During Pipeline Protest, Texas Woman Arrested For Trespassing — On Her Own Property!

page: 1
35
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Keystone Kops: During Pipeline Protest, Texas Woman Arrested For Trespassing — On Her Own Property!


The recent protests against the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline have reached a new height in Texas. On Thursday, Eleanor Fairchild, a 78-year old great-grandmother, was arrested for trespassing after she stood in the path of bulldozers and machinery on her 300-acre ranch outside of Winnsboro, Texas that were tearing down trees to make the way for pipeline construction.


How is it possible that someone can get arrested for trespassing on their own land?


At issue is the power of eminent domain, which allows the government to seize (for fair compensation) private property without the consent of the owner for projects considered to be for the public use or benefit.


That's how.

Anyone with money and power can just take whatever they want. Your rights mean squat. BS this is about "public benefit", it's about another giant corporation doing what it wants because they own our resources, they own our wealth, and they own our politicians.

So, as all the pointless pre-election rhetoric ramps up around here, I thought I'd just post this to remind everyone it doesn't matter. Democracy doesn't exist. It's a total farce. Today's Republicans are complete shills for corporate interests like the oil and gas industry, while Democrats pretend like they give a damn about everyday people, but just bend over anyway when the cards are on the table (and the money's in the pot).

Nothing is EVER going to change until people stand up and realize it's on us to fix this mess. None of these crooks are going to do it for you. So stop bickering over which puppet will look better in office. Stop arguing over which poison you'd prefer: big business or big government. They are the same damn thing. It's all bread and circuses steel cage-matches while these goons continue to march right in and help themselves one way or the other.


...
I think this is a powerful story because it speaks to everyone, whether you're a hardcore Libertarian or left-wing environmentalist. Listen to what this 78-year old great-grandmother has to say:


Get off my land. Period. I don’t want tar sands anywhere in the United States. I am mad. This land is my land. It’s been our land since ’83, our home is on it. They are going to destroy the woods, and also they could destroy the springs. It’s devastating, but it also is not very good to have tar sands anywhere in the United States. This is not just about my land, it’s about all of our country. It needs to be stopped.


edit on 7-10-2012 by mc_squared because: and pass it on!




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Owning land is an illusion we bottom feeders never own anything not when everything one worked for can be seized , confiscated . period .


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Like I always say
"You think you own your land? Stop paying the taxes and see who owns it."



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Just rented your land from the Government and when the have a need that in some way involves your land, better pack your bags because they will not hesitate.

I have a feeling the article has left something out, typically when the government conducts a land reclamation or Usage contract, eg. running power lands or piping through your property, you typically are presented with a contract that must be signed.

I am under the impression she may have signed something, whether knowingly or not, there are policies in place for these types of scenarios.

I still do not think an arrest was necessary, but i have a feeling their may be more to the story then the articles describes.
edit on 7-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Possibly, but the article also states:


The vast majority of landowners have signed agreements with TransCanada, the pipeline owner. But where necessary, the Calgary, Alberta-based company is busy going to state courts to exercise eminent domain and lining up rights to cross properties throughout the Great Plains



ETA: a little further down they explicitly say:


As Fairchild refused to sell any of her land to TransCanada and did not sign any contracts, the company was able to use eminent domain and legally have her arrested for trespassing on her own land.


I love the TransCanada lawyers take on all this:


We are not going to have one landowner hold up a multibillion-dollar project that is going to be for the benefit of the public.


Obey
edit on 7-10-2012 by mc_squared because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


What the hell is up with this???? Didn't Obama nix the Keystone Pipeline??? Or is this just more proof we are being lied too???



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
... was arrested for trespassing after she stood in the path of bulldozers and machinery on her 300-acre ranch outside of Winnsboro, Texas that were tearing down trees to make the way for pipeline construction.



Not just limited to the good old USA.

In Victoria, Australia, a very similar situation with another controvertial pipeline had Debra McLeish arrested for much the same reasons.


Less than a week since work started on the 70-kilometre pipeline, Yea farmer Deb McLeish was arrested on her own property when she tried to prevent workers from entering her land to perform surveying works.
...
Shortly before 2pm Ms McLeish was led away and charged after she again tried to stand in the workers' way.
"It's a sad day for democracy when you get arrested on your own property," she said.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by mc_squared
 


What the hell is up with this???? Didn't Obama nix the Keystone Pipeline??? Or is this just more proof we are being lied too???


He didn't really nix it, he simply rejected a Republican ultimatum on one portion of it, but left the door open for a future permit application:


"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the state department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people."

He said officials would continue to explore new pipeline routes


Source

Incidentally - I think the only reason it even got that much of a "rejection" is because people stood up and protested and raised a stink about it, so they decided to put it off until the sheep would be less stirred up/more complacent.



Meanwhile he soon expedited the construction of the southern portion, which is the part this woman is protesting on her land.

See Obama changes course, fast-tracks Keystone pipeline


So in short, to answer your question: yes, it's more lies.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Winnsboro, Texas is in the area called the "Piney Woods" of east Texas. Those corporate raiders are going to have to chop down thousands of beautiful trees in order to build their precious pipeline.

As far as the legalized rape called "eminent domain", corporations have been using the courts of this country to forcibly wrest away land from their rightful owners, if said land is where they want to build something.

I keep thinking about how Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, used the argument of eminent domain to take a bunch of homes and businesses, saying that his Cowboys stadium was for the "public benefit"....which we all know is total garbage, as it costs a great deal of money to see a game there, and there is no true benefit for all the public when it comes to a private business operating for profit. Tax dollars? How many of us see real benefit from those?

I was aghast that he could have gotten away with such a thing, and yet, the courts seem to side with the corporations time and again, and rule against the private land owners.

Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

We can now see this happening on a daily basis. We see a corporation, not even based in the United States, who wants to build a pipeline for their incredibly corrosive tar sands (which means there'll be many more leaks in this pipeline, since it is more corrosive than regular crude, and apparently, they are having the pipes built cheaply in India and then shipped over here), and they claim somehow that this pipeline should be allowed eminent domain because it benefits.....who??


But critics argue that Keystone will raise the price of oil consumed in the U.S., not lower it. That's because the current glut of oil created by the bottleneck at the Cushing hub would allow Canadian producers to reprice their oil at the global benchmark, which is now about $15 a barrel higher. The total increase would amount to some $2 billion to $4 billion a year, according to the company's own estimates presented in its application to Canadian authorities.

As a result of those higher prices, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to $5 billion to the annual U.S. fuel bill, according to the Cornell researchers. They figure that just one year of those higher fuel prices cancels out some or all of the jobs created by the project.

bottomline.nbcnews.com...

The article (which, I may add, comes from a mainstream media site), goes on to explain how any jobs generated by building this pipeline will only be temporary, and last at the most a year.

It also states that:


...the flow of oil to the Gulf could actually lower the share of Canadian oil consumed in the U.S. because, once transported to Houston, oil producers would have access to a global shipping hub in a tariff-free zone, giving them a financial incentive to export at least some of it.


Therefore, in essence, we have our own courts favoring a foreign corporation over citizen's property rights, for a pipeline which many fear will be an environmental disaster, with no lasting impact on our economy, and in fact, will be a means to drive up prices at the pump.

Keep in mind that the 78 year old landowner signed no paperwork giving the Trans-Canada corporation any rights for her land, yet our courts and local sheriffs had no problem arresting her for trespassing on what is no longer her land in the eyes of the corrupted law.

This seriously worries me, because if a foreign corporation can simply take our land whether we want to sell it or not, and our courts and law enforcement back up the corporation, and jail the citizen, what have we left in the way of property rights and freedoms?

Answer: WE HAVE NOTHING LEFT. The only reason my 5 1/2 acres hasn't been stolen yet is, no corporation wants it...yet. This poor woman's story is a harbinger of what is to come.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Arse holes is all I can think of to post here.....
Money over people everytime.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


That's because the courts are not article 3 constitutional courts they are Administrative courts and are part of the US corporation to administer corporate policy (statutes) Thats why they have police-y enforcers. None of them are lawful. It is all contracts as soon as you sign in to court you agree to let the judge decide the case however he chooses. I have tried to teach people this for years but most think I am just nuts even though I can show them the proof and then they continue to complain about how they got raped in the so called courts when they don't even want to know what kind of court they are in and refuse to even consider that the constitutional republic was supplanted decades ago with an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy neither of which our lawful in America...



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

We are not going to have one landowner hold up a multibillion-dollar project that is going to be for the benefit of the public.


Benefit of the Public? Hmm, I doubt gas prices will go down (which would be the only public benefit), and if anything they should pay her RENT for the use of her land. The only ones benefiting from this is the large corporations.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Good point. However, the Supreme Court, back in 2005, issued a judgement in favor of cities taking away private property and handing it to private corporations (Kelo v. The City of New London):


The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.

The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.


online.wsj.com...

This rotten corruption goes all the way up to the very tippy-top of our judicial system. I'm sure the administrative courts have their own hand in these crimes, but the whole system is fetid with corruption.
edit on 7-10-2012 by FissionSurplus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Like I said none of them are lawful Even the SC is a corporation part of the family of corporations that have usurped the republics. Their are no constitutional courts left!

The US is a Corporation Along All Government Entities

edit on 7-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Eminent Domain is a necessary evil for the benefit of the majority. Nothing more. Everyone here is bashing the "evil corporations" for their pipeline placement, but don't you all use gas in some form? As a land surveyor, I see Eminent Domain used frequently. Most of the time it's one single landowner holding up a multi million dollar project. All of the adjoining owners have signed off on the land use and its not feisable to "go around" one bull-headed land owners property.In the case of gas lines, it's even more silly to try to hold up progress. Once the pipeline is laid, in most instances, you will never see another gas worker AND you will be able to continue using your land. Its called a gas line easement. You keep ownership of your land while legaly allowing gas company employees use of your land in the unlikely event that they might have to make some repairs. Its not always some evil corporation or governent trying to take everything you've worked for. Sometimes its just common sense.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Addressing the "Piney Woods" project.... You make it seem like one day you'll be driving along and all of a sudden you'll come up on a desolate, barren wasteland for as far as you can see. When the reality of it is there will be a 50 wide path of land that is cleared for the pipeline. Then after they leave they will, more than likely, plant grass as to keep the area "green" AND the landowners will be able to keep their land and use it. Much ado about nothing.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
The pipeline is going through . I have a friend that works for a company that builds the controls and monotoring systems. He's working 7 days a week with no letup in sight the Keystone pipeline arguement is a waste of time it is going to be built



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
2nd amendment would protect against this kind of corporate facism. Too bad it is ignored by both law makers and by those who excecise it.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote in order to make your case. Not only are you not accurately representing what I wrote, but you are trying to make a case for land theft by corporations, and your case is weak, indeed.

I live in oil country, and I understand about easements, etc. That is not what this thread is about.

I understand that you somehow side with corporations over private citizens, but if your only point is that one bull-headed land owner should not dare to stand in the way of a corporate grand scheme, I don't think you'll have many fans on this board. Besides, it seems to me that construction should not begin until all land owners have signed off. The fact that it goes right up to the bull-headed land owner's property, and then the bullying and harassment begins, says volumes about corporate greed.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Reply to: FissionSurplus

If you live in "oil country" then we must be neighbors. I really didn't plan on my opinion being highly reguarded on this thread. While, I absolutely do not side with any corporation agenda or "grand scheme" as you put it, I do side with the eminent domain law. It is necessary, simply put. If they want to put a 100 mile pipeline down there is no way in hell that all the land will be surveyed and all propery signed off before the commincement of construction. To think that is just silly. People want oil, people want gas, and people want roads and I do not believe one bull-headed land owner should be able to stop them from getting any of it. It seems that you can't get over the fact that it is a major corporation that is doing this. What if it was your state government? New highways are built every day. Im sure you drive. Do you really think everyone was willing to have a highway go through their property?
edit on 8-10-2012 by MessOnTheFED! because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
35
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join