"Shut up! I'll move my car when I'm damn good and ready!"
EASEMENT CREATING RIGHT-OF-WAY
This letter is not worth reading!
Stop The Harassment or Else
"No Contact. Keep The Gate Closed and Locked"
Decree:Equity 28517, January 24, 1992
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
"Shut up! I'll move my car when I'm damn good and ready!"
Click on the picture for a detailed view.
June 13, 2007
Chad Leonard
Dallas County Sheriff
201 N. 8TH St.
Adel, Iowa 50003
Dear Sheriff Leonard:
As you will recall from my letter of May 18, 2007 Mary Hays is in contempt of Equity 28517 by parking her vehicle on an ingress/ egress easement at 23998 260th St. Yesterday, June 12, for the third time since that letter, I found Mary Hays’ vehicle unlawfully parked on the easement and asked her to move it. She refused and I called your Department. Two deputies, Ryan Bowers and Douglas Lande, came to the scene. I appreciate the response and after some 30-45 minutes the vehicle was removed. Unfortunately this episode revealed more problems than it resolved.
I.
As the session of June 12 closed, one of your Deputies, I think Deputy Bowers, came off the telephone saying to Mary that you had advised him to tell Mary that she could park her car in the county right of way behind the closed portion of the gate in the photograph (below) between where Mary is standing and where her car is parked.
No! Neither Mary Hays, nor myself, nor anyone else can lawfully park and leave a vehicle there, nor anywhere on the Lane 1 ingress/ egress easement that includes the county right of way and my access permit. Mary’s original ploy to gain an easement was to ask the Court to extinguish her access there.
Further, the Court decreed that I am required to maintain there a 32-foot wide entrance. I was fined $500 in part for not maintaining the entrance to that width, including the removable post in the center of the double gate (east half closed) behind Mary and the drainage from my 60-foot culvert 30 feet in the background. Mary has been specifically denied an access permit there.
Moreover, there is no parking there because I, solely, hold the access permit and maintain it at my pleasure. The issue is not whether the vehicle is blocking my passage; the issue is the Court Order.
I believe that you erred in two ways by advising Deputy Bowers tell Mary that she could park there. First, perhaps unwittingly, you again engaged yourself and your deputies in interpretation/ enforcement of Equity 28517 without knowing the facts and without a writ, the very thing that you have rightfully and repeatedly made a commitment not to do after Mary’s road rock caper.
Second, you do not have the power to grant parking privileges to any person on a permit-granted access to private property from any County road, certainly not this one where the private law is so exceptional, so long standing and so contentious. You would be very hard pressed to make the case in court that Mary is allowed to park there while I am not. And, I am not!
Before the unlawful parking begins, please inform Mary Hays and your Deputies that you were mistaken in telling Mary that she could park there. Further, if she violates that again, please have her vehicle removed without requiring me to undergo another 30-45 minute session on the ground with you or your staff rehashing Mary’s displeasure over Equity 28517.
II.
What is not to understand about, “remove this unlawfully parked vehicle,” an enforceable request no matter who the vehicle belonged to. Instead, your deputies interpreted it their duty to attempt to engage Mary and myself in some sort of mediation session that devolved quickly into their re-hearing Equity 28517 and their failure to remove the vehicle promptly. In deference to the Restraining Order, when I returned to my truck to get away from Mary and wait, one Deputy motioned me back to the conversation with an index finger call I interpreted as an order.
My understanding from the great rock caper is that your Department will not again be involved in attempting to enforce/ interpret Equity 28517 without a writ. But here we have it all over again.
As you know, the mutual restraining order is law and gives me the privilege as well as the duty of avoiding Mary and her confrontation. Such mandatory contact deprives me of the protection from Mary that the restraining order ensures, absolving me from engaging in any discourse with her whatsoever. Mary is extremely hostile and extremely aggressive and she endangers me, both bodily and legally. Further, after 17 years as a pro se defendant I neither need, nor want, nor am required to hear Mary’s nor your deputies’ opinions of the Orders in Equity 28517. I am lawfully entitled to the services from your Department without being required to stand through 30-45 minutes of re-debate each time I call.
