract), or keep her as a customer.


I wonder if they are actually allowed to terminate their service with her, or if they are, how she'd react.


I don't know about the legislation part of this, but if it was mandated by legislation... all the more power to her (no pun intended) for standing up for her rights.

it's not a right if you signed it away or depend on somebody for something you need.

donnay
07-21-2012, 08:06 PM
Just because its in a contract that they can access it does not mean you have to obey the contract. It's not against the law to break a contract.

Once she told him to get off her property... he absolutely was trespassing by staying.

She did break the contract though, and at that point, it's up to the power company whether they want to terminate the contract (and pursue any civil charges as applicable to the contract), or keep her as a customer.

I don't know about the legislation part of this, but if it was mandated by legislation... all the more power to her (no pun intended) for standing up for her rights.


But she didn't break any contract, since the law requires them to give the customer an option--to accept or decline the smartmeter. This was never presented. They took it upon themselves to just change it with no notice at all.

MJU1983
07-21-2012, 08:11 PM
Hah! See how well "the courts" go in your pursuit to trash on private property rights/ castle doctrine in Texas. Last I heard you can shoot someone just for coming on to you property!

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 08:13 PM
In all cases the meter shall be located in a position that is accessible to
Company employees at all times without Customer assistance. Access to the
meter shall not be blocked by gates, walls, fences, or other means without prior approval.
When such approval is granted, an upgrade of equipment will be required
and additional charges will be incurred by the customer.Taken from Centerpoint's ESA.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 08:15 PM
But she didn't break any contract, since the law requires them to give the customer an option--to accept or decline the smartmeter. This was never presented. They took it upon themselves to just change it with no notice at all.Again, this is what she is saying, but I find this impossible to believe. Every company sends out letters of intent prior to installing these meters that include options for customers. In most locations, opt-out provisions are hard to obtain. Again, this is because of the legislators and not because of the power companies.

QueenB4Liberty
07-21-2012, 08:15 PM
But she didn't break any contract, since the law requires them to give the customer an option--to accept or decline the smartmeter. This was never presented. They took it upon themselves to just change it with no notice at all.

No, I don't think you have an option..we have a smart meter. I remember when it was installed. I've heard horror stories about them doing it while people were not home and all of their appliances that were turned on when it was installed got fried. We were lucky we were home. My dad turned off all the power before they did it. But They suck. I didn't know the thing about the privacy, but the fact that they can turn your electricity on and off at will from a remote location bothers me a lot. We weren't presented with an option when we got ours. He knocked on the door, but we never saw him. Then he went around the side of our house where it was located and installed it. It's not something my parents would've accepted willingly. It also messed up our air conditioning somehow, because a few weeks after it was installed, we had A/C problems and we talked to our tech and said we weren't the only people that just had smart meters installed that had problems.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 08:18 PM
No, I don't think you have an option..we have a smart meter. I remember when it was installed. I've heard horror stories about them doing it while people were not home and all of their appliances that were turned on when it was installed got fried. We were lucky we were home. My dad turned off all the power before they did it. But They suck. I didn't know the thing about the privacy, but the fact that they can turn your electricity on and off at will from a remote location bothers me a lot. We weren't presented with an option when we got ours. He knocked on the door, but we never saw him. Then he went around the side of our house where it was located and installed it. It's not something my parents would've accepted willingly. It also messed up our air conditioning somehow, because a few weeks after it was installed, we had A/C problems and we talked to our tech and said we weren't the only people that just had smart meters installed that had problems.I doubt the meter is affecting your A/C in any way. It's not how they work. However, if you have some type of Programmable Controlable Thermostat that is connected to your meter, it could definitely pose an issue. But you would have had to ask for that type of set-up.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 08:18 PM
Again, this is what she is saying, but I find this impossible to believe. Every company sends out letters of intent prior to installing these meters that include options for customers. In most locations, opt-out provisions are hard to obtain. Again, this is because of the legislators and not because of the power companies.

are you accusing an innocent gun toting patriotic American of lying? You think she would lie to the media just to get attention?

Since you admit the opt out is hard to obtain, we can't entirely blame her for not opting out, we just don't know the details.

As for "blame the legislators" that is a bit responsibility shifting, and you can bet conspiracy theorists will say "but that law was lobbied by electricity companies to benefit themselves and invade our sacred privacy!"

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 08:19 PM
Again, this is because of the legislators and not because of the power companies.

But wouldn't passing laws prohibiting the installation of these infernal devices also be a violation of the company's "property rights"?

I understand your frustration here, being in the business and not wanting to be shot at, but when it is boiled down to simply a question of "property rights" as opposed to the right to be "secure in papers persons and effects", I will almost always come down on the latter.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 08:30 PM
So tell me what is a contract if it's not against the law to break? What good is a contract?

Contracts are of a civil nature, not criminal. They're enforced in civil courts.

The difference between civil & criminal is generally that civil suits are intended to be restorative (ie, to recover damages from a broken contract), whereas criminal offenses land you in jail.

Breaking the contract (just assuming for now that it was broken... power company lawyers are well paid) is not a crime. But staying on a woman's property after she tells you to leave... that absolutely is a crime.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 08:33 PM
Contracts are of a civil nature, not criminal. They're enforced in civil courts.

The difference between civil & criminal is generally that civil suits are intended to be restorative (ie, to recover damages from a broken contract), whereas criminal offenses land you in jail.

Breaking the contract (just assuming for now that it was broken... power company lawyers are well paid) is not a crime. But staying on a woman's property after she tells you to leave... that absolutely is a crime.

Wouldn't they only be enforceable in civil courts if there are laws that say "civil courts have authority to enforce contracts when legally and voluntarily entered by two or more consenting adults ?

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 08:36 PM
Wouldn't they only be enforceable in civil courts if there are laws that say "civil courts have authority to enforce contracts when legally and voluntarily entered by two or more consenting adults ?

I'm not a laywer, so I can't tell you where civil courts derive their authority. But civil & criminal suits are two very different things.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 08:40 PM
I'm not a laywer, so I can't tell you where civil courts derive their authority. But civil & criminal suits are two very different things.

you seem to know they have authority and they are enforceable.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 08:41 PM
you seem to know they have authority and they are enforceable.

Not sure where you're going with this

Nickels
07-21-2012, 08:44 PM
Not sure where you're going with this

for this discussions purposes, it doesn't matter, since it's much easier to walk away from a property than to enforce a stupid contract. But what I was geting at was, they're not different as far as you are forced to comply when courts or juries decide you are liable. You may no go to jail for civil violations, and the plaintiff is a person not a government, but otherwise you are no more free to ignore the court's authority.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 08:44 PM
California Activists Want Smart Meters Banned, Claim They're Bad for Health

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/meters_07-20.html

RAY SUAREZ: Next: a follow-up to our story last Friday about an Austin, Tex., neighborhood that uses smart grid technology to track and control its energy consumption. Not everyone thinks that's a good idea.

NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michels reports on some California activists who'd like to see the devices banned.

SPENCER MICHELS: Fairfax, Calif., a small, hip, politically liberal, environmentally concerned town in Marin County, across the Golden Gate from San Francisco, it's the home of Valeri Hood, a landscaper and activist who decided that the local utility's decision to replace her traditional gas and electric meters posed a danger to her.

She doesn't want a new one, a so-called smart meter that reads how much energy is being used and transmits the figures to Pacific Gas & Electric via radio signals. PG&E has installed nine million smart meters in Northern Calif., part of a $2.2 billion program.

It has been touted as a way to save money and energy, because the transmitted information can be used to monitor home energy use. That allows residents to use appliances when demand is low, reducing their costs.

WOMAN: So, just walking door to door, putting these on the door hangers. They're not smart, they're not green, and they're not safe and they're not legal.

SPENCER MICHELS: Hood and her fellow activist, Mary Beth Brangan, believe wireless smart meters emit harmful electromagnetic radiation, a contention that has spurred a major debate and studies to back up both sides.

Hood and Brangan took up the fight against the smart meters, and started printing signs and petitions for several reasons.

VALERI HOOD, activist: PG&E has decided to do a wireless version, and they didn't need to be wireless. They could have been hardwired.

MARY BETH BRANGAN, Ecological Options Network: People have reported seizures. They have reported migraines. They have had trouble sleeping, heart problems, arrhythmias, a lot of symptoms from difficulties with smart meters.

VALERI HOOD: This was just pushed on our communities without any sort of input or education or anything. And it was, all of a sudden, you're going to get smart meters, whether you like it or not.

SPENCER MICHELS: They weren't alone. Environmentalists and others in several parts of the country have taken up the anti-smart meter cause, as utilities spend $29 billion to upgrade their networks and install the new meters.

Hood lobbied the Fairfax Town Council, and after several meetings, the council decided to ban the smart meters. The Marin County supervisors took a similar stand, outlawing new devices, at least for now. More than a dozen California cities and counties have passed such legislation.

EDWARD RANDOLPH, California Public Utilities Commission: They don't have the jurisdiction individually to create a smart meter-free zone, or whatever they want to call it.

SPENCER MICHELS: Edward Randolph is director of energy for the California Public Utilities Commission, the only agency, he says, that has jurisdiction over the devices. Randolph says the PUC pushed the utilities to install smart meters.

EDWARD RANDOLPH: The vast majority of all of the input and evidence is that, you know, society is going to benefit from the smart meters.

I mean, the energy-efficiency savings alone in the long term for the state of California is going to be a large economic benefit for most rate payers.

SPENCER MICHELS: When PG&E began installing smart meters in California six years ago, its executives never suspected it would cause such a fuss. They said they considered gas and electric meters simply tools of the trade.

The meters connect diverse power sources into an efficient system, argues Helen Burt, the chief customer officer for PG&E.

HELEN BURT, Pacific Gas & Electric: Well, a smart meter is really a basic building block of a smarter grid. And a smart grid is being built all over the United States to connect solar power and other pieces of intermittent renewable power into the electric system.

SPENCER MICHELS: While critics say the use of wireless technology contains a risk, Burt discounts it.

HELEN BURT: I will tell you, we know they're safe. We know smart meters are safe. I believe wireless technology is safe. I have no qualms whatsoever about the safety. You know, I probably have seven or eight wireless devices, two of which are probably with me today. So I think we live in a wireless world.

SPENCER MICHELS: Engineering Dean Emir Jose Macari of Sacramento State University also defends wireless technology. He was part of the California Council on Science and Technology, a team that reviewed the literature on electromagnetic emissions, including radio frequency waves, or RF, a study often cited by PG&E.

EMIR JOSE MACARI, Sacramento State University: There is no proof of any health impacts from RF. The World Health Organization put out a report in 2005 saying there is no evidence of any harms to human beings from these technologies.

SPENCER MICHELS: But they didn't say that harm wasn't possible?

EMIR JOSE MACARI: Correct. We continue to say maybe more studies are needed.

SPENCER MICHELS: Macari demonstrated for us how the emissions from a smart meter can be monitored. He says those emissions are very slight.

EMIR JOSE MACARI: So, I could also be measuring emissions on my cell phone.

SPENCER MICHELS: So, how does it compare?

EMIR JOSE MACARI: Well, this is so much higher.

SPENCER MICHELS: Really?

EMIR JOSE MACARI: But -- by 20 times higher than what a smart meter does.

SPENCER MICHELS: And he says the emissions tail off.

EMIR JOSE MACARI: As we measure right here, and as you measure it further and further, the signal goes down exponentially.

Still, opponents of smart meters, like Joshua Hart, continue their fight at the Public Utilities Commission and elsewhere. Hart founded Stop Smart Meters. And he says the studies PG&E cites conflict with others showing problems. He says no studies have been done on smart meters, per se, but research on cell phones is relevant.

JOSHUA HART, Stop Smart Meters: The National Institutes of Health have found changes in neurological chemistry because of exposure to wireless. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that show impacts on human health and behavior at levels far below what the FCC guidelines indicate are permissible.

SPENCER MICHELS: Hart is calling for a halt to the technology, even though PG&E is 90 percent through installing the new meters.

JOSH HART: We think there should be an immediate moratorium on the technology, pending a series of independent hearings on the problems that have been identified. And this needs to be a national and international halt. And we need investigations.

SPENCER MICHELS: The movement against smart meters has been joined not just by environmentalists and leftists, but also by Tea Party activists, who see the meters as an invasion of privacy, since they collect data on people's electricity use that could indicate facts about their lifestyles.

JOSH HART: The smart meters reveal how many people are home, what time you wake up in the morning, what appliances you're using, even perhaps what television program you're watching. And this is all information that is extraordinarily valuable to third-party corporations.

SPENCER MICHELS: Do you sell the data to anyone?

HELEN BURT: Absolutely not.

SPENCER MICHELS: Do you share it with anyone?

HELEN BURT: No. Our customers own their data. We do not own their data.

(Oh what horseshit. Do I really need to post how many times cops have raided alleged marijuana "grow" homes based on electric usage that was happily turned over by the utility company? - AF)

SPENCER MICHELS: One thing Hart and his supporters have achieved is a provision that people who want to keep their old meters can do so, provided they pay a $75 fee and $10-a-month charges to opt out of the smart meter program.

MARY BETH BRANGAN: A lot of people consider it extortion to have to pay to not have something on your house that can harm you.

SPENCER MICHELS: PG&E's Burt says the company accepts the opt-out program, even though the numbers are small. But it means the utility must maintain two separate systems, at a cost.

HELEN BURT: We have got about five million households across the service territory. About 30,000 have elected to opt out. The rest of our customers are really engaged in a different way with the new technology.

(Yes, yes they are. They embrace it and love it, like the porno-scanners and gate rapes at the airport, and the gazillion surveillance cameras popping up all over and their OnStar in their cars all keeping them safe under the watchful gaze of Big Brother. Yes, they embrace and it love and happily throw away their privacy. - AF)

SPENCER MICHELS: While that new technology remains controversial, a utility research group says about half of U.S. homes, 65 million, will have wireless meters within three years.

JEFFREY BROWN: In a blog post, Spencer further examines the dueling scientific claims about smart meters and whether they do or don't cause illnesses.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 08:47 PM
As for "blame the legislators" that is a bit responsibility shifting, and you can bet conspiracy theorists will say "but that law was lobbied by electricity companies to benefit themselves and invade our sacred privacy!"BS. Check everywhere this legislation has come up. The only ones against it are the electric companies. When they are successful in their lobbying campaigns, it is to off-set the costs and make consumers pay for it. They never win the argument to prevent this type of interference in their business.

Please, please check to see who is pushing these types of laws and who is fighting against them. Especially before you think you have the "right" to assault a worker for doing his job.

Now, once we lose the battle and the legislation is pushed onto our customers, we have an obligation to let them know how they can use this new technology to their benefit. It does our business no good to throw stones at the legislators after they pass this stuff.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 08:47 PM
you are no more free to ignore the court's authority.

Yes, but you say that like facing the civil court's authority is a bad thing. If you're in a bad contract, there's nothing at all wrong with getting out of it early. Most contracts have early termination clauses, and even if they don't, it's 100% your right and choice to decide to breach a contract, and make your case in civil court if necessary.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about breaching contracts. It is however very illegal and very immoral to stay on one's property after being told to leave. Two very different things.

Nickels
07-21-2012, 08:49 PM
BS. Check everywhere this legislation has come up. The only ones against it are the electric companies. When they are successful in their lobbying campaigns, it is to off-set the costs and make consumers pay for it. They never win the argument to prevent this type of interference in their business.

wait, so who is for it if electricity companies are against it???

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 08:50 PM
BS. Check everywhere this legislation has come up. The only ones against it are the electric companies. When they are successful in their lobbying campaigns, it is to off-set the costs and make consumers pay for it. They never win the argument to prevent this type of interference in their business.

Assuming it's not public relations spin, (a very distinct possibility) the power company mouthpieces in the interview I posted seemed all for it.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 08:55 PM
wait, so who is for it if electricity companies are against it???The government. And the environmentalists. Pretty much every other intervener. Even our industrial customers are pushing for it because it can provide more reliable service. And the thing is, this system doesn't work if half the people opt-out. That's why in PA, when we pushed for an opt-out provision, everyone came out against it. Even the OCA!!! Office of Consumer Advocate, my ass!

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 08:57 PM
Assuming it's not public relations spin, (a very distinct possibility) the power company mouthpieces in the interview I posted seemed all for it.Yeah, we do this too. Once the legislation became law, we have an obligation to get our customers on board. Hell, it's even in the legislation! Why would we spend millions of dollars on adveertising trying to get people to use less of our product unless we were mandated to do so?

I'm sure people see these commercials in every state. You know, "Ask us about ways you can save money on your electric bills!", "We'll give you rebates if you buy more efficient appliances". It's all part of the same game.

Dr.3D
07-21-2012, 09:05 PM
Man, if I had pulled a gun like that woman did, they would have me in jail for brandishing a firearm.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 09:07 PM
The government. And the environmentalists. Pretty much every other intervener. Even our industrial customers are pushing for it because it can provide more reliable service. And the thing is, this system doesn't work if half the people opt-out. That's why in PA, when we pushed for an opt-out provision, everyone came out against it. Even the OCA!!! Office of Consumer Advocate, my ass!

IMO, this basically throws out the whole "Don't take it out on the worker, he's just doing his job" argument. If he's mandated to do it by the government, he's acting as an agent of the government. Willing or unwillingly does not matter.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 09:11 PM
IMO, this basically throws out the whole "Don't take it out on the worker, he's just doing his job" argument. If he's mandated to do it by the government, he's acting as an agent of the government. Willing or unwillingly does not matter.Come on. The government instructed his company to change out their equipment and you call him an agent of the government because he's doing his job?

Again, if you don't want these meters, there are ways to prevent them. Assaulting the workers is not the way.

It's like you guys think electricity from the power company is a right... What the hell? You're buying a product. If you don't like the way it's being delivered, stop buying it! I don't like the way the government is making us deliver it, but still. This is not the way!

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:13 PM
I'm friends with Thelma. FYI- she has been an activist since 2009 and fighting smart meters for some time.

To those posting saying she assaulted someone for doing their job- that's the exact opposite of her claim, with Themla saying "He just kept pushing me away,". So, that is assault. Of course, not all the facts are in...

I would be interested to know if any of the laws relating to power companies trump ones ability to tell workers to leave if they have been asked. Yes, you could be in breach of contract by not providing access- but as said, that's not criminal, trespassing is.

Akin to AF's point, I had seen some news stories of something to the effect of people being harassed for not using enough power.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 09:14 PM
Come on. The government instructed his company to change out their equipment and you call him an agent of the government because he's doing his job?

Yes. I do. Because if he's doing the government's bidding... by definition, that makes him an agent of the government.


Again, if you don't want these meters, there are ways to prevent them. Assaulting the workers is not the way.

According to the story, she told him to leave. He didn't. That's not assault. He's committing trespass, and you're on his side? What's with that.


It's like you guys think electricity from the power company is a right

I have said no such thing.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 09:17 PM
I that's not criminal, trespassing is.
ARGH!!! It's not trespassing!!! The power company owns the equipment. If you are preventing the company from accessing THEIR equipment, you are the one in the wrong!!! Geez, people. Understand this. Everytime you say it's trespassing, you've already misunderstood the situation.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 09:17 PM
I'm friends with Thelma. FYI- she has been an activist since 2009 and fighting smart meters for some time.

To those posting saying she assaulted someone for doing their job- that's the exact opposite of her claim, with Themla saying "He just kept pushing me away,". So, that is assault. Of course, not all the facts are in...

I would be interested to know if any of the laws relating to power companies trump ones ability to tell workers to leave if they have been asked. Yes, you could be in breach of contract by not providing access- but as said, that's not criminal, trespassing is.

Akin to AF's point, I had seen some news stories of something to the effect of people being harassed for not using enough power.

Thanks for checking in Bryan, good to hear from you.

I was quite sure this woman was part of the "activist community".

It would be great if she wanted to check in with us here and tell us all just what happened.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:17 PM
I should add- I agree with the point that if you don't like the product then stop buying it... which is part of why I hadn't focused much resources on the smart meter issue, personally. Not sure if that gets you in trouble for not using enough power (as previously noted).

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:22 PM
ARGH!!! It's not trespassing!!! The power company owns the equipment. If you are preventing the company from accessing THEIR equipment, you are the one in the wrong!!! Geez, people. Understand this. Everytime you say it's trespassing, you've already misunderstood the situation.
So by that logic, if I hit a golf ball in your window I can enter your house to get my property.

Obviously that's not the case- so please explain the law (in Texas) where it gives the power company the right to access their equipment even if the home owner says to leave.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 09:23 PM
ARGH!!! It's not trespassing!!! The power company owns the equipment. If you are preventing the company from accessing THEIR equipment, you are the one in the wrong!!! Geez, people. Understand this. Everytime you say it's trespassing, you've already misunderstood the situation.

That's not how property rights work, CaptUSA. You don't have a right to come on my land and take whatever you think is yours. You can ask me nicely, and I may let you come and get it. You may take me to civil court, and demand that I give you back your piece of property. But you do not have the right to trespass on my property to get your stuff back.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 09:26 PM
Imma just gonna have a bunch of these signs made up.

http://i.imgur.com/ZgFdd.jpg

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:29 PM
Thanks for checking in Bryan, good to hear from you.

I was quite sure this woman was part of the "activist community".

It would be great if she wanted to check in with us here and tell us all just what happened.
Thanks. I'm on her e-mail distro list, she hadn't sent anything out. She did have a meeting this afternoon which included a topic of "Discussion Regarding Smart Meters"- so we can guess what that was about. I couldn't make it, already booked up.

GeorgiaAvenger
07-21-2012, 09:30 PM
I would prefer home energy monitors for myself, and traditional "dumb" meters for the utility company.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 09:30 PM
So by that logic, if I hit a golf ball in your window I can enter your house to get my property.

Obviously that's not the case- so please explain the law (in Texas) where it gives the power company the right to access their equipment even if the home owner says to leave.Did I sign an agreement with you that I would allow you access to my home to retrieve your golf ball? No? The analogy fails.

I'm not in Texas, but electric service agreements are pretty standard. In order for billing and service issues, we need access to our equipment. We put it in there so that you cannot obtain service, then kick us out. We have to be able to turn it off. Especially, when there's hazards.

So, do you think that if one of our employees were there to disconnect someone's power for non-payment, they could just say "go away" and they could keep their power on? This makes no sense. If they threaten us, we prosecute. We have won these cases, over and over and over. Remember, the meter is not your property. In order to get electric, you have to allow us access to our property. Which is why we put it in the ESA.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:30 PM
That's not how property rights work, CaptUSA. You don't have a right to come on my land and take whatever you think is yours. You can ask me nicely, and I may let you come and get it. You may take me to civil court, and demand that I give you back your piece of property. But you do not have the right to trespass on my property to get your stuff back.
Right, unless there is some special law that trumps this and allows the power company to disregard your requests, etc... that's why I'm interested in the law on this.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 09:34 PM
That's not how property rights work, CaptUSA. You don't have a right to come on my land and take whatever you think is yours. You can ask me nicely, and I may let you come and get it. You may take me to civil court, and demand that I give you back your piece of property. But you do not have the right to trespass on my property to get your stuff back.See above. It is NOT trespassing. You act like the company just put the meter on her property without her asking for it. She asked for it, the company said, "ok, but we need access to it at any time", she said ok. Then, when they came out, she tried to prevent access, then pulled a gun. Again, I understand her frustration, but this is NOT the way to handle it.

Again, unless you are an expert in this arena, I'd suggest you learn what you're talking about in relation to property rights and electric service agreements. She is already allowing them onto her property so they are NOT trespassing.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 09:39 PM
See above. It is NOT trespassing. You act like the company just put the meter on her property without her asking for it. She asked for it, the company said, "ok, but we need access to it at any time", she said ok. Then, when they came out, she tried to prevent access, then pulled a gun. Again, I understand her frustration, but this is NOT the way to handle it.

Civil vs criminal. Do I have to repeat what I posted earlier? Refusing to allow the worker access is a civil breach of contract, whereas a worker refusing to leave her property is criminal trespass. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this?


Again, unless you are an expert in this arena, I'd suggest you learn what you're talking about in relation to property rights and electric service agreements. She is already allowing them onto her property so they are NOT trespassing.

Please answer Bryan's question about whether or not there are laws that give electric workers special privileges regarding to trespass. If there aren't any laws giving electric companies special privileges, it absolutely is trespass.

If by law electric companies are given special privileges that allow them to trespass... I don't know what else to say, other than its just one of countless laws that shouldn't exist.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:39 PM
Did I sign an agreement with you that I would allow you access to my home to retrieve your golf ball? No? The analogy fails.
I understand, but that's not what you said... from what I quoted, the analogy stands.

None-the-less, the question is, if you break that agreement, can the power company force their way on your property to get their equipment? Or, would they need to sue, and then have the property retrieved via law enforcement. If they can't force their way on, then you need to leave when asked-- else you are trespassing.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:41 PM
Then, when they came out, she tried to prevent access, then pulled a gun.
Because she claims she was assaulted.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:43 PM
If by law electric companies are given special privileges that allow them to trespass... I don't know what else to say, other than its just one of countless laws that shouldn't exist.
Exactly-- that, and they should be packing heat themselves... particular when going to shut off someones power. :eek:

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:46 PM
I'm not in Texas, but electric service agreements are pretty standard. In order for billing and service issues, we need access to our equipment. We put it in there so that you cannot obtain service, then kick us out. We have to be able to turn it off. Especially, when there's hazards.

So, do you think that if one of our employees were there to disconnect someone's power for non-payment, they could just say "go away" and they could keep their power on? This makes no sense. If they threaten us, we prosecute. We have won these cases, over and over and over. Remember, the meter is not your property. In order to get electric, you have to allow us access to our property. Which is why we put it in the ESA.
I'm certainly not arguing that the power company's should be legally hapless, it's just that if a home owner says to get off, then they have to access their equipment after going to court... unless there are special laws that they have that says otherwise (which is why I'm asking.)

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 09:48 PM
I understand, but that's not what you said... from what I quoted, the analogy stands.

None-the-less, the question is, if you break that agreement, can the power company force their way on your property to get their equipment? Or, would they need to sue, and then have the property retrieved via law enforcement. If they can't force their way on, then you need to leave when asked-- else you are trespassing.Finally, a good question. Remember, this is NOT trespassing. Check out the easment laws in your area.

An easement is a certain right to use the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another,B.
But to the point of your question, we are often threatened to keep away from our property. When this happens, we leave and get law enforcement to escort us onto the property to retrieve our property. Remember, we have a right to be there. You already gave us that right. It has nothing to do with criminal vs. civil. We have as much right to be there as you do. We both have proerty there. Again, this is NOT trespassing. Even if the customer asks us to leave, it doesn't matter. Period. (usually, the employee will call for back up, but not always. Especially, if he's not feeling threatened.) Could you imagine if it could be called trespassing?! Hell, everytime we went to disconnect power, the owner would say we're trespassing!!!

Don't you think if that was the case, we'd have to disconnect every customer without going to the meter?!

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 09:52 PM
I'm certainly not arguing that the power company's should be legally hapless, it's just that if a home owner says to get off, then they have to access their equipment after going to court... unless there are special laws that they have that says otherwise (which is why I'm asking.)Yes, there are easement laws. I don't know the specific laws in Texas, but the electric company has a right to get to their equipment. And you are not allowed to deprive them of that access. By law. Not just by civil agreement. We can get law enforcement to escort us. We don't need to go to court. If you are preventing access, you are breaking the law.\

Take a second to think about this from a collections point-of-view. Does it even make sense that we wouldn't be able to access our meter if the customer simply said, "get off my property"? The power company has an equal right to be there since they also have property there.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 09:56 PM
Don't you think if that was the case, we'd have to disconnect every customer without going to the meter?!

It's certainly a better solution than getting men with guns to do your trespassing for you.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 09:56 PM
Finally, a good question. Remember, this is NOT trespassing. Check out the easment laws in your area.

But to the point of your question, we are often threatened to keep away from our property. When this happens, we leave and get law enforcement to escort us onto the property to retrieve our property. Remember, we have a right to be there. You already gave us that right. It has nothing to do with criminal vs. civil. We have as much right to be there as you do. We both have proerty there. Again, this is NOT trespassing. Even if the customer asks us to leave, it doesn't matter. Period. (usually, the employee will call for back up, but not always. Especially, if he's not feeling threatened.) Could you imagine if it could be called trespassing?! Hell, everytime we went to disconnect power, the owner would say we're trespassing!!!
With no warrant? If the home owner asked for a warrant, would the law enforcement proceed with the escort or not? Could they legally proceed without one?

Thanks for answering the question!

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 09:56 PM
Exactly-- that, and they should be packing heat themselves... particular when going to shut off someones power. :eek:I can't tell you how many of my employees would like that! When they go to shut off someone's power, there are often these types of confrontations. They carry pepper spray and a cell phone. Still, they do get assaulted. Luckily for us, we haven't gotten to the point of "forced" smart metering yet. It's already the law, but they have given us a grace-period before we have to start changing them out. (Gee, thanks, gov't!)

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 09:57 PM
Yes, there are easement laws. I don't know the specific laws in Texas, but the electric company has a right to get to their equipment. And you are not allowed to deprive them of that access. By law. Not just by civil agreement. We can get law enforcement to escort us. We don't need to go to court. If you are preventing access, you are breaking the law.

What law?


Take a second to think about this from a collections point-of-view. Does it even make sense that we wouldn't be able to access our meter if the customer simply said, "get off my property"? The power company has an equal right to be there since they also have property there.

So if you're late returning a rental DVD, Blockbuster can just come in to your home and take it back?

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:00 PM
With no warrant? If the home owner asked for a warrant, would the law enforcement proceed with the escort or not? Could they legally proceed without one?

Thanks for answering the question!Yep. No warrant is necessary. Remember, they have a right to be there. I know you are having a hard time understanding how the home-owner has already given the electric company access, but these workers have a right to be there. They have an easement. If law enforcement came, and the homeowner asked for a warrant, they'd tell them they don't need one because they have already agreed to provide access. If the owner still refused, they could arrest them for denying access to company property... There's a name for it... Let me think.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:01 PM
Yep. No warrant is necessary. Remember, they have a right to be there. I know you are having a hard time understanding how the home-owner has already given the electric company access, but these workers have a right to be there. They have an easement. If law enforcement came, and the homeowner asked for a warrant, they'd tell them they don't need one because they have already agreed to provide access. If the owner still refused, they could arrest them for denying access to company property... There's a name for it... Let me think.

So, to your knowledge, there isn't a law specific to the electric industry, and this is just normal procedure for contracts of this nature?

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:03 PM
So if you're late returning a rental DVD, Blockbuster can just come in to your home and take it back?Have you given Blockbuster an easement onto your property? Silly question.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:06 PM
So, to your knowledge, there isn't a law specific to the electric industry, and this is just normal procedure for contracts of this nature?Look up Texas utility easement laws.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 10:09 PM
Yep. No warrant is necessary. Remember, they have a right to be there. I know you are having a hard time understanding how the home-owner has already given the electric company access,
Hey, I'm getting there. :p

Really- it's just trying to parse the exact specifics of the "right"- that's what I'm after. I understand it's theirs, it's just a matter of the due-process. Not needing a warrant doesn't sit well with me however since the LEO is then just taking someones word for it, or leaving them to evaluate a legal contract.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 10:10 PM
Yep. No warrant is necessary. Remember, they have a right to be there. I know you are having a hard time understanding how the home-owner has already given the electric company access, but these workers have a right to be there. They have an easement. If law enforcement came, and the homeowner asked for a warrant, they'd tell them they don't need one because they have already agreed to provide access. If the owner still refused, they could arrest them for denying access to company property... There's a name for it... Let me think.

My home was a brand new construction on rural land that never had electric service.

I swear I do not recall anything in the electric agreement that said anything like that.

Implied consent perhaps?

And all of this is yet another reason why I'm not comfortable with the "private" company issue.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:11 PM
Have you given Blockbuster an easement onto your property? Silly question.

If I had, would it give them the right to come into my home despite me telling them to leave?

Bryan
07-21-2012, 10:13 PM
but these workers have a right to be there. They have an easement. If law enforcement came, and the homeowner asked for a warrant, they'd tell them they don't need one because they have already agreed to provide access. If the owner still refused, they could arrest them for denying access to company property... There's a name for it... Let me think.
In Texas, there are utility easements clearly marked on legal surveys, but those are just the power lines- no defined easement for the meter... I'm not sure how you can do an ad-hoc easement without it going on record with the County Clerk. Or is this something different?

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:13 PM
Look up Texas utility easement laws.

There may be a law for it. But you seem to think that this is how contract law should work, even without special privileges given by law.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:14 PM
Implied consent perhaps?

I doubt it. These agreements are usually pretty specific.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:16 PM
This is wikipedia's opinion of easements, for what it's worth

Blocking access to someone who has an easement is a trespass upon the right of easement and creates a cause of action for civil suit.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:16 PM
There may be a law for it. But you seem to think that this is how contract law should work, even without special privileges given by law.It's how property rights work. It's more than a mere contract. It's an agreement when two people both have interest in the same property. I know you think one person's right to the property trumps the other person's, but that's not the way it works.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:18 PM
It's how property rights work. It's more than a mere contract. It's an agreement when two people both have interest in the same property. I know you think one person's right to the property trumps the other person's, but that's not the way it works.

I think you've just grown too comfortable and accustomed to the way things do work, to realize that its not the way things should work.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:19 PM
This is wikipedia's opinion of easements, for what it's worthWell, there you go. The homeowner was trespassing on the utilities right of easement. It is cause for civil action. And since she is the one trespassing, does that change your opinion of this case? You know, since SHE was trespassing and pulling a gun to do so?

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:20 PM
Well, there you go. The homeowner was trespassing on the utilities right of easement. It is cause for civil action. And since she is the one trespassing, does that change your opinion of this case? You know, since SHE was trespassing and pulling a gun to do so?

You read that much differently than I did. See the bolded statement.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:22 PM
I think you've just grown too comfortable and accustomed to the way things do work, to realize that its not the way things should work.No. I just understand the law a little bit better since I'm in this industry. She was preventing us from getting to our property. She was wrong! If we preventing her from getting into her home, we'd be wrong. If we held a gun on her and told her not to go into her home, we'd be really, really wrong.

Again, if she didn't want the meter, she should have taken different actions. If she couldn't get things taken care of differently, she should have cancelled her electric service, and with it, the easement.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:23 PM
You read that much differently than I did. See the bolded statement.Yes, I read the bolded statement. If someone was on your property and you kicked them off, the police would back you up. If you wanted further concessions, you would have cause for civil action. Again, you do not understand that SHE was the one trespassing here.

Bryan
07-21-2012, 10:24 PM
You know, since SHE was trespassing and pulling a gun to do so?
Again, she pulled the gun since she claims she was assaulted... "He just kept pushing me away,"

Again, I'm not sure how the meter placement creates an easement in Texas.

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:28 PM
Again, she pulled the gun since she claims she was assaulted... "He just kept pushing me away,"

Ok, but knowing what you do now, you see that if she was interfering with him, she was actually doing the assault. I agree he should have called in for assistance, but apparently her interference must have not seemed too bad to him. Until she pulled the gun, then he left.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:30 PM
Ok, but knowing what you do now, you see that if she was interfering with him, she was actually doing the assault. I agree he should have called in for assistance, but apparently her interference must have not seemed too bad to him. Until she pulled the gun, then he left.


An easement is a non-possessory interest in another’s property that authorizes the holder to use that
property for a particular purpose.

Unless the easement's particular purpose included spying on her, he breached the easement and was trespassing.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2012, 10:31 PM
I doubt it. These agreements are usually pretty specific.

Well, my situation and service is vastly different than that of Texas.

All this has just further convinced me that I need to bite the bullet and buy an off grid system

CaptUSA
07-21-2012, 10:34 PM
Unless the easement's particular purpose included spying on her, he breached the easement and was trespassing.Now, you're just reaching since you don't like the way property rights work.

And then you neg rep me for explaining them to you? Ridiculous.

TheTexan
07-21-2012, 10:38 PM
Now, you're just reaching since you don't like the way property rights work.

It's not reaching. It's case law. If you use an easement for a purpose outside the scope of the easement... the easement is null and void.
http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-easement.html


And then you neg rep me for explaining them to you? Ridiculous.

a) Your entire concept of easements as an instrument to override property rights without due process is immoral, regardless of law
b) Second, here I am, having to explain to you how even with the easement, you're still wrong

Bryan
07-21-2012, 10:48 PM
a) Your entire concept of easements as an instrument to override property rights without due process is immoral, regardless of law
It is the lack of due-process that is the problem... it invites abuse and corruption. Based on what is being said, someone could tell some LEO that they have property on someone else's property that they want access to... would be the same as what is described here. Or, the LEO could say "prove it" and then a fake contract could be shown... no warrant needed.

