Printable View
Yep. I know. Even though he knows what it takes to NOT be a U.S. citizen his manifestos all proclaim that he actually is one.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnight rambler
Reds are like that. They even pretend they are Greens and all they want to do is SAVE THE PLANET.
All those cows now. Think of the greenhouse gasses they pass when they digest that sagebrush. TERRIBLE!!! Wouldn't it be far better if we harvest the sagebrush and feed it to the poor?
Care to show the class the evidence that supports your bullshit assertion? You know evidence like the land was purchased for such and such price for such and such use? Just because the Federal government DECLARES land as theirs doesn't make it so. Especially within the border of a state.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th trump
We have about 70 years of precedent where a law abiding Federal United States Disposed of land in accordance with Article 4, Section 3. In those cases ALL of the land went under the newly formed State's control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
This only became a problem after they unlawfully changed the form of the Federal government to a Corporation in 1871. A for profit organization who's main claim to fame is the plunder of the continental united States.
Read united states v gardner 107 F.3d 1314 (9th circiut 1997) to see how the most liberal court in the US interprets Nevada's land rights. Not good
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016...and-ownership/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership?
http://tenthamendment.wpengine.netdn...20-270x151.png
The “Bundy stand-off” in Oregon at a federal wildlife refuge has triggered (or, rather, re-triggered) questions about the constitutionality of federal land ownership. Westerners in particular question why the federal government should own nearly 30% of the country. In the West, the issue is particularly important. The federal government has title to about half the territory of the eight Rocky Mountain states, the west coast states, and Alaska. The share of ownership in each of those states ranges from about 30% to about 88%. (Exact figures vary according to the mode of calculation.) Westerners who work with the land tend to hold very critical views of how the federal government manages its holdings.
Over a decade ago I became interested in what the Constitution, as the Founders understood it, had to say about federal land ownership. I researched prior writings on the subject. As often happens, I found most of the relevant legal “scholarship” to be of poor quality. Liberal writers baldly claimed that the federal government could own any land it wants to, however it wants to, for any purpose–and that anyone who disagreed was an “extremist.” Conservative writers usually contended that, except for land held by permission of a host state as an “enclave,” the Constitution required the federal government to grant all in-state acreage to the respective state governments. The evidence marshaled for both conclusions was both scanty and weak. The modern Supreme Court has sided with the liberal view. But the Court’s decisions are few and summarily written. They offer almost no useful explanation.
As has happened so often, therefore, I had to begin anew. I studied the Constitution’s text, the records surrounding the Constitution’s adoption, and other materials. From them, I was able to define with a reasonable degree of certainty the scope of the federal government’s power to acquire, retain, manage, and dispose of land. My conclusions were published in
Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).
In a nutshell, my findings were:
* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
* If the host state agrees, the federal government can acquire an “enclave” within the state under the Enclave Clause (I-8-17). This grants governmental jurisdiction to the federal government, but the federal government has to acquire title separately. Washington, D.C. (the most important enclave), for example, is under federal jurisdiction, but much of the land is held by other parties, including individuals.
* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.
* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries. As long as the area is governed as a territory, the federal government may retain any land it deems best.
* As for acreage (”other Property”) within state boundaries:
Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.
* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for the feds to simply grant all of its surplus property to state governments. Each tract must be disposed of in accordance with the best interest of the American people. For example, natural wonders and environmentally sensitive areas (such as those now encompassed by the national parks) might be conveyed under strict conditions to state park authorities or (as in Britain) to perpetual environmental trusts. Land useful only for grazing, mining, or agriculture should be sold or homesteaded, with or without restrictions. The restrictions might include environmental protections, public easements, and protection for hunters and anglers.
Most states were admitted to the union pursuant to treaties, agreements of cession, and/or laws passed by Congress. These are called organic laws. They include, but are not limited to, enabling acts and acts of admission. These laws cannot change the Constitution, but they have some interesting ramifications for federal land ownership. That is a topic for another posting.
My article has been cited widely. But it will not surprise you to learn that many reject the conclusions. Liberals are unhappy, because they want to keep much of our territory socialized. Conservative land activists are disappointed because they want the federal government to convey land to the state governments, not dispose of it in other ways. It is significant, however, that no one has even tried to rebut my conclusions or the evidence for them.
The evidence and the details of how I reached my findings are in the article. Since its publication I’ve uncovered additional evidence, and it has generally corroborated my findings.
Related posts
http://freedomoutpost.com/nevada-ass...next-few-days/
Nevada Assemblywoman: If You Were at Bundy Ranch and Had a Gun, Nevada Prosecutors are Looking to Arrest You within the Next Few Days.
