electric lines

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube

anchor petition

 This is then a legal beginning, for the removal of all unnecessary field anchors holding the electrical distribution line, throughout this USA/ this state of IL. (STARTING 1/29/20)   initiating brief, startup printing;   anchor petition pdf

Electronic petition, please sign to show your support/ IF, you are farmer, landowner, fertilizer: “involved with farming”!  remove unnecessary anchors

this is the second electronic petition signup : the purpose of this petition is to “save this world”. Identify and prove the cost of extreme experimentation.

 This critical legal standing “initiating brief”: to establish the legitimate claim: these are the necessary litigants, with a personal commitment/ or interest in this case. Necessary to assert the filing of a class action lawsuit Fed R. Civ. Pr 23 (b) (2)/ or as chosen, by those involved: not yet a trial!  one hundred thousand signatures sought to begin. Making this a federal trial. Ten thousand sought for simply ; state of IL.

We begin with the simple description: of a cable held line, structurally established by a ground anchor placed roughly 20 feet into the agricultural field. The composition of the arrangement is that an electrical distribution line going parallel with the road alongside the field/ has been “tied” to a perpendicular line that starts at the dead end of a different road; moving the anchor to the opposite side of the road/ solves the problem. By using the common easement road ditch; to the town of Royal/ installing one more pole. In this initiating of case, between the landowner and the electrical distribution company involved: they say no/ unless I pay 3-5 thousand dollars. Which clearly means: they KNOW, it can be moved!

The primary elements of contention are follows. We then begin with the assessment of rights; and assemble the following confrontation of principles involved in this currently “simply a discussion” decision. The information site “JUST TALKING 7”; in use for this. LINK IS www.justtalking7.info search or find for the in-site link: “electrical lines” not, a simple link so as to remove the assertion, “it could be an internet trap”.

IN TERMS OF THE FARMING OPERATIONS; specifically due to that anchor.

  1. the operator of the farming equipment must now; establish a path around the anchor/ or come up to that anchor stop; go around, back up, and begin again compacting the ground; or trampling its plants and producing an impact with financial consequences.
  2. Driving around the anchor with large equipment requires very sharp turns on the equipment itself; which demands very significant stress on the components in the ground. That fact causes wear that would not otherwise occur/ and that has significant financial consequences; because the equipment is NOT cheap.
  3. Driving around, or up to the anchor places the farmer and his or her equipment in jeopardy of hitting the anchor with each piece of equipment that must be maneuvered around that anchored cable, and it is not well marked; along with the fact that an average piece of equipment being used today is over 60 feet wide/ traveling at 5- 7 mph. It is no small feat that numerous anchors in fields everywhere are not contacted by field equipment; causing significant and expensive harm to the field equipment and the electrical line. Placing the farmer in jeopardy of a potential electrical line break; which could cause loss of life. Placing the farmer or landowner in jeopardy of a lawsuit for damaging that line or causing any other loss: property ownership can establish. A financial consequence.
  4. On average an anchor will be driven around in the field a total of in spring: once for tillage (occasionally twice)/ once for planting (occasionally twice)/ once for fertilizer/ once for chemicals. In fall, that same line anchor must be driven around once for combining operations/ once for tillage/ and some fields or operators will do once more for a variety of different methods in farming. Making that anchor an obstruction roughly 7 times on average; each time requiring “a price shall be paid”. A financial consequence.
  5. The loss of acreage is small; roughly 135 square meters on average (1500 sq feet); or currently about $30 dollars in direct “field loss/ crop loss”. But it also requires management of the weeds; which requires tractor and mower and individual trimming of the area; as a separate reality to the farming operations/ usually done twice a year. Since this has to be driven to the assigned anchor; that takes an hour, plus costs. And since it must be trimmed, that takes another hour and truck and equipment; so many people opt for stronger chemicals which also costs a financial consequence. Tractors don’t run for free; every hour costs money.

