You see, it can be done! It CAN be done!!!
Posted on 04/19/2014 11:28:48 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.
Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.
Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
Gee, I wonder, where in the world would the property rights reside when there is a treaty transferring government authority??? Oh my gosh, that is a real puzzler isn't it?
Where does the ownership reside when you register a vehicle under a new government authority? WOW! You pose such difficulty questions.
No, your intellectual laziness is not appealing. Little about you is appealing.
Stalin: he's not just for Russians anymore.
PING!
Urban people aren't reclaiming anything....the residents of those neighborhoods are merely taking advantage of the vacant lots and trying to grow vegetables. They don't own it and eventually those lots will be bought out at city auction and contractually rebuilt.......
BING!
followed by:
he disagrees with "what the government has claimed as law/the law", generally in that order.
You really need to breathe into a paper bag, or something. I didn’t bring-up the treaty so, by definition, I cannot be ‘shifting’ the subject by asking about it.
Thanks for that. There are no doubt differences between grazing laws that established the rights in the first place, but once established, the treaty protected them. Right?
Unfortunately Alex Jones has to keep interrupting. If you find him annoying, just skip over his stuff and you won't miss much. But David Knight really did a great job out there at Bundy Ranch.
You weren’t asking about the treaty - you were just asking to be obnoxious. If you had read what editor-surveyor wrote, it clearly explains it. But, anybody with a tiny bit of common sense would logically conclude the answer - which gives you license to ask, I suppose.
This might interest you:
http://okanoganrlc.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/ken-ivory-explains-the-history-of-flpma-pilt-and-srs/
:) Thanks!
Read Rand Paul’s comment at 105. Congress has tried to remedy the situation but Reid who is profiting from the land grab will not let the bill come to the floor
Too bad you find legitimate questions to be “obnoxious.” I’d ask you to tell me what to believe, but I’d rather find an authority on the subject.
Nevada is in exactly the same boat as New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
All private rights and interests that were in existence at the time that the treaty was signed are to be preserved.
There was no power to change any of these holdings permitted under the treaty.
This then comes down to the fundamental issue of “Sovereignty”.
That of the individual vs that of sovereignty being forced upon the individual by government.
Our constitution places treaties above all other commitments.
The rights protected by the treaty are supreme.
What does our constitution say about treaties?
You haven’t asked a “legitimate” question in this entire thread. Your first post was an ouright lie, evidenced by your subsequent posts.
Maybe someone will chance along to prove it, if this thread goes long enough . . . .
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.