Unless they paid more taxes or something, the adjacent land
owners have no more of a possession / ownership / or right to
enter the HNF property than any other taxpayer. Logistics has
nothing to do with it. The right of the government to "own" land
is one thing; the right of taxpayers to enjoy that public
property is quite another - my issue is the latter. I am as much
against big govt "owning" land as the next good libertarian, but
to not be allowed to enjoy what I was forced to pay for is the
worst of both worlds. Libertarian / Constitutional / and NAP
property rights include the right who has paid in to be able to
have access to the collectively-owned property.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
-------------------------
Mark, posseion and use is nine tenths of the law, I think those
living around the Forest may have the most valid claim to the
Forest
which would include keeping people out or tresspassing if their
cliam
trumps the Federal governments claim and this may include
trumping
federal taxpayers claim. I say may because I do not know enough
detail. Here in South East Tennessee we have The Cherokee
National
Forest and further up The Great Smoky Mountain National Park. I
do
not think the federal government has a valid cliam on either, the
local residence which would include the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee
has the most valid claim because of occupancy, use and long
historical cliams and use by ancestors, the Federal government
used
eminet domain and various other unjust means to take over the
land,
locals have a right to shut down the Smoky Mt. Park and the
Cherokee
Forest to outsiders if they want and not admit the federal
government, Rangers and other federal employees that live on the
site
and use the park I think should be included in the valid
claim.--- In
[email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am being deprived of my property rights by the Federal Govt
> (Hoosier National Forest). There is a 40 acre tract of national
> forest land that is landlocked and has no legal access. I want
to
> be able to get onto this parcel of public property that I have
> paid taxes for. None of the adjacent landowners allow access
from
> theirs. I have complained to more than a few HNF employees and
> they all say I am out of luck; there's nothing they can do.
Most
> of them end up asking me why I want to gain access! I am
> scheduled to speak with the next higher-up on Friday. I am
ready
> to demand entry to the property or threaten to call the ACLU.
> What would you do?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
