One more reason the federal government should not own land.

[Gato_Solo]

If they want to send a message they should call Western Union. They are making this woman an example to instill fear in others, lest they do the same thing.

There is nothing like having a huge juggernaut with endless finances coming at you.

Remember that poster with the storm trooper in full regalia and the caption "We're from the government. We're here to help."?

Question 1...Were the trees on her land?
Question 2...Were said trees giving her a risk of property damage?
Question 3...Did she have permission to cut down those trees?

Answer those questions, and then proceed to the next step. You've reached a conclusion based on opinion, and not fact. It doesn't matter if you think the government shouldn't own land. What matters is that she did something she was not legally permitted to do. If the answer to any of the above questions is 'yes', then you'd have a case. Since the answer to all three is obviously no, then we must comclude that the home-owner is an idiot who thinks that she is above the common folks.

 

[jimpeel]

Question 1...Were the trees on her land?
Question 2...Were said trees giving her a risk of property damage?
Question 3...Did she have permission to cut down those trees?QUOTE]

1. Yes. She owns that land as do you and I and everyone else in the United States.

2. Yes. If you consider the property value affected by the uninterupted view or the lack thereof.

3. To whom was she to go to to get that permission; send out 280 million form letters? Have you ever tried to deal with a bureaucrat at any level? Just try going to the local dog pound to "adopt" a dog and see what kind of anal exam you will have to undergo.

I also reiterate: "You also seem to be a fan of seizure and forfeiture. Are you?"

 

[spike]

I think these people are in favor of people obeying this law.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Question 1...Were the trees on her land?
Question 2...Were said trees giving her a risk of property damage?
Question 3...Did she have permission to cut down those trees?

1. Yes. She owns that land as do you and I and everyone else in the United States.

So she cut down trees that I, in part, owned. I say arrest her, and give her a hefty fine. Get the picture? She did not own the land.

2. Yes. If you consider the property value affected by the uninterupted view or the lack thereof.

We're not talking monetary, we're talking physical. Thats the standards the courts would go by if I was your neighbor, and I cut down your trees. Nice try to obscure the main topic, though.

3. To whom was she to go to to get that permission; send out 280 million form letters? Have you ever tried to deal with a bureaucrat at any level? Just try going to the local dog pound to "adopt" a dog and see what kind of anal exam you will have to undergo.

I also reiterate: "You also seem to be a fan of seizure and forfeiture. Are you?"

The Department of the Interior would've been a start. After all...aren't they in charge of the lands owned by the government? As for me being a fan of seizure and forfeiture, I'm not...unless you give reason for said forfeiture. BTW...where does it say that her land/property is being seized? As I see it, she's being fined for doing something that caused the public harm...for the express task of personal gain. Where I'm from, we call that 'illegal'. You break the law, and all sorts of bad things happen. Where I'm from, we call that 'consequences'. You think she should be rewarded for her activity...where I'm from, we call that appeasement.

One final thing. IMO, this whole thread belongs in this thread. After all. Who deserves it more than some 'Leona Helmsly' of the lake?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

1. Yes. She owns that land as do you and I and everyone else in the United States.

No, does not own it. Following your line of thinking, I'd have the right to build me a cabin in the Smokies because as a citizen I own it. That's bullshit and we all know it.

Tell ya what. After your group hug and witty banter have been completed today, why don't you just trot on up to Yellowstone and commence to cuttin you some firewood. When the rangers get there, tell 'em (like them deputies with the subpoena) to go fuck themselves, you own this land.

 

[Gonz]

A Nat'l Park/Forest is different than standard federal lands.

 

[jimpeel]

No, does not own it. Following your line of thinking, I'd have the right to build me a cabin in the Smokies because as a citizen I own it. That's bullshit and we all know it.

Tell ya what. After your group hug and witty banter have been completed today, why don't you just trot on up to Yellowstone and commence to cuttin you some firewood. When the rangers get there, tell 'em (like them deputies with the subpoena) to go fuck themselves, you own this land.

There was a time that you could have done so under squatter's rights. We have become so much more civilized since then I guess.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Yeah, they called it Manifest Destiny. A little thing called statehood happened since then, and with it came a provision for federal lands, protected from activity such as this by actions such as those taken against this idiot homeowner.

So. Gonna fire up the Homelite? Since you own that land and all?

 

[jimpeel]

Here in CO we have the lottery. I never play it, not because I am not a gamblig man -- although I am not, but because the funds are used by the state to buy "open space". Those lands are then determined to be off limits to development, vehicles, etc. This was one of those great ideas of the "Take only memories. Leave only footprints" crowd who feel that these lands shoukd be preserved in their natural state.

