The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Update on Common Law Grand Juries

Last Saturday there was a successful effort made to fully constitute a Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ) in all of Maine's counties, making Maine the tenth state to become fully constituted. I was there to participate in this action, and met some very interesting and well informed patriots who were willing to step forward and make this happen.

The current list of ten fully constituted states is as follows:

FULLY CONSTITUTED STATES
10 States have constituted the Administration of the Common Law Jury in all counties.


New York 2-27-14
Florida 3-15-14
Connecticut 3-15-14
Rhode Island 3-15-14
New Jersey 3-22-14
New Hampshire 3-29-14
Arizona 3-31-14
Massachusetts 4-1-14
Maryland 4-5-14
Maine 4-12-14

[Danny B]

New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy | A Lightning War for Liberty

I just got a notice from Coos County, Oregon;

"The proposed amendment
allows governmental entities or entities with the power of eminent domain to submit a land use application without the property oners signature"

http://www.co.coos.or.us/Portals/0/Planning/AM-14-05/Hearing%20notice.pdf

[dutchdivco]

Interesting how words,

can effect thinking; Rick started this thread, ages ago, and i've been following it for a decently long time, talking about "The American Ruling Class".

And, in the last year or so, I've been hearing this term "Oligarchy", used by mainstream media to describe mostly eastern European (and Russia) style of Government. They aren't 'communist', anymore, not like the Soviet Union).

Russia, in particular, has this "oligarchy" of super rich, who do as they please, are 'in cahoots' with whoevers in charge, (kind of organised corruption), and, being 'friends' of the leader, get all sorts of 'sweetheart deals', and THEY all get incredibly, filthy rich.

Not like U.S. of coarse! (sic) Here we call it 'crony capitalism'; Most Congressmen Millionaires, Harry Reed behind the business in Nevada, and on and on. So yes, U.S. is indeed a 'Oligarchy', or Russia has crony capitalism. And we see it all over the world, Middle East, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia; The Rich and powerful USE their riches and power to become MORE rich and powerful, by corrupting/co-opting Government officials.

As has been pointed out, they have 'co-opted' the media, by consolidating under big multinational corps, with their agenda, so something is only News if it suits their interest.

I don't know, theres just something about seeing "U.S. is an oligarchy', that caused something in my rattled brain to go 'click'. Jim

[aljhoa]

Agenda 21

"The proposed amendment
allows governmental entities or entities with the power of eminent domain to submit a land use application without the property oners signature"
http://www.co.coos.or.us/Portals/0/P...g%20notice.pdf

Eminent domain (United States, the Philippines), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (South Africa, Canada) is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government.
Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.


The principal dissent was issued on 25 June 2005 by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

the decision eliminates

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[THEminoly]

can effect thinking; Rick started this thread, ages ago, and i've been following it for a decently long time, talking about "The American Ruling Class".

And, in the last year or so, I've been hearing this term "Oligarchy", used by mainstream media to describe mostly eastern European (and Russia) style of Government. They aren't 'communist', anymore, not like the Soviet Union).

Russia, in particular, has this "oligarchy" of super rich, who do as they please, are 'in cahoots' with whoevers in charge, (kind of organised corruption), and, being 'friends' of the leader, get all sorts of 'sweetheart deals', and THEY all get incredibly, filthy rich.

Not like U.S. of coarse! (sic) Here we call it 'crony capitalism'; Most Congressmen Millionaires, Harry Reed behind the business in Nevada, and on and on. So yes, U.S. is indeed a 'Oligarchy', or Russia has crony capitalism. And we see it all over the world, Middle East, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia; The Rich and powerful USE their riches and power to become MORE rich and powerful, by corrupting/co-opting Government officials.

As has been pointed out, they have 'co-opted' the media, by consolidating under big multinational corps, with their agenda, so something is only News if it suits their interest.

I don't know, theres just something about seeing "U.S. is an oligarchy', that caused something in my rattled brain to go 'click'. Jim

Yup...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvJ1ZuJDNbQ

Also,
wouldn't Mr Bundy's use of squatters rights mean he would have to acknowledge the feds have some sort of jurisdiction here? Correct me if i'm wrong, I thought the point was to keep the feds out...

[Allcanadian]

I didn't realize things were getting that bad down south. I mean it's bad enough the U.S. has severe water issues but now they seem to be fighting over what many would consider as a semi-desert region.

I think the real problem is the one nobody wants to talk about which is the fact there are just too many people who have no real purpose and money has little or nothing to do with purpose. A man can be very wealthy but have no real purpose unless something in the way of advancement or improvement is involved. In this respect we could say over 90% of the population are simply gears in the machinery supporting each others needs.

Which begs the question, if the whole of a society is completely preoccupied with only their self-interests and the population is growing at viral rates consuming all the resources then who will say ... No?. Who will say no you obviously cannot manage your own affairs and are self-destructive in your nature therefore we must institute a measure of control. I think it's wonderful that many here may believe they have the right to do whatever they please which includes there right to destroy the planet in the pursuit of there own self-interests but it has to end at some point.

We all know it must end at some point don't we?, I mean does anyone here really think this BS can continue. The fact of the matter is that the people have spoken through their own actions and their future will be not unlike Soylent Green unless mother nature intervenes.

So do not despair that some farmers rights may be trampled as it is just the tip of the iceberg, an iceberg you have created through your own actions. The simple fact is that we cannot retain our rights and freedoms if we continue to breed out of control and consume all the resources on this planet. It is not an option and it will get much worse in the near future especially after the U.S. economy implodes.

