posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:58 AM
The issue of the Department of Agriculture seizing private property without any warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction is just one
example of a federal and even in some states, administrative agencies gone wild. A term many administrative agencies, particularly the federal ones,
love to use is:
an exemption that precludes bringing a suit against the sovereign government without the government's consent.
This is a legal term used by rogue administrative agency officials in an attempt to confound the people they are illegally confiscating property from.
An official only has sovereign immunity if that official is operating within the scope of their jurisdiction. While almost all officials of
administrative agencies will claim to have proper jurisdiction, it is not enough to simply make the claim. If that jurisdiction has been properly
challenged, the official claiming to have it must prove by showing on record they have it. If they can not prove jurisdiction then the ONLY authority
they have is to dismiss or drop the case they are attempting to pursue.
Of course, challenging jurisdiction can be easier said than done. Too many public officials in so many different titles have become so comfortable
with ignoring Constitutional constraints that when someone actually has the audacity to challenge their legal authority they are all too often laughed
at and dismissed as a "crackpot" or more recently labeled a "homegrown terrorist". Not labeled a terrorist because of any violent action but
labeled so because of a reliance upon the rule of law.
Administrative agencies come in various forms. An example of an administrative agency outside of the Department of Agriculture would be the various
police forces across the country. These police forces are not law enforcement departments set up by Constitution like the Sheriff's department who
is an elected official by the voters of that county, a police department has no elected official and as such is not accountable to the people directly
but instead accountable to the city that hired them. Many police officers across the country have become too comfortable in arresting people for
simply challenging their authority. They claim to have the right to do so because that challenge can be construed as "violence" and "assault".
Ironically, it is rare that when a police officer arrests someone who has proper challenged the jurisdiction that they will actually press charges
against them. The reason being that often times that police officer has reacted out of fear and in the heat of the moment has gone beyond the scope
of their jurisdiction and relied upon thuggery and bullying tactics to assert an authority that is non existent. When the heat of passion calms down
and reasonable minds prevail, that police officer will more times than not understand their mistake and back off. If they don't realize their
mistake it is rare to find an instance where a prosecutor will back the charge and go to court.
If the prosecutor is foolish enough to back a police officer who had no proper jurisdiction then that prosecutor is also acting without proper
jurisdiction and in this instance it is rare that a judge will back the prosecution and allow the case to go to trial. If a judge is foolish enough
to back the prosecutor who lacks proper jurisdiction because that prosecutor backed a police officer who lacked proper jurisdiction, then that judge
also lacks proper jurisdiction and it is rare upon appeal that a higher court will back the judge who lacked proper jurisdiction. If the higher court
is actually foolish enough to back that judge who lacked proper jurisdiction, (which is extremely rare), then it is almost certain that when the case
arrives before the Supreme Court, (and a case such as this is more than likely to obtain a hearing from SCOTUS), they will side with the person who
challenged jurisdiction to begin with.
I am taking the time to describe this process to point out that in the United States, there does exist a legal process by which people who have their
rights abrogated and derogated can petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is a process that works and not a single shot need be
fired in order to have justice put in. There are numerous instances of case law where everyday people took either the government to court or took
the officials acting under color of law to court and sued them as private citizens not protected by their official position because they acted
outside of the scope of their jurisdiction.
As to your issues with the Department of Agriculture, study up on the case laws that exist in your own state and any relevant Supreme Court rulings on
the matter. I believe you will discover that you have many avenues of peaceful means available to you, before having to turn to violence. Of
course, if thieves are on your property stealing your property and can show no just cause to be there and are not offering any fair and just
compensation for the taking of your property then self defense is certainly a just cause. However, such an action can all too often lead to very
tragic circumstances for all parties involved and this is why there has been a court system put in place in an attempt to ensure domestic
The State of Nevada, as just one example, as a long and rich history where the state and the people in it have successfully challenged the overarching
actions of the federal government. In 2005, for example, a property rights group claimed a certain amount of victory when they persuaded a grand jury
to look into the matter of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management seizing cattle without a warrant or proper jurisdiction. In the end, the grand jury
declined to indict anyone in this matter, but the BLM was forced to deal with the people and the state that had recently passed legislation demanding
the BLM first obtain a warrant from a proper court of jurisdiction before seizing property.
In an article put out by the Associated Press and written by Sandra Chereb on 09-11-2005, the BLM was rather petulant and continued to claim it had
sovereign immunity and challenged the legislation passed by the legislature of Nevada and both the BLM and members of the property rights group and of
the Nevada Live Stock Association seemed to all agree the matter would have to be settled in a court of law.