When we hear EMPIRE ALICE 5% freemason/Greek players saying MOVING FORWARD is too far along---that there is no way to STOP MOVING FORWARD----that all those laws passed makes it impossible to reverse and rebuild our US 20th century sovereignty------
WE SHOUT---------WHEN POLITICIANS DECIDE TO BECOME CRIMINALS THEY NO LONGER HAVE POWER TO LEGISLATE----THEY NO LONGER HAVE POWER TO CONDUCT CIVIL CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS---THEY CANNOT APPOINT PEOPLE TO ANY PUBLIC AGENCY.
So, all these global banking 1% corporations and rich coming into our US cities made FAILED STATES from all these criminal activities of pols still in office---with farm team pols coming in and doing the same------KNOW that all business done by a Baltimore City Council and mayor----KNOW all business done by a Maryland Assembly and governor ----
CAN AT ANY POINT BE VOIDED REGARDLESS OF SIGNED CONTRACTS-----REGARDLESS OF PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION. ANYONE DOING BUSINESS WITH CRIMINAL AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS WILL BE GREAT BIG LOSERS.
Any building in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will end in hands of our US 99% WE THE CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE -----as too in US cities in your neck of woods.
official misconduct (redirected from Malfeasance in office)
Also found in: Wikipedia.
n. improper and/or illegal acts by a public official which violate his/her duty to follow the law and act on behalf of the public good. Often such conduct is under the guise or "color" of official authority. (See: official)
noun criminal conduct by a public official, criminal conduct by an administration's member, dereliction of performance in office, deviation from rectitude, dishonest management, failing to uphold a sworn oath of office, failure in office, guilty act while a public official, illegal act, illegality by a public official, improper conduct by a public official, impropriety by a public official, maladministration by a public servant, malfeasance by a public servant, mis-administration by a public servant, misconduct by a public official, misdeeds by a public official, misfeasance by a public official, misgovernment, misguidance by a public official, mismanagement by an office holder, misprision by an office holder, non-feasance by an office holder, offenses while in office, transgressions by an office holder, turpitude by an office holder, wrongdoing, by a public official
By Michael J. Hutter
PROSECUTING PUBLIC OFFICIALS/FIGURES
FOR CORRUPTION: THE APPROACH IN
THE UNITED STATES
Public corruption in any form is the misuse of a public or government office for private gain. Its existence is an indication that something has gone wrong in the
management of the government office, whether it be federal, state, or local.
In that regard, it is a basic tenet that government is not to be used for personal enrichment and the extending of benefits to the corrupt.
The prevention of corruption is essential not only to make government work for its intended purpose, e.g., ensure that public officials are using their office to
further the public interest and not to enrich themselves or others, but also to preserve public confidence in the democratic process.
As to the latter, the United States Supreme Court has observed:
democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.”
(United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562 ).
We want to remind our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE of our 300 year COMMON LAW and Federal court rulings surrounding LANDLORD/TENET laws that benefit both a LANDLORD and a TENET.
When we allow the designation US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE to exist-----we are negating all local sovereign laws-----all state sovereign laws---all Federal sovereign laws regarding GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES especially when they and/or the land is owned by foreign entities----like global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
We shared these few days the global banking 1% goals of using dismantlement of all US safety net programs especially around HOUSING and the dismantlement of TAX UNIFORMITY laws allowing selective taxation that is illegal. Our US 99% of landlords will be killed if these policies MOVE FORWARD AND our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE being FORCED to be renters because of attacks on our wealth.
Below we see the current laws protecting LANDLORDS that will disappear with RENTER CREDIT----and the power of LEASE AGREEMENTS protecting our TENETS as renters disappear as well.
'FAILURE TO PAY RENT
The court action is called a “suit for rent due” and the eviction procedure for nonpayment of rent is called "summary ejectment". If a tenant fails to pay rent when it is due, the landlord has the right to repossess the premises by filing a complaint under oath in District Court (sometimes called “Rent Court”) asking for repossession of the premises, the amount of rent due, and costs of the suit.
