Feds Evict Elderly Couple From Their Home, Cite Shutdown

Does it seem to anyone else that the government wants people to revolt? They seem to be doing everything they can to piss the people off. Any law or loophole they can use to screw people over is being used. Usually with a cost they are willing to pay without anything to gain except for discontent by the citizens.

DC

reply to post by links234


Let us know all of the wonderful things that are in agenda 21. In your own words.

Maybe we should give congress a pay-cut and shorten their vacation time in order to make up for inconveniences such as this.

reply to post by buster2010


you know what not only are you more annoying than Sheldon your not even funny......

stop justifying a gross inadequate excuse of human behaviour.....people need to start treating people like people before this gets out of hand....wtf happened to equal rights as citizens of this earth?

I don't mean to be offensive here but aren't you guys just bending over and taking it up the Gary Glitter? Seriously, you are taking so much crap from your government that i'm not really seeing any difference between your life now and that of an 'Uncle Tom' in 19th century Georgia. Cop beats up a woman and you all say 'Yes Masser'. Houses taken away and the crowd moves on to the next victim. I'm waiting for some-one to get lynched over there before anything gets done.

reply to post by Sublimecraft


maybe that is their plan all along , get the citizens to revolt and it would be a good excuse to bring in martial law .

IandEye
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

this is unbelievable, way past shameful.
someone please explain to me why the NPS is acting like they're having some kind of temper tantrum. is federal land about to be utilized in some way?

I think it is beautiful how accepting and humble the evicted folks are though. they sound like they type of people who should be running our government.

Yes federal government land is going to be made a no go zone for people

And will be expanded from there

as people are herded into large citits

According to agenda 21

reply to post by buster2010

Yes he would be so proud of how easily it is to get the American public to believe in an unnamed source.

Do you know how to read? The original source is listed as KTNV channel 13 in Nevada.

www.ktnv.com...

reply to post by links234

Why would you be opposed to this? It's the government's land...not the elderly couple. Would you feel this way if a private party owned the land and kicked them out?

The elderly couple OWN the house on the land. They lease the land from the federal government. The elderly people have owned this home since the 70's.

reply to post by Famouszor

No one can build or own a house on federal land. So this house they are talking about is owned by the Feds, which means the ones who live there were federally employed.

I bet if you did some homework, you'd find that these people owned the home and the land before they offered to sell the land (and land only) to the federal government and is leasing it back from them.

alfa1
To put some perspective on this:

The Lake Mead properties are considered vacation homes; one of the lease requirements to own a plot is people must have an alternative residence.

link

But it seems the elderly people are in violation of that rule, and dont have an alternative residence.

They've been spending most of their time in the family ice cream store since going home isn't an option.

And a fuller explanation from Christie Vanover, a spokeswoman for the Lake Mead Recreational Area...

“They are all vacation homes and everybody who lives in them are considered visitors,” she said. “If anybody needs to gather their personal belongings, we’re not going to deny them access.
They can go do that. They just can’t spend the nights there or have barbecues during the day.

edit on 6-10-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

Yep, I was going to post something along those lines too, but glad I saw this.

If the people agreed to a contract to "own a plot" (but not own the land it seems), along with a requirement of having an alternative residence, then they should have a place to go. It may sound a bit heartless, but that is what they signed, or else I would imagine some litigation words mentioned, but that's not the case.

What I don't understand is the purpose of shutting down the various government services. It seems very arbitrary and farcical as to what does shutdown and what is functioning. It really is a theater at the expense of the people.

Unity_99

links234
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Why would you be opposed to this? It's the government's land...not the elderly couple. Would you feel this way if a private party owned the land and kicked them out?

This is a private lease of government land, which is the people's land, for the government is not owner but merely a hired manager of the people's assets. And, there are many properties, where you pay the lease and build or buy a house on top of that, some are native lands, and some are federally controlled.

BUT THE PROPTERTY BELONGS TO THE OWNERS/LEASERS. They've already got the contracts and paid the lease. It's legally their home.

edit on 6-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

The home maybe theirs but the land doesn't go with the house it's federal property. So the government retains control over it.

Deetermined
reply to post by buster2010

 

Yes he would be so proud of how easily it is to get the American public to believe in an unnamed source.

Do you know how to read? The original source is listed as KTNV channel 13 in Nevada.

www.ktnv.com...

Take your own advice. Go read the link in the op and the famous unnamed park ranger is quoted once again.

Deetermined
reply to post by links234

 

Why would you be opposed to this? It's the government's land...not the elderly couple. Would you feel this way if a private party owned the land and kicked them out?

The elderly couple OWN the house on the land. They lease the land from the federal government. The elderly people have owned this home since the 70's.

They own the home but not the land. Whoever controls the land controls access. If the couple doesn't like the agreement which they signed they could always move the house.

buster2010
Expect this when you live on federal land. When they own the land they live on then they will have a reason to complain. Besides one of the requirements to lease a place on these lands is you must have an alternative residence. So all they are doing is complaining about not getting to a place they don't even own.

Lake Mead property owners forced out until shutdown ends

The Lake Mead properties are considered vacation homes; one of the lease requirements to own a plot is people must have an alternative residence.

hey, hey...none of your factual realistic statements are needed...can't you see that this is about bashing all government?...we don't need people like you checking out facts, and doing stupid research, just to be able to think for yourself....can't you see this is about using emotional words and catch-phrases, mixed in with a touch of truth, to make broad, and sweeping anti-government, anti-Obama remarks.

buster2010

Unity_99

links234
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Why would you be opposed to this? It's the government's land...not the elderly couple. Would you feel this way if a private party owned the land and kicked them out?

This is a private lease of government land, which is the people's land, for the government is not owner but merely a hired manager of the people's assets. And, there are many properties, where you pay the lease and build or buy a house on top of that, some are native lands, and some are federally controlled.

BUT THE PROPTERTY BELONGS TO THE OWNERS/LEASERS. They've already got the contracts and paid the lease. It's legally their home.

edit on 6-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

The home maybe theirs but the land doesn't go with the house it's federal property. So the government retains control over it.

When you sign that kind of lease, it means its yours and the government does not get to hold your ransom if they can't pass legislation or whatever, its not up to them anymore, its the lease holders property. I know, I know people who lease.

Note, they leased from something that is not party related either, the leases are not dependent on election outcomes or anything.

buster2010

Deetermined
reply to post by links234

 

Why would you be opposed to this? It's the government's land...not the elderly couple. Would you feel this way if a private party owned the land and kicked them out?

The elderly couple OWN the house on the land. They lease the land from the federal government. The elderly people have owned this home since the 70's.

They own the home but not the land. Whoever controls the land controls access. If the couple doesn't like the agreement which they signed they could always move the house.

If this is the case won't we all be kept away from our homes? We may own the house and land it's on, but we do not own the roads that go to our homes.

I'm not saying the roads are federal, but federal money is given to take care of them. The states could close the roads--it's not a stretch.

Wrabbit2000
It sounds to me like States need to consider asserting the maximum of their rights under the 10th, going forward, in so far as making everything possible a State and not Federal property. Poor Nevada at over 84% Federal ownership of land is kinda hopeless and ..sorry Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, 0 chance of getting the Feds to cede Yellowstone without a war I think...but anywhere it CAN be done? States need to buy or take back the land which is inside their borders, so they can control it.

This 'Uncle controls all' nonsense is precisely what the Founders fought to prevent.

edit on 6-10-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Many people have been saying exactly this for quite some time. Many believe that the states should even reclaim National Parks and other federally held land within their borders and honestly, I think it's a great idea.

I'm no anarchist, I believe in state and local government and even a limited federal government but what we have currently installed as a "federal" government is a bloated, tyrannical, runaway train wreck that can only be reined back in by being shown the door by the states themselves.

When they start losing their foothold into the states by losing federal lands, when federal agents are arrested for carrying out illegal orders and actions on state land, perhaps they will get the message. Imagine state authorities arresting NSA agents for crimes against the Constitution! Yeah, I know, not anytime soon but imagine it!

Obama closing peoples farms - Under Gov Shutdown excuse

Even privately funded farms. This one was except from the last government shutdown and they are losing money, 20 000 in a week, and may not be able to open again, because the losses in the busiest time, would be too great.

The question is, why are any of the local forces, enforcing these villainous shutdowns anyway. Grow a pair.

reply to post by buster2010

Go read the link in the op and the famous unnamed park ranger is quoted once again.

Here, why don't you go give Christie a call...

He’s one of an estimated 60 families with vacation homes along the lake who were given notice by the National Park Service earlier this week to gather their stuff and leave, according to Christie Vanover, a spokeswoman for the Lake Mead Recreational Area.

Although Vanover couldn’t put an exact number on how many residents were actually living in their vacation homes at the time of the government’s closure, she wanted to make one thing clear: “They are all vacation homes and everybody who lives in them are considered visitors,” she said. “If anybody needs to gather their personal belongings, we’re not going to deny them access. They can go do that. They just can’t spend the nights there or have barbecues during the day.

“They need to get in and get out.”

www.reviewjournal.com...

While you're at it, why don't you open this link and read Bob Hitchcock's story too. He's another one that's been kicked out of his home at Lake Mead.