What's new
By:
Guest viewing is limited

FL Citrus growers fire on Pheds

Originally posted by OliverClozoff:
I'm not going to debate with an idiot whom will never know true freedom, if this constitutional issue is foreign to you you should have kept your **** out of it for you know nothing of my rights nor have the strength to argue about them neither for or against
Click to expand...

Oliver, we won't have any of that here. Please refrain from such attacks in the future? You were doing quite well in debating this issue up to this point in this particular thread without resorting to such wording. Please curb the outbursts, mmmkay?
wink.gif


----------------------------
Alien - Administrator / Owner
["Everything was true. God was an alien. Oz really is over the
rainbow. ...and Midian is where the monsters live." -Nightbreed]
 
I never said the disease had any impact on humans or animals. However, it does have an effect on other trees.

You are within your rights in not allowing government inspectors onto your property to stop the flow of a disease? I would debate that.

I don't allow governments to walk all over me. I know my rights. However, I don't view the refusal to allow government inspectors onto my property, when they are fully within the law and their rights to do so, as my right.

Originally posted by OliverClozoff:
Here in America we still live under the assumption that we have rights and as long as we have the documents to prove it we will fight for them.
/
Click to expand...

Oh, puh-lease. You're saying I should read the whole American constitution before I debate this, and then you don't even research that Australia is a democracy? Australians have rights. Americans have rights. Some people just get warped ideas of what their rights are.
 
I don't expect your to do the research unless you fully believe you are correct and begin to doubt yourself. I merely think you fail to see the difference between our 2 societies, our forefathers abhorred democracy and warned of the impending perils of such should they adopt a democracy instead of a republic.

And yes I know Aussies have rights as a democracy, and they are not entirely dissimilar but they are not entirely the same. If anything I'll educate you and others in these differences and why my comments hold true.

Here in America we are fully within our rights to refuse to allow government inspectors onto our property disease or not, especially when not life threatening.

This is not a debate on morals or life safety.
If it were I hope you understand, I would allow government presence as would many others, and they would surely have better informed the public in that case.

However the American government without due process and probable cause as outlined in the 4th, 5th, and 11th amendments have no right to enter our properties at all. These issues are strongly outlined in our Constitution.

So strongly felt as important, that our founding Fathers knew firearm ownership to be the ONLY true means to remain free, be safe, and secure in our homes. They also felt so strongly about this, that they made it the 2nd in our list of amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. This keeps us equal with not one having more power over the other.

Simply owning a tree is not probable cause.

To know tree ownership exists shows they have trespassed upon our land.

Seizure of personal property without due compensation is theft.

The right to protect our property by force if necessary keeps us equals.

Summation:
Search and seizure of personal property for the better good of industry falls no where in the governments authority at any time.

My comments are justified by the knowledge that they are actively trespassing and illegally removing our property on a daily basis which shows premeditated intent to commit trespass and theft on their part. And this gives us the right to protest and protect our property. Any American CAN and should deny access to our land and properties by the government as it is our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

<font color="#000000">[Edited by OliverClozoff on October 24, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
 
Your whole argument seems to be relying on three parts of the US Constitution.
Can you post those, as I'd like to see that.

Seizure of personal property without due compensation is theft? Maybe so. But in that case, shouldn't you be calling a lawyer and going for the compensation rather than grabbing a shotgun and going blasto?

The fact that they are coming onto your property, be it legal or illegal, does not justify the use of violence. In that situation, if it hurts you so much, there is one avenue that can be justified - the courts.
 
I was wondering if and when anyone was going to mention the court system...
smile.gif


----------------------------
My knob tastes funny.
 
Originally posted by PsychoticIckyThing:

Seizure of personal property without due compensation is theft? Maybe so. But in that case, shouldn't you be calling a lawyer and going for the compensation rather than grabbing a shotgun and going blasto?

The fact that they are coming onto your property, be it legal or illegal, does not justify the use of violence. In that situation, if it hurts you so much, there is one avenue that can be justified - the courts.
Click to expand...

I never grabbed that old shot gun and have not attempted any form of vigilantism.

