Case # 1: The People and the Murrays vs Papa
Our Readers' Opinions
September 25, 2020

Case # 1: The People and the Murrays vs Papa

Editor: For whatever reasons the Bar Association and for that matter individual lawyers are apparently muzzled and deny the general public knowledge of their legal opinion on this case. Therefore, we have no choice but to depend on us, the Goatskin lawyers. After all, when there is a trial by jury we are called upon to adjudicate.

The facts of the case appear to be that the Murrays live on a parcel of land, a small portion of which they rented to tenants who have refused to pay. They took them to court and obtained eviction orders. Subsequently, the authorities acquired some of the land on behalf of the tenants without consulting the Murrays nor getting their consent.

There is no doubt that the Constitution allows citizens the right of land ownership with all the rights, liberties, ways, watercourses, privileges and all other easements, usually held, used, occupied, or enjoyed, or reputed to belong and all heredements to have and to hold forever.

Various animals require a certain minimum amount of land to support them. Human beings too require a certain amount of lands to be self-sustaining. The Murrays are no exception and appear to have just the right amount to sustain their livelihood. Vegetable gardens, fruit trees, shade trees, flowers, windbreakers, contouring, land conservation practices, pasturelands, lands for medicinal marijuana, all need their own space.

In our minds, the acquisition of the Murrays’ land appears to be a boldfaced attempt to circumvent the law and may have the effect of destroying the fabric of the society. Some landowners have said that they will no longer rent lands to farmers. Others are on edge wondering whether they would be next in light of the apparent policy of the party to OWN THE COUNTRY, THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LANDS.

We have no doubt that this behavior of land acquisition is unethical and wonder whether those involved can be disbarred as a consequence. Action that may cause disbarment include:

1. Unethical, fraudulent and dishonest behavior

2. Lying

3. Practice that is prejudicial to the Administration of Justice

4. Abuse of Public Office

5. Rape

Although Integrity Legislation has not been enacted as promised, there are still rules, regulations, and laws to keep politicians restrained from unethical behaviors.

The tenants apparently have a need for free housing based on their inability to pay $25 per month and some $50 per year. Once Crown lands are identified or other available lands are ethically acquired, the services of religious and voluntary organizations can be requested to build houses using lumber, galvanize, and cement that taxpayers have paid for. Until this is done, rooms may be had at the Louis Punnet Home. In this way, the needs of the delinquent tenants may be met avoiding the wrongful and unethical taking away of the Murrays’ lands.

Anthony Stewart, PhD