Letter to the editor concerning the Outlying Landing Field (OLF)

The Washington Daily News ^ | November 30 2004 | Claudia Rodgers

[RepublicanReptile]

To the Editor:

With regard to your Outlying Landing Field (OLF) news articles and editorials, I would ask the question: Did Members of the U.S. Congress and Military violate their Oath of Office and act as agents to deprive citizens of rights guaranteed them under the U.S. Constitution; and specifically the XIV Amendment?

I believe that the prospect of a decisive, concerted and active effort to deprive citizens of their due process protection of property rights by the federal government would draw serious concern from anyone who holds the Constitution as the foundation, structure and security of our society of united states.

I've read the motion that cites communications between Naval officials, held personal conversations and exchanged correspondences with Senator Dole, Congressmen Jones and Burr, Naval operational readiness, engineers, pilots and public affairs officers, and listened to Navy courtroom justifications for taking land. I also served 14 years in Marine Corps aviation, worked in military real estate procurement and government construction contracting (civilian); and witnessed the corruption and ineptitude that accommodates the general "ends justify the means" policies and practices found not infrequently in federal government.

So, did Congressmen and Navy officials determine and permit the assertion of false facts and circumstances, withhold information, skew statistical interpretations, lie about aircraft physical characteristics, effects and decibel levels, justify ignoring Navy safety regulations, perform shoddy environmental impact assessments, and keep changing the reasoning, purpose and mission for the OLF?

Should it be discovered that skullduggery was afoot, will it be justified in the "interest of national security or combat readiness?" And if the deal was "rigged" on the federal level, was anyone in state government involved? Who, how and why?

If it is the case that federal government officials and the military have failed "to support and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic;" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" then they are at the very least, guilty of dereliction of duty. If they intentionally operated without regard for and in violation of their sworn oath, then they are guilty of attempting to sabotage rights granted and enforced by direction of the United State Constitution -- sabotaging the very purpose for which government officials and officers exist.

Men and women have sacrificed, suffered and died in support and defense of those rights.

CLAUDIA RODGERS

Raleigh

[RepublicanReptile]

NC PING!

[cynicom]

VA gets the loot from having Navy personell stationed there. NC gets the shaft for having open space. The name of the game is politics.

[Constitution Day]

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day, TaxRelief OR Helms if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I'm with the military and it's needs on this, and seriously doubt that any hanky panky was involved.

Look up iminent domain, in your dictonary, Claudia.

[Rebelbase]

Were the questions of migratory birds and overall high bird populations in this area addressed by the Navy?

[RepublicanReptile]

No they were not addressed. The military completely bypassed all guidelines in place for building something that large. The Navy did agree to doing a flyover to show that the birds would be no problem, and then they didn't even do the usual flight pattern that the planes would be flying in.

And just for the record I am not Claudia Rodgers, nor am I any of the high profile OLF opponents that you may have read about in the paper.

[Dalite]

"I believe that the prospect of a decisive, concerted and active effort to deprive citizens of their due process protection of property rights by the federal government would draw serious concern from anyone who holds the Constitution as the foundation, structure and security of our society of united states."

Unfortunately, HR-1491, passed March 9th, 1933 put the land ownership of all US Citizens up as collateral on the national debt.

This was done in conjunction with the beginning of the gold confiscation, which was used to pay off foreign debt.

Eminent Domain has a massive propensity for insidious morphulation (It Sucks), but unfortunately, it is the law of the land.

Actually, it is closer to Admiralty Law, as that same piece of legislation gave the President the power to declare a State of Emergency and bypass Congress (and the Constitution) by issuing Executive Orders.

This basically reroutes law from the Law of the Land (Constitutional Law as derived from the Magna Carta, through Blackstone's, now referred to as Blacks) to Admiralty Law, which is another name for Martial Law; sometimes referred to as Military Tribunal.

Unfortunately, we have spent every second of time since March 9th, 1933 under a state of Emergency.

Now, I will try on my flameproof suit, and hope I didn't eat too much Turkey to still fit in it.

I think this post will bring the nonbelievers out of the woodwork. Those who are already aware of this will sit back and smile, but it won't be a smile of happiness or satisfaction; just one of acknowledgment.

[cynicom]

Politics was the overriding "environmental" issue. NC was a loser from the git-go.

