It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I happened across a fairly short, recent interview with Shawna Cox this afternoon which I didn't know about. You have to scroll down the page a little ways to find the video after the text part. She reveals a few important details she didn't before to my knowledge. It's interesting that neither she or Victoria mention anyone shouting orders to LaVoy after he exited his truck at the road block. That doesn't conclude anything but it's worthy of note.

Posted at Intellihub




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Xcathdra
Can you show us some actual evidence that there was a felony warrant for his arrest at the time of the shooting?
I am not aware that one existed so please show us a link.




* - The Latest: Rancher says warrants issued in Oregon standoff
* - Things to know about arrests of activists from Oregon refuge

WHAT CHARGES DO THE ACTIVISTS FACE?

Those arrested face a federal felony charge of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats, the FBI said.


* - Joint Statement by the FBI and Oregon State Police on Law Enforcement Activity Near Burns, Oregon

At approximately 6:30 p.m. (PST), the FBI arrested Peter Santilli, age 50, of Cincinnati, Ohio, in Burns, Oregon. He faces the same federal felony charge as the individuals listed below. The arrest was without incident.

At approximately 4:25 p.m. (PST) on Tuesday, January 26, 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Oregon State Police (OSP) began an enforcement action to bring into custody a number of individuals associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. During that arrest, there were shots fired.

One individual who was a subject of a federal probable cause arrest is deceased. We will not be releasing any information about that person pending identification by the medical examiner’s office.

One individual suffered non-life threatening injuries and was transported to a local hospital for treatment. He was arrested and is currently in custody.


There seems to be confusion about warrant / vs a pc arrest. Either way it was felony level.
edit on 16-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

and yet it does not allow the individual to interpret the law or constitution on their own, let alone allowing them to ignore the law - Federal or state.

In case you are confused the US is not a democracy - It is a constitutional representative republic.

This means people are elected by the people to represent them in government. Again, this means the individual cannot decide what laws they will follow or ignore based on whether they like them or not. You also ignored the whole redress of grievances that provides the process oh how to use the courts to resolve certain issues.

If you are going to make an argument you must use the entire constitution / laws / court cases and not just the ones you like while ignoring the ones you dont.

Hint -
Ignoring the laws / parts of the constitution does mot invalidate those parts and they very much apply. The court system is the constitutionally established branch of government that deals with conflicts, whether its between people, between states, between states and the federal government, between people and the federal government or when dealing with laws and their constitutionality. That also includes interpretation of the constitution and its amendments.

Next time to more research and dont ignore the parts you dont like and pretend they dont exist.

Since the constitution defines the judicial branch and what it covers your tenth amendment argument is moot. Since the Constitution defines the legislative branch and how laws are made your tenth amendment argument is moot. Since the Constitution defines the executive branch (who enforces the laws) your 10th amendment argument is moot.

The people are required to use the courts, not ignore the law nor issue their own personal interpretations of the law.
edit on 16-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie - Since you were talking about verbal commands.

originally posted by: diggindirt
That's the one of the crazier things I've ever heard asserted. To whom does it apply? What does "the people" mean in this case?

This is why education is important -

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual. A person acting under color of law is required to get a warrant in order to enter a personal residence without consent or to seize property / personal effects without consent (absent plain view / search incident to arrest / etc). A civilian cannot go to the PA and file for a search / arrest warrant for their neighbor and then execute that warrant.

Secondly anytime force is used, in this case law enforcement shooting Finicum, a civil rights violation will be included in the investigation. A person who is shot and killed by law enforcement is considered "seized" under the 4th amendment.

So you have an internal investigation to ensure the officers were in compliance with departmental policy. You have a second criminal investigation to see if the police involved violated any state / federal laws. You have a 3rd civil rights investigation to determine if th4e police violated the civil rights of the person in question.

According to the info only OSP fired their weapons.

The more you learn the better able you will be to make these arguments. Hang in their.



originally posted by: diggindirt
Again, please provide us with some evidence of what, exactly, he was told to do. Evidence that we can evaluate, not some member of the Cult of Authority's words. We need to hear what he was told to do. I don't believe that evidence has been supplied so you are guessing about why he was shot since you can't know what was said to him.
Shawna Cox has said that she was using her phone to record but that recording hasn't been released. She also stated that she believed at least one other person inside the truck was recording but that recording hasn't been released either. Wouldn't it be such a shame if all those rounds fired into the truck after the exited the truck ruined those recordings? Such a shame.


ok....

FBI Addresses Fatal Shooting of LaVoy Finicum

Looking at the white truck, about four minutes into the video, Ryan Payne exits through a back door. It’s difficult to see behind the trees, but in the lower right hand corner you can see him with his hands up being approached by the law enforcement officers and being taken into custody.

There is a period of approximately 3 minutes and 47 seconds where the truck sits on the road. We have edited it for time here, but it is available in the raw, unedited version on the FBI’s YouTube channel. Throughout this time, agents and troopers are providing verbal commands to the occupants to surrender. We can’t comment on what may have been going on in the truck at this time, but those details may come out later as part of the overall shooting investigation.

When we come back to the video, the white truck leaves the scene at a high rate of speed. It travels some distance, quickly approaching a vehicle roadblock in the roadway.

As the white truck approaches the roadblock, there is a spike strip across the road but it appears Finicum missed it as he attempted to drive around the roadblock. He nearly hits an FBI agent as he maneuvers to the left. The truck gets stuck in the snowbank.

Finicum leaves the truck and steps through the snow. Agents and troopers on scene had information that Finicum and others would be armed. On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in that pocket.

At this time, OSP troopers shot Finicum.


Again we come back to just because you dont like information does not mean the info is false or can be ignored as if it never happened.

You and others must take the laws and constitution into account - ALL of them / it and not just the parts you like while ignoring the parts you don't like and in some instances parts you don't understand.

Civil Rights Violations by law enforcement to civilians is covered under 42 USC 1983, which is a part of the civil rights act.
edit on 16-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
How do you think R. Payne was arrested? Not during the first stop?

He crawled out of the truck after which Finicum fled the stop.


originally posted by: PublicOpinion
He crashed his truck on the snowbank, avoiding injuries or damage at the road block. I don't know what you think he did, but I guess you didn't see the breaklights as well.
Eh... he opted to fly away then?

Or he was trying to go around the road block. He had ample time to stop before reaching the roadblock.



originally posted by: PublicOpinion
1. Dismiss
2. Distort
3. Distract
4. Dismay
...
5. Disney


Yeah, ok. I get it. You're working on a weird fantasy cartoon for a police state kid's book? Need some help?
Another user already tried this in another post and failed miserably to. It must be humbling to fail on such a massive level also.


The only "Disney" I am seeing are coming from people who dont know what they are talking about. On the day they think they do is the day I begin my research on the drag coefficient of tassels on flying carpets.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
here is the short answer.

Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
here is the short answer.

Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered.


and yet he wasn't.

Use the law and not an opinion substituted for the law.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
here is the short answer.

Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered.


and yet he wasn't.

Use the law and not an opinion substituted for the law.


Ok, why don't we use the law, and not your opinion of the law.

He was murdered.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
1. He was ambushed via a roadblock on a blind corner.


Nope. He was stopped in a legal traffic stop, then sped from that stop at high speed. He had broken the law and the state LEO and federal law enforcement had every right and reason to stop and arrest the occupants of those vehicles.


originally posted by: Sublimecraft
2. LEO's were stationed well outside the immediate cordon area.


Makes absolutely no difference. He sped from a legal traffic stop and they had every right to use force to stop him from fleeing arrest.


originally posted by: Sublimecraft
3. He exited the vehicle with his hands up.


Before reaching for his gun, after repeatedly saying for almost a month that he would not allow them to arrest him without a firefight.


originally posted by: Sublimecraft
4. Approx 8 seconds later he was gunned down by Federal agents.


He was shot by STATE law enforcement (not federal agents as you claim) and was shot legally after the following:

1. Taking up arms against the federal and state government for a political cause, while threatening to kill - terrorism.
2. Using kids as Human shields.
3. Stating repeatedly to all who would listen that he would not be taken alive.
4. Fleeing a legal traffic stop at high speed.
5. Exiting the vehicle, while armed, clearly threatening the officers present.

This is becoming very tiresome. I am regularly on here and regularly express my indignation against American LEO when they do criminally gun down innocent people. But Finicum was NOT an innocent victim in this. Stop attempting to repaint him as some kind of innocent man "murdered" by the state. That's not what happened and any sane person knows it.

He was not an innocent, unarmed Black kid, he was a criminal, a terrorist, a man who had threatened to kill for his political cause and then gave them no alternative but to shoot.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Sure. An FBI report sold as the ultimate truth but no confirmation from witnesses or any further evidence, where are the audio files and the dashcam footage?
And who owns the weapon they allegedly found on Finicum?

 


a reply to: Rocker2013



Taking up arms against the federal and state government for a political cause, while threatening to kill - terrorism.


Is there a source for your definition of terrorism? Real KluKluxKlan terror is something entirely different than the occupation of a redundant building in order to address some BLM issues.

I can see only two reasons why somebody could want to lable them terrorists.

1. sway public opinion to support the next stage of police state updates
2. to make the real domestic terrorists aka KKK look like harmless sheep

Dear Muricans!

You've lost the right to bear arms as long as you don't stay at home and watch American Gladiator. And if you dare to bring them with you (in case you happen to occupy a federal building in a remote location) we may call all y'all terrorists. Easy as pie. Is there any dissent left?




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

As opposed to testimony from the group who took up arms against the federal government.

As for dashcam / guns / etc what part of active / ongoing investigation are you not understanding. If you choose to willingly remain ignorant about the judicial process thats on you.


edit on 17-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I want to add, as I've stated before, at the first stop Victoria remembers commands being given by law enforcement to turn off the truck and come out with hands up. Shawna did not remember this. I believe Victoria. Why would she make this up? What she said matches what FBI Agent Bretzing said. Neither women mentioned any commands given at the road block before LaVoy was killed. They only heard what LaVoy was saying.

At the first stop, when Ryan Payne put his hands and head out of the passenger window to yell that there were women in the truck, he was shot at. He got out of the truck to talk to law enforcement and was taken into custody. The women were given the opportunity to get out of the truck but Victoria was afraid she'd be shot, after Payne was shot at while still in the truck, and Shawna didn't want to leave her. That was the moment. When people are cornered and feel their life is on the line, the survival instinct kicks in. Anything can happen.

If the women had decided to get out despite believing they'd be shot upon exiting the truck, we don't know if LaVoy would still have taken off, or if he would have surrendered at that point. If Ryan had not been shot at while still in the truck, the story line may have ended differently. I'm sure having laser lights all over one's body feels mighty threatening.

To me, because the women did not exit the truck at the first stop as well as LaVoy after that and then LaVoy took off, even though they'd already been shot at and felt they would be killed by following commands, that's the point law enforcement no longer felt bound to take them in alive. One of the main targets of the arrest, LaVoy, fled, which changed this out of the ordinary traffic stop from arrest to pursuit.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

Ryan Payne.... The same guy who claimed he was an Army Ranger and it turned out he wasn't one and was lying?

Secondly her interview explains why he was shot at. That Finicum was yelling at the police / fbi to shoot him. You keep yelling that while shoving your hands in your pocket = wish granted. They are cowards who refuse to use the very system they claim is being abused.

The irony...

Her interview

The BS arguments being made about land ownership -

* - The Antiquities Act
* - Property Clause US Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."


Once again ignoring the parts of the constitution that does not support the argument does not a valid argument make. The Bundy's are wrong and further they have gone on record stating they dont recognize the Federal government.

You still want to hitch your wagon to their Thelma and Louise car heading for the cliff?
edit on 17-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

Ryan Payne.... The same guy who claimed he was an Army Ranger and it turned out he wasn't one and was lying?

Secondly her interview explains why he was shot at. That Finicum was yelling at the police / fbi to shoot him. You keep yelling that while shoving your hands in your pocket = wish granted. They are cowards who refuse to use the very system they claim is being abused.

The irony...

Her interview

The BS arguments being made about land ownership -

* - The Antiquities Act
* - Property Clause US Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."


Once again ignoring the parts of the constitution that does not support the argument does not a valid argument make. The Bundy's are wrong and further they have gone on record stating they dont recognize the Federal government.

You still want to hitch your wagon to their Thelma and Louise car heading for the cliff?

Phew! You're assuming I have picked a side in this event and I haven't. We're not on the same page here either. I don't know how to correct that misconception so I will just leave it for now.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

Your post and whats contained is being refuted by my posts. If you dont support their point of view why argue their position?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

Your post and whats contained is being refuted by my posts. If you dont support their point of view why argue their position?

That's just it. I'm not arguing a position. I'm not into arguing. I'm stating what was said or reported, and making a few observations based upon those. I'm looking at all perspectives as I have throughout the many threads on this event.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

As I said before:



Again, please provide us with some evidence of what, exactly, he was told to do. Again, please provide us with some evidence of what, exactly, he was told to do. Evidence that we can evaluate, not some member of the Cult of Authority's words. We need to hear what he was told to do.


How can you discount anything and everything said by the eyewitnesses for the defense and yet accept fully everything read off a script prepared for the FBIs spokesman?

As for your interpretation of the Constitution, my professor always said, "Original sources! If you want to understand the Constitution you must read the writings of the authors, not what some professor tells you. Original sources!" So, not what your teacher at the Academy told you, but what the authors of the founding documents wrote about those documents and how the parts make up the whole.
Hint: Court cases don't change the Constitution.

You didn't watch the video I supplied or you wouldn't still be making that "use the courts" argument. The reporter had done as the protesters asked: Look into what has happened here.
He did and did an excellent outline of the steps they had taken so your "use the courts" is just silly. As I said earlier, what other means were available to them when their address was ignored, totally ignored. Their petitions (literal petitions) were ignored---not addressed, not redressed----ignored.




Petition A written application from a person or persons to some governing body or public official asking that some authority be exercised to grant relief, favors, or privileges.




Redress means to set right, relief or remedy or a means of seeking relief or remedy. It can be putting right a wrong by compensation or compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Right to redress refers to the right to a relief or remedy.

definitions.uslegal.com...

If the people have a right to petition for redress, the power holders have the obligation to reply to those petitions, even if it is only to say, "So, sue us." I haven't the time nor inclination to look up the cases at present but I assure you that the defense lawyers are carefully studying them even now.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Your "witness" is having credibility issues in case you didnt notice -
ATS - Accused Oregon refuge occupier cites devil, demands damages from U.S.

Constitution and court cases -
As a matter of fact they do in that it can be interpreted / defined / broadened based on constitutional conflicts.

People sue the government all the time.

I feel we reached this point since you refuse to use the parts of the constitution / law that you dont agree with.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie - Since you were talking about verbal commands.

originally posted by: diggindirt
That's the one of the crazier things I've ever heard asserted. To whom does it apply? What does "the people" mean in this case?

This is why education is important -

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual. A person acting under color of law is required to get a warrant in order to enter a personal residence without consent or to seize property / personal effects without consent (absent plain view / search incident to arrest / etc). A civilian cannot go to the PA and file for a search / arrest warrant for their neighbor and then execute that warrant.

Secondly anytime force is used, in this case law enforcement shooting Finicum, a civil rights violation will be included in the investigation. A person who is shot and killed by law enforcement is considered "seized" under the 4th amendment.

So you have an internal investigation to ensure the officers were in compliance with departmental policy. You have a second criminal investigation to see if the police involved violated any state / federal laws. You have a 3rd civil rights investigation to determine if th4e police violated the civil rights of the person in question.

According to the info only OSP fired their weapons.

The more you learn the better able you will be to make these arguments. Hang in their.



originally posted by: diggindirt
Again, please provide us with some evidence of what, exactly, he was told to do. Evidence that we can evaluate, not some member of the Cult of Authority's words. We need to hear what he was told to do. I don't believe that evidence has been supplied so you are guessing about why he was shot since you can't know what was said to him.
Shawna Cox has said that she was using her phone to record but that recording hasn't been released. She also stated that she believed at least one other person inside the truck was recording but that recording hasn't been released either. Wouldn't it be such a shame if all those rounds fired into the truck after the exited the truck ruined those recordings? Such a shame.


ok....

FBI Addresses Fatal Shooting of LaVoy Finicum

Looking at the white truck, about four minutes into the video, Ryan Payne exits through a back door. It’s difficult to see behind the trees, but in the lower right hand corner you can see him with his hands up being approached by the law enforcement officers and being taken into custody.

There is a period of approximately 3 minutes and 47 seconds where the truck sits on the road. We have edited it for time here, but it is available in the raw, unedited version on the FBI’s YouTube channel. Throughout this time, agents and troopers are providing verbal commands to the occupants to surrender. We can’t comment on what may have been going on in the truck at this time, but those details may come out later as part of the overall shooting investigation.

When we come back to the video, the white truck leaves the scene at a high rate of speed. It travels some distance, quickly approaching a vehicle roadblock in the roadway.

As the white truck approaches the roadblock, there is a spike strip across the road but it appears Finicum missed it as he attempted to drive around the roadblock. He nearly hits an FBI agent as he maneuvers to the left. The truck gets stuck in the snowbank.

Finicum leaves the truck and steps through the snow. Agents and troopers on scene had information that Finicum and others would be armed. On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in that pocket.

At this time, OSP troopers shot Finicum.


Again we come back to just because you dont like information does not mean the info is false or can be ignored as if it never happened.

You and others must take the laws and constitution into account - ALL of them / it and not just the parts you like while ignoring the parts you don't like and in some instances parts you don't understand.

Civil Rights Violations by law enforcement to civilians is covered under 42 USC 1983, which is a part of the civil rights act.


Every document in those buildings is a public document, owned by "we the people." If they had the original documents, they could be charged with removal of documents (but I suspect they had copies, lots of copies, some of which had probably already been moved off-site). (See Sandy Berger---he removed classified materials, lied to feds about it and got probation and a fine.)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie


* - Property Clause US Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."


Once again ignoring the parts of the constitution that does not support the argument does not a valid argument make. The Bundy's are wrong and further they have gone on record stating they dont recognize the Federal government.

You still want to hitch your wagon to their Thelma and Louise car heading for the cliff?


Again, you are picking one line and not taking into consideration the total document. I've explained this before but in case you missed it.

"Territory" as used in that clause has a specific definition.



Territory
A part of a country separated from the rest and subject to a particular jurisdiction.
The term territory has various meanings in different contexts. Generally, the term refers to a particular or indeterminate geographical area. In a legal context, territory usually denotes a geographical area that has been acquired by a particular country but has not been recognized as a full participant in that country's affairs. In the United States, Guam is one example of a territory. Though it is considered a part of the United States and is governed by the U.S. Congress, Guam does not have full rights of statehood, such as full representation in Congress or full coverage under the U.S. Constitution.


"other Property belonging to the United States." is limited by the earlier Article I Section 8 para 17.



To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—


The Constitution is a contract. It is a contract between the Federal government, (the founders called it General government) and the States. If, in the first clause of any contract, there are limitations applied to the contract, they apply throughout the contract. Therefore, the "other Property belonging to the United States" is clearly defined as is its means of acquisition and the purposes allowed as use of the property.

The fact that the States have allowed the federal government to violate the contract is the very basic issue here, something beyond the ken of most tv viewers because they've been told that it is about grazing rights. And that is because journalists working for the BigSix haven't a clue about what the Constitution says or means because they haven't studied it and they are too lazy to do so. Most of them believe that a court ruling can change the Constitution and that freedom of speech is only for like-minded opinions. They've never had a civics class. As a result our nation is headed over the cliff, being chased by a militarized police force with tanks.

ETA:
Let me try to explain it this way. Let's say you own land within a city and you and the city agree to a contract. In this contract is outlined the duties of each signatory to the contract. In the first clause of the contract, the city says they have the right to acquire certain amounts of your property under certain conditions. The contract limits the amount of property they may acquire in that clause and also states the mode of acquisition by them of your property and designates the uses to which that property can be put.

"Our acquisition will be limited to five square feet, to be purchased with the consent of the land owner, and to be used only for the erection of signage needed for street safety, crosswalk signs, speed limit signs, slippery when wet signs and other such signage."


In the fourth clause of the contract the city claims the right to make the rules needed for proper control of the property or to dispose of it.

"We reserve the right to determine the design of said signage and materials to be used in said signage or to sell this property.

Then the city comes to you one day and announces that they will be acquiring more of your property and will be using it to build a communications tower and replace all the trees on your property with wildflowers. They point to the contract you signed with them and say it means they can acquire whatever they wish and can use it for whatever they wish.

The city wants your land. They have lawyers out the wazoo who will twist that contract until a pretzel's mother wouldn't recognize it. You take it to court where the judge is much in favor of impressing his fellow government workers because he's running for office next year and he's not going to stand in the way of getting a new communication tower. So the issue becomes that you don't want the city to plant wildflowers on your land.
Maybe it's because you don't want them to remove the trees that would block the communication tower. Maybe it's because you expect them to abide by the contract they signed with you. Doesn't matter, if the lawyers for the city, the judge and the media say it's about your objections to wildflowers, that's what it will be about. Further, the city says you won't be compensated for the trees because there is nothing in the contract about being compensated for trees.

Now, you can roll over and sell them the land, let them take the trees without compensation, build the communications tower and plant the wildflowers that are going to give you terrible allergies. Or you can fight, spend everything you've saved to save your property. If you spend enough to get to the Supreme Court, you might win. But have you won?

The States haven't fought for the rights they are granted in the Constitution. They've rolled over. It is time they began standing up. Maybe if the people stand up, it will give the States a little backbone in the matter.

edit on 18-2-2016 by diggindirt because: addition



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join