Thread: 7 Answers to 7 Questions About the Nevada Rancher Situation from The Blaze

Glad you found the information NM, thanks for posting!

State or County control of the land doesn't fix everything.
These people had their land in a federal forest taken by the county.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/colo-eminent...0-sale-301201/

"So Summit County condemned it, filed for eminent domain and petitioned for immediate possession."

Even cities evict people from public property.

Cops evict man after raid on Manhattan Bridge hobo hovel

By Kevin Fasick and Bob Fredericks
April 17, 2014 | 12:40pm

Photo: R. Umar Abbasi

Modal Trigger
“Joe’s” home between the girders under the Manhattan Bridge.Photo: R. Umar Abbasi

An army of NYPD cops on Thursday evicted a homeless man from his Manhattan Bridge “home” — which was complete with a gas heater, hot sauce and beer.

Modal Trigger
Joe had Chinese cookies, hot sauce and beer.Photo: R. Umar Abbasi

A dozen officers from both the 5th and 84th Precincts plus four Emergency Service Unit cops launched the raid about 9:50 a.m.

A DOT worker on a ladder first used bolt cutters to remove a red bicycle lock on the wooden structure — which turned out to be fully insulated with Styrofoam and a large tarp.

“Police department! Police department!” cops yelled, but got no reply, so ESU officers used a saw and started carefully cutting through the shelter.

But minutes later, however, they realized the man — a Chinese immigrant who identified himself only as “Joe” — was still inside.

The officers were able to bring the smiling man — clad in white pajamas with a black pattern — to the ground unharmed. He appeared physically fine, but was allowed to get dressed and then taken to Bellevue for a check-up.

“He’s fine. He’s fine. He didn’t answer. No one got hurt, thank God,” a senior officer said.

“That’s amazing! I didn’t think he was in there. When I saw his legs pop out, I was like, ‘Oh s–t!’” another cop said after the removal.

“It was like the magic trick where they cut you in two. And he came out in one piece,” another officer cracked.

One of the ESU cops said Joe was lucky they took their time.

“That was freaky. He thought we were going to go away. That’s why you gotta go slow. You have to assume he’s in there,” he said.

Cops found all the comforts of home inside the shelter.

“He’s got 5 inches thick of Styrofoam in there. It was quite a setup. He had a portable butane stove hooked up to a butane tank … safe for indoors. That’s a good way to keep warm,” a cop said.

Modal Trigger
Emergency Service Unit cops use bolt cutters to cut apart the makeshift shelter.Photo: R. Umar Abbasi

Joe also had a tarp connected to his “ceiling” with a Bungee cord, a small reading light, scissors, keys and bottles, including distilled vinegar, Sriracha hot sauce, a box of Chinese cookies, two unopened cans of Bud Light and a box of salt.

Modal Trigger
The NYPD dismantles Joe’s home.Photo: R. Umar Abbasi

“We’ll voucher all of his property. We’d like to help him get back on his feet. We are here to do anything we can to help a man down on his luck get back on his feet. It’s a sad story,” one cop said.

“I can’t imagine sleeping above the subway. Can you imagine how cold these beams get in the winter?” one cop said before the removal.

The DOT had called the cops for an assist so they could remove the shelter, he added.

At 10:20 a.m., cops stopped bicycle riders on the north side of the bike lane at the Manhattan entrance, according to cyclist Greg Addo.

They said they were “removing debris and don’t want it to fall on your heads,” he said in an email.

Modal Trigger
Cops safely pull down Joe from the Manhattan Bridge girders.Photo: R. Umar Abbasi

The Post first reported on Sunday that the man had made a shelter high above the East River between Manhattan and Brooklyn. He said he used to live in encampments that he built on a grassy patch, just off the bike on-ramp to the Manhattan Bridge.
But over the past 13 years, the NYPD tore down those quarters, he said.
“Five times they take down. Five times!” Joe said of what had been his more stable shanties.

Modal Trigger
Joe after cops pulled him out of his bridge home.Photo: R. Umar Abbasi

Joe’s bridge home was in a crevice above the bike path and subway tracks and below cars on the span’s upper deck about 150 feet east into the bridge’s Brooklyn-bound side.