The action for non-payment of rent is only available for a written or oral lease or rental agreement that is more than 3 months.
Read the law: Baltimore City Code of Public Local Laws, Article 4, § 9-1, 9-2 and 9-5 (link is external)'
Since the goals of MOVING FORWARD are to build only residential housing being located on global corporate campuses with those global corporations tying their employees to living on those campuses having power to hire anyone they want rather than abiding by EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS-----a person will lose their rights to rent that apartment along with losing a job---changing a job.
YOU DON'T WORK HERE ---YOU DON'T LIVE HERE.
'During the Term of the Lease
The warranty of habitability is a continuing warranty and the tenant may pursue legal action for breach of this warranty at any time during the tenancy if the dwelling becomes unfit for human habitation. The tenant may also use breach of this warranty as a defense in an action of summary ejectment or distress for rent'.
We discuss from time to time the inability of a Baltimore City citizen to get a response to complaints against derelict landlords---no agency is providing oversight and accountability ----renter's court can end in awards for renters who then cannot find a pathway to collect awards. Now, global investment firms as a city's residential development could care less what US LANDLORD/TENET laws say-----they do whatever they want.
Rental and housing laws in Baltimore City: city laws
Landlord Must Provide Tenant with a Copy of the Lease
At the time of the lease signing, the landlord must give the tenant a copy of the lease signed by both the tenant and landlord. The lease must include the following contact information:
1. The name of the property owner and either their residence address and telephone number or their business address and telephone number; or
2. The name of the person who has been designated by the property owner to be their agent or managing operator of the property, and either their residence address and telephone number or their business address and telephone number.
Any owner who is not customarily present in an office in the metropolitan Baltimore area must include the information of a managing agent in a lease.
The property owner must notify the tenant of any contact information changes by first class mail within 10 days.
Compliance, Enforcement and Penalties
The property owner is primarily responsibility for compliance with this law. Because of that, a tenant has to right to ask a court to prevent or stop a property owner’s violation of the law. A property owner who violates a provision of this law is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of up to $100 for each violation.
None of these provisions apply to:
1. Rental units in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, and rooming and boarding houses that are rented primarily to transient guests for less than 14 days;
2. Rental units in a hospital, convent, monastery, extended medical care facility, asylum, non-profit home for the aged, or dormitory owned and operated by an institution of higher education;
3. Individual rental units that a government agency owns, operates or manages; and
4. Rental units within the premises occupied by the owner as his or her residence.
Read the law: Baltimore City Code, Housing sand Urban Renewal, Article 13, § 7 (link is external)
WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR HUMAN HABITATION
When a Tenant Takes Occupancy
In any written or oral residential lease, the landlord is presumed to promise (or “warrant”) that the rented dwelling is "fit for human habitation". This means that the premises must not have any conditions that endanger the life, health and safety of the tenants, including, but not limited to vermin or rodent infestation, lack of sanitation, lack of heat, lack of running water, or lack of electricity. The provisions of this law cannot be waived by any written or oral lease.
If the dwelling is not fit for human habitation upon occupancy, the tenant must first notify the landlord of the dangerous condition. The notice must be by one of the following methods:
1. A violation notice from the Department of Housing and Community Development or other government agency;
2. A letter sent by certified mail to the landlord; or
3. Actual notice of the defect or condition.
After notifying the landlord, the tenant may exercise the following remedies within the first 30 days of occupancy:
1. Tenant may bring an action against the landlord for breach of contract, which may include a request for actual damages suffered by tenant; and/or
2. Tenant may bring an action to rescind (cancel) the lease and request a return of all deposits and money paid toward rent during the period of the breach of warranty.
The tenant may also use any other remedies available under law, such as rent escrow.
If the tenant, a member of his or her family, the tenant’s agent or the tenant’s guest acts in bad faith and refuses entry to the landlord or the landlord’s agent who are trying to repairing the condition, the court will order the tenant to pay landlord's court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The court will also require the tenant to pay for the repairs if the dangerous condition was caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant’s family, the tenant’s agent or the tenant’s guest.