IN OPPOSITION: this electrical distribution company states:

they have only one, “delivered vocally”: even though their representative engineers have said moving the anchor is entirely feasible. The argument is: we have the right of easement/ and nothing will make us move that anchor unless you pay all costs we will charge you for doing so. Because there are financial consequences to us. The company requests (3-5 thousand dollars, to move it).   emailed to company 1, 2ameren

THE LEGAL POINT OF CONTENTION:

This anchor exists where and how it exists; because the electrical distribution company saved themselves the price of a pole: simple as that. And placed the expense in operations onto the farmer instead; a reality of abuse in easement rights, that must be corrected. Or more simply, we have paid your business debts, not our business debts; long enough: move these anchors.

The claim of rights extends: to what you owe me, for property confiscated. You, the electrical distribution company; have earned money, by taking possession of this land: to save yourselves the price and labor of putting in the proper pole, and anchorage across the road/ in public easement property. Fraud is noted (this must be so/ when in fact, it did not). Your reliance upon a “70” year old easement; that should never have existed; because it is not functionally necessary to the purposes, or realities of that distribution line: is hereby legally contested. A pole set across the road, anchoring the line in that public easement with a slack line from the perpendicular connection, to the new line; removes the anchor and costs from the farmer and landowner without any other consequences. Establishing those costs to and for the electrical distribution company, where it belongs.

SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES: [pictures or pdf: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,]

While it is true, the electrical distribution company cannot move an anchor for free/ their cost, is a one time work and expense; that will stay in place for at least fifty years. If they encased the poles in recycled appropriate plastic; that pole could last another fifty; benefiting all. The farming operations must endure a work and expense established entirely do to that anchor; for at least 7 times each season with financial consequences and risks; per year. ONLY, because of their anchorage placement; which does not need to exist. Reality adjusts the claim of placement or easement rights; with the truth, just on the other side of the road, nobody loses anything, “because it is, the right thing to do”/ and we all benefit from that choice, as a state or nation: because fair, is fair to all.

FUNDAMENTALS OF TRIAL:

This is a two part trial; first part being the claim of easement by governmental authority or the construction of a legal right due to signage of a contract defined by “corrupt purposes (it did not need to be)”. IS WRONG! OTHER options did exist, and were known at the time of installation.

The second part is: those who wish to make a claim, regarding money owed; because that anchor confiscated ground and required payment in the form of altered farming practices over decades; due entirely to “their anchorage”. Is a separate trial. [I: based upon cost] in this trial/ will see.

The more critical construction in practice is: that we do have a legal right to reclaim our land/ OR be paid, just as the electrical distribution company is paid: for our contribution to their income, the business of, public electrical supply. They forced our expense/ instead of their own expense! As is the addition of one more pole; to completely eliminate this field anchorage point; as described above.

CONSTRUCTION OF TRIAL:

NO MONEY SHALL BE COLLECTED FOR THIS TRIAL, UNTIL THE DAY WHEN A FORMAL TRIAL HAS BEEN DOCKETED IN COURT, AND GIVEN ITS ASSOCIATED IDENTIFICATION as such. I am not a lawyer, and I will not be representing you in court: YOU WILL hire a legal representative of your own choosing for that purpose, requires payment for the purpose as a group; fighting for your rights…. DETAILS will be given prior to any potential debt that may occur; by the legalized crime of lawyers.

Petitioning the court for a class action trial: REQUIRES PROOF OF COMMITMENT to that legal remedy: as such, the assembly of significant numbers of litigants (farmers/ landlords/ agricultural businesses; “sprayers, etc”) must identify themselves as willing to participate in ONLY the first phase of this then: legal action. TO ASSURE commitment is real: the legally affirmed signatures of “people in agriculture”; must total in the tens of thousands/ PRIOR to finding a legal representative: to represent your own interests. Once you have accomplished that.

Without an appropriate involved audience: power always rules the day!

