Gov't employee brags about stealing land.

Isn't it nice how some Federal employees brag about abusing their powers, lying to people about the cost of their property, and even intimidate citizens to sell them their properties at a discount price to the government?

Sheshh, if it wasn't for my access to the internet right now, and because they were speaking in English I might have believed i woke up in Cuba...

A government employee bragging about how she was able to steal a mine from two WW2 veterans...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What is the context of this video? I watched a good bit of it and still had no clue who these folks are, I did catch the bit about stealing money from DC to get the mine though.

a reply to: twitchy

The woman talking is apparently a California park service employee.

From the description on Youtube:

We come in and we take this land and we always take it for less than it is worth." (Park Service Employee at Mary Martin's retirement from the Mojave Preserve.) The dinner was a public event.

In this clip, the woman brags about how they wrestled a $40 million mine located in the park for $2.5 million dollars from two "little guys that had been in the 2nd World War" (their words, not mine). She continues, "which I stole the money from Washington to acquire it. " FYI - The 111,000+ acres referred to on the white board do not include the land that was taken away from the ranchers.

Sounds pretty damning

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Found this in the comments as well - nice little blurb:

The Federal Government can ONLY own land that is needed for the government to function. all of these confiscated lands are illegal in the eye of the Constitution, the primary law of our country. this is another bypass of our Constitutional laws and if I owned land the government was trying to get I,would find a Constitutional lawyer.

I'd like to see this brought to the attention of Anonymous.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ha ha, we ripped of the little guys…

Parks and recreation... those evil bastards... lmao.

The context of the video was lost in the op. Yes they always get for less than its worth. They aquire to add to park service holdings.

They werent beating up old guys to get a mine. They were trying to get land to add to their holdings for park expansion. The little old guys more than likely wanted to sell to the park service, to keep it from being developed, or even for estate or tax planning.

Also, stealing from washington is completely out of context also. Inter department fund allocation for aquasitions, stealing is referring to getting one regions funds unused, and transferring to another regions coffers to facilitate purchasing this piece of property, is not unheard of. They couldnt purchase the property otherwise.

One has to know the context in order to explain the actions taken. Otherwise it is a conspiracy borne from lack of information, intentional or otherwise.

I walk away unconcerned.

a reply to: smirkley

They don't have to "beat old guys" to get the mine. Buying the property for a lot less than it is worth says a lot about their practice, and the fact that she even states "we are always seen as the bad guys"... Gee, i wonder why?...

Yes, this is stealing. When i said they were stealing it wasn't in the comments they made about stealing funds from the government, but on the fact that they do their damndest to get these lands at much lower prices than they are actually worth, and also use intimidation to get land and private property.

For example.

11/05/2003


From: [email protected]
Subject: NPS “Damage” Lawsuit Against Pilgrims Eminent

Land Rights Network
American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400 – Battle Ground, WA 98604
Phone: 360-687-3087 – Fax: 360-687-2973 – E-mail: [email protected] or
[email protected] Web Address: www.landrights.org...
Legislative Office: 507 Seward Square SE – Washington, DC 20003
Phone: 202-210-2357 – Fax: 202-543-7126 – E-mail: [email protected]


NPS “Damage” Lawsuit Against Pilgrims Eminent


***Pilgrim Airlift Continues – See Below.


Park Service Plans To Crush Pilgrims With Huge Lawsuit.

This is worse than condemnation or eminent domain. There is no end to the heavy handed intimidation tactics of the National Park Service against the Pilgrim Family in Alaska.

The Park Service plans a huge lawsuit against the Pilgrims claiming they damaged park resources. Their goal is to try to destroy them financially and force them off their land.

The NPS imported many “ologists” this summer to “carefully” examine the old mining road on which the Pilgrims used a D4 bulldozer as a tracked vehicle last spring to try to bring supplies up to their homestead.

All of these “ologists” were “guarded” by park personnel dressed in Swat Team outfits looking every bit like they missed their army plane to Iraq. You can see them at www.landrights.org

The Park Service says that even though the road is designated by the State of Alaska as an RS 2477 right-of-way, the NPS does not recognize it. Even though the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) guarantees access to inholdings and the McCarthy Creek Road is the only route, the Park Service continually denies access.

***
The agency even says in their Land Protection Plan for the Wrangell St. Elias National Park that inholders who try to use their ANILCA access rights will be subject to land acquisition.

The driver of the bulldozer did crush down some undergrowth that had come up in the roadway since the last time it had been used. Tracked vehicles have been commonly used on this roadway since the 1920’s.

Ironically, the Park Service caused far more damage when they forced a survey of the Pilgrims property and in the process, clearcut a swath 11 feet wide and 2 miles long to mark the property lines. More impact on natural undisturbed vegetation damage than the Pilgrims caused by their small bulldozer. And the clearcut was completely unnecessary under normal standards of the BLM, which carried out the instructions of the Park Service while doing the survey.
...

www.landrights.org...

I do not condone what happened in Oregon, but at the same time I also do not deny the fact that the BLM uses heavy tactics and overuse their power for their unConstitutional actions.

I can appreciate your example, and I do not know of the full background of the example, but I doubt the example is the same case mentioned in the op.

I cant compare this to that.

That said, parks and recreation aren't the type of department that is heavily funded for aquasitions.

And again, it sounds like the two little, referring to height, old guys, referring to age, desired to sell to parks srvice.

If the property were all that valuable it would command closer to retail valuations in the public marketplace.

Re: the groom lake mine that was recently aquired. It was landlocked by the base, but the owners wanted retail valuation for a mine that wasnt functional for decades. Instead they got alot less.

I know, two different examples, but I really need better background info on the specific deal in the op, before I cast judgment. Otherwise it is just an informal gathering of park service administration discussing various experiences of operations.

Please provide background case info for the op before casting doubt. I am being reasonable.

a reply to: smirkley
Why would 'parks and recreation' be so hell bent on acquiring mines in the first place?

a reply to: twitchy

I feel that is a loaded question without merit, especially in the face of insufficient information regarding the ops case in particular.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: twitchy

I feel that is a loaded question without merit, especially in the face of insufficient information regarding the ops case in particular.

Loaded question without merit? Oh, well then... I offer my sincerest apologies to you for raising an unmerited and loaded question without sufficient information. In the mean time, I'd like to know why Parks and Recreation is using underhanded tactics and/or misappropriated funds to obtain commercial properties like mines. They planning on giving tours or something?

a reply to: smirkley

I didn't say the example in my response is the case the federal employee mentions in the video... It is why i wrote "as an example"...

You claim that i am making assumptions, but aren't you also making assumptions that the old men wanted to sell the property for that undervalued price without any evidence?... How do you know that as a fact when the Parks Service department and the BLM are known to have used, and still use heavy handed tactics to acquire land.

www.bostontownship.org...

BTW, the price tag of $40 million was the value of the mine according to the meeting discussion the Park Service employee mentions... It wasn't the price the landowners put on it... It was the value of the property.

Later in the video another employee explains the numbers they had written in the papers taped to a window. One number is for the acres acquired by Martin, the woman who is retiring in the video. The other number is for the acres of private land they want to grab next...

Guess what's the comment of that other Park Service employee in jest when he refers to the privately owned land they want to acquire?...

...
“If you own those 5.66 acres, would you be sweating right now?”
...

He says this at 7 minutes and 40 seconds in the video.

a reply to: twitchy

Your sarcasm does not support your allegations. Your allegations are with absalutely no basis.

Feel free to attach ANY information about the ops case in question, supporting or otherwise.

I will admit I am mistaken when provided with actual case data that supports your assumptions. Until then I stand pat.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Again, please provide any information other than some administrator chatting in an informal meeting in a video. See my post to twitchy.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And I never stated as fact. And you know that. I mearly suggested alternatives that could be more plausible.

[edited for double post]

originally posted by: smirkley

And I never stated as fact. And you know that. I mearly suggested alternatives that could be more plausible.

Really? so you accuse me of false assumptions, but when you make false assumptions yourself you claim that I know that's not what you wrote?... isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?

And what makes your assumptions more plausible? because you say so?...

originally posted by: smirkley

Again, please provide any information other than some administrator chatting in an informal meeting in a video. See my post to twitchy.

Again, i provided the information that is available... The fact that the second Park Services employee says

...
“If you own those 5.66 acres, would you be sweating right now?”
...

In reference to part of the acres of private land they want to acquire shows that it is far more plausible that they robbed the two WWII vets of the real value of their property...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The video you posted provides very little to support what has been suggested, short of quotes from the video, and nothing else.

I really would like to see anything, I mean anything, that directly implicates in context to the suggestions.

Anything to support the ops allegations. Otherwise it doesnt even count as heresay.

The property in question.
The sellers motives.
The actual governments response.
Anything.

Instead we have a whole thread of conspiracy saying, as analogy, the sun is on fire, so the government is in cahoots with big oil companies to burn off extra oil reserves in order to raise taxes.

Look. I am not on any personal vendetta, nor do I wish to come off as attacking anything or anyone. I trust the government no more than the majority of members here. But I dont believe everything posted is a conspiracy nor do I feel obliged to patronise something as a conspiracy just because it is posted on ATS.

The motto of Deny Ignorance goes both ways. And in this case, there is no thread of evidence suggesting what is being presented here as conspiracy. It is never an attack on a person to deny ignorance.

I just need some factual information to support the video and the suggestion of conspiracy. But nobody has offered a single byte of supporting data.

So I cant agree with this.