To get to his makeshift pad, Joe would climb up and down a chain-link fence that separates subway tracks from the bike path on the bridge’s lower level.
He fortified his bridge abode with discarded wood he found in nearby Chinatown.

http://nypost.com/2014/04/17/cops-ev...hattan-bridge/

Homeless sue state over evictions from public land ...

www.concordmonitor.com/.../homeless-sue-state-over-...‎

Concord Monitor
May 12, 2013 - Three homeless men from Concord have filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing ...

The Bundy Ranch - "The Government Owns Nothing And Controls Everything"


Press For Truth·482 videos


Published on Apr 13, 2014
In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth speaks with Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio about the latest info in regards to the situation at the Bundy Ranch and where this may be going in the next few weeks

For more from stefan Molyneux visit:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/

Help PFT Cover Bilderberg 2014!
Go Fund me: http://www.gofundme.com/7zsb6g
Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...

If you prefer to not use gofundme or paypal (they take a significant percentage) you can donate by etransfer to dan@pressfortruth.ca

Follow Dan Dicks:
http://www.facebook.com/PressForTruth
http://twitter.com/#!/DanDicksPFT
https://twitter.com/PressForTruth
http://instagram.com/dandickspft

Subscribe:
http://www.youtube.com/weavingspider
http://pressfortruth.tv/register/

Support Press For Truth:
Donate - https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
PFT Gear - http://www.pressfortruth.ca/category/...

Visit http://pressfortruth.ca/

• Category
  
  News & Politics
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License

Okay.....for the feds owning nothing they sure have alot of control and have a title to the land as well, once again if you want change, BE THE CHANGE. Get control back into the hands of the state, it is going to be one step a time, just saying the feds own nothing means nothing because they have proof they have control of public land, LAWS have to be changed. Bundy was in a contract and paying fees then stopped paying, so in the eyes of the law he is liable for the fees, that is the way it rolls. That is why all the rulings were against him. IMO for him to be in a contract and paying fees he knew exactly who owned the land or he never would have paid the fees to the feds in the first place... all BS aside that is a no brainer IMO and it is amazing that people continue to ignore that fact when it is SO obvious. The good thing is the Bundy thing will act as a catalyst for states to move to get the public land transferred back to them.

Who’s Done What on Federal Land Transfer?

By: Carl Graham
One state is an anomaly. Two states are interesting. Three states make a movement. So, do we have a movement on Western states getting some of our lands back?
Not yet. But it’s moving. Here’s a quick summary of legislation in several Rocky Mountain states that either calls on or studies whether to call on the federal government to return selected lands back to the states.
Utah is leading the pack, with legislation demanding that the federal government keep its statehood promise and setting up a body to look at the issues that would surround such a complicated event.

• HB 142 (2013) Tasks the Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office to conduct a study and economic analysis of the transfer of certain federal lands to state ownership.
• HB 148 (2012) Demands the transfer of federal public lands (strictly defined omitting many) to the state by 12/31/2014. It also tasks the state’s Constitutional Defense Council to create a Public Lands Commission that will administer the transfer and address how to manage transferred lands.
• HJR 3 (2012) Puts most of the language of the two actionable bills into a resolution.

Nevada is taking a novel approach by tasking County Commissioners to study the issue and come up with recommendations.

• AB 227 (2013) Creates the Nevada Land Management Implementation Committee consisting of one representative from each county to conduct a study addressing the transfer of public lands in NV from the federal government to the state. The committee reports 2/1/2015, and the bill calls for a transfer decision target date of 6/30/2015.

Montana created an interim committee of legislators to evaluate lands held by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in the state.

• SJ 15 (2013) Creates the interim committee and tasks it to identify concerns and risks with federal land management policies in the state. The committee report is due 9/15/2014.

Wyoming also has a study bill.

• HB 228 (2013) Creates a task force to investigate possible legal recourse to compel the federal government to relinquish ownership and management of federal lands. The task force report was due 11/1/2013.

Idaho has another study bill.

• HCR 21 (2013) Forms an interim committee to study the process of the state acquiring title and control of federal lands. The committee will report to the 2015 legislature.
• HCR 22 (2013) calls on Idaho’s congressional delegation to work with the state in returning selected federal lands to the state. It mirrors in many ways Utah’s HB 148, but as a resolution.