In an exclusive interview with Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Friday, she told Oathkeepers News Media Director Jason Van Tatenhove that Nevada prosecutors mentioned the fact that there was another round of "mass" arrests of American patriots who showed up in Bunkerville, Nevada at the Bundy Ranch siege in 2014 with a gun.
"The Nevada prosecutor that was in Oregon last week, told an Oregon attorney today, Friday March 18 through the upcoming Tuesday, they will be doing another 'mass' amounts of arrests of anyone that was in Bunkerville with a firearm in 2014," she the Nevada Assemblywoman.
Pick up the video around the 9:00 mark for Fiore's comments on this issue and take time to educate yourself with the entire video on the updates she brings as she has really represented her people there in Nevada like no one I've ever seen do.
http://youtu.be/x9WLv81t1e4
Fiore added that she had received a call from someone that had been in Bunkerville with a gun, and according to her, "the FBI stalked him for I guess a few weeks, stalked his house, his 12-year-old daughter was home, pulled up right behind him, and he was polite and he invited them in."
"He was cautious," Fiore added. "But I advise everyone… if the FBI or the police want to question you, absolutely not without your attorney.
"That is wise advice and also a right you have under the US Constitution, which states in part in the Fifth Amendment, "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Of course, many people want to be friendly, but they are naïve to the workings of how manipulative certain people in authority positions may behave. I'm not saying all of them do, but the fact of the matter is your silence is a right that is protected under the Constitution and you do not have to comply with questioning in such a manner as it could be used against you in a court of law.
Fiore echoes this sentiment. "We don't have a problem with law enforcement, but their intention is to entrap, and their intention is not pure. So I would highly suggest that no one speak with the FBI or the police without your attorney because they do not have good intentions at the moment.
"So, how many people are we talking about in this latest round of arrests? According to Van Tatenhove, "There were hundreds, if not thousands of people there.
"Fiore confirmed that there were over 2,000 people at Bundy Ranch at one time.
However, when are the American people going to stop buying the lies of the state-controlled media and begin to look past the propaganda and see the truth and the violation of the Constitution by the DC government and the Bureau of Land Management? When are they going to see how this is trickling down from DC to the governors, sheriffs and even to local prosecutors? When are their eyes going to be opened and their strength renewed and deal with the criminals in their governments? Will it take a mass round up of arrests based on unlawful, trump up charges, or will the people wait until it's too late and they are the ones being arrested and hauled off to jail, and the propaganda machine rolls right over them defining them as terrorists and criminal?
This is nothing but the heavy hand of government attempting to silence dissent, undermine the First Amendment and the rights of the people to peacefully protest (yes, even with guns on their sides or in their hands... after all, the government had trained snipers lining them up in their sights!), and basically attempt to control the people from speaking out through fear tactics. We cannot let this stand!
Patriots, be vigilant and ready!Finally, for anyone who was at Bundy Ranch and is targeted by these lawless thugs, several top lawyers are providing pro-bono representation for you. All you need to do is download this form and fill it out.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
black lives matter
JFriend interviews.... 30-some mins:
http://therealistreport.com/wp-conte...um-120x120.jpg
AUDIO INTERVIEW: Jeanette Finicum Speaks to AFP
March 19, 2016 2 comments
For someone as ‘freethinking’ as you John, I find it interesting that you refuse to at least address the links that I’ve sent that show there are serious questions about Finicum’s supposed death. In part I believe you as many others do NOT grasp how the Mormons ‘think’ and how they are heavily involved in Zionism. I suggest you view ALL of tachyon timewarps videos on youtube and suggest you have him on for an interview. I also suggest you also have one True Ott for an interview as well to understand the role of Mormonism in all of this. Again, see what is hidden in plain sight!
New Leaked Video Lavoy Finicum Head Shot FBI Blew His Brains Out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snhKOT87JKM
Mormonism, Judaism, Satanism, and Red Symphony
Oregon Absolves Itself of Murder of Iconic Rancher
March 11, 2016 A_F_P 4 Comments
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-cont...ed-300x231.jpg http://americanfreepress.net/wp-cont...ages/print.gif
By John Friend —Oregon State Police officers have been exonerated in the shooting death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, the iconic Arizona rancher who served as a leading spokesman for the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that took place earlier this year in southeastern Oregon, an event AMERICAN FREE PRESS has covered extensively in recent issues.Finicum, a close friend of the Bundy ranching family who were also heavily involved with the Oregon standoff, was shot and killed on January 26 after being stopped by Oregon State Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials.According to the results of the investigation carried out by Oregon officials, Oregon State Police were justified in using lethal action against Finicum. However, an FBI agent is suspected of firing shots at Finicum and then lying about it in the aftermath. Other FBI officials are alleged to have assisted in the cover-up of the incident, and the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the shooting and subsequent cover-up.Oregon State Police officials released a synchronized video including aerial footage of Finicum’s death originally captured and published online by the FBI combined with video and audio footage captured by Shawna Cox, who was in the vehicle with Finicum during the standoff with law enforcement officials. In the video, Finicum informs Oregon State Police officers and others present that he intends to meet with the sheriff of Grant County, where he and his entourage were traveling that fateful day, and that law enforcement officials are welcome to join him. Finicum makes clear that he is not surrendering to the Oregon State Police or FBI officials, and that they have the option of either shooting him or letting him continue to his destination.Watch the entire video below:
Finicum’s family strongly disputes the narrative being articulated by officials from the State of Oregon.“Our family asserts that he was shot with both hands up,” Jeanette Finicum, LaVoy’s wife, stated shortly after the results of the official investigation were released. “He was not reaching for anything at the time of the first shot. He was walking with his hands in the air, a symbol of surrender.”
What follows is the official Finicum family statement released on March 9, 2016.NEWS RELEASEEMBARGOED UNTIL 11:30 AM MST, Wednesday, March 9, 2016Contact: Cherilyn Bacon Eagar for the LaVoy Finicum family
Cell: 801-592-4245
Email: Cherilyn@CherilynEagar.comJEANETTE FINICUM STATEMENT—AFTER REVIEW OF YESTERDAY’S OREGON INVESTIGATIVE REPORTMrs. Finicum will take initial questions for the first time today from media in an 11:30 AM MST news conference at the Washington County Building 197 E. Tabernacle Street St. George, Utah related specifically to the civil and criminal lawsuits she and her legal team are pursuing.March 9, 2016, St. George, UT—Yesterday a tag-team of law enforcement officials announced they have found that the Oregon officer who shot my husband dead while he had his hands in the air was justified. These officials announced that “without a doubt” the officer who killed my husband did so “to protect” himself and his fellow officers “from imminent harm.”I know my husband, Robert LaVoy Finicum, and I knew him on the day he died. With his hands in the air, he was no danger to anyone, he intended no “imminent harm.” He was giving himself up in order to divert shooters from the others in the truck. Right down to the very last act of his life, he was giving for others. That was my husband. That was the man who the panel of investigators concluded was “responsible for” the situation in which he was killed in a well-planned ambush.My family and I reject the biased, whitewash findings and conclusion reported yesterday. My lawyers have assured me that the men who ambushed my husband, who set him up for death, who assassinated him, will face justice in a court before an unbiased jury that will be deciding whether my husband was killed by a wrongful action or omission on the part of the police. That action will be joined with an action based on violation of the due process clause of the United States Constitution, the very document for which my husband gave his life. That is a Civil Rights Act claim.Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .
Prior to yesterday the FBI held the position that my husband was shot during a “traffic stop.” That was such a stretch of the truth that even the tag-team news conference group could not repeat it. There was no “traffic stop.” This was an ambush by use of a “Deadman’s Blockade” designed to allow a “Kill Stop”—a roadblock on a blind curve on an almost abandoned road.Those officers at the roadblock were the last line available to block the truck LaVoy drove, to assure that he was killed. In our wrongful death and civil rights violation lawsuit we will prove the kind of man my husband was, and that as a leading spokesman of this movement to restore the U.S. Constitution and our unalienable rights, he had to be made an example: “Don’t interfere if we as law officers are depriving someone of their rights, property and person.” Is this what Americans believe? Or is this the kind of fear tactic despots in the Middle East have used for centuries when they place crucifixes along the highway to strike fear into their slaves—don’t you dare oppose our unjust laws or this is what will happen to you!”I don’t think so. Not in America. I still believe we are governed by the same Constitution that our founders created and that we are a republic, one nation under God.Yesterday, as before, the officers set up a false scenario that my husband was reaching for a loaded gun as he was shot. Before yesterday’s selectively edited video showing, we saw the uncut version. In that uncut version, we see my husband with his hands up, walking away from the truck and not reaching for anything when a man to the right of the video obviously fired some projectile at him. Immediately he leaned over to his left hip area where it appeared some projectile hit him. At that one moment, shots were reigned down on him and he died there in the snow bank—where he lay for ten minutes without anyone checking to see whether he was alive. They let him lay there because they knew that the three shots into the back had killed him.
Place your ad here
Loading…
Promoted Content
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/oregon-....RSkkD0gW.dpuf