Likewise, someone at the power company could get LEO support to turn off someones power that they don't like... if it get's back to them they could just call it a mistake... if they got busted or not the damage would already be done.

devil21
07-22-2012, 03:39 AM
removed

smart meters suck

Dr.3D
07-22-2012, 07:55 AM
I don't understand what the problem here is. Doesn't the meter just report the amount of power used automatically rather than have a person come out to read it? It isn't like it can tell exactly what is using the power. For a meter to do that, they would have to have a device on every item that uses electricity in the home.

presence
07-22-2012, 08:25 AM
http://stopsmartmeters.org/sample-letter-to-utility/


TO: Agent for Service @ (utility)
President .....
Vice-President .....
ADDRESS

DATE
RE: your address

NOTICE OF NO CONSENT TO TRESPASS AND SURVEILLANCE, NOTICE OF LIABILITY

Sent By Certified Mail

Dear President ...., Vice-President... , agents, officers, employees, contractors and interested parties:


Be advised, you and all other parties are HEREBY DENIED CONSENT for installation and use of any and all “Smart Meters” or any other surveillance and activity monitoring device, or devices, at the above property. Installation and use of any surveillance and activity monitoring device that sends and receives communications technology is hereby refused and prohibited. Informed consent is legally required for installation of any surveillance device and any device that will collect and transmit private and personal data to undisclosed and unauthorized parties for undisclosed and unauthorized purposes. Authorization for sharing of personal and private information may only be given by the originator and subject of that information. That authorization is hereby denied and refused with regard to the above property and all its occupants. “Smart Meters” violate the law and cause endangerment to residents by the following factors:

1. They individually identify electrical devices inside the home and record when they are operated causing invasion of privacy.

2. They monitor household activity and occupancy in violation of rights and domestic security.

3. They transmit wireless signals which may be intercepted by unauthorized and unknown parties. Those signals can be used to monitor behavior and occupancy and they can be used by criminals to aid criminal activity against the occupants.

4. Data about occupant’s daily habits and activities are collected, recorded and stored in permanent databases which are accessed by parties not authorized or invited to know and share that private data by those whose activities were recorded.

5. Those with access to the smart meter databases can review a permanent history of household activities complete with calendar and time-of-day metrics to gain a highly invasive and detailed view of the lives of the occupants.

6. Those databases may be shared with, or fall into the hands of criminals, blackmailers, corrupt law enforcement, private hackers of wireless transmissions, power company employees, and other unidentified parties who may act against the interests of the occupants under metered surveillance.

7. “Smart Meters” are, by definition, surveillance devices which violate Federal and State wiretapping laws by recording and storing databases of private and personal activities and behaviors without the consent or knowledge of those people who are monitored.

8. It is possible for example, with analysis of certain “Smart Meter” data, for unauthorized and distant parties to determine medical conditions, sexual activities, and physical locations of persons within the home, vacancy patterns and personal information and habits of the occupants.

9. Your company has not adequately disclosed the particular recording and transmission capabilities of the smart meter, or the extent of the data that will be recorded, stored and shared, or the purposes to which the data will and will not be put.

10. Electromagnetic and Radio Frequency energy contamination from smart meters exceeds allowable safe and healthful limits for domestic environments as determined by the EPA and other scientific programs.

11. Smart meters can be hacked and will be hacked. The small CPU in these meters cannot protect itself as good as a home PC can, and home PCs are well known for being compromised. By deploying these in the millions with the same exact software and hardware they become a huge target and will endanger the community if an attacker can switch the power on and off from remote in mass. This makes these Smart Meters dangerous and a liability to the ratepayers who would have to ultimately pay for any damage.

12. Smart meters are not protected from EMP attacks, large EMPs or localized EMPs as simple as a kid with a battery and a coil (Electro Magnetic Pulse).

13. Disabling the receiver will not prevent other forms of “hacks”. For example a malicious attacker could confuse the internal CPU, reset it, change random memory locations, change the KWH reading, force a power disconnect, or completely disable a smart meter with a simple coil of wire and a small battery. This can’t happen with a mechanical meter. It is well known that a wide EMP can take out car computers; smart meters will now make that possible on the city wide electric infrastructure.

14. A thief or burglar could the same EMP or hacking methods to turn off the house power even if the electrical switch box is locked.

15. Encryption of data is irrelevant due to well known “Tempest” attacks; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST where an attacker monitors internal electrical switching signals of a CPU or other internal components from a distance. Governments have developed standards covering this. Compromising emanations are defined as unintentional intelligence-bearing signals which, if intercepted and analyzed, may disclose the information transmitted, received, handled, or otherwise processed by any information-processing equipment, like in Smart Meters. This would violate customers’ privacy and any privacy policy the power company has at this time.

16. Turning off the RF transmitter is irrelevant due to the well-known “Tempest” attacks, the RF wireless transmitter is not needed in these attacks and disabling the RF transmitter completely negates any advantages of these Smart Meters or their costs anyway.

17. Data about an occupant’s daily habits and activities are collected, recorded and stored in permanent databases which can be accessed by parties not authorized or invited to know and share that private data by those whose activities were recorded. This can be done by cyber-attacks or disgruntled employees and has been done before where the attacked company may not know of the intrusion for months.

18. The power company has not adequately disclosed the encryption or security methods to the public. The source code to any data encryption must be open source and peer reviewed by the security community at large in order to be as secure as is currently possible. Security by obscurity is no security at all.

19. Previously it was “fair” that the power company had to go to a lot of trouble to adjust the mechanical meter to read more than it should since they had to come out to do it manually. People can’t modify the mechanical meter because it’s locked up; the power company probably won’t do it because it’s just too costly, and so that was “fair enough”. Now with the smart meters they can change it anytime they wish by remote and with little risk that the customer will know. Why should customers trust a company that only has profits and stock price in mind? With possible modification of computer code or measurement values / ratios from remote, who will overlook them? Who will ever know? This is an unfair practice and a liability to the ratepayers.

20. The power company has misled the public and the Public Utility Commission by leaving out publicly available facts and information regarding smart meters. There are many downsides to this new technology that the power company has not presented to the general public or the Public Utility Commission. Information is slanted and doesn’t address the negative issues fully.

21. Smart meter installation is not mandatory. The Public Utilities Commission only gave permission to install the meters. There is no forced mandate. The PUC has no such delegated authority from the People to make a forced mandate. If they did make a forced mandate, it’s clearly null and void on its face. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 really only covers Federal areas within the limited jurisdiction of the CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED United States Government, even if it did apply, it also only mandates that a power company “offer” smart meters to the public, upon customer request.


Any suggestion by the power company to customers
that smart meters are mandatory is
a false statement, fraudulent, and false commercial speech
which is punishable by law
and also opens the power company to liability via lawsuit.


22. The power company has no delegated authority from the People to install a security risking, privacy invading, health threatening, hackable, unfair billing, or wide power grid security threatening device on anyone’s property.

23. Smart meters by default are not programmed to “run backwards”, like the current mechanical meters do now. Making it harder for people to go “green” with solar panels or wind turbines using a low cost Grid Tie Inverter. The PUC has shown the intent over and over of encouraging the public to go “green”, the power company’s website and public disclosures show intent in this direction. The PUC allows the power company to charge an extra fee for “green projects”. Smart meters go against the PUC’s intent and the public interest by making it more difficult for people to install small solar or “green power” installations and gain KWH “credits” in power that they can use at a later time.

24. It is well known to electronic and computer engineers that a high voltage spike, such as a nearby lightning strike, or EMP can change memory bits in normal memory or EEPROM memory (Electronically Programmable Memory that is non-volatile) by adding extra electrons to the small memory cells. This can change internal smart meter settings like the KWH calibration data or other settings that may change the rate of power charged without the customer or power company ever knowing about it. This can’t happen with a mechanical meter.

25. Installation of a smart meter will lower this property’s value due to all the stated issues and controversy. This could subject ALL the ratepayers to higher rates due to lawsuit claims for value lost. The power company has no delegated authority from the People to use its easement or install equipment in a way that will lower property values or make a property less desirable to a buyer.

I demand an immediate stop to the installation of all Smart Meters until all issues are resolved, the Smart Meters to be removed at customers request with no extra charge, an opt-in only for customers who are properly and fully informed and that must have this technology for their own specific need. This is in the public’s best interest.

I demand an immediate investigation into these issues by the Public Utilities Commission.

I demand that the Public Utilities Commission immediately order the power company to fully inform all customers of ALL the known facts, including complaints and downsides of this technology within 30 days.

I reserve the right to amend this notice and complaint at any time, this is not a complete list of concerns since this technology is new and new information is being found every day. Concerns listed here are not in any particular order.

I forbid, refuse and deny consent of any installation and use of any monitoring, eavesdropping, and surveillance devices on my property, my place of residence and my place of occupancy. That applies to and includes “Smart Meters” and surveillance and activity monitoring devices of any and all kinds. Any attempt to install any such device directed at me, other occupants, my property or residence will constitute trespass, stalking, wiretapping and unlawful surveillance and endangerment of health and safety, all prohibited and punishable by law through criminal and civil complaints. All persons, government agencies and private organizations responsible for installing or operating monitoring devices directed at or recording my activities, which I have not specifically authorized in writing, will be fully liable for any violations, intrusions, harm or negative consequences caused or made possible by those devices whether those negative consequences are justified by “law” or not..

This is legal notice.

After this delivery the liabilities listed above may not be denied or avoided by parties named and implied in this notice. Civil Servant immunities and protections do not apply to the installation of smart meters due to the criminal violations they represent.

Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. All rights reserved.

Your signature
Your name
Your address

(copies of these letters could also be sent to your local county and city representatives to educate them and update them on all the issues and concerns and ask them to ban the installations in their local community, like has been done in 47 places so far in CA, and also get local investigative media reporters up to speed.)



Don't forget to *LAMINATE* a copy and tack it up over the meter!

presence

MelissaWV
07-22-2012, 08:49 AM
http://stopsmartmeters.org/sample-letter-to-utility/

Don't forget to *LAMINATE* a copy and tack it up over the meter!

presence

QFT and about the only genuinely constructive post in the thread lol

LibertyRevolution
07-22-2012, 12:27 PM
I posted this in another thread while it was being merged, I guess.

But, this is BULLSHIT!

The power company owns the meter and they were not trespassing! In fact, in order to obtain electricity from the power company, she had to sign an electric service agreement which indicates she will allow access to her meter and her service. So the first point is bogus!

The second point, these utility workers are trained to leave if they receive any sort of interference. I highly doubt he was the one instigating the confrontation. He wouldn't be pushing her out of the way to do his job, he would have been doing his job when she tried to push him out of the way. Point 2, most likely false.

Because of the highly sensitive nature of these programs, I doubt the utility company will press charges, but she's damn lucky if they don't.

Look, I don't want smart meters any more than the next guy, but this is NOT the way to prevent them. You talk to your politicians that are making companies install them. You talk to the PUC's and tell them to stop pushing this crap! But leave the utility workers alone! From their perspective, they are simply removing an old piece of the company's equpiment and installing a new one. They've done this for years.

As an expert, I've given many tutorials about the dangers of smart meters. The health concerns are extremely low, but the privacy concerns are real. Stop smart meter programs. But don't assault utility workers. Remember, you asked them to come when you agreed to buy power from them.

Capt, I agree with you 100%.
You give them permission to install meters and access them as part of your contract for power.
If you don't like it, you better be ready to generate your own power, because every company that sells power will want access to their meter...

NEXT
Guy who asked about whether your lawn company can put in cameras. The answer is yes.
If they wanted to put an an IP camera so they could measure the grass height live from off-site and know when it was ready to cut, then yes.
You could also hire a different company, if you didn't like this policy.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 12:30 PM
Well, my situation and service is vastly different than that of Texas.

All this has just further convinced me that I need to bite the bullet and buy an off grid system

at least you are willing to take that responsibility and recognize you are not entitled to electricty, which some here seem to think otherwise

CaptUSA
07-22-2012, 01:48 PM
Key takeaways from this thread:

1. The utility worker was acting lawfully and not trespassing. He had a right to be there servicing his company's property.
2. This customer acted unlawfully by trying to interfere with this worker's right to access his property which she had already given his company permission to do.
3. This customer drew a weapon in order to help her commit this unlawful action.
4. The employee would have been wise to call for backup immediately instead of waiting for the situation to escalate.
5. Most people do not understand the easement aspects of property rights.
6. Smart meters suck.
7. There are other ways to voice your dissatisfaction.
8. Infowars doesn't research anything before creating inflammatory stories.

CaptUSA
07-22-2012, 01:49 PM
http://stopsmartmeters.org/sample-letter-to-utility/

Don't forget to *LAMINATE* a copy and tack it up over the meter!

presencePresence, I'd like to address this letter, but I think it needs its own thread. Let me figure out where to put it.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 01:52 PM
Key takeaways from this thread:

1. The utility worker was acting lawfully and not trespassing. He had a right to be there servicing his company's property.
2. This customer acted unlawfully by trying to interfere with this worker's right to access his property which she had already given his company permission to do.
3. This customer drew a weapon in order to help her commit this unlawful action.
4. The employee would have been wise to call for backup immediately instead of waiting for the situation to escalate.
5. Most people do not understand the easement aspects of property rights.
6. Smart meters suck.
7. There are other ways to voice your dissatisfaction.
8. Infowars doesn't research anything before creating inflammatory stories.