Please advise your staff that Equity 28517 is an extensive, longstanding and contentious body of private law and that conventional mediation techniques are not appropriate in light of the restraining order. Please manage your deputies in such a way that in order for them to meet their obligation as peacekeepers, I am not required to rehash Equity 28517 in Mary Hays’ presence or to your deputies. If this requires specific staff training for all deputies who may respond to a call here, I urge you to provide that before another incident occurs rather than later.
III.
The disparity between your deputies’ treatment of Mary and of myself on April 17 (the rock caper) and on June 12 (the parking incident) is unacceptable and I believe unlawful. Instead of having Mary’s vehicle removed, Deputies Bowers and Lande listened to her spiel, walking here and there with her to hear her litany of discontent about Equity 28517 and her epithets about me. They listened, too patiently in my opinion, without arresting her. Instead, after ordering Mary to move her car they listened to her say, “I’m not going to move my vehicle until I’m damn good and ready.” And, after the Deputy responded to that, shouted into his face, “shut up.” They then, after 30-45 minutes, on your advice, offered her the emolument of parking where it is unlawful for her to park.
Conversely, in the rock caper Deputy Hinds, you assured me, thoroughly researched the Judge Kimes Order and Hinds’ plan before the fact, including advice from Ralph Brown. Still, in that unlawful, premeditated operation, without a writ, and even though I am a pro se Defendant, Hinds did not contact me, nor did he offer me 30-45 minutes of touchy-feely while he prevented the rock from being dumped. Instead, he began by stepping into my path and stating, “Carl, I am here to enforce a Court Order, if you take one more step I will arrest you.” I am confident that had I said to Hinds, “I’ll stop when I’m damn good and ready,” and then told him to, “shut up,” I would have been arrested, as it turns out, in an unlawful ruse to attempt to use your Department to enforce Equity 28517 without a writ.
To be lawful, sex, sexual preference or any anti-discrimination law enforcement, indeed all law enforcement, must protect all citizens equally, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual. I urge you to make that clear to your staff. That has not occurred in this case. Before we move on, it is essential that you and I come to an understanding on this point.
IV
I believe it is counter productive for your Deputies to so adamantly have told Mary several times yesterday that she cannot park on the County road. She has parked there for years in foul weather, an emolument for suing herself into nothing but “a wholly unimproved dirt farm lane whereupon the water will stand.” Please do not suggest to Mary that she can park off the road at my entrance in Section 17 next to Lane 1, I have already spent years prohibiting her, and all manner of others, from parking there. I believe that your deputies’ making such an issue of a loosely enforced ordinance with Mary yesterday unnecessarily puts undue parking pressure on her in inclement weather, is counterproductive to peacekeeping going forward and had noting to do with my request to remove her vehicle from Lane 1.
I will be happy to meet with you again to help resolve these issues.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Carl H. Hays
Attach: Two photographs, one page
PC: Deputy Bowers
Deputy Lande
June 13, 2007
Chad Leonard
Dallas County Sheriff
201 N. 8TH St.
Adel, Iowa 50003
Dear Sheriff Leonard:
As you will recall from my letter of May 18, 2007 Mary Hays is in contempt of Equity 28517 by parking her vehicle on an ingress/ egress easement at 23998 260th St. Yesterday, June 12, for the third time since that letter, I found Mary Hays’ vehicle unlawfully parked on the easement and asked her to move it. She refused and I called your Department. Two deputies, Ryan Bowers and Douglas Lande, came to the scene. I appreciate the response and after some 30-45 minutes the vehicle was removed. Unfortunately this episode revealed more problems than it resolved.
I.
