See other Resistance Articles
Title: Daryl Hannah and Elderly Land Owner Arrested for Trespassing on Land Stolen Under Eminent Domain
Source:
infowars
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/daryl-hanna ... d-stolen-under-eminent-domain/
Published: Oct 7, 2012
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2012-10-07 07:39:40 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 1337
Comments: 83
Actor Daryl Hannah and an elderly land owner were arrested in Texas on Thursday for criminally trespassing on land stolen under eminent domain. From the Washington Post: Hannah and landowner Eleanor Fairchild were standing in front of heavy equipment in an attempt to halt construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Fairchild’s farm in Winnsboro, a town about 100 miles east of Dallas. They were arrested for criminal trespassing and taken to the Wood County Jail. In August, a court in Paris, Texas, ruled that the Canadian energy company has the right to build a pipeline on private land despite widespread opposition by land owners. The transnational corporation is exploiting a loophole in Texas’ oil and gas regulation, according to the New York Times. In Texas, if a company qualifies as a “common carrier” the state allows it to condemn land without the consent of land owners, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which state “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” As the founders knew, property ownership is a natural and unalienable right. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In 1766, English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote that there are three natural rights: the right to personal security, the right to personal liberty, and the right to private property. In America, circa 2012, we have mostly lost the sense of this and have allowed the state to steal our private property under “eminent domain” without much of a fuss. As William Norman Grigg notes, the Fifth Amendment has unfortunately served as “one of several Hamiltonian-mercantilist Easter eggs covertly embedded in the Constitution…” The familiar civics class platitude describes this provision as necessary for the construction of bridges, hospitals, and other amenities that are supposedly “public goods” only government can provide. The inescapable reality is that eminent domain is a particularly vulgar form of plunder used to enrich the political class and their corporate cronies at the expense of the rest of us. Predictably, the state has characterized the theft of private property as job creation in order to get the commoners to accept the act of corporate rape as somehow beneficial. In April, as partisan politics played out as usual, House Speaker John Boehner lambasted Obama for his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. “He should listen to the voices of the American people and unlock the project so we can get Americans working and address high gas prices,” said Boehner. This, of course, does not include the voices of the Tar Sands Blockade carried out by a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and environmental activists opposed to TransCanada’s use of eminent domain to steal private property for the pipeline.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 79.
#2. To: noone222 (#0)
The words "eminent domain" aren't in the Constitution. Corporate use isn't public use.
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again). Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect. [This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity.
Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect. [This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity. Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities. They are interlopers, trespassers, secessionists, invading forces. Nullify their intrusions. Void their false claims to overrule the Constitution and Americans of it. P.S. Am not a mister.
Bullshit. Do you have a Social(ist) Security Account Number ? If so, you are one of those in opposition to the Constitution "just like them" ! Every license, permit or contractual agreement you share with that govt makes you a "partner" pard. Not only that but each time any of us signs on to a program of the government we are in effect condoning their authority. (P.S. Am not a mister.) OK, that's good to know.
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it and Unconstitutional "laws" aren't valid. I'm guessing you don't want to discuss Constitutional enforcement. Edited for spelling.
You're in error. The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't.
The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't. I disagree that there is any valid Obligation of Contracts under duress or without informed consent. State and Federal force cannot legitimately be used to impair the Constitution. http://www.usconstitution. ne t/xconst_Am14.html The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement.