Nice :)

Pericles
07-22-2012, 01:58 PM
Yep. No warrant is necessary. Remember, they have a right to be there. I know you are having a hard time understanding how the home-owner has already given the electric company access, but these workers have a right to be there. They have an easement. If law enforcement came, and the homeowner asked for a warrant, they'd tell them they don't need one because they have already agreed to provide access. If the owner still refused, they could arrest them for denying access to company property... There's a name for it... Let me think.

Let's go with the "agreement" for the power company to install and operate said meter. I'm happy with said meter and it is working fine. The power company wants to replace said meter, and I'm happy with the currently working meter and see no need to have my life disrupted while the new one is installed. What happens?

Does the power company have the "right" to replace my meter every two hours just because it can?

BTW, I'm in the smart meters are crap crown. I got one a few months ago, and I run a computer network at home. Ever since the new meter went in, the router (I'm talking Cisco 2800 series, not some DSL crap) has reported power fluctuation errors. The Public Utilities Commission is about to receive a communication from myself - and recipients seldom enjoy that. Bill goes up by almost 20% too, and as I was running just about everything 24X7, it is not like I wasn't already maxed out.

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 02:06 PM
Key takeaways from this thread:

1. The utility worker was acting lawfully and not trespassing. He had a right to be there servicing his company's property.
2. This customer acted unlawfully by trying to interfere with this worker's right to access his property which she had already given his company permission to do.
3. This customer drew a weapon in order to help her commit this unlawful action.

Do you agree with the morality of the laws that make her actions illegal?

It sure seems you do.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:11 PM
Do you agree with the morality of the laws that make her actions illegal?

It sure seems you do.

Unless you believe she is entitled to have electricity without the provider having a reasonable access to their property for the purposes of billing her, I don't see how you can say you disagree. Do you believe you have a right to use electricty at the provider's expense? I don't think so. Do you believe if you agree to buy from this provider, you have to give them a reasonable means of billing you, and ensure that meters are working, not tampered? I think you do. So what part of the above don't lead you to say "User agreed to the easement, provider was doing his job, fully within his rights as agreed on."

If you want to talk property and privacy rights, you are free to not use their electricity.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:14 PM
Let's go with the "agreement" for the power company to install and operate said meter. I'm happy with said meter and it is working fine. The power company wants to replace said meter, and I'm happy with the currently working meter and see no need to have my life disrupted while the new one is installed. What happens?

Does the power company have the "right" to replace my meter every two hours just because it can?


Technically yes, however, all easements are subject to abuse, which is why when they are in dispute, the test is "reason". Is the provider acting within reason to replace meters for a legitimate purpose that is consistent with the easement? Or are they abusing the easement and disrupting your lifestyle "just because they can"?



BTW, I'm in the smart meters are crap crown. I got one a few months ago, and I run a computer network at home. Ever since the new meter went in, the router (I'm talking Cisco 2800 series, not some DSL crap) has reported power fluctuation errors. The Public Utilities Commission is about to receive a communication from myself - and recipients seldom enjoy that. Bill goes up by almost 20% too, and as I was running just about everything 24X7, it is not like I wasn't already maxed out.

You are free to stop using their electricity. There is no right to electricity, nor a duty to it.

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 02:23 PM
Unless you believe she is entitled to have electricity without the provider having a reasonable access to their property for the purposes of billing her, I don't see how you can say you disagree. Do you believe you have a right to use electricty at the provider's expense? I don't think so. Do you believe if you agree to buy from this provider, you have to give them a reasonable means of billing you, and ensure that meters are working, not tampered? I think you do. So what part of the above don't lead you to say "User agreed to the easement, provider was doing his job, fully within his rights as agreed on."

If you want to talk property and privacy rights, you are free to not use their electricity.

The entire arrangement was created by contract. She breached it by not allowing them access. The power company simply does not have the moral authority to enforce the contract through force of arms without due process. That's madness.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:28 PM
The entire arrangement was created by contract. She breached it by not allowing them access. The power company simply does not have the moral authority to enforce the contract through force of arms without due process. That's madness.

and they didn't use force, did they?

Do you agree the power company at least has a right to cut off her power if she doesn't consent to accessing or changing the meter?

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 02:31 PM
and they didn't use force, did they?

No, but CaptUSA seems to think that they are entitled to use force.


Do you agree the power company at least has a right to cut off her power if she doesn't consent to accessing or changing the meter?

If they can cut the power without accessing her land, yes. If not, they'll need to get a warrant and sue for damages from keeping the electricity running.

I don't care if you're a cop, or an electric worker, if you're on my land without a warrant, and I tell you to leave... you better leave.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:38 PM
No, but CaptUSA seems to think that they are entitled to use force.

If they can cut the power without accessing her land, yes. If not, they'll need to get a warrant and sue for damages from keeping the electricity running.

I don't care if you're a cop, or an electric worker, if you're on my land without a warrant, and I tell you to leave... you better leave.

No, they don't need a warrant, because they already have an easement. But typically they can shut if off very quickly. They probably could shut off the power without accessing her land, not sure. I wonder if he gave her that option while he was on.

If you're so serious about your land, NEVER AGREE TO AN EASEMENT AND better not buy electricity from people like this.

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 02:40 PM
No, they don't need a warrant, because they already have an easement. But typically they can shut if off very quickly.

If you're so serious about your land, NEVER AGREE TO AN EASEMENT AND better not buy electricity from people like this.

What part of an easement allows contract law to override natural law?

Hint: none

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:42 PM
What part of an easement allows contract law to override natural law?

Hint: none

Warrant requirement isn't a natural law either. Nice double standard there.
Easement specifically allows access to land, or surrender of defense against it for the purposes specified.
Violation of contract may not be criminal, but is tortious, and at that point, it is not a question of "rights".

By the way, did you know trespass to land is also TORT, not CRIMINAL? (I may be wrong, but that seems to be what I find, correct me if I am)

CaptUSA
07-22-2012, 02:43 PM
Do you agree with the morality of the laws that make her actions illegal?

It sure seems you do.Yes, because I understand property rights. If she wants them to put their property on her house, she needs to provide them access. She can't intrude on their property rights just because she doesn't like the new piece of equipment. If she doesn't like it, she can tell them to remove their property, but she can't have it both ways.

If a neighbor behind you has an easement through your driveway to get to his home, you are not allowed to deprive him access. You are the one interfering with property rights.

invisible
07-22-2012, 02:45 PM
Unless you believe she is entitled to have electricity without the provider having a reasonable access to their property for the purposes of billing her, I don't see how you can say you disagree. Do you believe you have a right to use electricty at the provider's expense? I don't think so. Do you believe if you agree to buy from this provider, you have to give them a reasonable means of billing you, and ensure that meters are working, not tampered? I think you do. So what part of the above don't lead you to say "User agreed to the easement, provider was doing his job, fully within his rights as agreed on."

If you want to talk property and privacy rights, you are free to not use their electricity.


Nope! Do any of us actually agree to buy electricity from a specific company? No, this is a monopoly industry! There is simply no such thing as a house with wires from several different suppliers running to it, with the customer getting to actually choose between competing suppliers. And it isn't like you can just get electricity from a source other than a utility company. Want to install a windmill? Too bad that zoning regulations will keep you from doing this, just about anywhere you try to live (yeah, just try finding a place to live that does not have zoning, it's practically impossible). Oh, but you can put solar panels up, right? Not if you live in a property that's zoned as a "historic district". Even if you don't live in a "historic district", you still have to ask the government for permission (building permit) and have them tell you exactly how and where you may install something on property you supposedly own. Even if you pay the government ("permit fee") for permission to install solar panels on your property, you can't even install them yourself, you have to pay a "licensed electrician" to do it for you, no matter how capable of the task you may be. So don't have any electricity at all, right? Wrong again, you're now in violation of the "housing code"! There really isn't much choice involved here, most people are more or less coerced into purchasing electricity from a utility company that they do NOT choose to do business with. Pretty un-American, isn't it? Next thing you know, we'll all be forced to buy health insurance. Oh, wait...

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 02:45 PM
If a neighbor behind you has an easement through your driveway to get to his home, you are not allowed to deprive him access. You are the one interfering with property rights.

Bad example. You're comparing apples and oranges. This example involves the natural right of travel, whereas your power meter is just a simple civil contract.

CaptUSA
07-22-2012, 02:46 PM
If they can cut the power without accessing her land, yes. If not, they'll need to get a warrant and sue for damages from keeping the electricity running.

I don't care if you're a cop, or an electric worker, if you're on my land without a warrant, and I tell you to leave... you better leave.This is not how property rights work. Sorry, you are wrong. And it's a good thing you are wrong.

They have an easement. And it's an easement she requested. She's not giving them a privilege, she's giving them property rights. She cannot revoke their rights. She doesn't have that power. However, if she tells them to take their property, the easement will go away since they no longer have property to access.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:46 PM
Yes, because I understand property rights. If she wants them to put their property on her house, she needs to provide them access. She can't intrude on their property rights just because she doesn't like the new piece of equipment. If she doesn't like it, she can tell them to remove their property, but she can't have it both ways.

If a neighbor behind you has an easement through your driveway to get to his home, you are not allowed to deprive him access. You are the one interfering with property rights.

If I understand you correctly, once I am given easement, I can say "it's my property" and not simply "I have a contract to access"? In other words, the person who provided and agreed to the easement has surrendered his right to property and protection until the agreement is eliminated?

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:48 PM
Bad example. You're comparing apples and oranges. This example involves the natural right of travel, whereas your power meter is just a simple civil contract.

No. It's not different. Easements are ALWAYS agreements between 2 parties. Notice that power companies are not government (did you know that?). Easements can be made for different purposes, but once agreed, it holds until it doesn't hold. (in the smart meter case, the homeowner can revoke it by saying she does not want to buy electricity).

You do not have a "right to travel" anywhere that is private, UNLESS there is an easement, which is ALWAYS civil contract. And trespass is CIVIL too, not criminal (as far as I was able to find). The reason most people think trespass is criminal is because most trespass related crimes are often a crime plus trespass, trespass itself is not a crime.

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 02:48 PM
If I understand you correctly, once I am given easement, I can say "it's my property" and not simply "I have a contract to access"? In other words, the person who provided and agreed to the easement has surrendered his right to property and protection until the agreement is eliminated?

An easement only grants right of access, there is no ownership involved

CaptUSA
07-22-2012, 02:48 PM
Damn, I'm sorry I don't have the words to make you understand the law. You want to condone her acts of unlawful violence because you don't like the product they are installing. I guess there is nothing I can say to make you get it.

But you are wrong. No court in the country will say that you are right. It's not a problem with the courts, it's a problem with your understanding of easements.

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 02:54 PM
Damn, I'm sorry I don't have the words to make you understand the law. You want to condone her acts of unlawful violence because you don't like the product they are installing.

I don't care about the meter. Property rights are a foundation of liberty, and without them, you can't have freedom.


I guess there is nothing I can say to make you get it.

There really isn't. There is no way that you can convince me that just because you have a piece of property on my land, that grants you the right to come on my property any time you like to access it.


But you are wrong. No court in the country will say that you are right. It's not a problem with the courts, it's a problem with your understanding of easements.

I understand easements just fine. You have just have a twisted and contorted perspective of them because you've grown all too comfortable with the way things work. You're confusing law for morality, missing the forest for the trees.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:57 PM
Nope! Do any of us actually agree to buy electricity from a specific company? No, this is a monopoly industry!


Monopoly as far as choices to where you can buy electricty. Not monopoly as far as whether you choose to use electricity at all. You are not obligated to use electricty, nor have you the right to electricity.



There is simply no such thing as a house with wires from several different suppliers running to it, with the customer getting to actually choose between competing suppliers. And it isn't like you can just get electricity from a source other than a utility company. Want to install a windmill? Too bad that zoning regulations will keep you from doing this, just about anywhere you try to live (yeah, just try finding a place to live that does not have zoning, it's practically impossible).


The Constitution does not guarantee your right to use electricity, so you are not violated in any way by anybody.