As the session of June 12 closed, one of your Deputies, I think Deputy Bowers, came off the telephone saying to Mary that you had advised him to tell Mary that she could park her car in the county right of way behind the closed portion of the gate in the photograph (below) between where Mary is standing and where her car is parked.
No! Neither Mary Hays, nor myself, nor anyone else can lawfully park and leave a vehicle there, nor anywhere on the Lane 1 ingress/ egress easement that includes the county right of way and my access permit. Mary’s original ploy to gain an easement was to ask the Court to extinguish her access there.
Further, the Court decreed that I am required to maintain there a 32-foot wide entrance. I was fined $500 in part for not maintaining the entrance to that width, including the removable post in the center of the double gate (east half closed) behind Mary and the drainage from my 60-foot culvert 30 feet in the background. Mary has been specifically denied an access permit there.
Moreover, there is no parking there because I, solely, hold the access permit and maintain it at my pleasure. The issue is not whether the vehicle is blocking my passage; the issue is the Court Order.
I believe that you erred in two ways by advising Deputy Bowers tell Mary that she could park there. First, perhaps unwittingly, you again engaged yourself and your deputies in interpretation/ enforcement of Equity 28517 without knowing the facts and without a writ, the very thing that you have rightfully and repeatedly made a commitment not to do after Mary’s road rock caper.
Second, you do not have the power to grant parking privileges to any person on a permit-granted access to private property from any County road, certainly not this one where the private law is so exceptional, so long standing and so contentious. You would be very hard pressed to make the case in court that Mary is allowed to park there while I am not. And, I am not!
Before the unlawful parking begins, please inform Mary Hays and your Deputies that you were mistaken in telling Mary that she could park there. Further, if she violates that again, please have her vehicle removed without requiring me to undergo another 30-45 minute session on the ground with you or your staff rehashing Mary’s displeasure over Equity 28517.
II.
What is not to understand about, “remove this unlawfully parked vehicle,” an enforceable request no matter who the vehicle belonged to. Instead, your deputies interpreted it their duty to attempt to engage Mary and myself in some sort of mediation session that devolved quickly into their re-hearing Equity 28517 and their failure to remove the vehicle promptly. In deference to the Restraining Order, when I returned to my truck to get away from Mary and wait, one Deputy motioned me back to the conversation with an index finger call I interpreted as an order.
My understanding from the great rock caper is that your Department will not again be involved in attempting to enforce/ interpret Equity 28517 without a writ. But here we have it all over again.
As you know, the mutual restraining order is law and gives me the privilege as well as the duty of avoiding Mary and her confrontation. Such mandatory contact deprives me of the protection from Mary that the restraining order ensures, absolving me from engaging in any discourse with her whatsoever. Mary is extremely hostile and extremely aggressive and she endangers me, both bodily and legally. Further, after 17 years as a pro se defendant I neither need, nor want, nor am required to hear Mary’s nor your deputies’ opinions of the Orders in Equity 28517. I am lawfully entitled to the services from your Department without being required to stand through 30-45 minutes of re-debate each time I call.
Please advise your staff that Equity 28517 is an extensive, longstanding and contentious body of private law and that conventional mediation techniques are not appropriate in light of the restraining order. Please manage your deputies in such a way that in order for them to meet their obligation as peacekeepers, I am not required to rehash Equity 28517 in Mary Hays’ presence or to your deputies. If this requires specific staff training for all deputies who may respond to a call here, I urge you to provide that before another incident occurs rather than later.
III.
The disparity between your deputies’ treatment of Mary and of myself on April 17 (the rock caper) and on June 12 (the parking incident) is unacceptable and I believe unlawful. Instead of having Mary’s vehicle removed, Deputies Bowers and Lande listened to her spiel, walking here and there with her to hear her litany of discontent about Equity 28517 and her epithets about me. They listened, too patiently in my opinion, without arresting her. Instead, after ordering Mary to move her car they listened to her say, “I’m not going to move my vehicle until I’m damn good and ready.” And, after the Deputy responded to that, shouted into his face, “shut up.” They then, after 30-45 minutes, on your advice, offered her the emolument of parking where it is unlawful for her to park.