THE FIRST PHASE IS: merely to identify the legal grounds and authority, for removing the anchorage points which exist in a field/ that is NOT REQUIRED for proper and safe, electrical distribution. Those anchorage points which are required shall remain, and not be touched: because the public distribution of power is necessary. This first phase is a matter of law, and as such identifies the clear and certain development of this case as limited to “democracy (power shall not rule us) in action”: the legal demand, what is the right LEGAL answer, for this state or nation. This first phase, does not establish any claim to “farm payments”; other than what may or may not come from the extension of this case as is consistent with the second part as described. This first part or phase of legal contention: is merely to decide who has the legal standing [392 U.S. 83, 102] to enforce an anchorage must be removed/ or if it must stay, according to easement rights. 45 N.W. 2D 895, 897. A very strict legal description formed by easement cause. This elemental action then asserts & recognizes: a “67-68” year old easement is no longer valid; as is proven by changes in “the electrical distribution business models, now in forced”; and argues, “it should never have been”. I remind each one: the constitution is our government/ not employee, scientist, judge..! They’re= former classmates.

ALL SUBSEQUENT LEGAL PETITIONS SHALL CONTAIN THIS STATEMENT

[ This is then a legal beginning, for the removal of all unnecessary field anchors holding the electrical distribution line, throughout this USA/ IL. “if: the machinery show start is successful”.

YOUR SIGNATURE HERE, establishes your right to participate exists because of a real elemental connection to the trial by ownership, job, etc. or more simply: if you are not directly involved in farming or land to be farmed/ DON’T sign. The use of a permanently bound notebook “to collect signatures: with a proper beginning on the cover; should be acceptable.

YOUR signature: REPRESENTS YOUR DELIBERATE DECISION TO PARTICIPATE; and is, the beginning evaluation of interest to establish and pursue a class action legal trial: to remove all field anchors that can be assigned as, “unnecessary, if another pole had been added”. If trial occurs/ THEN, each signature will be given the proper time and place, and legal responsibility identified on the website below: to legally join in. if you do not sign in: your anchors, will be taken out last. YOUR JOB THEN, as a signatory will be to insure for yourselves; that you are willing to accept whoever represents you in court. This is the path to court; asserting there is cause for “a legal determination of this problem”.] Completed paper petitions can be mailed to: box 112 Royal IL 61871

IF/THEN; you may electronically sign up at the “electric lines”; link on www.justtalking7.info found, beneath these descriptions. Petition FOR “class action lawsuit” drive: closes on July 22, 2020.

OR, booklet cover: (paper has far greater anonymity, until filed with court; your choice)

PETITION to prove

FOR CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

TO REMOVE

ALL UNNECESSARY

ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION LINE

ANCHORS

FROM AGRICULTURAL FIELDS

no money is collected

no lawsuit exists, until 100,000 signatures

will prove, “the legal right to proceed”

SIGN ONLY ONCE, VOTER AGE, FARM RELATED

information, and electronic sign-up (beneath initiating brief) at

www.Justtalking7.info the link is

electric lines”

send paper sign up sheet petitions:to “box 112 Royal IL 61871”

your decisions make this trial happen!

Your name and address is required.

First originator: James Frank Osterbur 2191 county road 2500 E. St. Joseph, IL 61873

OR, single paper sheets, may be reduced to: I hereby declare I have sufficiently read the link “electric lines” from the web site http://www.Justtalking7.info and I, hereby concur with the purpose of legally describing a class action lawsuit: for removing these unnecessary electrical distribution: “anchorage field points”. The court: is then, Petitioned, by your paper or electronic signature. Your decision decides, and those others herein: establish a forum . 292 N.W. 584,586. For the pursuit of justice.