[Rebelbase]

I'm not so much concerned about the environmental issues as I am a $30 million aircraft (pilots) taking a bird strike or injesting a bird and crashing.

[snopercod]

A very confused letter, I think. For example, tt was the 5th Amendment, not the 14th, that guarantees just compensation for property taken by the government.

[Prospero]

As someone who lives under the projected flight path, and whose neighbors' and family's land was being gobbled up in this manner, I asked a Congressman the following simple question.

What do I tell these people? They are as patriotic a people as one would ever meet, willing to sacrifice their way of life for the greater good of their country, for the most part, but they wanted to know why?

As it turns out, in this latest brief, five phonebook sized environmental impact statement was a tissue of lies, reverse engineered to fit a desired outcome.

And, low and behold, John Warner was not as high a suspect as I had once thought. The all-powerful Armed Service Committee Chairman, it turns out, did not want the F22 squadrons split up, even the pilots were concerned about the BASH bird dangers.

It appears some highly respected Republican congress critters wanted the squadrons split, and Warner relented because he wanted to export some noise from Oceana.

If was not a NOT IN MY BACK YARD (NIMBY) kind of thing after all, but a desperate attempt to build an unnecessary and unwanted and inconvenient OLF in an area to make North Carolina's military bases possible consolidations and closings less cost effective.

The military didn't need the federal laws cited here, but had the 1907 North Carolina law giving the military Carte Blanche.

This is not a Military issue, this is bureaucratic fraud and waste. This has changed it from a questionable, certainly unfortunate encroachment issue to one of lies and perhaps perjury.

I, like most of those content to accept the military’s good faith need for a practice field, especially in time of war, who are directly effected by this project, have to think differently about this whole situation now.

It’s not about birds, it’s not about farmers, it’s about waste, fraud, abuse and lies --- defects in the process that the military needs even less of, especially in time of war, than whining treehuggers.

[LilBitty]

first of all the word is eminent domain not iminent domain and the meaning is the right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner. Secondly, the citizens of North Carolina can petition the US Government to keep them from building the landing field. It is a tedious process but many appeals can be put into action, if nothing occurs from that then we will at least have postponed it. As of now, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond VA issued a one sentence ruling that lifted the preliminary injunction issued by US District Court Judge Terrence Boyle. The order stopped all work by the navy on the PROPOSED OLF. But for now since things have been seized for now maybe most of the wildlife animals could be evacuated to a different location and monitored for success. Have Your Cake and Eat It Too, It is possible. P.S. The Admendments also protect from eminent domain in certain situations

[F.J. Mitchell]

It appears to me that all too often, North Carolina wants and absolutely demands all the benefits from sacrifices made by others, but are absolutely unwilling to make any sacrifices of our own. For instance: We burn the products derived from crude oil, like there was an endless supply and the rest of the nation owed it to us to, suffer the drilling and refining for our sakes and deliver it to us spoiled @$$holes, refined, clean and ready for our consumption.

No drilling off our shore or own our land and do not ask us to allow those stinking refineries upon our pristine soil....pule-e-e-se! We are special, why can't the other 49 peasent states, understand that?

Our Nation needs a piece of our land for an outlying landing field, and we have the adusity to say no! "We are the takers -you have us confused with the givers."

[rememberplato]

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

Eminent Domain - I served in the Marine Corps with an air station headquarters command for over 14 years. I've also worked with the Real Estate Procurement office for DOD and the Judge Advocate Generals office.

I'm relatively well versed in constitutional law and when I stood listening to one Admiral after another flatly lie about the physical characterists and operational requirements of the Hornets on camera and to the residents living there, as well as other misrepresentations of law, I could not possibly just stand by doing nothing. If you'll review the transcripts from the hearings in Judge Terrance Boyle's courtroom, I believe that you will hear him challenge the Navy's lack of compliance with proving a compelling need to codemn the property as well as questioning their lack of upholding sworn duty to uphold the due process provisions of the US Constittuion.

I am very pro-military - my son flies with the Marine Corps, however, whenever you hear Walter B. Jones talk about how the military must have dark sky to train with, ask him 'Since when?'

Thanks for your service.
Claudia

[F.J. Mitchell]

I had to look that post up, Claudia, that was way back.

Your expertise far out weighs my opinion, therefore I withdraw my statement.

Thank you for your service, and that of your son as well.

Freegards,

F.J. Mitchell