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

page: 2
35
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


If this pipeline was for the benefit of all Americans, I may start to see your point of view. If you didn't fully read my first and second posts, and the links provided, then let me get you up to speed:

This pipeline DOES NOT benefit the United States. It will drive prices up at the pump, create a potential environmental disaster, and is nothing more than a gigantic easement for a Canadian oil company to get their product to the international, tariff-free market place.

To use eminent domain for such a thing is a crime, and a slap in the face of every American who owns property lawfully.

There is a world of difference between a public works project, such as a road, and a private easement for a private corporation, which will only screw us in the end. Can you not see this?

As far as everybody signing off before a project is begun, how is that silly? Again, you advocate for corporate greed steam-rolling over individuals like they do not matter.

This is fascism, pure and simple. The rights and desires of private corporations are paramount over the rights of the individual citizen, and no way did our Founding Fathers mean for it to turn out this way.

It is a Davy v. Goliath situation, and our courts are arming Goliath with law enforcement, while Davy is having his slingshot removed. All in the name of greed.

You're damned right I have a problem with corporations and their actions. This is a classic case of good vs. evil, and you think I'm silly for not rooting for evil.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


If this pipeline was for the benefit of all Americans, I may start to see your point of view. If you didn't fully read my first and second posts, and the links provided, then let me get you up to speed:

This pipeline DOES NOT benefit the United States. It will drive prices up at the pump, create a potential environmental disaster, and is nothing more than a gigantic easement for a Canadian oil company to get their product to the international, tariff-free market place.

To use eminent domain for such a thing is a crime, and a slap in the face of every American who owns property lawfully.

There is a world of difference between a public works project, such as a road, and a private easement for a private corporation, which will only screw us in the end. Can you not see this?

As far as everybody signing off before a project is begun, how is that silly? Again, you advocate for corporate greed steam-rolling over individuals like they do not matter.

This is fascism, pure and simple. The rights and desires of private corporations are paramount over the rights of the individual citizen, and no way did our Founding Fathers mean for it to turn out this way.

It is a Davy v. Goliath situation, and our courts are arming Goliath with law enforcement, while Davy is having his slingshot removed. All in the name of greed.

You're damned right I have a problem with corporations and their actions. This is a classic case of good vs. evil, and you think I'm silly for not rooting for evil.



I do see your point! What i was doing was defending the actual law. While I do not agree with the eminent domain law being abused, I do agree with the law itself. It was designed to help Americans, not Canada. I see what is happening as an abuse of the law. If they had an "obliderate all corporations" button I would be the first it push it, but there isn't one.

Once again I absolutely DO NOT advocate for corporate steamrolling of private citizens. However, I do know if you want to make an omlette you have to break a couple of eggs. I do see the difference between a private corporation and a public project. Last time I checked, though, state government wasn't in the pipeline laying business. While this particular pipeline may not help any american, and shouldn't be put in the ground IMHO, there are many that do and if eminent domain has to be used then so be it.

And about everyone signing off before the construction has begun.... Do you have any clue how long it would take to survey a 100 mile stretch of land? By the time you got to the end it would have to be surveyed again because of land owner changes. Large surveys, such as these, are usually done in segments. Maybe 6 or 7 miles. And it still is enough work to keep companies busy for at least a year. Once the surveying is done the construction for that small segment begins. There is no way to tell if someone 20 miles down the line will object to anything. Small variations can be made if a landowner wants the pipeline to go through a different part of his/her land, but for the most part the line will be pretty much wherever they origionally designed it.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


I see what you're saying, but don't forget too there are a LOT of people who don't want this project, not just one "bull-headed landowner".

But of course they go ahead and plow their way through anyway, because yeah - it's a multi-billion dollar project - and giddy-up, there's PROFIT$$$ to be made...




Also for the record: no I do not want more gas, especially tar sludge gas. It's a ridiculously inefficient and environmentally unsound way to address our energy issues.

But it gives "them" yet another non-renewable, finite commodity they can control, sell, and use to keep dominion over the rest of us little wage-slaves.

Instead we should be creating a renewable infrastructure, using the 2 million hectares of parking lot space in the US for example, and covering that with solar panels:





I bet you NOBODY would be complaining about this kind of "public benefit" use of our living space.