no money is collected no lawsuit exists, until 100,000 signaturesameren easement

will prove, “the legal right to proceed”. That information will appear on my web site above; as is, “Just talking 7. info” : link= “electric lines”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Although I am retired now; I am going to describe this “little work”; as a tribute to my deceased dad:  who grudgingly, worked around that anchor for over fifty years. Refusing to let me “get it removed in this manner”;  because his fear of a courtroom. He was certain as are most, because of the truth:  “there are weeds and rattlesnakes hiding therein”. Can’t always see them coming.  FRANK RENKIN OSTERBUR  1929-2012

It is only fair, that I should write a tribute to my deceased mom:  who did the best she could, and lived in reality; until the last days of her life, when fear of death took control. Therefore a petition to stop the insanity, and assess the consequences of being wrong: when extreme experimentation goes bad. LUCILLE EVELYN IDEUS OSTERBUR  1933-2019

We were, primarily farmers.

letters sent to electric distribution company

The disciplines involved with “an easement or eminent domain”; as applied to the rights and responsibilities associated with electrical distribution lines and its placement of anchors as are needed to support those lines; has been altered by the realities of our agricultural times. And must be readjusted, from simply this is the easy way/ to become this is the responsible way, that benefits all parties involved.

This is then a legal beginning to the anchor holding the distribution line, which supports the town of Royal IL; and resides in a field now owned by James F. Osterbur residing at 2191 county road 2500 e. St. Joseph IL USA.

We begin with the simple description: of a cable held line structurally established by a ground anchor placed roughly 20 feet into the agricultural field. The composition of the arrangement is that an electrical distribution line going parallel with the field along the road/ has been “tied” to a perpendicular line that starts at the dead end confronting this field, as it follows the road patterns to the town of Royal.

The desired type of change has been established, as feasible by Ameren employee Abby Schneider; and in its best composition would consist of the placement of a pole/ which would then offer the anchor for that line. Across the road, in parallel construction with the road. To be used as the anchor point for that perpendicular line. Roughly fifty feet from its point of anchor today, with the anchor then placed at the field edge; along the road, in the ditch bank, that is already there. That removes the anchor from the field and places it in the grass, which is generally mowed once a year or so; but would be consistent with mowing around all the other distribution poles already in that grass edge as the line itself proceeds to town. THAT, being a permanent placement which benefits all, and needs no easement rights/ nor the assertion of eminent domain; as it is already a public easement for the use of roads; as is consistent with the construction of nearly all electrical distribution lines.

Ameren currently refuses to remove their anchor from the field claiming easement rights; but has produced no documents as of yet. Unless I pay for their replacement of that anchor into an area that benefits them as well as I.

We then begin with the assessment of rights; and assemble the following confrontation of principles involved in this currently “simply a discussion” decision.

IN TERMS OF THE FARMING OPERATIONS;

  1. the operator of the farming equipment must now; establish a path around the anchor/ or come up to that anchor stop; go around, back up, and begin again compacting the ground; or trampling its plants and producing an impact with financial consequences.
  2. Driving around the anchor with large equipment requires very sharp turns on the equipment itself; which demands very significant stress on the components in the ground. That fact causes wear that would not otherwise occur/ and that has significant financial consequences; because the equipment is NOT cheap.
  3. Driving around, or up to the anchor places the farmer and his or her equipment in jeopardy of hitting the anchor with each piece of equipment that must be maneuvered around that anchored cable, and it is not well marked; along with the fact that an average piece of equipment being used today is over 60 feet wide. It is no small feat that numerous anchors in fields everywhere are not contacted causing harm to the field equipment and the electrical line. Placing the farmer in jeopardy of a potential electrical line break; which could cause loss of life. Placing the farmer in jeopardy of a lawsuit for damaging that line or causing any other loss. A financial consequence.
  4. On average an anchor will be driven around in the field a total of in spring: once for tillage (occasionally twice)/ once for planting (occasionally twice)/ once for fertilizer/ once for chemicals. In fall, that same line anchor must be driven around once for combining operations/ once for tillage/ and some fields or operators will do once more for a variety of different methods in farming. Making that anchor an obstruction roughly 7 times on average; each time requiring “a price shall be paid”.
  5. The loss of acreage is small; roughly 135 square meters on average (1500 sq feet); or currently about $30 dollars in direct “field loss/ crop loss”. But it also requires management of the weeds; which requires tractor and mower and individual trimming of the area; as a separate reality to the farming operations/ usually done twice a year. Since this has to be driven to the assigned anchor; that takes an hour, plus costs. And since it must be trimmed, that takes another hour and truck and equipment; so many people opt for stronger chemicals which also costs a financial consequence. Tractors don’t run for free; every hour costs money.

