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.

 

High court rules for power company over Mont. dams

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

High court rules for power company over Mont. dams


mtstandar d.com

The Supreme Court has sided with a power company in a dispute with Montana over who owns the riverbeds beneath 10 dams sitting on three Montana rivers.

In a case that reached back to the travels of Lewis and Clark more than 200 years ago, the court voted unanimously Wednesday to throw out a state court ruling that could have cost the company more than $50 million.

The justices said the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to conclude that the state owns the riverbeds and ordered the state court to
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.upi.com




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Just more Proof of our Gov. being Controlled by Big Business.

if they can control the people through police state laws. they will control their land and resources something our So called top courts are striving to do daily by undermining the State courts with no more reasoning other than for the state to re-examine the case and that the state IS wrong...

in another article about this case from UPI

The decision reverses a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court, and could be used as precedent for disputes in other states.

Montana, though aware of the projects' existence, asked no rent for use of the riverbeds, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said. Instead, "the understanding of PPL and the United States is that PPL has paid rents to the United States."

In 2003, parents of Montana schoolchildren filed suit in federal court claiming PPL's facilities were on riverbeds that were state-owned and part of Montana's school trust lands. The state joined the suit and for the first time sought rents from PPL for use of the riverbeds.


so from the Court justice himself showing the Gov. have an Assumed agreement between the Gov and PPL to pay rents for use of State owned land.

the states defense.and rightly so.


A judge granted Montana summary judgment and ordered PPL to pay Montana $41 million in rent for riverbed use between 2000 and 2007. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, citing the navigable rivers doctrine. Navigable rivers are generally under the jurisdiction of the United States.


But their argument is obviously invalid to the Supreme court who is God when it comes to the laws of the land and they can and will interpret or change them as they see fit, to secure their 1% backing of $$$.

But in reversing the state court and sending the case back down for further consideration, Kennedy's opinion said the "Montana Supreme Court's ruling that Montana owns and may charge for use of the riverbeds at issue was based on an infirm legal understanding of this [Supreme] Court's rules of navigability for title under the equal-footing doctrine."


these power grabs by the supreme courts are just disgusting and the exact reason our country is where it is today.

mtstandar d.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 


" beneath 10 dams sitting on three Montana rivers. "

So its on their property, I agree with the courts ruling. The states and fed are grabbing land that does not belong to them just for money.

My old boss went through this. His land extended 25 feet out into a river basin and a bar he owned hung out over the water by 2 feet. The Casino boats in the area were the first to be gone after by the state because the state wanted to tax them because their docks were on state water. The Casino group fought them and lost, in the ruling every company who had anything hanging over or on state water was to be considered state land and taxed big time.

Not excluding my boss had owned and paid taxes on that land for the last 30 years. He lost 25 feet of land and now has to basically rent his bar from the state.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by -W1LL
 


" beneath 10 dams sitting on three Montana rivers. "

So its on their property, I agree with the courts ruling. The states and fed are grabbing land that does not belong to them just for money.

My old boss went through this. His land extended 25 feet out into a river basin and a bar he owned hung out over the water by 2 feet. The Casino boats in the area were the first to be gone after by the state because the state wanted to tax them because their docks were on state water. The Casino group fought them and lost, in the ruling every company who had anything hanging over or on state water was to be considered state land and taxed big time.

Not excluding my boss had owned and paid taxes on that land for the last 30 years. He lost 25 feet of land and now has to basically rent his bar from the state.




I think you may be understanding it wrong. what court do you agree with the state or federal?

for us normal citizens who pay normal Property taxes key word it works like this we buy a home we own said home the land however we do not own we pay property taxes on said land, we have 100's of acres of wheat fields around our house the farmers farm it but they still pay taxes to the state for the land.

PPL and the Fed Gov is saying that for big business the law is not the same the company actually owns the land and owes nothing to the state. the statue the MT state cites as their reasoning for their owed taxes is the "navigable rivers doctrine"


In most states in the United States, lakes and navigable-in-fact streams are maintained for drinking and recreation purposes under a public-trust doctrine. en.wikipedia.org...


there is much more on it in the wiki article for the public trust doctrine. the Federal Supreme court is doing exactly the opposite of what the law states and would do things very differently had it been a private citizen and Not a huge Company with huge profits that the fed officials all profit from.

just like you pointed out about your boss. if you live on the water you do NOT own said water or land under such water only the shoreline.

anyone remember that old "right of passage" the railroads used to get private tax paying land owners off their homesteads... that was supposed to be fixes as the monopolies the railroads created sadly nothing has changed and with stories like this coming to light every day things are way way worse than they were then sad thing is no one notices and just excuses it to thats how business works.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join