Oh, but you can put solar panels up, right? Not if you live in a property that's zoned as a "historic district". Even if you don't live in a "historic district", you still have to ask the government for permission (building permit) and have them tell you exactly how and where you may install something on property you supposedly own. Even if you pay the government ("permit fee") for permission to install solar panels on your property, you can't even install them yourself, you have to pay a "licensed electrician" to do it for you, no matter how capable of the task you may be. So don't have any electricity at all, right? Wrong again, you're now in violation of the "housing code"! There really isn't much choice involved here, most people are more or less coerced into purchasing electricity from a utility company that they do NOT choose to do business with.


Again, there is a choice of not using electricity. It's far from comfortable, but hardly fatal.



Pretty un-American, isn't it? Next thing you know, we'll all be forced to buy health insurance. Oh, wait...

There's nothing comparable here. Health insurance is forced on every person who has an address and ID card. Nobody is forced to live in a house that uses electricity. I'm sure you've heard of people who live in forests, tents, cars, or whatever people did prior to electricity. People who today live without electricity, are probably going to be the ones who escape health care mandate the easiest. The "freedom" they have comes at the expense of not having stable income, but who cares, it's not like freedom is free.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 02:59 PM
I don't care about the meter. Property rights are a foundation of liberty, and without them, you can't have freedom.

You're confusing law for morality, missing the forest for the trees.

actually he's not. He knows the law, and he knows morality. He told you he doesn't like smart meters too.

You dont' care about the meter, that explains it, you don't care about power either I suppose.

Since you are so obsessed with "property rights", tell me, is having electricty a "property right"? Or is depriving a person of electricity a violation of his property right?

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 03:01 PM
is having electricty a "property right"? Or is depriving a person of electricity a violation of his property right?

You continue to prove your ignorance by repeatedly bringing up that point. I don't think anybody is saying anyone has a right to electricity

invisible
07-22-2012, 03:04 PM
Monopoly as far as choices to where you can buy electricty. Not monopoly as far as whether you choose to use electricity at all. You are not obligated to use electricty, nor have you the right to electricity.



The Constitution does not guarantee your right to use electricity, so you are not violated in any way by anybody.



Again, there is a choice of not using electricity. It's far from comfortable, but hardly fatal.



There's nothing comparable here. Health insurance is forced on every person who has an address and ID card. Nobody is forced to live in a house that uses electricity. I'm sure you've heard of people who live in forests, tents, cars, or whatever people did prior to electricity. People who today live without electricity, are probably going to be the ones who escape health care mandate the easiest. The "freedom" they have comes at the expense of not having stable income, but who cares, it's not like freedom is free.

Not true! In many places, it is a violation of the "housing code" to not have utilities. More and more places have implemented this law in recent years, and actually prosecute people for not having electricity. Baltimore and York, PA are two that I know of off the top of my head. I'm sure you can find many more of them, if you care to do some research. A couple years back in York, PA someone even had their kids snatched by the government, and one of the "reasons" given was that there was no electricity in the home.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 03:04 PM
You continue to prove your ignorance by repeatedly bringing up that point. I don't think anybody is saying anyone has a right to electricity

So do you believe that when the worker was asked to stop with the installation of the meter, he should have advised her "I will cut off your electricity if you don't consent" and cut off her power?

Do you think that would lead to less problems? As if she wouldn't sue them for her "right to electricity" or something stupid?

Nickels
07-22-2012, 03:06 PM
Not true! In many places, it is a violation of the "housing code" to not have utilities.


Only if you choose to live in a house, along with property taxes and other bullshit, that's the "price you pay" for living in a house with housing codes.



More and more places have implemented this law in recent years, and actually prosecute people for not having electricity. Baltimore and York, PA are two that I know of off the top of my head. I'm sure you can find many more of them, if you care to do some research. A couple years back in York, PA someone even had their kids snatched by the government, and one of the "reasons" given was that there was no electricity in the home.

was it really because of electricity? or just heating?

TheTexan
07-22-2012, 03:08 PM
So do you believe that when the worker was asked to stop with the installation of the meter, he should have advised her "I will cut off your electricity if you don't consent" and cut off her power?

Sure. But that's up to the power company. They may wish to keep her as a customer even though she did breach the contract.


As if she wouldn't sue them for her "right to electricity" or something stupid?

No... noone is that stupid, Nickels. At least, noone in this thread.

Pericles
07-22-2012, 03:09 PM
Technically yes, however, all easements are subject to abuse, which is why when they are in dispute, the test is "reason". Is the provider acting within reason to replace meters for a legitimate purpose that is consistent with the easement? Or are they abusing the easement and disrupting your lifestyle "just because they can"?

You are free to stop using their electricity. There is no right to electricity, nor a duty to it.

Here is where it gets interesting. I (A) have an agreement with the electric company (B) to provide electrical power. (B) seems to have some sort of agreement with a power delivery company (C) to run a line and meter to my residence. All my agreement with (B) states is the (B) may not actually provide the service itself. I gave no easement to (B), which therefore can not reassign that right to (C) and (A) has no agreement or other direct contact with (C). Can you see how this could create a problem when (C) shows up on my property?

Nickels
07-22-2012, 03:09 PM
Sure. But that's up to the power company. They may wish to keep her as a customer even though she did breach the contract.

No... noone is that stupid, Nickels. At least, noone in this thread.

I wish that was made more clear in their confrontation, whether the company was going to cut her power off. Or whether she'd agree if that was the alternative

Nickels
07-22-2012, 03:12 PM
Here is where it gets interesting. I (A) have an agreement with the electric company (B) to provide electrical power. (B) seems to have some sort of agreement with a power delivery company (C) to run a line and meter to my residence. All my agreement with (B) states is the (B) may not actually provide the service itself. I gave no easement to (B), which therefore can not reassign that right to (C) and (A) has no agreement or other direct contact with (C). Can you see how this could create a problem when (C) shows up on my property?

Only if you're an idiot who thinks the agreement doesn't cover B's agents and partners (or C's) to avoid specifically this kind of liability problem. Besides, you gave C the easement the minute you allowed them to run the line to you. No power company or delivery company is stupid enough to provide without a protective access to for themselves.

invisible
07-22-2012, 03:17 PM
Only if you choose to live in a house, along with property taxes and other bullshit, that's the "price you pay" for living in a house with housing codes.


So your only choice is to be homeless, and be subject to vagrancy laws. Some choice.




was it really because of electricity? or just heating?

Electricity was one of the reasons given, as I said. Do some research and look it up, instead of arguing without knowing your facts. Another thread being trolled, I'm off of this one at this point.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 03:21 PM
So your only choice is to be homeless, and be subject to vagrancy laws. Some choice.


There is no constitutional right to a home, is there?



Electricity was one of the reasons given, as I said. Do some research and look it up, instead of arguing without knowing your facts. Another thread being trolled, I'm off of this one at this point.

So it could have been an irrelevant reason incidental to the big reasons, right? Maybe the parents were actually abusing the child, and electricity was merely an additional factor to the overall condition (aka "totality of circumstances"). I'm asking you to do the research because you are making the claim. Do I get to accuse you of a crime and say "hey, do your own research, I'm not going to tell you when you're a guilty scumbag"?

Nickels
07-22-2012, 03:23 PM
So your only choice is to be homeless, and be subject to vagrancy laws. Some choice.

Electricity was one of the reasons given, as I said. Do some research and look it up, instead of arguing without knowing your facts. Another thread being trolled, I'm off of this one at this point.

Are you talking about this case? If so, way to take things out of context :)
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/21/3031405/sc-police-remove-kids-from-york.html

Pericles
07-22-2012, 03:27 PM
Only if you're an idiot who thinks the agreement doesn't cover B's agents and partners (or C's) to avoid specifically this kind of liability problem. Besides, you gave C the easement the minute you allowed them to run the line to you. No power company or delivery company is stupid enough to provide without a protective access to for themselves.

The issue is that there is no privity between (A) and (C). Privity - a legal term with which you wish to become familiar.

V-rod
07-22-2012, 03:37 PM
They should have no right to invade her property, but on the flip side If the company threatened to cut off their service unless a new meter is installed, you can bet some people would sue the company for denying their "right" to get service.

RonPaulFanInGA
07-22-2012, 03:39 PM
Simple solution would be for the power company to cut off her electricity until she complies. There is no "right" to service.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 04:11 PM
The issue is that there is no privity between (A) and (C). Privity - a legal term with which you wish to become familiar.

No, there is. Any contract that has the intention of C being either the provider or maintainence person would express or imply such, or else no C would be so stupid as to provide for A.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 04:11 PM
Simple solution would be for the power company to cut off her electricity until she complies. There is no "right" to service.

agreed!

Nickels
07-22-2012, 04:12 PM
They should have no right to invade her property, but on the flip side If the company threatened to cut off their service unless a new meter is installed, you can bet some people would sue the company for denying their "right" to get service.

As said many times, they have every right , via easement, to be on her property as long as it's for the purpose of maintaining the power meter. And yes, I suspect she thinks she has a right to electricity and would sue if she was cut off.

Anti Federalist
07-22-2012, 05:16 PM
You could also hire a different company, if you didn't like this policy.

Be happy to.

Direct me to another electric service company.

Oh, yeah...

Anti Federalist
07-22-2012, 05:22 PM
8.Infowars doesn't research anything before creating inflammatory stories.

I know how much everybody loves to throw eggs at Alex Jones and Infowars around here, but, my OP is from CBS affiliate KHOU in Texas.

Not Infowars, even though they re-posted it.

I guess I should make it a point to never mention Infowars.

Bryan
07-22-2012, 05:31 PM
Key takeaways from this thread:

2. This customer acted unlawfully by trying to interfere with this worker's right to access his property which she had already given his company permission to do.
Debatable. She was arguing that he was installing spy equipment, beyond the scope of their agreement, thus his presence exceeded his mandate.


3. This customer drew a weapon in order to help her commit this unlawful action.
For the third time, no. She drew the weapon because she claims she was assaulted by the utility worker.



4. The employee would have been wise to call for backup immediately instead of waiting for the situation to escalate.
5. Most people do not understand the easement aspects of property rights.
Again, exactly how does the meter placement create a legal easement? Easements are maintained at the County Clerks office, IIRC. Is this easement added to such legal record just like other utility easements (like power and gas lines)?


The only issue that I see is one of due-process when there is a disagreement.

Bryan
07-22-2012, 05:38 PM
No, they don't need a warrant, because they already have an easement.
So what is the due-process then? Does someone at the power company just call up the police and they can then use whatever force is needed? Does the LEO ask for documentation? Is it verified? Again- how does the installation of a meter create a legal easement... it's not the same as power lines, which are on clear record at the County Clerk, which the LEO's can verify. Just asking...



If you're so serious about your land, NEVER AGREE TO AN EASEMENT
Sure, that's fine, but easements can be added to your property after you buy it.

Bryan
07-22-2012, 05:52 PM
Yes, because I understand property rights.

Great! So could you then please explain the legal mechanics of how the property rights law you are referring to do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you don't have time, that's fine, but if you can't explain the legal code then I would argue you don't understand property rights like you claim... so that is my challenge. :)

To the point, some of us are taking the position of the Fourth being supreme (which it should be), and it seems like a violation to not need a warrant to force your way onto another persons property, regardless of what contract has been signed, since the contract needs to be presented to a judge for legal evaluation before the warrant is issued.

MelissaWV
07-22-2012, 05:58 PM
Let's assume for a moment (and it's a big assumption) that the guy had a "right" to be there. So did she, obviously. There is an alleged assault here, and just as in a domestic situation where both parties have a right to be on the property, the assaulted party can defend herself from the person assaulting her. I'm pretty sure there is nothing that says this guy installing a meter can shove her around.

Bryan
07-22-2012, 06:03 PM
There is no constitutional right to a home, is there?
No, we just have the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that we should be secure in our houses and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.

Here's a video of Judge Napolitano talking about the history of what gave us the Fourth (in context of the Patriot Act):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJimWTA4qY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJimWTA4qY

Bryan
07-22-2012, 06:06 PM
Let's assume for a moment (and it's a big assumption) that the guy had a "right" to be there. So did she, obviously. There is an alleged assault here, and just as in a domestic situation where both parties have a right to be on the property, the assaulted party can defend herself from the person assaulting her. I'm pretty sure there is nothing that says this guy installing a meter can shove her around.
Correct.

The question is a matter of due-process. No one is arguing that the power company can be completely denied access to their property, or that we have a right to some service.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 06:17 PM
Great! So could you then please explain the legal mechanics of how the property rights law you are referring to do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you don't have time, that's fine, but if you can't explain the legal code then I would argue you don't understand property rights like you claim... so that is my challenge. :)

To the point, some of us are taking the position of the Fourth being supreme (which it should be), and it seems like a violation to not need a warrant to force your way onto another persons property, regardless of what contract has been signed, since the contract needs to be presented to a judge for legal evaluation before the warrant is issued.

There are two things wrong with your argument.

1) Fourth Amendment is protection against government action. And specifically, for criminal prosecution purposes. It does not protect person to person invasion of privacy, which can be either criminal or tortious, depending on the specific act.

2) Easements. Either you accept there is an easement or you do not. If there is an easement, the use is no longer trespassing. Warrants are only needed for GOVERNMENTS. For private people, you either need permission or you are trespassing, easement is a form of permission.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 06:19 PM
No, we just have the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that we should be secure in our houses and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.

Here's a video of Judge Napolitano talking about the history of what gave us the Fourth (in context of the Patriot Act):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJimWTA4qY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJimWTA4qY

and I think you can understand that means exactly that, "against unreasonable search and seizures". Not private trespassing.

Bryan
07-22-2012, 07:18 PM
There are two things wrong with your argument.

1) Fourth Amendment is protection against government action. And specifically, for criminal prosecution purposes. It does not protect person to person invasion of privacy, which can be either criminal or tortious, depending on the specific act.
1) We were told that the power company can call law enforcement and get an escort on the property- so there is government action.
2) Can you cite the legal code (supreme court ruling, etc) that the Fourth Amendment only applies as you say?


2) Easements. Either you accept there is an easement or you do not. If there is an easement, the use is no longer trespassing. Warrants are only needed for GOVERNMENTS. For private people, you either need permission or you are trespassing, easement is a form of permission.
How is the easement established and legally maintained when a meter is installed? What is the due-process if there is a disagreement on the easement?

PaulConventionWV
07-22-2012, 08:04 PM
Wouldn't they only be enforceable in civil courts if there are laws that say "civil courts have authority to enforce contracts when legally and voluntarily entered by two or more consenting adults ?

They're not trying to enforce the contract. The point isn't to make people obey a contract. It is to protect them against financial loss or damages as a result of violating the contract. I would treat contracts a lot differently if I knew I could get arrested for violating it. I probably would avoid contracts like the plague if that were the case. A contract is an agreement, not a legal obligation.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 08:10 PM
1) We were told that the power company can call law enforcement and get an escort on the property- so there is government action.


You forgot the part "for purposes of criminal prosecution", in this context, it is merely the enforcement of contracts. Asking the police to escort you to finish your task you were allowed to do is not the same as the government acting initially for criminal investigation.




2) Can you cite the legal code (supreme court ruling, etc) that the Fourth Amendment only applies as you say?


That's a funny way to ask. Luckily for you I just took a class called "criminal procedure". For me to find a case, it would require a person who sued the government or a private person, and tried to use the 4th amendment violation as a cause of action. This would mean that the lawyer acted in bad faith and then the case was dismissed.

Look at these notes, and search the words "does not apply"
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro01.htm

Another example I can think of (which isn't the best) is New Jersey vs TLO. The court ruled that ONLY BECAUSE the student is a student of a PUBLIC SCHOOL, where school staff act as authority and in lieu of government, does the 4th amendment apply. (This is not positive evidence that private individuals can't be sued for violation of it).

Perhaps the best way to know this is, look at Tort law. You will not find tort law citing fourth amendment of violation or invasion of privacy when the dispute is between 2 individuals.



How is the easement established and legally maintained when a meter is installed? What is the due-process if there is a disagreement on the easement?

There are 2 ways I can think of
1) the city sets it by default, that anybody who uses electricity is bound by the agreement unless otherwise opted out.
2) the user agreement states it, which if you disagree, you cannot be sold the service

So no, its not by mere virtue of the meter being there that creates the easement, but a meter being installed on a house that uses electricity and has a billing address and continues to use electricity and intends to be billed, requires that the meter be accessed by the provider, otherwise no idiot would provide electricity to somebody who won't let them manage their own meters.

Bryan
07-22-2012, 10:21 PM
You forgot the part "for purposes of criminal prosecution", in this context, it is merely the enforcement of contracts. Asking the police to escort you to finish your task you were allowed to do is not the same as the government acting initially for criminal investigation.

Which part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" provides some exclusion such that this only applied to government agents? You wrote: "It does not protect person to person invasion of privacy, which can be either criminal or tortious, depending on the specific act." -- how exactly is this parsed from the Fourth?

Further, what is the legal authority the police have to do the escort without a warrant or writ? How does the police know they are correctly interpreting the contract and completely understand the facts involved without such a court judgement?



That's a funny way to ask.
So I would know next time, what would be a better way to ask it?


Luckily for you I just took a class called "criminal procedure". For me to find a case, it would require a person who sued the government or a private person, and tried to use the 4th amendment violation as a cause of action. This would mean that the lawyer acted in bad faith and then the case was dismissed.

Look at these notes, and search the words "does not apply"
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro01.htm
Thanks for the link- some good info in there.




There are 2 ways I can think of
1) the city sets it by default, that anybody who uses electricity is bound by the agreement unless otherwise opted out.
2) the user agreement states it, which if you disagree, you cannot be sold the service

So no, its not by mere virtue of the meter being there that creates the easement, but a meter being installed on a house that uses electricity and has a billing address and continues to use electricity and intends to be billed, requires that the meter be accessed by the provider, otherwise no idiot would provide electricity to somebody who won't let them manage their own meters.
I understand there is an agreement, the question is how does that agreement turn into an easement that is tracked and maintained by the county government, or otherwise?

Danke
07-22-2012, 10:23 PM
Bryan.

Who resurrected you?

Jamesiv1
07-22-2012, 11:06 PM
Hah! See how well "the courts" go in your pursuit to trash on private property rights/ castle doctrine in Texas. Last I heard you can shoot someone just for coming on to you property!

Not quite. You can shoot someone for coming into *your home*

The chuckle in Texas is that if you shoot someone who is in your yard, make sure you drag the body inside your home before the cops arrive.

:)

Pericles
07-22-2012, 11:16 PM
Not quite. You can shoot someone for coming into *your home*

The chuckle in Texas is that if you shoot someone who is in your yard, make sure you drag the body inside your home before the cops arrive.

:)

Not true - "

A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section."

Nickels
07-22-2012, 11:24 PM
Which part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" provides some exclusion such that this only applied to government agents?


Maybe I should've told you this first. Apparently you have no idea what the Constitution is for. The Constitution, and specifically, bill of rights is intended to restrict government and protect people against government. It does not provide positive rights or positive protections that obligates the government to safeguard individuals against other individuals, that is largely governed by criminal law.

This is no different than saying a private person can censor another person's free speech, as long as he's not using the government to assist him. Or that a private building can restrict use of firearms, even though the federal government is not allowed to.



You wrote: "It does not protect person to person invasion of privacy, which can be either criminal or tortious, depending on the specific act." -- how exactly is this parsed from the Fourth?


I guess it must prohibit idiots from voluntarily exposing their private information, since nowhere in there does it NOT SAY OTHERWISE. According to your logic.



Further, what is the legal authority the police have to do the escort without a warrant or writ?


The police can escort any person to perform anything lawful.



How does the police know they are correctly interpreting the contract and completely understand the facts involved without such a court judgement?


Because it's the norm.



So I would know next time, what would be a better way to ask it?

Thanks for the link- some good info in there.


The better way to ask would be "if a private person or non-government decided to invade my privacy, or if a government agency invaded my privacy for non-criminal investigative purposes, what would be my recourse, and what law shall I cite, if I do not use the 4th amendment"?



I understand there is an agreement, the question is how does that agreement turn into an easement that is tracked and maintained by the county government, or otherwise?

You got it a bit backwards. Power companies probably used to make easements one by one. But for simplicity, they started at one point to work with cities and builders to create easements IN ADVANCE, prior to providing services. So that, rather than "once you sign the agreement, you create an easement", the easier approach is "the easement is created, but it won't be in effect or used unless a person lives here, and uses electricity". So it's not about an agreement suddenly turning into an easement, the easement was created most likely the moment the meter was installed.

Funny that you don't seem to have a problem with the meter being installed or call that trespassing. I bet you're going to say "I agreed to have you install it, but I didn't agree to let you come back to look at it". Well too bad, if you didn't agree, nobody would've sold you the electricity.

Are you either suggesting that the home owner can remove the meter at his discretion, or never allow the meter to be touched "just because it's his property"?

Danke
07-22-2012, 11:33 PM
Maybe I should've told you this first. Apparently you have no idea what the Constitution is for. The Constitution, and specifically, bill of rights is intended to restrict government and protect people against government. It does not provide positive rights or positive protections that obligates the government to safeguard individuals against other individuals, that is largely governed by criminal law.

This is no different than saying a private person can censor another person's free speech, as long as he's not using the government to assist him. Or that a private building can restrict use of firearms, even though the federal government is not allowed to.



I guess it must prohibit idiots from voluntarily exposing their private information, since nowhere in there does it NOT SAY OTHERWISE. According to your logic.



The police can escort any person to perform anything lawful.



Because it's the norm.



The better way to ask would be "if a private person or non-government decided to invade my privacy, or if a government agency invaded my privacy for non-criminal investigative purposes, what would be my recourse, and what law shall I cite, if I do not use the 4th amendment"?



You got it a bit backwards. Power companies probably used to make easements one by one. But for simplicity, they started at one point to work with cities and builders to create easements IN ADVANCE, prior to providing services. So that, rather than "once you sign the agreement, you create an easement", the easier approach is "the easement is created, but it won't be in effect or used unless a person lives here, and uses electricity". So it's not about an agreement suddenly turning into an easement, the easement was created most likely the moment the meter was installed.

Funny that you don't seem to have a problem with the meter being installed or call that trespassing. I bet you're going to say "I agreed to have you install it, but I didn't agree to let you come back to look at it". Well too bad, if you didn't agree, nobody would've sold you the electricity.

Are you either suggesting that the home owner can remove the meter at his discretion, or never allow the meter to be touched "just because it's his property"?

I think the problem arises when you don't have a choice wrt who provides the electricity. If it is a government sanctioned monopoly, then your arguments fall flat on their face.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 11:34 PM
I think the problem arises when you don't have a choice wrt who provides the electricity. If it is a government sanctioned monopoly, then your arguments fall flat on their face.

The govenrment does not force you to use electricity, nor does the government have an obligation to ensure you have it.

Anti Federalist
07-22-2012, 11:36 PM
The govenrment does not force you to use electricity, nor does the government have an obligation to ensure you have it.

Then why does government regulate it?

Danke
07-22-2012, 11:36 PM
The govenrment does not force you to use electricity, nor does the government have an obligation to ensure you have it.

They don't force me to breath either. So?

But they do prevent competing electric companies to provide me service.

Nickels
07-22-2012, 11:48 PM
Then why does government regulate it?

I don't know. But I know they are not forcing you to buy it. My guess is they regulate it to simplify the wiring process. Imagine if every service you bought through a wire or pipe had 2 or more providers. If you think there's wires and piping problems today, just wait til there's more of them. This is why satellite and wireless services are open to competition, because the hardware doesn't interfere with another.

Danke
07-23-2012, 12:22 AM
I don't know. But I know they are not forcing you to buy it.

Oh? So who else will provide you electricity?

EvilEngineer
07-23-2012, 12:22 AM
I really don't see the big deal... wireless signals are a cinch to cancel out. Get a roll of copper mesh and form a cage around the meter. Presto... you've just blocked all of the signals.

Also... the electric company has a right to monitor your usage so they can bill you. If you don't want a meter, don't get grid power. Frankly its much simpler to have a wifi enabled meter to scan for meter usage while driving down a street than walking house to house to read meters.

Nickels
07-23-2012, 12:26 AM
Oh? So who else will provide you electricity?

Hate to break it to you, but Amish and people who lived in the 19th century were able to live without it. You seem to think there's either a human right or necessity to have it.

Danke
07-23-2012, 12:27 AM
If you don't want a meter, don't get grid power.
Oh, really. So the providers of power operate in a free market.
News to me. I have choices now? That's great. Thank you for educating us...

Nickels
07-23-2012, 12:29 AM
Oh, really. So the providers of power operate in a free market.
News to me. I have choices now? That's great. Thank you for educating us...

Oh really, so not using grid power is illegal, that's news to me. I don't have a choice to not use electricity now? That sucks. Better warn my brothers camping out in woods.

Danke
07-23-2012, 12:30 AM
Hate to break it to you, but Amish and people who lived in the 19th century were able to live without it. You seem to think there's either a human right or necessity to have it.

So I need to live like the Amish?

Any other modern life necessity I should do without to provide the state with their monopolies unlimited powers over my choices?

Nickels
07-23-2012, 12:32 AM
So I need to live like the Amish?