Read the law: Baltimore City Code of Public Local Laws, Article 4, § 9-14.1 (link is external)
During the Term of the Lease
The warranty of habitability is a continuing warranty and the tenant may pursue legal action for breach of this warranty at any time during the tenancy if the dwelling becomes unfit for human habitation. The tenant may also use breach of this warranty as a defense in an action of summary ejectment or distress for rent.
"Fit for human habitation" means the premises shall not have any conditions which endanger the life, health and safety of the tenants involving vermin or rodent infestation in two or more units, lack of sanitation, lack of heat, lack of running water, or lack of electricity, except where:
1. The tenant is responsible for payment of the water and electric charges; and
2. The lack of water or electricity is the direct result of the tenant’s failure to pay the water and electric charges.
The tenant will be required to pay for the repairs (collected as rent) if the dangerous condition was caused by the tenant, a member of his or her family, or visitors.
If the dwelling becomes unfit for human habitation, the tenant must first notify the landlord of the dangerous condition before tenant sues the landlord for breach of warranty. The notice must be by one of the following methods:
1. A violation notice from the Department of Housing and Community Development or other government agency;
2. A letter sent by certified mail to the landlord; or
3. Actual notice of the defect or condition.
The landlord has a “reasonable time” after notification to repair the defect or damage alleged by the tenant (repairs must be made with “diligence and without culpable delay” and more than 30 days is presumed unreasonable). Once the landlord finished the repairs, they must notify the tenant or the Department of Housing and Community Development in writing.
If tenant sues the landlord or defends him or herself in a case brought by the landlord and is successful, the amount of money s/he recovers will be computed as of the date of landlord's actual knowledge of the defect. The recovery will be the difference between the amount of rent the tenant paid or owed during the period of the breach and the reasonable rental value of the dwelling in its defective condition.
Read the law: Baltimore City Code of Public Local Laws, Article 4, § 9-14.2 (link is external)
Every US state has 300 years of governing laws tied to LANDLORD/TENET laws whether statutes, local ordinances, COMMON LAW, and court decisions. Our US Constitution and Federal laws tied to COMMON LAW place court precedence over immediate STATUTE. Failure of any court or city/state attorney to ENFORCE these 300 years of US court precedence is PUBLIC MALFEASANCE.
THAT IS THE #1 DUTY OF ANY US CITY ATTORNEY---US STATE ATTORNEY---TO PROTECT CITIZENS' RIGHTS WHETHER THEY BE LANDLORD OR TENET.
So, Baltimore City council cannot simply create a statute----or change a zoning or charter law if it fails to meet COMMON LAW history----which all of MOVING FORWARD policies do fail to meet.
DESIGNATION OF US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES CANNOT NEGATE ANY OF OUR US 300 YEARS OF COMMON LAW, US CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL LAW AND COURT RULINGS CREATING PRECEDENCE.
'Landlords and Tenants: Rights and Responsibilities
The rights and duties of landlords and tenants in Minnesota are spelled out in federal law, state statutes, local ordinances, safety and housing codes, common law, contract law, and a number of court decisions. These responsibilities can vary from place to place around the state'.
Now, here in Maryland we have a global banking 1% FAKE labor and justice organization MARYLAND PUBLIC JUSTICE always pretending to be left social progressive in civil rights while always pushing forward global corporate policy that will kill our 99% WE THE PEOPLE rights---just as they did the current LANDLORD/TENET policies discussed this week. Our Maryland Attorney General FROSH only protects the global corporation never thinking about these 99% civil rights, COMMON LAW and US court history. It is our Baltimore CITY ATTORNEY who would make all this TOP PRIORITY in taking to court Baltimore City Hall criminal and corrupt actions regarding these development policies.