Arizona had a lands transfer bill in 2012 but the Governor vetoed it.

• SB 1332 (2012) Demanded select federal holding be transferred to state control by 12/31/2014 and created a Public Lands Board of Review to manage the transition. The Governor vetoed the entire bill after it passed both chambers.

So what’s on tap for 2014? We’re in the process of tracking that down state by state and will post it here.

http://endfedaddiction.org/federal-land-transfer/

Transfer of Public Lands

Posted on March 3, 2014

HB 148 Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act

March 2012, Governor Herbert signed HB148, Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act, which demands that the United States extinguish title to Federal Lands and turn them over to the state to manage by the end of 2014. There are a number or resources on the internet to get more background on the ACT and find out what other western states are doing at www.americanlandscouncil.org.
This week on the County Seat we ask, What is the status of Transfer of Public Lands in Utah?
A number of organizations such as, National Association of Counties, The National Republican Committee, and a number of States have passed resolutions in favor of Transfer of Public Lands.
We also had an opportunity to talk to two professors from the University of Utah about the constitutional and political issues involved in a transfer of public lands.
Chad’s Reaction to the Discussion

I have followed the movement of the transfer of public lands since it first came up in a discussion with then candidate Gary Herbert in 2004 when he was running against John Huntsman for Governor. He thought the “equal footing” clause of the constitution deserved a review in the case of Utah. From there the Take Back Utah Movement and the success of those rallies emboldened the Utah Legislature to back a bill by Representative and Utah attorney Ken Ivory to test the constitutionality of our enabling act and the promise that all states were to be equal partners in the Union. From the day that bill was passed groups started to line up on one side of the issue or the other. Those who championed a change, and those (most of them with roots in Washington) who thought the notion preposterous.
Both sides of this argument contend that the language of the enabling act support their position. On one hand the act says that the state is to extinguish all title to the land, on the other hand it states clearly that the federal government is supposed to dispose of the land. That is why states to the east of Utah have little federal land compared to the western states, because the federal government did dispose of those lands. It should be pointed out however, that the government originally resisted doing so in the case of Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and it took an act of congress to make it happen. True, most of the land in those states went directly to individuals via land sales or homesteading and not to the state, but the action of congress clearly acknowledged the obligation of the federal government to do so.
The big change came in 1976 with the passage of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act. The mission on non designated federal land was changed from disposal to retention, the law reversed the default status of public land. If we were acquiring new territory and admitting new states into the union, I could see the enabling documents reflecting that change and for the most part it could be accepted. However, in this case a commitment was made prior to FLPMA so it raises the question: should it be honored.
As professor Chambliss pointed out that in the context of current federal law, the notion of disposal does not fit with the current view of federal power and supremacy over state law. However, if we are going to argue context, look at the context of the original framers of the constitution. They were very concerned about the ability for a state to be sovereign if the federal government is a major land owner in the state, hence the District of Columbia not being part of any state. They were obviously concerned enough about it through the admission of states in the lower 48 to keep that language as part of the enabling documents.
So the question really boils down to which prism do we peer through when we look at this situation. Do we view it from where we are today and what powers we have granted to the federal government (or as some would think abdicated to them) or do we look at it through the prism of when the solemn contract was made at the time of statehood.
Ken Ivory and a federalist law group have both analyzed the Transfer of public Land Act and contend there is a logical path of precedent that given a reasonable interpretation of the contract, constitution and case law would support the transfer. However, It has never actually been tested in court (the prior challenge for the states I named above was settled in congress). It would require the court linking together a variety of precedent setting decisions to make the case stick.
I think for the proponents who are now spread far and wide with 5 western states following Utah’s lead, and endorsements from the National Association of Counties and the National Republican Party they assume it is a done deal. That might be a little optimistic. However, the growing number of critics should not think that it is out of the question just because the federal agencies don’t think they have an obligation to move it along (we don’t have to, we’re the feds). I do however think that the current administration is taking this challenge seriously as they seem to be determined to create as many national monuments out west as they can. This would move land from the undesignated column to the designated column possibly taking those lands off the table for transfer.
This play is still very much in motion.
Just my thoughts. Your thoughts are welcome.

http://thecountyseat.tv/tag/public-lands/