IN OPPOSITION is Ameren

they have one made one statement: we have the right of easement/ and nothing will make us move that anchor unless you pay all costs we will charge you for doing so. Because there are financial consequences.

In addition: the commerce commission has raised utility billing for the express purpose of “making distribution lines better”/ and are in fact using the public money to justify an increase in their bottom line; building assets which we have no part in/ but have in fact paid for.

This anchor exists where and how it exists; because the electrical distribution company saved themselves the price of a pole: simple as that. And placed the expense in operations onto the farmer instead; a reality of abuse in easement rights, that must be corrected. Or more simply, we have paid your debts, not our debts/ not the public debt; long enough: move these anchors.

SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES

While it is true, Ameren cannot move an anchor for free/ their cost, is a one time work and expense; that will stay in place for at least fifty years. If they encased the poles in recycled appropriate plastic; that pole could last another fifty; benefiting all.

The farming operations must endure a work and expense established entirely do to that anchor; for at least 7 times each season with financial consequences and risks; per year. ONLY, because of their placement; which does not need to exist.

We then look to the claim of “pay me to move it”/ and assess the reality by turning the claim back: if I must endure what you have done/ and refuse to correct. Even though we all know it is in the best interest of everyone: SHOULD YOU NOT PAY ME, for the cost I have incurred each and every year: due to your decisions and deliberate actions that now cost me money and risk? That is a legal matter, and would be destined for a class action suit.

We then establish the claim, and rights of eminent domain: the right of government to take what it needs for the benefit of all rather than just one. While that is essential in specific instances, where no other legitimate choice exists, and there will be very significant public gains because of that taking. NONE of that exists here. Because reality adjusts the claim of placement or easement rights; with the truth, just on the other side of the road, nobody loses anything/ and we all benefit from that choice. Therefore eminent domain is mute, and does not exist by the facts involved.

The claim of easement is negotiated; through the realities of change. That change has altered the state of agreements made decades past/ or through the assertion that all the electric for “the town of Royal” for instance will fail without that anchor. Falls short of a legitimate taking or claim; when in fact, the anchor placement should never have been established in this spot in the first place. That then leads to the question of: could we not be owed, if this was brought to court/ for decades of intrusion, we did not need to accept?

A link is provided to “farm organizations/ as well as Ameren through their employee. As no distinct address to the people in charge of this yet exists; I send it “as best I can”/ and expect it to wade through the “distribution lines”.

To provide for a need, and not simply give away the design; to private interests. I do choose to suggest the following, for the benefit of this world; for free, no strings attached.

The need is to create a more secure electrical distribution line method, of securing that line against unusual mechanical loading as is consistent with ice or other.

The critical factor is: every line must be anchored to keep it from the weight that would otherwise make it impossible to distribute electricity. Currently wherever the turn exists, an anchor is used at that pole to hold long distances of line tight. Creating a situation that is not suited to either sudden loading added to that line/ or such things as tree limbs falling onto that line.

To account for such things it is necessary to add in the following description.

  1. Instead of one anchor point, it would be needed to add in at least two spread out along the line (to accommodate different sections and divide the load), to each end of the line needing such support.
  2. Instead of the common cross-arm being used on line poles. It is necessary to implement a more flexible arrangement. Such a device is built out of fiberglass for flexibility, and is shaped in two opposing v-formations (one on each side of the pole). Those formations roughly 6-8 feet long are best made with a hinge at the bottom where it anchors onto the pole.
  3. If the line receives a sudden or excessive loading; instead of breaking the line/ one side or both sides of the v-formations will fall down by using the hinge; to allow the slack in that line to keep the line itself from being damaged.
  4. To enable that, a cross arm is attached to the top of the pole (integrated into the fiberglass structure used to hinge the v-formations).
  5. That cross arm holds a slide through electrical connection; which contains the deform-able disconnect coupling that will then let the v-formation fall down and disconnect the electricity from the falling line.
  6. The cross arm being in the down position, can then simply be hoisted back into place; the deformed coupling component quickly replaced. And preferably the coupling with its new part is simply inserted back into the slide to complete the connection once again.
  7. The v-formations require secondary flexibility to add in, as needed; more strength/ resistance; as weight is redistributed. That could be considered as one or more flexing arms; supported by the fiberglass structure that holds the arrangement onto the pole. Where the v-formations gently push against as the wires pull on them.
  8. On the side where the anchor is placed (if not both), there will be a strong arm extended through the v-formation. So that the anchor line goes through it, before entering the ground. That strong arm will give to the anchor line a slight bending moment to give control over the pole to a slightly lower point where the wood of the pole now bends; making it less likely to break. The strong arm will also resist by using that anchor line: any back and forth shaking motion that would be attributable to one or more lines moving in a way that would rotate the fiberglass structure.
  9. As a completed device this fiberglass structure can easily become a “slip over the top” conversion to the pole; protecting it from decay/ and simplifying the installation. To account for variations it can come split vertically through the middle; which then allows for bolting to clamp it tightly in place.
  10. To further prevent decay and thereby extend the reality of protection to the wires; the use of recycled plastics to cover each pole would greatly extend their service life. That would include a dig into plastic at the bottom portion, which requires a “spiral cut” segments on down into the dirt so as to control the motion and limit the reality of plastics being slick; coming out of the ground.
  11. I do not enjoy drawing pictures for you; and this is a free gift; so I won’t.
  12. The cost of adding such structures “one a mile or more”. Is negligible, when considering the cost of repair to the electric company. The cost to the customer when confronted with the realities of what freezing weather/ or defrosting freezers can do. It is the deform-able slip connectors that protect the wires, and make downed wires (at least on one side safer). They can be used without v-frames/ but you do need to install them on the cross arm; to control the back wire that remains charged. A simple “slip over the end of the cross arm; like a boot” provides the most realistic mechanical means of installation.
  13. It would also be useful to understand: that a small cab on the working booms for electrical recovery and maintenance would make that much more worker friendly in bad weather. It could easily include a heater on the bottom below the feet. It could easily be removed. It could easily be fitted with the “rubber balloon gloves”; used in labs to isolate the worker from the hazard. To keep the hands and arms both warm, dry, and protected. There are several designs possible.
  14. The v-formations could and should include a slide out extension that will let go to abandon the wire already under stress/ so that several trees falling onto the wire in line with each other does not include more damage than necessary. You then simply put it back together once the trees are off. A frame that falls from vertical to horizontal, and remains attached; gives a dropping power line both the slack and shock needed to shake the ice off; without dropping to the ground. “It’s like snapping a whip/ which should flow through about a quarter of a mile”: a loop to keep the electricity flowing would also be necessary. A winch simply pulls it back up and the latch snaps back into place; which does mean, it can be done over and over. Which means under severe conditions, people educated to the purpose and risks; could initiate that yourselves or the community.
  15. A simple surge indicator, can identify a voltage spike; as is consistent with a line being disconnected under sufficient power draw. Which can then deaden the entire line back to its originating point. This however cuts off all power; back behind the line in question that has been disconnected from the power. To limit this from putting too many more people than necessary out of power. More installations of the apparatus identified here, should be used instead. To isolate and protect the most possible, with the least interruption. A more sophisticated version of that surge protector: would identify a break, even under low loads.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *