Posted on 02/18/2006 10:11:08 AM PST by freedomdefender
Anchorage, ALASKA:
A federal appeals court has once again rejected the Pilgrim family's right to drive a bulldozer to its land inside a national park without going through a lengthy permit process and environmental review.
The McCarthy-area family -- whose patriarch, Robert Hale, adopted the name Pilgrim -- became a celebrated cause for some land-rights groups in 2003 after the National Park Service rejected the Hales' bid to use an old mining road to access private land inside Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. Hale had aggravated park officials by driving a bulldozer over the old route to get building supplies after a cabin burned down in winter.
Represented by the non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation, Hale had battled the Park Service over its permit requirements, but lost in the U.S. District Court and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
Interesting but irrelevant. There are no active mines. There is an ongoing attempt to have RS2477 roads declared permanent public roads, but it is going nowhere.
It would be relevant to me if I were on the jury.
It should not be. Most of the crimes as charged have nothing to do with the park or the mine. The access crime is simple trespass.
That is the beginning of the real question. There is something that we generally don't know with any clarity, and that is who the public is. One thing for sure, it is not any individual person, not you, not me, and not this family.
That's what we are supposed to believe anyway. (shrug)
The question of who the public is would be vital. The word is used in two entirely different meanings, maybe three, and the equivocation gives rise to many misunderstandings. For example, when we refer to the public corporations, we actually mean the private sector not the public sector. When a person stands to testify in a City Council meeting and claims as a private citizen to represent the public, he is speaking nonsense since he is addressing the representatives of the public--the Mayor and the City Council.
Well, since I don't believe we should have national parks and that it is a state's right, I guess I've pretty much decided who owns what:')
You would have liked Andy Jackson. Unfortunately, his view did not prevail and has been lost in history in the last 175 years.
Why is it that every good property rights case has a Defendant with this kind of baggage that ruins any hope of asserting a national cause?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.