Conversely, in the rock caper Deputy Hinds, you assured me, thoroughly researched the Judge Kimes Order and Hinds’ plan before the fact, including advice from Ralph Brown. Still, in that unlawful, premeditated operation, without a writ, and even though I am a pro se Defendant, Hinds did not contact me, nor did he offer me 30-45 minutes of touchy-feely while he prevented the rock from being dumped. Instead, he began by stepping into my path and stating, “Carl, I am here to enforce a Court Order, if you take one more step I will arrest you.” I am confident that had I said to Hinds, “I’ll stop when I’m damn good and ready,” and then told him to, “shut up,” I would have been arrested, as it turns out, in an unlawful ruse to attempt to use your Department to enforce Equity 28517 without a writ.
To be lawful, sex, sexual preference or any anti-discrimination law enforcement, indeed all law enforcement, must protect all citizens equally, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual. I urge you to make that clear to your staff. That has not occurred in this case. Before we move on, it is essential that you and I come to an understanding on this point.
IV
I believe it is counter productive for your Deputies to so adamantly have told Mary several times yesterday that she cannot park on the County road. She has parked there for years in foul weather, an emolument for suing herself into nothing but “a wholly unimproved dirt farm lane whereupon the water will stand.” Please do not suggest to Mary that she can park off the road at my entrance in Section 17 next to Lane 1, I have already spent years prohibiting her, and all manner of others, from parking there. I believe that your deputies’ making such an issue of a loosely enforced ordinance with Mary yesterday unnecessarily puts undue parking pressure on her in inclement weather, is counterproductive to peacekeeping going forward and had noting to do with my request to remove her vehicle from Lane 1.
I will be happy to meet with you again to help resolve these issues.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Carl H. Hays
Attach: Two photographs, one page
PC: Deputy Bowers
Deputy Lande
Sunday, January 1, 2006
EASEMENT CREATING RIGHT-OF-WAY
On August 10, 1981 John Kimple was with the firm McDonald, Keller [that's Judge Peter A. Keller of the Iowa Fifth Judicial District] and Brown [that's Ralph Brown of the present firm of McDonald, Brown etc.], Dallas Center, Iowa. John "loved" Ethel, an affection that began to grow very soon after Horton's death. John apparently did lots of work for Ethel and Mary during those years,including considerable hand in four of Ethel's "recorded" wills, the next to last of which made John Kimple her executer. Needless to say, this easement was not recorded on the relevant land deeds Ethel executed on October 15, 1981. Nevertheless, notice that Mary had Mary and Ethel's little secret easement and her land deed in hand all the while Mary was wheedling Carl for the mutual easement he granted to her on October 29,1981 as requisite for receiving his deed from Ethel.
Print to small to Read? Click on the image for revealing view.
Print to small to Read? Click on the image for revealing view.
Saturday, January 1, 2005
Sunday, October 10, 2004
"No Contact. Keep The Gate Closed and Locked"
Or else what? Or else you get a restraining Order and and Order to perpetually close and lock the gate. Click on the image at left for detailed view.
Tuesday, January 1, 1980
Decree:Equity 28517, January 24, 1992
DECREE
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
The Plaintiff, Mary Hays, is granted a perpetual easement for herself, her heirs and assigns into, upon and over all that portion of the West Thirty-two feet of the North 182 feet of the South 626.65 feet of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 27 West of the 5th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa.
The easement shall be held by Mary Hays solely for the purpose of providing ingress and egress to her and to her invitees.
The defendant, Carl Hays, shall maintain the easement. The rights granted to Mary Hays shall be nonexclusive in that the defendant,
The Plaintiff, Mary Hays, is granted a perpetual easement for herself, her heirs and assigns into, upon and over all that portion of the West Thirty-two feet of the North 182 feet of the South 626.65 feet of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 27 West of the 5th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa.
