rainlily asks ".... does the postal service have the right...". This is the central issue to be considered. At some point the property of rainlily becomes street right-of-way. Since the authority over the land changes at that point it is important to know whether the proposed new location for the boxes is on rainlily or street right-of-way. A governmental entity or any private person does not have authority to enter fee simple owned land to construct anything. They may aquire a right such as an easement through negotiation with the owner. In the case of government, the power of eminient domain may be used to take a right, but the owner is entitled to be compensated for the taking. The post office may tell people to place their mail box on your land and they won't receive mail if they don't. This does not confer a right to enter your land and do so. It is a well established principle of law that one may not convey a right in land that one does not have. Where the post office has no right, they may not convey a non-existing right to others. If the proposed location for the boxes is on street right-of-way, things get a bit more murky. It is common for the right-of-way to extend some distance beyond the driving surface of the roadway. In most cases mailboxes are located on this strip of right-of-way. The authority over road right-of -ways differs depending on the how the public acquired the right to use. In rare instances the strip for the road was purchased outright and the government is the fee simple owner. Adjoining land owners have no authority over the street whatsoever. The government may permit or do anything they choose. There are two more common ways that the public acquires an interest in a roadway. First, where the public makes use of ones property for a long period of time as a road, the owner loses the right to object to such use and a perscriptive easement for the road is established. Here the roadway exists under the principle of estoppel. From findlaw.com .... equitable estoppel: an estoppel that prevents a person from adopting a new position that contradicts a previous position maintained by words, silence, or actions when allowing the new position to be adopted would unfairly harm another person who has relied on the previous position to his or her loss estoppel by silence: an estoppel preventing a person from making an assertion to another's disadvantage when the person previously had the opportunity and duty to speak but failed to do so A landowner who stands silent as a roadway or utilities are constructed is thereafter bound to that silence. But this does not divest one of the ownership of the land the road occupies and the owner retains a right to object to any new use or expansion of an existing use. Where mailboxes have not been allowed in the past, a landowner may object to them, even though they be within the roadway. A second common method for the creation of a roadway is that of a formal dedication. Here the landowner, wishing to have a public access along or through his property, conveys a portion to public use. Such a dedication must be in writing. It may be in the form of an easement deed, or may be shown on a recorded plat. A street dedication does not divest a landowner of his ownership, but grants to the public an easement for the uses associated with roadways. When an owner conveys property adjoining a roadway, he also conveys any retained intrest in the roadway though the deed not mention it. Your deed and survey may stop at the right-of way, but your ownership continues into the road to the extent that any predesessor in title held. In most states a street dedication will encompass a driving surface and utilities such as water, sewer, and telephone. Whether courts view postal service in the same light as a utility common to roadways may differ from state to state. Here it is imposible to say if the postal service has the power to authorize a mailbox on the righr-of-way in front of your property without a study of the case law of the particular state.

What a treat. Guess I will have to try to remember for next January or Feb. We keep saying we are going to do that now that I know it is good I will put it on the back page of the 2006 calendar to do in 2007

rosemaryt, you have a tough situation and my heart goes out to you. Best wishes in a successful resolution to the problem. This is a very frustrating thread to read. People screaming for you to go commit a felony makes me just shake my head in disbelief. Laws vary from state to state so when you get "armchair lawyers", including myself, giving you advice, take it for ideas only since your situation will vary. A few things do come to mind though. First, the police are sympathetic and in fact, that's good for the public as a whole but doesn't help for this situation. Now you need a "hot dog" cop, but the problem is to find one. There are other options though, again however it varies in different jurisdictions. One is a "citizen complaint", "criminal complaint" or citizen's arrest. You need guidance to do this properly and if appropriate but seems to me that it could in this case. I'd doubt very highly you'd get him committed for evaluation with the adverse positions of the doctor and social worker. However if he is truly senile, and it's documented, then a guardianship is a definite possibility. But an involuntary guardianship is not easy, and rightly so. But you might be able to propose a temporary guardianship, a conservatorship or something to get a start. This won't be quick most likely, but is an option to consider. In MN, starting a guardianship proceeding would be more likely to get an eval ordered. Again, your state will vary. I hope you're paying no attention to the fools who suggest that you will be financially responsible for his actions. Good grief where do people get these ideas? That's stupid, plain and simple. C'mon folks, she needs help, support and ideas, not ridiculous ramblings. I suppose someone will running offended and I'll get a friendly reminder but so be it. It needed to be said. Likewise that you'll force a cop to do something, that you can sue the cops if something happens down the road and well, it's a highly emotional situation and obviously many people aren't thinking clearly. People watch too much "Boston Legal" or something and want to threaten to sue for anything thinking that people will cringe and fold. It may work with someone who doesn't know better, but threatening people that know better doesn't do anything more than make the person making the threat look like a complete idiot. Don't get caught up in that. It won't work. Also, I agree you should keep the insurance on the vehicle. I'd even go so far as to make sure the vehicles are, in fact insured. You insure the vehicle primarily so if in fact he has no valid license likely won't affect the insurance at least until he gets into an accident or ticket, at which time the company likely would cancel the coverage. Newspapers, TV, radio, media as a whole... well, this isn't a huge story in news terms but someone might be interested. But I think I'd pursue it with low expectations. Disabling the car hasn't worked. So you need a different plan of attack. Take a deep breath and try to relax. I know it's easier said than done though. Obviously you can't be following him around all over, first because you don't have the time and secondly you could be guilty of stalking if he is angry enough to push it, which he may well be. But a private security firm or private investigator is able to, but of course that will cost something. They can gather evidence, video his operation and even be able to make a complaint, though I'm not sure that many would want to get that involved. I could contact my former PI firm and see if they have any suggestions but since the laws vary, I think you'd be better off to seek some guidance locally. Most good places won't charge you to talk to you about the case and give you some ideas. Again, my best to you and yours. If I think of anything else I'll post again. I know what a tough situation it is. And my experience wasn't quite as drastic as yours, though my dad should have quit driving 20 years earlier. But that's a whole different story.

I can honestly say that I've never seen the red raspberry Rubus idaeus. In my state they are restricted to the mountain zone. Here I am quoting Flora of Virginia about red raspberry: rare, in mountains.....restricted to a small area of the Ridge & Valley and Northern Blue Ridge. Atlamol appears to be correct. Wineberry in my OP is Rubus phoenicolasius, an introduced Asian weed. In areas where it invades it will run the entire length of the forest edge. It can also tolerate shade of open wooded areas. This one is a weed pest.