Nobody except the corporatist cabal of course.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I regret to say that my home state of Connecticut is the one that started this type of foolishness. Back in 2005 a company called Pfizer convinced the city of New London, CT it wanted to move a plant into the city, and New London officials grabbed a chunk of city and essentially forced whole neighborhoods to sell their property and move out under Eminent Domain. One woman absolutely refused to sell out and she took her case all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. This is the court case other municipalities are using as the legal precident to grab private property away from others (Kelo Vs. City of New London).

What happened afterwards? The city wound up paying to have her house moved to another location. Soon after the city razed the rest of the neighborhood to the ground, Pfizer backed out. The entire area where there used to be houses and old neighborhoods is now a giant dump. At least one Supreme Court justice remarked afterwards that if he had known how badly the ruling was going to turn out he never would have ruled the way he did.

Before anyone starts blindly quoting partisan rhetoric, New London and Connecticut are loyally liberal Democrat to the point of being servile (New London just elected its first openly gay mayor last year). "Liberal" must be Latin for "it's okay to be a dictator as long as you're a Democrat".
edit on 8-10-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Agenda 21 in action.

A society can learn, become educated in ways to be self-sustainable utilizing free energy, organic farming and various other methods of self-sufficiency without harming the environment without the need of sacrificing personal property rights, Bill of Rights or the Constitution. This agenda 21 is taking place around the world for the supposed benefit of a few at the expense of everyone else. The Creator gave mankind dominion over the Earth, not a few tower that be folks dominion over their neighbors. It's amazing how selfish, greedy, wicked and devolved some are in this day and age. The nwo plans for world domination appears on schedule in most countries without the people aware of these ends though it certainly will Not succeed in the US.
edit on 8-10-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I believe there is a legitimate use in the power of imminent domain; however, when imminent domain is used to produce profits for any person that power should be restricted. It is one thing to build a road where commerce is benefited, and where there is a potential for all people to benefit equally. It is one thing to build a school in a location assists the community providing a central location to bus in students. Its entirely another thing though to have government use the power of imminent domain to assist corporations to create profits. If this pipeline was entirely for the benefit of the community and not for profit of any group of people then I might change my opinion, but I highly suspect this is not the case. It is not right to use the power of the government to take from another simply for ones own personal gain just because a group has a financial interest in expanding its operations.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

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.




Until people wake up and actually learn what democracy is, they will continue to be flabbergasted when these type of things happen to them. Democracy is what gets you these results. We have a republic for a reason. Democracy devolves into anarchy. A republic is what actually protects you from this type of action. But most people are moronic and settle for the least common denominator when it comes to the law and forms of government.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


This is what happens when an oligarchical democracy takes over a country as opposed to a Republic by the people for the people with local leadership from the bottom Up, rather than a democratic leadership from the top-down with no accountability. Massive financial fraud designed to bankrupt nations for the supposed benefit of a few in the international bankster cabal.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:46 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???


Yes you are being lied to, and often. The Keystone pipeline will/is being built. The only hold up is in making sure that the company abides by enviormental laws. Here's a hint, they don't want to.

In one of these eminent domain cases the landowners wanted assurances from the company that there would be certain preventative measures installed to protect the three rivers that the pipeline would cross on their land. If those rivers become contaminated from a spill the landowners would not be able to use their land for its traditional uses of farming and ranching, not to mention the damage to water and property downstream. Rather than make a few changes (like using heavier pipe, adjusting the depth of the pipe) the company instead took the landowners to court and took their land.

Then there is the problem with laying hundreds of mile of pipeline through one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the country: the Oglala. One big spill is all it will take to leave millions of people without clean water to drink. That genie cannot be forced back into the bottle.

And none of this is for the "public good". It is to benefit a foreign oil company that will be selling their product to foreign markets. The right keeps saying that Obama has stopped the pipeline and is trying to halt new drilling in TX. Those two things could not be any further from the truth. This country needs a serious wake up call.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
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!


Sounds like a lawsuit to me. I understand what the gubberment means with eminent domain however the fact that she was protesting could mean that they had not compensated her for the land at the time they were there. If I were her, I'd sue the company for whatever I could get outta them for trespassing, destruction of property and a whole list of other laws that were broken. Eminent domain laws are UNconstitutional anyway.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
yah owning land in america is a freakin lie, you dont own crap in this county and thats a fact( you rent), about 25 years ago you could still fight it, and maybe win, but now they have changed the laws to include "better for populace" and that somehow means its ok to "steal" what isnt yours for "compensation" not profit so basically they can look at other peoples run down property in area, say oh , well they are all piece of crap so your must be too, heres 50k, deal with it, and bamn strike oil on property the very day they steal it and make billions, hows that for compensation,, the whole lie its better to own than rent is complete BS and now that i have a mortage im starting to see it as true, wtf do i own when at any moment they can re-zone my neighbor hood or steal my house at less than profit sale? you dont,, you dont own anything that cant be garunteed, and when you buy a house or land, you get anything but that, or at least you can garuntee that at any given time you could get screwed from your own town/state/federal government regardless if in family for 25 thousand years.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I read about this from the Huffington Post. Actress Daryl Hanna ( Splash, Clan of the Cave Bears) was with her and arrested too.

According to them, eminent domain is legally only for the American government or local government - a private company such as this Canadian company should not be able to to do this.
edit on 8-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
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.


wonder what your feeling would be if it was YOUR family land taken, land that had been in the family generations. eminent domain is used for many things. highways, oil deposits/oil pipelines, buildings, even public parks are put in place by callously STEALING land. they will offer a paltry sum, and if you refuse...well they will just steal it anyway. so what if ONE person holding up a multi million dollar project. it IS THEIR LAND, if you can't get consent find somewhere else to build. why should someone be forced to give it up? it should be those who want to do whatever that should be forced to give up.

as for being able to use the land once the pipeline is in, that is pure BS. can't drive on it, can't replant the trees, can't plow for crops heck you can't even put up a tent on it for fear of damaging the pipe. i use a campgrounds that had an oil pipeline put through, and that is the reality of it. you CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THE LAND that the pipe is in. basically you "own" useless land that you can't do anything with. that is NOT OWNERSHIP.


you know this is a PIPELINE they are putting in, why don't they FOLLOW EXISTING ROADWAYS? sure it may cost a bit more, but it wold not require people to be forced to sell their land, and i am sure that there are roadways that connect all the way through. but i guess it would hurt PROFITS too much, to do something that smart, and just think if it leaks it would be rather easy to get clean up equipment in to clean it up. not to mention an INCENTIVE to clean it up as people who use the roadway would freak if it wasn't.

here is what it looks like when one of these pipes leak.








posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Eminent domain is a necessary evil. If public utility is ascertained, you do need a mechanism in place to move forward with the project despite individual objections. Hell, I understand that!

Compensation simply needs to be adequate.

For example, if my property is estimated to be worth 500,000$ then as an 'unwilling' seller I'm not willing to part with it for less than 1,500,000$.

On top of that, you owe me for the years ahead in which I will no longer be able to enjoy my property, cause hey, guess what, I spent a lot of time and work on this property and was planning to retire here.

I figure that will set you back a further 250,000$ a year and I have another 40 years life expectancy.

I also expect you to cover my relocation costs because without your intrusion I wouldn't be relocating and you will be liable for any other costs or damages so incurred.

To summarize, you owe me 12,000,000$, which are non-negotiable, and I don't take checks.

See I figure that if your project is not really in the public interest and you are a corporation looking to profit at my expense then you will need to account for me in your costs. I'm sure you will get over it or else you can always move your project a few miles. I might consider shares.

If it really is in the public interest then you will be dividing by 311,591,917 ( Jul 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau) and have nothing to bitch about really.

Case closed, now get lost and don't come back without my money and be aware that I will shoot trespassers. Thanks for visiting.

edit on 8-10-2012 by D377MC because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I can understand that politicians and corporate execudicks (executives) can dismiss people's rights without a second thought, but what about the construction workers or surveyors? Are they f'ing blind or do they not understand the situation?

I think politicians or execudicks have to be on crack to deny the existence of the pain they cause.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
When eminent domain is used fair compensation must be paid. This includes enough compensation to buy a similar or slightly better property in the area or a similar area, relocation expenses and a little extra for all the stress and lost sentimental value involved. A person or business should end up slightly better of ( 5/10% ) after all cost have been considered and should never end up worse off. If a person ends up worse of this is plain and simply theft. If a company does not account for the cost of proper environmental protection in its books and a disaster occurs the directors should go to jail for negligence of duty as well as being responsible for the restoration of the environment to the condition it was before the disaster. If this bankrupts the corporation so what. Enough insurance should also be taken out to make sure the price of restoration is fully covered and not just covered up. If company directors were held accountable for properly doing their jobs with regards to the environment their would be a lot less environmental problems. If this makes a project not profitable then a company should not go ahead with the project.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:56 AM
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???


the republicans lied to you about Obama "nixing" keystone. he wanted it to not pass through natural aqufiers. the republicans create their own controversies for politicla gain. another one is the NRA....they don't care about gun rights, they care about getting republicans elected. research is your friend



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
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)


This is not for the good of all and for government infrastructure; it is for a private, profit making corporation. And I acknowledge that SCOTUS has already ruled in favor of this more liberal interpretation of eminent domain for private, profit-making entities. What's not to say then, however, that the government or a company can't declare eminent domain upon a person? Let's say a person has very useful and unique DNA, then isn't it for the greater good to harvest that person in order to develop some biomedical benefit?

And funny how stinking rich people never have their property taken via eminent domain. In Pasadena, CA, they put the 210 freeway through the poor part of town back in the 1970's. In Pasadena and South Pasadena, there is an unfinished stretch of freeway that would go through a rather upscale neighborhood with many large houses/mansions owned by well-off people with batteries of lawyers. The freeway is never going through there until the neighborhood goes downhill and the rich and powerful members leave.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
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)


Thank you for that. I was just about to post about the Kelo case...one of the worst examples of eminent domain abuse in history. It is supposed to be about private land being taken for the public good...such as a road or a bridge or a dam, not taking property of one citizen to give to another.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
We've just finished wrangling with a Texas power line concern over a power line crossing a few miles of our property here in Texas. We were never really opposed to it happening in the first place but how they dealt with us showed how little they respected land owners' rights. They gave us a contract to sign with a specific deadline. If we didn't sign, and we didn't, they came back with an offer HALF as large as the original, PLUS they were going to build the highlines directly over the only electrically pumped water well on the ranch. This would mean a well service company wouldn't be able to raise their pipe pulling units under the power lines when the pump went out or pipes going down the hole developed a leak! We would loose water to the corrales and a house we have out there unless we drilled another well! They finally moved the power line over a few hundred yards for the wells, grudgingly (there was also some archaeological considerations they showed more concern for than our ability to care for our livestock), but we then had to go to commissioner's court to settle their lawsuit against us for not agreeing with their original contract.

The reason we didn't sign the contract was because we had no idea whether or not the contract adequately compensated us or not. We don't keep up with land values, other than those quoted on our annual taxes, becase we aren't looking to buy more (nor do we want to pay any more taxes than we ought to either!). Neither did we know, at the time, how to value the loss of all the old liveoak trees that were going to be bulldozed for the right of way the power line was going down and the ground that was going to be torn up. In the end the commissioner's court ruled that we ought to be compensated for more than the original contract amount but not by a whole lot. It basically compensated us for a year and a half of attorney's fees and gave a slap on the wrist of the power line company. But, to add insult to a generally congenial disagreement, after the hearing the power line company countered through their lawyers, after at first AGREEING in writing to abide by the commissioner's court settlement, that we ought to give back some of the settlement to them! This was the first time I really lost my cool and it was a damned good thing there were a couple of lawyers between them and us. If they'd confronted me with this on our ranch ... well ....

This was our first experience with emminent domain and it was not a plesant one. There was always the threat that we were going to loose the land one way or another so just bend over and take it. If we had not stood our ground and hired an attorney we would have been fumbling in the dark to this day and they wanted to make sure we paid for our obstinance. Being a rancher, farmer or whatever anywhere you choose means you need to be savvy in much more than what the land and livestock need to produce and how to keep your machinery running without it breaking the bank. You need to be part attorney, or at least think like one - which is a very, very strange trip down a very dark rabbit hole!





top topics
 
35
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join