However, what they never think about is the fact that they are making the state stronger and those who determine the rule of the state weaker. The government governs at the consent of the governed. The stronger the state becomes the less consent the governed have. At some point, the governed lose all consent and become the governed by decree -- manifest destiny as it were over the governed.

Any government large enough can strip the citizenry of everything and do it all in the name of the "greater good". Once a tree has more right to stand than a citizen has a right to cut it down then a large step has been taken against that citizen and the citizenry at large.

First the government sells the citizens a ticket which has no possible chance of winning. They then take the funds from that ticket and buy land -- ostensibly to preserve that land for the use of those who bought the ticket. They then, at some future date, tell that ticket holder that they may not use that land at all, for any purpose whatsoever; and they tell them that their very presence on that land in any manifestation will be punished by arrest, fine, and incarceration.

And the idiots of this state continue to buy those lottery tickets anyway.

 

[Inkara1]

Yeah, man! Let's get to clear-cutting all the national forests so that we don't end up in a totalitarian regime!

 

[Gato_Solo]

Here in CO we have the lottery. I never play it, not because I am not a gamblig man -- although I am not, but because the funds are used by the state to buy "open space". Those lands are then determined to be off limits to development, vehicles, etc. This was one of those great ideas of the "Take only memories. Leave only footprints" crowd who feel that these lands shoukd be preserved in their natural state.

Which has what to do with cutting down trees on a federal watershed?

However, what they never think about is the fact that they are making the state stronger and those who determine the rule of the state weaker. The government governs at the consent of the governed. The stronger the state becomes the less consent the governed have. At some point, the governed lose all consent and become the governed by decree -- manifest destiny as it were over the governed.

And the Department of the Interior, which has jurisdiction over that land, as well as all national parks, was put in place so that the entire public, not just one asshole, could access said area as long as they do not destroy or remove any artifacts without specific permission or authority. By your reckoning in this, a private citizen can walk onto any military base and drive off with a tank...

Any government large enough can strip the citizenry of everything and do it all in the name of the "greater good". Once a tree has more right to stand than a citizen has a right to cut it down then a large step has been taken against that citizen and the citizenry at large.

So...her destruction of everyones trees for her own personal benefit is okay with you? Does that mean that if a private citizen wants your car to be parted out, they don't need your permission to just drive off with it to the nearest wrecking yard?

First the government sells the citizens a ticket which has no possible chance of winning. They then take the funds from that ticket and buy land -- ostensibly to preserve that land for the use of those who bought the ticket. They then, at some future date, tell that ticket holder that they may not use that land at all, for any purpose whatsoever; and they tell them that their very presence on that land in any manifestation will be punished by arrest, fine, and incarceration.

And the idiots of this state continue to buy those lottery tickets anyway.

Ahhh...so a state law is now being compared to a federal law. Not the same thing, and you know it.

 

[jimpeel]

By your reckoning in this, a private citizen can walk onto any military base and drive off with a tank...

Quite the specious argument when placed against the Supreme Law of the Land which states:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 19, Constitution of the United States

So forts, magazines, and arsenals, which is where tanks are parked, are constitutionally protected federal property.

So...her destruction of everyones trees for her own personal benefit is okay with you? Does that mean that if a private citizen wants your car to be parted out, they don't need your permission to just drive off with it to the nearest wrecking yard?

Ownership of PERSONAL property is the hallmark of the constitution. How does my car in any manner, other than a meaningless segue in a specious argument, have anything to do with the federal government owning land outside of the tenets outlined in the Supreme law of the Land?

Ahhh...so a state law is now being compared to a federal law. Not the same thing, and you know it.

So you think that being in prison is different on the state and federal level? Is there some vast difference in the loss of your freedom when the state or federal government does so?

I have heard that federal prisons have better accomodations though.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Here in CO we have the lottery. I never play it, not because I am not a gamblig man -- although I am not, but because the funds are used by the state to buy "open space". Those lands are then determined to be off limits to development, vehicles, etc. This was one of those great ideas of the "Take only memories. Leave only footprints" crowd who feel that these lands shoukd be preserved in their natural state.

We have a lottery too. I spend maybe $20 a year playing it. I wish some of that money DID go to protect open land from developers.

And I'm one of them "take only pictures, leave only footprints" people. We're called hikers.

However, what they never think about is the fact that they are making the state stronger and those who determine the rule of the state weaker. The government governs at the consent of the governed. The stronger the state becomes the less consent the governed have. At some point, the governed lose all consent and become the governed by decree -- manifest destiny as it were over the governed.

Umm, yeah...I never mention any of that. I'm for less gubmint (especially out of warshinton), not NO gubmint. That's called anarchy.

Admit it...you used to hang with Koresh back in the day, didn't you?

