Please help get these on all your social sites!!!
“THIS is all about URANIUM! The feds and the BLM are working to “clear the land” for Australian Portland based, “Oregon Energy” which has big plans to mine most of the SE section of that county, where most of the URANIUM deposits are. This is big money! Why is nobody talking about this?”
Federal facility in remote southeastern BURNS, Oregon Malheur National Wildlife 187,000-acre refuge in Harney County, headquarters that has been held by called anti-government occupiers that have been for the past two weeks a growing siege staged to protest the imprisonment of two local ranchers and a federal government that they say is out of control. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt, sits in a vast high-desert basin circled. Burns, a town of 2,800 and the county seat, is 30 miles away on a narrow, two-lane road.
Please listen and share to the following interview about the Feds and BLM’S land grab for URANIUM!
UN’s own website, is a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups, in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
“Sustainable development” is the catch-phrase Beck urged his Monday evening viewers to be leery of.
In rem jurisdiction (Latin, “power about or against ‘the thing'”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction). For further reading about this at bottom of this post!
EMINENT DOMAIN. The power to take private property for public use. MacVeagh v. Multonomah County, 126 Or. 417, 270 P. 502, 507. The right of eminent domain is the right of the state, through its regular organization, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the state on account of public exigency and for the public good. Thus, in time of war or insurrection, the proper authorities may possess and hold any part of the territory of the state for the common safety; and in time of peace the legislature may authorize the appropriation of the same to public purposes, such as the opening of roads, construction of defenses, or providing channels for trade or travel. The right of society, or of the sovereign, to dispose, in case of necessity, and for the public safety, of all the wealth contained in the state, is called “eminent domain.” Jones v. Walker, 2 Paine, 688, Fed.Cas.No.7,507. Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity. It gives a right to resume the possession of the property in the manner directed by the constitution and the laws of the state, whenever the public interest requires it. Beekman v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 3 Paige, N.Y., 45, 73, 22 Am. Dec. 679. “The exaction of money from individuals under the right of taxation, and the appropriation of private property for public use by virtue of the power of eminent domain, must not be confused. In paying taxes the citizen contributes his just and ascertained share to the expenses of the government under which he lives. But when his property is taken under the power of eminent domain, he is compelled to surrender to the public something above and beyond his due proportion for the public benefit. The matter is special. It is in the nature of a compulsory sale to the state.” Black, Tax-Titles, § 3; Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 234 Ala. 249, 174 So. 516, 520. The term “eminent domain” is sometimes (but inaccurately) applied to the land, buildings, etc., owned directly by the government, and which have not yet passed into any private ownership. This species of property is much better designated as the “public domain,” or “national domain.” http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/Books/Black’s%20Law%204th%20edition,%201891.pdf
Posted on Freedom Advocates on March 3rd 2004
BREAKING: Harney Co Fire Chief Resigns. FBI Caught Posing As Militia At Local Armory
Offensive or Defensive? #OccupyMalheur Part 1
Be sure to catch part 2….. Jimmie Carter regime exposed!! The game has been ongoing for quite sometime now!
Not real big on Pete as he comes off as another “Shockjock” like Alex Jones and has a tendency to push too hard, at the wrong time. But, that’s just me….
Wednesday – 1/13/16 – Update (1) from Malheur Wildlife Refuge In Burns, Oregon – #OregonFront Pete Santilli Show
Secrecy is repugnant to a free society and the breeding ground for corruption & tyranny. I have no problem with Authority, I have a problem with TPtSB’s perceived authority.
Do you hear what I hear???? I am calling the Kings and Queens to come regain their rightful Crowns!
Johnny B of the Clan Mikel www.johnnybfrommissouri.com
This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
In rem jurisdiction
||The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide viewof the subject. (January 2013)|
In rem jurisdiction (Latin, “power about or against ‘the thing'”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction).
Within the U.S. federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immoveable property, or real property, located within the court’s jurisdiction. The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of the vessel.
Within the American state court systems, jurisdiction in rem may refer to the power the state court may exercise over real property or personal property or a person’s marital status. State courts have the power to determine legal ownership of any real or personal property within the state’s boundaries.
A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.
Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. Courts fell into the practice of styling a case not as “John Doe, Unknown owner of (Property)”, but as just “Ex Parte (property)” or perhaps the awkward “State v. (Property)”, usually followed by a notice by publication seeking claimants to title to the property; see examples below. This last style is awkward because in law, only a person may be a party to a judicial proceeding – hence the more common in personam style – and a non-person would at least have to have a guardian appointed to represent its interests, or the interests of the unknown owner.
The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.
- Case of One 1985 Nissan, 300ZX, VIN: JN1C214SFX069854, 889 F.2d 1317. 1989 case heard by the Fourth Circuit using the older naming style, because the owner was murdered before the government could arrest him on suspicion of drug trafficking.
- U. S. v. 422 Casks of Wine (1828), an early 19th-century example
- United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola (1916), brought under the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) against, not The Coca Cola Company itself, but rather “Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola”.
- United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar — Early Food and Drug Administration case.
- United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile (1926)
- United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936), a case involving contraceptives Margaret Sanger attempted to import, heard by the Second Circuit.
- United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F.Supp. 208 (W.D.N.Y. 1941)
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, the landmark 1933 ruling by John M. Woolsey that James Joyce‘s novel had sufficient literary merit to overcome its obscene portions. Upheld on appeal as United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce.
- Marcus v. Search Warrant, full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri. An unusual in rem case heard by the Supreme Court where the named object was not the seized property but the warrant under which it was seized. Since all the government agents involved were indisputably acting within the law as it stood, the only way for the petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the seizure was to name the search warrant itself as defendant.
- Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case holding seizure of allegedly obscene materials unconstitutional without prior hearing to determine obscenity.
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule prevents the forfeiture of material seized in cases where the Fourth Amendment was violated.
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts, case involving Fanny Hill, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 (full title: A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”, et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts)
- United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, an obscenity forfeiture case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, a case very similar to the above heard by the Supreme Court two years later.
- United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976). Held that the seizure provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act do not violate the Due Process Clause.
- People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991)
- R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, R.M.S. Titanic 286 F.3d 194 (2d Cir., 2002) – here distinguishing between plaintiff (company) and object, of the same name; in full the case also named persons as defendants, and identifies the object more precisely as:
- The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, its engines, tackle apparel, appurtenances, cargo, etc., located within one (1) nautical mile of a point located at 41° 43′ 32″ North Latitude and 49° 56′ 49″ West Longitude, believed to be the R.M.S. Titanic, in rem;
- United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency (2006), an asset forfeiture case based on drug law.
- United States v. 127 Shares of Stock in Paradigm Mfg., 758 F.Supp. 581. A 1990 case from California where a former spouse and children sought to recover securities allegedly purchased with the husband/father’s proceeds from drug sales.
- United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case involving eminent domain, holding that cost of replacement for taken property does not have to be calculated in its fair market value.
- United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins (9th Cir., 2008). Asset forfeiture case under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000.
- United States v. Various Pieces of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, 649 F.2d 606 (8th Cir., 1981). Company that was caught trying to sell them to the Soviets claims the long delay between seizure and forfeiture proceedings was a due process violation.
- United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton (2012). The case was brought to stop the sale of a dinosaur skeleton that had allegedly been looted from the Gobi desert in violation of Mongolian law.
Some content on this page was disabled on June 14, 2018 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from Thomson Reuters. You can learn more about the DMCA here: