> I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law.
That seems like a pretty radical interpretation. Wouldn't that totally undermine all state law, exempting him from stuff like building codes, state environmental laws, etc.?
That seems like a pretty radical interpretation. Wouldn't that totally undermine all state law, exempting him from stuff like building codes, state environmental laws, etc.?