Any government large enough can strip the citizenry of everything and do it all in the name of the "greater good".

News flash, Wilfred...we're already there. Been there since 1861. Want me to send you a few dozen books detailing how the federal gubmint not only stripped but went ahead and raped people? PM me that address, sparky. I'll give you more federal abuse examples than you can handle any time you want 'em.

Once a tree has more right to stand than a citizen has a right to cut it down then a large step has been taken against that citizen and the citizenry at large.

What part of RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP do you not fuggin understand?

First the government sells the citizens a ticket which has no possible chance of winning.

Bitch about lotteries somewhere else. I happen to personally know a lady who hit the TN lottery for a million on January 22nd. Lotteries are not the issue here, Grover. Some self serving spoiled ass bitch cutting trees off public lands is the issue.

They then take the funds from that ticket and buy land -- ostensibly to preserve that land for the use of those who bought the ticket. They then, at some future date, tell that ticket holder that they may not use that land at all, for any purpose whatsoever;

Show me where they said that.

What they told her was to quit cutting the trees off it. Same as they'd tell anybody who went in and started logging it for timber, or clearing it for another one of them damned gated communities for people who can't afford it to build on then go into forclosure and the place become an eyesore. D'ya think it's even remotely possible for you to see anything past the tip of your nose?

and they tell them that their very presence on that land in any manifestation will be punished by arrest, fine, and incarceration.

Yeah, they do that to vandals frequently. How bout this? I send somebody (and I know a few...) to spray paint pedophilic graffiti all over your house one day while you're out huggin yer co-workers. Then let's say my boys get caught. How fast would you be issuing a restraining order to keep them off YOUR property?

Then again, from all I can tell, you might ask 'em in to play canasta.

And the idiots of this state continue to buy those lottery tickets anyway.

And that impacts you in exactly what manner again? I guess you are free to spend your money as you choose, but they aren't. Tell me again who the brainwashed idiot puupet here is?

Fired up that Homelite yet? Let's see some action behind them big words of yours. I'm good for the first $20 of your bail money.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Once a tree has more right to stand than a citizen has a right to cut it down then a large step has been taken against that citizen and the citizenry at large.

One citizen decided she had the right to cut down that tree for her own benefit in complete disregard for the other citizenry's ownership of that tree.Some of you Americans need to sue her for stealing your tree.

 

[chcr]

One citizen decided she had the right to cut down that tree for her own benefit in complete disregard for the other citizenry's ownership of that tree.Some of you Americans need to sue her for stealing your tree.

 

[Inkara1]

As 1/301,139,947 owner of that land, I say fuck you, I want those trees on my land. You're completely wrong on this issue, jim, and I think you know it. The most code-pinko liberals here have thoroughly pwned you. The most hard-core conservatives here have thoroughly pwned you. All of them are also part-owners of the land and have out-voted you. Do a little google search and the feeling is the same all across the nation. Her benefit trumped the benefit of 301,139,946 other people's benefit. Not only that, the only one that's mentioned seizing her land is you, not anyone that could actually be able to seize it. And this bullshit about not letting her cut down trees on land she does not hold a deed to being tantamount to a totalitarian government regime... give me a fucking break. There's insufficient paranoia about government intrusiveness, there's rampant paranoia, and then there's your paranoia... paranoia that's so far out in left field that you're making yourself look like a fool and undermining your credibility across all issues.

By the way, I thought people in school as long ago as you were supposed to have better reading comprehension than those who came out of California public schools in the 1990s. Article 1, section 8, clause 17 (also, it's not 19 as you claim) is concerning the creation of Washington, D.C. and that the federal government will oversee that federal district.

 

[A.B.Normal]

The only way his argument would hold water with regard to over gov. is if the trees had been on her own land yet still under their protection.

 

[jimpeel]

Not only that, the only one that's mentioned seizing her land is you, not anyone that could actually be able to seize it.

Again, since you ignored what I wrote the first and second time I shall reiterate it still a THIRD time. I asked a question. "Ya think the government will now go after her property; That was a question to YOU fella. DO YOU? Well? There are those pesky seizure and forfeiture laws that the federal government have abused so frequently. What do YOU think?

The second part of the question was also to you. "... and when they sell it they won't tout the spectacular view as a major selling point worthy of extra monetary value?" WELL? What do you think? Do you think they will get a valuation of her property like the cops did with Donald Scott's property just before they shot and killed him? Tghey notede that his property had the only natural waterfall in the Santa Monica Mountains. Quite the selling feature don't you think?

And this bullshit about not letting her cut down trees on land she does not hold a deed to being tantamount to a totalitarian government regime... give me a fucking break.