In a tyranny it really doesn't matter whether you had informed consent or not and it matters even less if you were coerced "in a blatant dictatorship." America is a very short distance from being a full blown tyranny so the "laws" starting with the Constitution are elastic and mean whatever some corrupted judge says they mean. The whole idea being to keep the idiots believing in the constitutional fairytale in order to maintain control. In this way, the judge is able to "instruct" the mullets on every jury as to what the law is (despite desparate attempts to enter jury nullification) and the couch potatoes on the jury like all clapping seals give the prosecutor his victory 98% of the time. The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement. I disagree. The 2nd Amendment provides a gun in a free state. What people do with those guns is up to them. I'll conclude with this statement and I think we can agree on some things. Our Constitution is only as valid as our ability and willingness to enforce it. Currently, we're living in a police state wherein the Constitution is just a "G.D. piece of paper." Of course, much adoration and tribute is paid the Constitution by the scumbags holding offices of trust because they don't have another choice other than all out civil strife. They'd prefer to limit the strife to a few "tin foil hat" wearing patriots, and they do that by placating folks like you with a lot of patriotic fairytales and other nonsense that causes good folks to spend countless hours researching and preparing cases for court that have NO MERIT, and that get good (but stupid) folks put into prisons or to death. I think we'd also agree that we're not going to escape violent revolution before we return Constitutional Government. In the mean time we should admit at least to ourselves that we live in a (virtual) democratic dictatorship not a democratic republic.
You: I disagree. The 2nd Amendment provides a gun in a free state. What people do with those guns is up to them. I'll conclude with this statement and I think we can agree on some things. Our Constitution is only as valid as our ability and willingness to enforce it. Don't forget the first part: You might recall me telling you some time ago about the removal of Benjamin Franklin's son from office by his State's Militia. America's Secret Army: "if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45 [My note: between meaning 18-44], you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know." Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able- bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. [cont.] Edit to add that I don't think it's a racially prohibitive law anymore since the Post Civil War Reconstruction era and such.
That needs to be updated... "able-bodied resident, male or female"
"able-bodied resident, male or female" I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men.
Umm, I think you're referring to the professional standing army. The other militia (Title 10 USC Sec 311 (section b)) refers to the non-professional able-bodied men and women. See here ; http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt This is the very same statute I read to that teacher whom afterwards attacked my character. These fellow travelers are working tirelessly in our American classrooms paid by our state taxpayers to foment uprisings and undermine our laws and Constitutions by making such blatant subversive statements in the classroom like that which are not protected by the First Amendment.
-STATUTE- So, it sounds there like females are exempted from being drafted into the national Militia forces of the United States comprised of "the several (50) States" unless they have already volunteered for dual Federal service in the National Guard of their State, all of which can be called up/drafted at the Federal level for duty in-country here -- not for foreign duty, as is the popular misinterpretation. I don't think that means females are exempt from being drafted into their Constitutional State Militias. On the in-country duty issue of State/National Guard Militias, during the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson ordered 3 Militiamen to be executed for refusing to cross into Canadian territory. They were right to refuse -- that being a Standing Regular Army matter of soveriegnty vs. jurisdictional Military actions and not theirs. He was terribly wrong. To clarify the difference above between what is meant by the Federal definition of "organized militia" and "unorganized militia", that doesn't mean that the State Militias should be unorganized, just that the Non-National Guard State Militias are regional and separate from the organization of the United States Military forces.
We are the militia, Grey Lmist. We don't need to be registered with some infantry to be recognized as one. It the same thing as saying we have the right to keep and bear arms. The "we" refers to the John Q. Public. And you don't need to register your firearms. If you do, then you deserve to have yours confiscated. As for the militia, we citizens are that militia. And the reason why we are the militia is to prevent professional standing armies from taking their position at your doorstep which violates the Fourth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was intended for this purpose and had nothing to do with squirrel hunting. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps an able-bodied citizenry from being attacked by an enemy government. A government that no citizen should EVER put their trust in at all. A citizen should be very vigilant and WATCH what those people in D.C. are doing. That is the reason why we are the militia and is the reason why that cockroach of a teacher is afraid of an armed citizenry.