This article is long and very boring----but please glance through to understand what GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have been ignoring these few decades and what our local US city global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols and institutions have illegally pushed as public policy surrounding rights of LANDLORD/TENETS-----
What MOVING FORWARD has done is eliminate the entire premise of CO-TENANTS often including our PUBLIC LANDS/PUBLIC AGENCIES as one partner in transactions with a corporation/business. When our city/county councils think of themselves as corporations --- not public servants---they think they can enter CORPORATE-CORPORATE land deals with COMMON LAW tied only to those transactions---when in fact they CANNOT---
THEY ARE A PUBLIC ENTITY REQUIRED TO OPERATE AS PUBLIC OPERATIVES UNDER COMMON LAWS.
SURVEY OF PRODUCING STATES’ COMMON LAW ON RIGHTS & LIABILITIES OF CO-TENANTS OF SEVERED MINERAL ESTATES
Natural Resources L aw Institute 2014
By Jeffrey M. Swann
PPGMR Law, PLLC
P.O. Box 251618
Little Rock, AR 72225-
One of the well-established principles of property law is that land may be horizontally severed into surface and subsurface estates so that legal title vests in different owners.
The purpose of this memo is to survey producing states’ common law protections and liabilities afforded the mineral co-tenant relationship in the decision to develop the severed estate. Importantly, the subject of this article is not the relationship between mineral co-tenants and the surface owner or between co-tenants of a property that includes both the surface and mineral estates, as these relationships may be
treated differently by the courts in determining rights and liabilities of development.
This severance can occur via an express grant, reservation, or exception. Over time, as a severed mineral estate is devised, sold, gifted or otherwise transferred down the line, its title inevitably vests in more than one person or entity.
When it does, issues often arise amongst the co-owners of the mineral estate concerning its development. As these issues are asage-old as concept of subsurface estates themselves, courts in producing states have long-standing and predict able property laws which govern these relationships in severed estates.
This survey is not a recitation of every case from all producing jurisdiction; rather, its purpose is to highlight the preeminent cases of producing jurisdictions and the two prevailing approaches that courts have taken when faced with this issue under a variety of circumstances.
Co-ownership of Severed Mineral Estates
There are three types of concurrent estates: tenancy in common, joint tenancy and tenancy by the entirety.
While all three are heavily incorporated into modern
property law of the United States, the tenancy in common estate is most commonly encountered with respect to oil and gas ownership rights and disputes. As such, this article is limited to only the rights and liabilities of tenants in common, i.e. co-tenants.
A tenancy in common is characterized by co-owners holding the same property by separate and distinct titles, but having a unity of possession.
Each co-tenant is entitled to possession and enjoyment of any part or all of the common property, as long as he or she does not exclude the co-tenant.
Majority Versus Minority Approaches
to Development Rights/Liabilities
There are two general approaches among mineral-producing jurisdictions on the development of severed minerals by a co-tenant without the consent of the other co-tenant(s). Under both approaches, the law has struggled to balance the competing interests of the individual co-tenants while maintaining a policy to efficiently develop natural resources for the benefit of society.
Majority View States.
The usual approach, adopted by the majority of producing jurisdictions, is to allow each co-tenant the right to develop without permission of the all other co-tenants, subject to a duty to account to other co-tenants for their share of minerals, less the reasonable cost of production.
The developing co-tenant may not, however, prevent
other co-tenants from developing the minerals directly or through a lessee. And, a non-consenting co-tenant may be able to seek a partition, but usually cannot enjoin development absent some evidence of reckless injury to the property. This approach is fundamentally rooted in the principle of unity of possession in the entirety.
Producing jurisdictions expressly or implicitly adopting the majority approach, or some facet thereof, include:
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana,
Missouri, New York, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Wyoming.
Noticeably, this approached is not limited to a particular producing region, as it has been adopted by numerous states within the
(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky)
(New York, Pennsylvania), Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri,Ohio), and
(California, Montana, Wyoming)
In the recent past-----global banking pols have mostly ignored all these COMMON LAW land ---landlord/tenant policies when MINING OR ENERGY interests want to WILDCAT their way into our communities----but now this is being expanded to ANY LAND DEAL for any REASON.