Speaking of someone in need of reading comprehension! I say that I am against the government owning property outside ot their constitutional authority and it extends to to her bucking a totalitarian government. I say that the government shouldn't own that property in the first place because they have not, nor will they be, building and forts, arsenals, dock-yards, or other needful BUILDINGS on that land.

There's insufficient paranoia about government intrusiveness, there's rampant paranoia, and then there's your paranoia... paranoia that's so far out in left field that you're making yourself look like a fool and undermining your credibility across all issues.

Remember this little gem from the man who wrote the Constitution?

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

It doesn't say "unless the Congress desires to vote themselves more power", now, does it?

By the way, I thought people in school as long ago as you were supposed to have better reading comprehension than those who came out of California public schools in the 1990s. Article 1, section 8, clause 17 (also, it's not 19 as you claim) is concerning the creation of Washington, D.C. and that the federal government will oversee that federal district.

Interesting. I miskey a number and that is the best argument that you can make.

Yes, that paragraph is about the creation or Washington, DC and its maximum allowable size; although I have serious doubts as to whether you would understand the difference between ten miles square and ten square miles.

Yet you focus on the first part of the paragraph and, in typical liberal obfuscation fashion, ignore the second part which reads "... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;". So let me parse that for you:

"and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be"

This means that the Congress shall have authority over those places on which those forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and needful buildings are to be built AND they shall have authority over same -- "same" being those forts, arsenals, and needful buildings.

Then again, you never know. The feds may have plans in the works to build a dock-yard in Lake Tahoe.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Again, since you ignored what I wrote the first and second time I shall reiterate it still a THIRD time. I asked a question. "Ya think the government will now go after her property; That was a question to YOU fella. DO YOU? Well? There are those pesky seizure and forfeiture laws that the federal government have abused so frequently. What do YOU think?

Only if she can't pay the fine for cutting down my trees...

The second part of the question was also to you. "... and when they sell it they won't tout the spectacular view as a major selling point worthy of extra monetary value?" WELL? What do you think? Do you think they will get a valuation of her property like the cops did with Donald Scott's property just before they shot and killed him? Tghey notede that his property had the only natural waterfall in the Santa Monica Mountains. Quite the selling feature don't you think?

If she hadn't cut down the trees, then this would be a moot point. BTW...they still haven't mentioned seizing her land.

Speaking of someone in need of reading comprehension! I say that I am against the government owning property outside ot their constitutional authority and it extends to to her bucking a totalitarian government. I say that the government shouldn't own that property in the first place because they have not, nor will they be, building and forts, arsenals, dock-yards, or other needful BUILDINGS on that land.

It still makes no difference. The fact is, she went onto property that wasn't hers and destroyed something she didn't own. Answer this question...How much did she pay you for the right to cut down your part of the tree?

Remember this little gem from the man who wrote the Constitution?

Its in my sig. I'll say this, as you seem to be missing the point...The land you speak of is held in trust for the people. Not just her. If she wanted a better view, she should've built her house in a different spot, or picked a different place in her 'subdivision'. Bottom line is, you don't go around arbitrarily deciding to damage somebody elses property just to improve your property value. Maybe you should look at water rights instead of clamoring on about 'government abuse', when the actual abuse was towards the government, and not from it.

It doesn't say "unless the Congress desires to vote themselves more power", now, does it?

Nor does it say "unless a private citizen feels put out".

Yes, that paragraph is about the creation or Washington, DC and its maximum allowable size; although I have serious doubts as to whether you would understand the difference between ten miles square and ten square miles.

Yet you focus on the first part of the paragraph and, in typical liberal obfuscation fashion, ignore the second part which reads "... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;". So let me parse that for you:

"and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be"

This means that the Congress shall have authority over those places on which those forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and needful buildings are to be built AND they shall have authority over same -- "same" being those forts, arsenals, and needful buildings.

California needed a water supply.

Then again, you never know. The feds may have plans in the works to build a dock-yard in Lake Tahoe.

Maybe they do...but consider the following. Lake Tahoe is not a natural lake. It was created for the express purpose of delivering water to California. In that case, it would make it a man-made structure, and all the land around it government property. This means that they can actually forbid the public from entering, as the whole area is maintained by the government. Those trees were necessary for a water clarification project. No matter how you try to spin it in order to claim the government is wrong, I can stop the spin and show you where she was wrong for cutting down the trees. You refuse to see this, by choice, so this hullabaloo will keep going.

Here's a final question...just for you. What would you say if the government replaced those three trees with three more?

 

[Gato_Solo]

BTW...Your Donald Scott reference is not in context to this situation. Donald Scott did nothing wrong. The woman in this scenario destroyed government property. Big difference. Especially when you take into account that she hired somebody to do it.