It's obvious in this chain of events I was not at my home when my rights were violated, and upon research of the situation the DOA had no warrant to enter my property through a locked gate which means they usurped the entire legal process and avoided the courts that they should have first gone through to enter said property.

Sadly I was no awake to the violations as they happened and did not even get the opportunity to fight for my rights (with force if needed). The damage done, now the time has come to enter the venue of the courts on my end and my day will come where I shall confront those who have violated my rights.

The DOA who first skipped that little step of the judicial system and the court's, performed an illegal search and seizure.

They have no warrant on file nor any executive order let alone one that lists my address.

My rights have been violated and sadly that will be for the courts to decide. Another debate I don't have the urge to even rant upon at this moment.

As for the parts of the American constitution that justify my claims I could cut and paste them here but likely as this forum has shown I would be accused of using only the parts that pertain to my argument, I'll gladly point you to several reputable resources for the American constitution if you like.
 
Probably fair enough.
But, back to the original topic, which was whether Carl Lawson was justified in attacking a DOA inspector. Was he justified? No. Did the DOA have a right to be there? Debatable. But if you've got such a problem with it, why not call your lawyer?
 
One would like to think that in this century we would live peacefully together, it doesn't happen, I would have used passive and less debatable legal methods myself had I been here when the inspectors and removal teams came.

Carl could have used these as well, but was within his rights to do things his way as well. Should he have tried to remove him without force first, probably but he did not, this is a very emotional issue especially for those who understand their constitutional rights.

I have contacted lawyers and have two working on this, others have as well, and currently there is possible class action suit in progress, and organized boycott has been formed and numerous City, State, and Federal representatives have been contacted on this issue.

Our governor here in FL states publicly "Someone has to make these tough decisions" when asked to comment on the constitutional violations. This in itself is **** near an admission of guilt as he bypassed due process of law.

Carl Lawson has not been back in the news, did he lose his tree? probably, was he detained, probably, and if he was his case is actually stronger than most.

If this issue ever see's the court you obviously see as well as I do that while a precedent may be set there is hardly a chance to win against a government full of representatives who themselves elected officials don't even understand fully our constitutional rights.

It's a sad state that popularity and one or two key issues will get someone elected.

This issue will not Get Jeb Bush re-elected I could almost guarantee this will be his only and last term in office, at a minimum this issue affects 70% of the population in the eradication zone and it has upset people as far north as the state line and has begun to cross the state line. Politically it's disastrous, emotionally it's draining, and there will be more like Carl Lawson (who was the third to do so and deemed newsworthy) who protect their property with force because of this issue.

I'm sure I'm still not back on topic but to tell truth I'm actually getting tired of the battle, hence the handoff to even slower to respond lawyers.


.
 
Just say for a minute that such a move by the government happens to be illegal. Then how does that possibly give him the right to attack the inspectors? There's a simple answer. It doesn't.
 
One last shot at this one it is getting old

He has the right to protect his property, land, and possesions including the agriculture. It's that simple.

Was force necessary? I cant speak for his situation I was not present, but I would guess that it wasn't.

At 90 he prolly has lost some of his mental capacity and didnt think to clearly. Whose to say?

In a typical situation the mere mention of a firearm would have been enough I would think, and if he was served proper paper work,(which I doubt he was as most people havent been) he could have said "this says I have 5 days to appeal and I plan to, please now leave"

There's only one problem with that too, these tree nazis dont care, they work in one area until it's clean, and as he drove off to file his appeal (which in itself takes probably about 10 days in actuality to be heard) they would be in his yard violating his rights once again, this time only without his presence.

Did the media perceive a firearm presence as an attack? Or a true act of violence? This too is a detail we dont know for sure it's one large movement against a single man, and in US media it doesn't take much to become an issue.

Right to attack? only those present at the time could say, and it's obvious who was present, it's doubtful any one able to represent or witness ~for~ him was present at the time.

Right to protect his proeprty? yes!


and we have come full circle
.........(record begins to skip now)

<font color="#000000">[Edited by OliverClozoff on October 26, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
 
His right to defend his property does not extend to the use of a firearm. If he is so desperate to defend his property, even if he is ninety, then he should be doing so through the courts, as you say many others have done, in reasonable fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top