COMMON LAW is engendered here in US in founding documents to bring forward AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM CITIZEN power from OLD WORLD EUROPE----but they do not supersede our US CONSTITUTIONAL rights. The US Constitution compliments citizens' rights under COMMON LAW and expands them. STATUTES do not supersede US Constitution or COMMON LAW----if they are written to violate these documents our 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT have a duty to VOID.
The LANDLORD/TENANT policies we have discussed this week MOVING FORWARD in UK------AND MOVING FORWARD in Baltimore and all US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----completely ignore ALL of these US SOVEREIGN LAWS surrounding LAND OWNERSHIP/LANDLORD/TENANT LAWS.
We can ask any US LAW SCHOOL------whether University of Maryland Law School----or LOYOLA Law School---or University of Baltimore Law School----they all KNOW what our local US cities like Baltimore are MOVING FORWARD is ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC MALFEASANCE.
BUT global investment real estate development corporations do not have to abide by these US, state, and local sovereign laws say global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols----OH, REALLY? Then they are not LEGALLY allowed to exist in our US cities and counties ARE THEY?
Real Estate Law
3 Differences Between Virginia Landlord and Tenant Common Law and Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA)
September 13, 2013 Keithley Law, PLLC
If you’ve owned rental property or rented property in Virginia, you may have had to learn the differences between what is required by the VRLTA, also known as, the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and what is required under common law.
In plain English, if you’re a renter, and your lease doesn’t refer to the VRLTA, your landlord isn’t required to do anything, unless you’re covered by the common law or the default rule. The obvious exceptions are federal housing laws and anti-discrimination regulations.
Read our previous blogs regarding landlord and tenant laws in Virginia to find more information.
Title 55 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, is the statute that deals with property and conveyances. Almost everything pertaining to the legal disposition of real property and the transfer (buying/selling/renting) of real property can be found in this Chapter.
In general, the VRLTA is codified in Section 13.2, Title 55, of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. However, the common law is covered by Section 13, Title 55, of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
Here are 3 Differences Between Virginia Landlord and Tenant Act and the Common Law:
(note: there are many other differences, but this is a partial list)
1. Security Deposits
VRLTA: Landlord can’t collect more than two months of rent as security deposit. Need to keep in interest-bearing account if held longer than 13 months. Landlord must return within 45 days but provide itemized deductions from security deposit within 30 days.
Covered by Section 55-248.15:1 of the Virginia Code.
Common Law: Silent. No cap, no requirement for interest-bearing account, no time limits to return, but in my experience, courts will require that landlords return security deposits within 45 days of move-out, even if your lease doesn’t incorporate the VRLTA.
2. No Signed Lease or Failure to Provide Lease
In other words, if you discover your tenant didn’t sign a written lease, you are better off, in most cases, if you incorporated this part of the VRLTA into your lease.
VRLTA: An unsigned lease under the VRLTA treats the landlord more favorably than the common law does. According to the Virginia Code Section 55-248.8, an unsigned lease has the same effect as a signed lease if your tenant moved in, paid rent without reservation, for up to one-year. This means that even if you didn’t enter into a written lease agreement with your tenant, you can treat your tenant as a year-to-year tenant; not just a month-to-month tenant.
Common Law: Silent on this issue. Typically, without a signed lease agreement, the tenancy is only month-to-month.
3. What do Landlords Have to Disclose (Mandatory Disclosures)
This is an interesting one. Landlords subject to the VRLTA must disclose certain issues:
Disclosure of mold in dwelling units: Landlords have to disclose it if there is known mold problems as part of the written move-in inspection report.
Required disclosures for properties located adjacent to a military air installation: This is a noise provision and statute enacted to warn prospective tenants of potential accidents. There is also a remedy for nondisclosure.Defective drywall disclosures: Mandatory and also a remedy for nondisclosure under Section 55-248.12:2 of the Virginia Code; remedy for nondisclosure.
Common Law: Mold disclosure same as VRLTA and governed by Section 55-225.7.