The easement shall be held by Mary Hays solely for the purpose of providing ingress and egress to her and to her invitees.
The defendant, Carl Hays, shall maintain the easement. The rights granted to Mary Hays shall be nonexclusive in that the defendant,
14
Carl Hays, may also use the property described as The West thirty-two feet of the South 626.65 feet, of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 27 West of the 5th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa,
for purposes of ingress and egress.
The defendant, Carl Hays, may maintain, at his own expense, a gate at the northern end of that portion of the tract described as The West thirty-two feet of the South 626.65 feet, of the north one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township
79 North, Range 27 West of the 5th P.M. Dallas County, Iowa, for purposes of restricting access to the property. The gate shall be maintained by Carl Hays and the gate shall be constructed in such a manner as to allow access to May Hays, Carl Hays, and all of their invitees.
The defendant may place a lock upon the gate, provided that the plaintiff shall, at all times, a key or the necessary combination in order to obtain access to the property.
Mary Hays and Carl Hays shall keep the gate at the north end of the lane locked at all times, subject to reasonable rights of entry and egress.
The fence and gates on the east side of the the West thirty-two feet of the South 626.65 feet, of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 27 West of the 5th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa, that were installed by the defendant, Carl Hays, shall be removed by him on or before March 1 of 1992. In the event that the defendant fails, refuses or neglects to remove the fences and gates on the described property by the time fixed by the Court, they may be
15
removed by the plaintiff Mary Hays, and the cost of that removal shall be charged to the defendant. In that event, the plaintiff shall file an Affidavit with the Court setting out the total costs incurred in the removal of the gate and fence. The Court shall then review that Affidavit and enter an appropriate Order and judgment with regard to such costs. Jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject to this action is retained by the Court for that purpose.
The east side of that portion of the property described as The West thirty-two feet of the South 626.65 feet, of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quatter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 27 West of the 5th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa, shall then be kept free of fencing and gates except with the expressed permission and consent of the owner of Parcel #2.
All of the equipment and personal upon the lane by Carl Hays, shall on or before March 1 of 1992. property that has been stored removed from the lane by him
In the event that the defendant fails, refuses or neglects to remove all of the equipment and personal property that has been stored upon the lane on or before March 1 of 1992, the plaintiff
can remove all of the equipment and personal property that has been stored upon the lane and dispose of all of the equipment and personal property that has been stored upon the lane without any accounting to the defendant.
In that event the plaintiff shall file an Affidavit with the Court setting out the total costs incurred in the removal of all of the equipment and personal property that has been stored upon the
16
lane. The Court shall then review that Affidavit and enter an appropriate Order and judgment with regard to such costs. Jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject to this action is retained by the Court for that purpose.
The defendant, Carl Hays, is permanently restrained and enjoined from allowing livestock within the lane and from storing any equipment, machinery or personal property in the lane.
With the exception of the easement that has been reserved by the Court to the plaintiff, Mary Hays, over the lane, the plaintiff shall have no right, title, interest, claim, estate, or demand of any kind or nature with regard to Parcel #1.
The easement that was created for the benefit of the plaintiff, dated October 29,
1981, and filed for record on November 6, 1981, in Book 589 at Page 403 of the records of the Recorder of Dallas County, Iowa, is hereby rescinded, declared null, void and of no further force and effect.
With the exception of the rights granted to the plaintiff, Mary Hays, by this decree, she shall have no rights of any kind or nature with regard to Parcel *1.
In the event that the defendant desires to place a gate or fence at. any point not subject to the easement granted to the plaintiff, he may do so at his sole expense.
Carl Hays, his heirs, successors and assigns, shall have an easement in, to, upon and over that portion of Parcel *2 that consists of the existing route from Horton's Lane to that portion of Tract #1 lying east of the north-south creek that intersects the subject property. This easement may be used by Carl Hays, his heirs, successors and assigns as access for farming and for professional purposes only. It may not be used in the furtherance
In the event that the defendant desires to place a gate or fence at. any point not subject to the easement granted to the plaintiff, he may do so at his sole expense.
Carl Hays, his heirs, successors and assigns, shall have an easement in, to, upon and over that portion of Parcel *2 that consists of the existing route from Horton's Lane to that portion of Tract #1 lying east of the north-south creek that intersects the subject property. This easement may be used by Carl Hays, his heirs, successors and assigns as access for farming and for professional purposes only. It may not be used in the furtherance
17
of any residential or commercial use of Parcel #1.
The plaintiff, Mary Hays, will have the obligation to maintain path #1. Except for the cost of maintaining the two fords that intersect path #1, this obligation shall be at the sole cost of Mary Hays. Path #1 shall be maintained by Mary Hays in such a manner as to allow reasonable access to generally used farm equipment.
The plaintiff and defendant shall jointly maintain the two fords. Each shall bear one-half of the cost of the maintenance of the fords.
The fords shall be maintained in such a manner as to allow reasonable access to generally used farm equipment.
Carl Hays' obligation with regard to the maintenance of the fords along Lane #1 shall exist only for so long as Carl Hays, his heirs, successors or assigns, hold rights to the easement granted
by this decree. If Carl Hays or his successors or assigns relinquish their rights to the easement across lane #1, all obligation on the part of Carl Hays, his heirs, successors and assigns shall cease.
Carl Hays shall bear the sole responsibility of maintaining the easement from Lane #1 southward to Carl Hays Field #1. The defendant may clear a path from Lane #1 to Carl Hays Field #1 not greater than thirty-two feet in width. Carl Hays shall be responsible for any damage he may cause in the establishment of this lane or in its use.
All claims by the defendant counter-claimant, Carl Hays, for damages against the plaintiff and for compensation for lost profits and compensation for land acquisition costs are dismissed.
Carl Hays' obligation with regard to the maintenance of the fords along Lane #1 shall exist only for so long as Carl Hays, his heirs, successors or assigns, hold rights to the easement granted
by this decree. If Carl Hays or his successors or assigns relinquish their rights to the easement across lane #1, all obligation on the part of Carl Hays, his heirs, successors and assigns shall cease.
Carl Hays shall bear the sole responsibility of maintaining the easement from Lane #1 southward to Carl Hays Field #1. The defendant may clear a path from Lane #1 to Carl Hays Field #1 not greater than thirty-two feet in width. Carl Hays shall be responsible for any damage he may cause in the establishment of this lane or in its use.
All claims by the defendant counter-claimant, Carl Hays, for damages against the plaintiff and for compensation for lost profits and compensation for land acquisition costs are dismissed.
18
The Application for a Rule to Show Cause filed against the plaintiff is overruled.
Each of the parties to this action shall pay their own deposition costs, the remaining Court costs shall be split equally between the parties.
RESTRAINING ORDER
Carl Hays and Mary Hays are permanently restrained and enjoined from initiating any communication, in writing or by phone to one another. Except that each may contact the other for obligations regarding to essential business matters, the needs of their mother, Ethel Hays, or security and safety which affects either property. Such exceptional circumstances shall include but are not necessarily limited to:
A.Security and safety;
B.Arrangements for cost sharing of maintenance for the crossing;
C.The selection of a guardian for Ethel Hays;
D.Coincidental business such as cropland leasing or lumbering.and necessary requirements for maintenance of the crossing.
When the need for communication arises between the parties, it shall be accomplished through a legal representative for either party or through a mutually acceptable third party that has been previously agreed upon between the parties.
Done this 24th day of January, 1992.
William H. Joy, Judge
Fifth Judicial District of Iowa
Clerk to file original and mail copy to:
1. Attorneys of record 2. Plaintiff, Mary Hays
3. Defendant, Carl Hays
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)