As for the militia, we citizens are that militia. And the reason why we are the militia is to prevent professional standing armies from taking their position at your doorstep which violates the Fourth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was intended for this purpose and had nothing to do with squirrel hunting. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps an able-bodied citizenry from being attacked by an enemy government. A government that no citizen should EVER put their trust in at all. A citizen should be very vigilant and WATCH what those people in D.C. are doing. That is the reason why we are the militia and is the reason why that cockroach of a teacher is afraid of an armed citizenry. I agree with your views there and I'd like to say absolutely. I should clarify that being drafted by law into State Militias doesn't mean that everybody of age would be forced to muster against their will for organization and regulated training in what the Federal government refers to as the unorganized Militias of the States (for its purposes of distinguishing between State-level and National Guard-level Militia forces). I don't see much of an opt-out problem with those of the State Militias who prefer to stay unregimented. I think they'd still be considered as part of the Militia, just as before and after age-bracket call ups, of course, but the Constitution does formally specify a more disciplined level of training, imo, as being necessary to effectively secure a free State. Am open to hearing other thoughts about it, though, from you and others. Edited for spelling and highlighting for clarification.
No it does not specify a more disciplined level of training. That is why Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311 part (b) exist. See here: Title 10 USC Sec 311 (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The reason it exist is because too many lawyers, and even some Supreme Court Justices have either tried to omit this law or were unaware it ever existed or feigned ignorance of this statute. The reason the part (b) exist as it does is to reinforce the reader of those inalienable Constitutionally protected rights. Remember that regimented militias go in the same category as the National Guard which is the real legal professional standing army under the control of the State Governor. And regimented militias can be infiltrated by traitors. You are aware of this I am sure. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco as the example of why I stress this so well. Both were infiltrated by people working within the government who wanted to destroy these militias and religious groups. Militias are lawful and legal but there are always hostile elements working tirelessly withing our government who strongly desire to dismantle the Second Amendment altogether. And they dismantle it by playing semantic games with peoples minds because they think we are too damn stupid to figure it out. To them, if we don't know our rights then we don't have any and they ain't gonna tell us what they are either. And when you become part of that group of "disciplined" level of training, you are always setting yourself up for betrayal by those you'd least expect in your group. Some of those members live a double life and they are not loyal to your cause or to the United States of America at all. They are loyal to their handlers and to the Intelligence community that they are prostituted to.
It's not that I'm not willing to defer to your expertise on the matter. You probably do know more overall about the subject than me. First of all, though -- without getting into a debate about Ruby Ridge and Waco particularly -- Constitutional State Militias are legitimate State Citizen Defense Forces and not just at the National Guard level. It should be considered a Treasonous Act of War to infilitrate them through subversions to undermine, weaken, and fragment State Defenses, imo. Some stand alone, ad hoc paramilitary groups might proclaim themselves Militias of their State or independent/anarchal Militias that aren't encumbered by law in their opinion, but protection of their State and citizen safety or Freedoms isn't necessarily always their agenda, as I think you know. Edit to add: Not to say that some aren't genuinely motivated patriotically to be their State's Militia guardians, sparse in ranks though they may be since the Clinton era of Militia villifications. Next, on the Militia Acts of law -- I think prior to those, all able bodied [free] male citizens of a State were expected to be armed and well trained regularly and on call. The general, able bodied citizen population of a State (now not on call with regularity for training or duty except if an attack is immenent or in process somewhere within the State or there's a State crisis) are still of the State's Militia but my reading is that the Militia Draft concerns a certain age- bracket of the citizenry automatically for more regimented training to effectively secure the State and that the National Guard are an expected quota of those from that group (or even the population at large if qualified by age- waiver, for example) who Volunteer (are not automatically assigned) for regimented dual service at the Federal level too. So, there is a more Unorganized group that is the unregimented general population of able bodied State citizens, a Drafted age-bracket group of regimented training for effective State security and a Volunteer group of regimented training for effective State and intra-National security that is comprised of those who may or may not be of the Drafted age- bracket group. Then there's also the matter to consider that the States have the power to go to War to protect themselves against invaders and the problem of who would be left as regimentally trained well enough to defend the State and citizenry if the National Guard is the only group of the Militia expected to be drafted into regimental training but the National Guard units happen to get downsized, duplicitously or not, by a Federal duties call up to somewhere else in-country that leaves the State more vulnerable to harm or a takeover. The National Guard are supposed to be like Joint Task Force Volunteer Units, not just Drafted by age as if such. If I'm wrong in your estimations about any of that, please let me know. I can't say that I've studied as much as I should of Dr. Edwin Vieira's works on the topic of Constitutional State Militias but that's my basic understanding of it at this point on those distinctions. Edited for an addition at the end of paragraph 1 for claity, bracketed insert and rewording at paragraph 2, rewording of the 3rd, and a grammar insert + punctuation at the 4th. This has been a lengthy work-in-process that I hope is clear enough and do think is actually done now. Thanks for reading the revised editions.
I can't say that I've studied as much as I should of Dr. Edwin Vieira's works on the topic of Constitutional State Militias but that's my basic understanding of it at this point on those distinctions. So what you are proclaiming is that militias that are not part of some state citizen defense force are not really legitimate as far as the 2nd Amendment applies to? I tend to disagree there. I have not read nor heard of any of Dr. Edwin's Vieiras works on Constitutional State Militias. Viera sounds like they are discussing militias specifically from a State Defense issue which sounds like that of the collective right. And in a collectivist society a collective right is one where you do not have rights but privileges granted by the government. And with privileges you have to register them. With Rights you do not register them. But I have read Stephen P. Holbrook's book http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/c...quote.pl?stephen_holbrook Also here http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html where at the end of the cite he is referenced by the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Dept of Justice "That Every Man Be Armed was cited as authority by the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right" (2004), http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm, and in the following judicial opinions: Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 939 n.2 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring) Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 577 n.53 (9th Cir. 2003) (Kleinfeld, J., joined by Kozinski, O'Scannlain, & Nelson, dissenting) United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598, 603-09 (N.D. Tex. 1999) Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1052 (R.I. 2004) (Flanders, J., dissenting)"
I'm not sure where you're seeing that about enforced gun registration in the issues we've discussed or privileges granted by the government rather than unalienable rights. I don't think that citizens who prefer to opt out of State Citizen Defense Forces have a lesser right to be armed but then they'd likely not even want to be considered as necessary to the security of a free State, as the Constitution addresses. I don't think the Constitution speaks of the Militia as just whatever someone or some group wants to call it on their own terms. Not to say there's a prohibition against calling themselves some other from of Militia not attached to the State but neither would I consider it a Treasonous Act of War if they were infiltrated like I would if State Militias were. Am not familiar with Holbrook but thanks for the link. Will check it later. I think you'd like Dr. Edwin Vieira.
It says it plain in site that we are the militia. And that the second Amendment applies not jut to the organized State (and Federalized) militias but also applies equally so to the individual right as well. I have read some of Dr. Edwin Viera's works and he plainly discusses Militia from a Statehood Right where they are organized and controlled by the Governor. His view is contrary to what the Supreme Court has already ruled in their decisions couple years ago that the 2nd Amendment is an individual inalienable right. Now how does all of this discussion on the 2nd Amendment relate to this thread? Well, lets just say that I hope that Eleanor will not have to take defense to gain access to her own property by means of arms. She does have that right and if I were her I would do it!
An easement does not deny access to anyones' land; you know that. Typically, they are 50' in width, although that's negotiable, and nothing about an easement prevents landowner from grazing the land or otherwise using it as long as they do not disturb/destroy/damage the utility involved.
No, but an enclosed fence does. And especially if there are "No Trespassing" signs posted which gives the intended trespasser advanced Notice. http://www.infowars.com/daryl-ha...len-under-eminent-domain/ From the source of this thread read an interesting comment below: Jethal says: October 7, 2012 at 6:09 am My family co-authored the Texas Constitution of 1876. Under Texas state law, Daryl Hannah and this elderly land owner were illegally arrested and jailed.
I'm not aware of any fencing of the easement. Here's a reply from a guy posting on junkscience.com re: pipeline experience - One Response to Keystone XL pipeline is issue of property rights for some ranchers Allen Brooks | July 30, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Reply In the 1970′s a natural gas pipeline was built from the Powder River Basin fields in Wy to Colorado. The pipeline ran through my father-in-law’s ranch. Despite contrary advice from all of his neighbors, he signed an agreement with the pipline. It took them about two weeks to palce the pipeline across his property and they left every fence and trail intact until the last moment, replacing fences and covering trails as soon as the line was in place. Everything was restored and the disturbed soil reseeded immedaitely. One year later there was only a slight scar left to mark the line. He never lost anything and his ranch suffered no damage. Most of this opposition is based on hysteria. ++++++++++++++++++++++ This reflects my family's experience with utility easements in general.
The pipeline cuts across the Riverby Land and Cattle Company in far NE Fannin County, here's a pic I took this evening in far NW Lamar County: As soon as the pipeline is buried the grass will grow back and nobody will know it's there except for the usual small "Don't dig here!" utility signs that will be planted every so often.
Where is this in relation to the new mega-lake going in up there? Thanks much.
North and East. It crosses the far NE corner of Fannin Co., goes over to Lamar Co., then turns south not very far into Lamar Co. Here's a good map about 1/3 of the way down:
Thanks for the detail. With all the new production coming out of OK and everywhere up and down the line, I see the need to get the product to refineries on our coast.
#80. To: Lod (#79)
In addition: the stretch of land that's cleared for the pipeline makes a real good place to plant food-plots and put in stands for deer hunting after the pipeline crew has done their work and left. They've already plowed up the land, all you have to do is a little discing to plant your seeds and away you go!!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)
(Edited)
The words "eminent domain" aren't in the Constitution. Corporate use isn't public use.
#7. To: noone222 (#3)
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again).
#13. To: GreyLmist (#7)
Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities.
#14. To: noone222 (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: GreyLmist (#14)
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it
#17. To: noone222 (#15)
You're in error.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
#18. To: GreyLmist (#17)
(Edited)
I disagree that there is any valid Obligation of Contracts under duress or without informed consent. State and Federal force cannot legitimately be used to impair the Constitution.
#27. To: noone222, All (#18)
(Edited)
Me: The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Chap. XXX III.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.[1]
#30. To: GreyLmist (#27)
able- bodied white male citizen
#32. To: Cynicom (#30)
That needs to be updated...
#34. To: GreyLmist (#32)
I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men.
#40. To: purplerose, All (#34)
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
#41. To: GreyLmist (#40)
#44. To: purplerose (#41)
(Edited)
We are the militia, Grey Lmist. We don't need to be registered with some infantry to be recognized as one. It the same thing as saying we have the right to keep and bear arms. The "we" refers to the John Q. Public. And you don't need to register your firearms. If you do, then you deserve to have yours confiscated.
#55. To: GreyLmist (#44)
(Edited)
"...but the Constitution does formally specify a more disciplined level of training, imo, as being necessary to effectively secure a free State. Am open to hearing other thoughts about it, though, from you and others."
#60. To: purplerose (#55)
(Edited)
#68. To: GreyLmist (#60)
(Edited)
It should be considered a Treasonous Act of War to infilitrate them through subversions to undermine, weaken, and fragment State Defenses, imo. Some stand alone, ad hoc paramilitary groups might proclaim themselves Militias of their State or independent/anarchal Militias that aren't encumbered by law in their opinion, but protection of their State and citizen safety or Freedoms isn't necessarily always their agenda, as I think you know.
#70. To: purplerose (#68)
#72. To: GreyLmist (#70)
I don't think the Constitution speaks of the Militia as just whatever someone or some group wants to call it on their own terms.
#73. To: purplerose, 4 (#72)
#74. To: Lod (#73)
(Edited)
An easement does not deny access to anyones' land; you know that.
#75. To: purplerose (#74)
#76. To: Lod (#75)
#77. To: X-15 (#76)
#78. To: Lod (#77)
#79. To: X-15 (#78)
Replies to Comment # 79.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 79.