Any other modern life necessity I should do without to provide the state with their monopolies unlimited powers over my choices?

You don't NEED to do anything. And nobody owes you the convenience of the modern lifestyle.

Danke
07-23-2012, 12:32 AM
Has RPFs degraded to this type of discussion, or is it late and the trolls have taken over?

Jamesiv1
07-23-2012, 12:35 AM
//

Bryan
07-23-2012, 06:51 AM
Apparently you have no idea what the Constitution is for.
Nice ad hominem. Let's stick to the facts, please.


The Constitution, and specifically, bill of rights is intended to restrict government and protect people against government. It does not provide positive rights or positive protections that obligates the government to safeguard individuals against other individuals, that is largely governed by criminal law.
Certainly no one is claiming that the government should be obligated to provide safeguards, so please be careful not to construct strawman arguments.

Still, some of the amendments do seem to imply positive rights. Two amendments imply positive property rights, namely the 2nd ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") and the 4th ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"). How are these not stating positive rights? Two others, the 6th and 7th, imply positive rights within the justice system.

Regardless, the essence of the question is, could any government agency pass a law that says that if you think that you have been wronged (or have property you need to access, etc) that you can access someone else property without a court issued writ or warrant or otherwise violate the 4th?


For reference - does the Bill or Rights limit to just government interactions, or are they a positive right?
1st: "Congress shall make no law respecting" - clearly restricting government.
2nd: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - does not limit to government
3rd: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." - depends on definition of Soldier, but generally restricting government
4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" - does not specify just government.
5th: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" - justice system
6th: "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" - positive right within justice system
7th: " the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," - positive right within justice system
8th: "Excessive bail shall not be required" - justice system
9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution" - government
10th: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" - government



This is no different than saying a private person can censor another person's free speech, as long as he's not using the government to assist him. Or that a private building can restrict use of firearms, even though the federal government is not allowed to.
Non sequitur. In those cases a private person is setting the terms of use of their property, which is completely not in dispute. In this case, it is a question of the rights of a person to control their property when there are two competing property right claims.



I guess it must prohibit idiots from voluntarily exposing their private information, since nowhere in there does it NOT SAY OTHERWISE. According to your logic.
Same non sequitur.



The police can escort any person to perform anything lawful.
Sure, the question has been- who gets to decide what is lawful? The power company? The police? The courts? Who?



How does the police know they are correctly interpreting the contract and completely understand the facts involved without such a court judgement?
Because it's the norm.
Could you please explain this more?



The better way to ask would be "if a private person or non-government decided to invade my privacy, or if a government agency invaded my privacy for non-criminal investigative purposes, what would be my recourse, and what law shall I cite, if I do not use the 4th amendment"?
Great, thanks.



You got it a bit backwards. Power companies probably used to make easements one by one. But for simplicity, they started at one point to work with cities and builders to create easements IN ADVANCE, prior to providing services. So that, rather than "once you sign the agreement, you create an easement", the easier approach is "the easement is created, but it won't be in effect or used unless a person lives here, and uses electricity". So it's not about an agreement suddenly turning into an easement, the easement was created most likely the moment the meter was installed.
Transmission lines clearly have easements put in place in advance- and are on-file at the County Clerk, the question is just about the meter and how an easement can be created for it, and if they are on-file as well.



Funny that you don't seem to have a problem with the meter being installed or call that trespassing. I bet you're going to say "I agreed to have you install it, but I didn't agree to let you come back to look at it". Well too bad, if you didn't agree, nobody would've sold you the electricity.
Another strawman, you're trying to imply I likely have a viewpoint that I certainly don't have. As I have already stated a number of times in this thread, there isn't a question that the power company should ultimately have access to their meter, I am merely asking questions about the mechanics of the due-process involved if there is a disagreement on the land that their property resides.



Are you either suggesting that the home owner can remove the meter at his discretion, or never allow the meter to be touched "just because it's his property"?
No, not at all.

CaptUSA
07-23-2012, 07:14 AM
Has RPFs degraded to this type of discussion, or is it late and the trolls have taken over?Yeah... I got caught up for a while, but bowed out. This thread was getting trolled from both sides.

I just wanted to point out this utility worker was not trespassing and had a right to be there to access his company's property. I don't like smart meters either, but I do care about encouraging threats of violence against law-abiding citizens. These encounters are not uncommon. They happen farily often when utility workers are there for disconnection of power for non-pay. The laws on rights of access are fairly well-established. Even though many don't like them.

We should be able to discuss the problems with smart meters without encouraging threats of violence. Especially on a Ron Paul forum.

TheTexan
07-23-2012, 08:00 AM
encouraging threats of violence against law-abiding citizens.

A man who is told to leave your property, does not, and instead starts shoving you around, is not a law-abiding citizen.

Tudo
07-23-2012, 08:26 AM
They came by my house a few weeks ago but first installed one next door. Got verrry snotty with me. I walked back out with my AMT Hardballer .45 in it's holster and suddenly they were very polite and left. What a surprise.

Jamesiv1
07-23-2012, 08:40 AM
They came by my house a few weeks ago but first installed one next door. Got verrry snotty with me. I walked back out with my AMT Hardballer .45 in it's holster and suddenly they were very polite and left. What a surprise.

LOLOL

That's my kind of democracy right there.

note to self: start shopping for a nice big side-arm

Bryan
07-23-2012, 07:11 PM
I just wanted to point out this utility worker was not trespassing and had a right to be there to access his company's property.
Correct, but he did allegedly assault the home owner.


I don't like smart meters either, but I do care about encouraging threats of violence against law-abiding citizens.
Good, then you should be concerned about the allegation of violence against the home owner.


These encounters are not uncommon. They happen farily often when utility workers are there for disconnection of power for non-pay. The laws on rights of access are fairly well-established. Even though many don't like them.


Yes, because I understand property rights.

CaptUSA- since you say that you understand property rights, and know that they are well-established, can you please explain the legal process that the power company needs to follow if there is a dispute between the two competing property owners- the land owner, and the power company? Can the power company just simply ask and obtain a police escort on a property against the land owners wishes, when no court writ or warrant has been issued? If so, what assurances do the police have that they are doing the right thing? Thanks!

BTW, hope this isn't seen as trolling. :D ;) :p

Bryan
07-23-2012, 07:11 PM
Bryan.

Who resurrected you?
Danke- so, what are you trying to say? :)

Nickels
07-23-2012, 07:30 PM
Nice ad hominem. Let's stick to the facts, please.

Certainly no one is claiming that the government should be obligated to provide safeguards, so please be careful not to construct strawman arguments.


Oh really? You weren't saying that? Ok then. Isn't that what positive rights mean?



Still, some of the amendments do seem to imply positive rights.


Did I get that right? You're asking me to explain the constitution to you, but you're already so sure you can infer what it says yourself.



Two amendments imply positive property rights, namely the 2nd ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") and the 4th ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"). How are these not stating positive rights? Two others, the 6th and 7th, imply positive rights within the justice system.


They are not positive rights because they do not obligate the government to protect these rights without exception, and/or unless it is government action (but that I can see, I need to prove that separately to you).



Regardless, the essence of the question is, could any government agency pass a law that says that if you think that you have been wronged (or have property you need to access, etc) that you can access someone else property without a court issued writ or warrant or otherwise violate the 4th?


No government can violate the constitution. That's what the Constitution is for. But any private citizen can do what the bill of rights protects against , unless it's criminal or tortious. In most cases, there are criminal laws or tort laws to protect that, so it is not dependent on your 4th amendment.



For reference - does the Bill or Rights limit to just government interactions, or are they a positive right?
1st: "Congress shall make no law respecting" - clearly restricting government.
2nd: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - does not limit to government


No, 2nd amendment does not mean you can't tell me to stop carrying my arms when I enter your house.



3rd: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." - depends on definition of Soldier, but generally restricting government
4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" - does not specify just government.


Now I turn the question back to you. Find me ONE tort case that cites 4th amendment violation as their basis for cause of action. One which has no government involved, and show me where a court (state or federal will both do) says that 4th amendment extends to private person's duty.



5th: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" - justice system
6th: "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" - positive right within justice system
7th: " the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," - positive right within justice system
8th: "Excessive bail shall not be required" - justice system
9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution" - government
10th: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" - government


Seems like you can see they are all applicable to government and not citizens. With a few you have vague confusions about.



Non sequitur. In those cases a private person is setting the terms of use of their property


Oh, so you mean to tell me the private person can "violate the consittution"? or do you admit it doesn't apply?



, which is completely not in dispute. In this case, it is a question of the rights of a person to control their property when there are two competing property right claims.


So why would you bring up the 4th amendment? If it is merely a question of competing property rights.



Same non sequitur.


Absurd logical conclusions of your idea that Constitution doesn't stop at limiting government are ridiculous, so when I throw it in your face you try to dismiss it as "non sequitur". Do you admit or not that Constitution only applies to government?




Sure, the question has been- who gets to decide what is lawful? The power company? The police? The courts? Who?


Ultimately courts & legislators.



Could you please explain this more?


Yes, police know how to follow the easement of utility companies because by default that is how they are. You may not like it, but they know it.




Great, thanks.

Transmission lines clearly have easements put in place in advance- and are on-file at the County Clerk


Are you sure? Did you just start a double standard here? Where is your extreme skepticism of OMFG, WHERE DID THAT AUTHORITY COME FROM? WHO GAVE THEM SUCH A RIGHT?



, the question is just about the meter and how an easement can be created for it, and if they are on-file as well.

...............now I am confused....how is that different? Or I can ask what purpose is the line for delivery if the meter cannot be installed?



Another strawman, you're trying to imply I likely have a viewpoint that I certainly don't have. As I have already stated a number of times in this thread, there isn't a question that the power company should ultimately have access to their meter


There isn't? So you're just arguing about the technicality of the legality of it even though you conceded the conclusion already?



, I am merely asking questions about the mechanics of the due-process involved if there is a disagreement on the land that their property resides.


First, do you recognize there is an easement?
Second, let's say you do not, and you wanted it to be a case for trespassing, you sue for trespassing, tell the jury about your land and rights.
Third, in tort law there is "recapture of chattel" which allows a person to repossess his property as long as it's speedy, reasonable, and non-confrontational.
As you can see, there are many ways, but the most efficient would be easement.



No, not at all.

Why not? It's on his property and you don't seem to be happy with the easement. you seem to have a million questions about how the easement is created, why the home owner has to put up with this nonsense and how the 4th amendment trumps the alleged easement.

Nickels
07-23-2012, 07:35 PM
Can the power company just simply ask and obtain a police escort on a property against the land owners wishes, when no court writ or warrant has been issued? If so, what assurances do the police have that they are doing the right thing? Thanks!

BTW, hope this isn't seen as trolling. :D ;) :p

Here's an example that might help you.

Let's say there are a husband and wife. Wife is somehow kicked out of her house, and has no key. She can get a police to escort her into the house and reclaim her property, can't she? Does this need a warrant? Don't the police need simple proof she is who she is, and has the legal right to be in her home?

You don't dispute that until there is a divorce, both can claim residency to the home, and at the moment, there are competiting interests of property. The wife fears for her safety and well being, thus is not lookng to stay, she just wants to get what she needs and walk away. What is the basis for the police entering the home? Because the wife let them, and the wife had a right to be in the home.

If I didn't make any mistakes above, then you can understand, the power company is by default given the easement, thus the police can escort them because they know they have such a right, unless there are exceptions. What assurances have they they are doing the right thing? First they need to verify the identity of the person who needs an escort, then they check if there is a right for them to ask what they are asking, or do what they do.

Or, here's another one.

Tell me Bryan, do you actually think when landlord has to enter a tenant's home after making good faith efforts to contact him and the tenant is out of reach.... Let's say the landlord needs to turn off water or gas because he suspects it's been left on and either is hazardous or wasteful. The landlord asks for police escort because he wants to ensure he acts in the law, does the police need a warrant to escort this person? You DO understand that the escort is a courtesy and normally wouldn't even be a trespass question, right? Do you think when landlord makes such an emergency entry with an escort, the tenant can claim 4th amendment violation? (Let's make your life easier, assume nothing was in plain sight, nothing was used or seen for criminal investigation purposes)

Anti Federalist
07-23-2012, 10:40 PM
The govenrment does not force you to use electricity.

Actually, in many localities, they do.

Failure to maintain electric service is liable to get your dwelling condemned or C/O revoked.

TheTexan
07-23-2012, 11:00 PM
Actually, in many localities, they do.

CaptUSA, in these localities where you are forced to maintain electric service, can you acknowledge the right to use force to prevent the installation of smart meters?

Or is that still "assault on a guy just doing his job" ?