AC

[aljhoa]

an iceberg you have created through your own actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvJ1ZuJDNbQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=89

AMENDMENT QUESTION! "GO F%#K YOURSELF"! - YouTube


Al

[Farmhand]

I just got to thinking about whether or not Clive Bundy may actually be able to press a claim to ownership of the land which he has been using to graze his cattle. He may well have a legal right to claim this land under the law of Squatter's Rights, which appears to remain valid in nearly all the states. Here's a basic description of such rights:
-----------------------------------------------------------
squatter's right (noun, Law, Informal) "A claim to real property [real estate], especially public land, that may be granted to a person who has openly possessed and continuously occupied it without legal authority for a prescribed period of years."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sound familiar? Bundy has grazed his cattle on public Nevada land for a long time, and in open defiance of government orders to either pay grazing fees or shut down his cattle ranching operation. Remaining on land that one does not own without permission from the owner of that land is what legally defines a person as a "squatter." And if that squatter is known by the owner to be using the property, for any purpose, without the owner's consent, and uses the property for at least the required number of years stated in a state's law, then the squatter meets the requirements to lay claim to the land. The only recourse the owner can use to prevent such a claim from succeeding is to either have the squatter legally evicted from the property before such time as the squatter meets the required time interval to lay his claim, or (in some states such as here in Maine) the owner can have a sheriff post a legal notice at several places of high visibility on his property which forbids any such squatter's claim to be made. Such notice would have to be posted for a certain period of time (I think it is 30 days here in Maine) before the owner is protected against such a claim, and since the posting would immediately alert the squatter of the owner's intentions, the squatter could immediately file his claim if he has already met the requirements. Therefore, the owner would actually have no recourse unless such a posting, or eviction action, was carried out before the squatter met the requirements. You see, the reason why a squatter is afforded such rights is that he legally becomes what is called a "tenant at will" if he remains upon land, or in any building on that land, which is owned by someone else, without permission of the owner. And if the owner does not take legal steps to have that unwanted person evicted then the law says that the owner is tacitly in agreement that the squatter has a legal right to remain upon and later lay claim to the land when the required time period has passed.

Bundy has been using this property for many years, so would certainly meet the time requirement, whatever it may be in Nevada. And squatter's rights apply to public land as equally as they do to private property. Squatter's rights laws were first recognized and utilized in the United States around 1855, and have remained as viable law ever since.

Rickoff, I don't think Bundy can claim squatters rights because he has never
had "exclusive use" of the land, the public has always used it as well as far as I can tell.

eg. at this property there is a unused lane way "council land" that we graze
our goats on and have been for some years now, the lane way is obsolete,
the old laws "still valid" say we can claim the land after 12 years or something
like that because we have improved and used land that is not being used and
will not be needed in future for the original purpose it was intended to serve.
This is only possible because we fenced it in and have exclusive use and
maintain it ie. clearing weeds and improving the land back to closer to natural
than it was before, the council had abandoned it and it was over grown with
Lantana which is a foreign weed as well as other non native vegetation. The
land was inaccessible and unused for years before we got here, and being
that it borders our land we had to maintain it to prevent the spread of weeds
to our own property. it could be said the council was derelict in it's duty to
maintain the land in such close proximity to dwellings and private land.

Bundy may have sunk wells and so forth but has he ever taken control of the
property in question for his exclusive use ? I think this is an important aspect
to squatters rights.

Use it or lose it laws, I can't remember the exact name for it but I'll look.

Basically as it stands here my understanding is that if we find a piece of public
land and make exclusive use of it for 12 years or more then we can claim the
deed in court for that land under such "use it or lose it laws".

Either way we are using it and it is fenced by electric fences. I plan to use
even more, it's only an acre or so, but it joins two blocks of private land.

If Bundy claimed the land then he would need to pay land taxes for it ect.
much easier and probably cheaper to just use it as he is.

Cheers

P.S. We have no actual intention of claiming the land, and maybe in the future
the Gov. will want it back or try to sell it, if we want to prevent that we
would need to gain title over it beforehand. Makes sense to me. Shouldn't
need to though. And who knows if the next gov. will be proper fascists or not
anyway and do whatever they can get away with anyway. Almost all our guns
were destroyed so they won;t need to worry about that.

..

[rickoff]

Wouldn't Mr Bundy's use of squatters rights mean he would have to acknowledge the feds have some sort of jurisdiction here? Correct me if i'm wrong, I thought the point was to keep the feds out...

The land in question is Nevada public land, so is publicly owned by all Nevadans, and has nothing to do with the feds other than their contrived claim to be "managing the land" through BLM, and "protecting" the desert tortoise. Furthermore, keep in mind that the federal "government," and any of its agencies, has no constitutional jurisdiction over anything outside the 10 mile square of Washington DC.

Squatter's rights may in fact be a moot question, though, because in order to claim that right Bundy would have had to occupy the land for a number of years in a defiant and adversary relationship to the owner. If the owner gave him permission to use the land, then there can be no claim. Evidently, the Nevada governor has now stated that Bundy has complied with Nevada laws, has obtained the state's permission to use the land, and is up to date on paying any associated permit and land use fees that were due the state. The fees which he has refused to pay are the ones which were wrongfully imposed upon him by the BLM for the intended purpose of driving him off the land by making it unaffordable for him to stay. In other words, the BLM wanted Bundy to pay them to drive him out, along with his previous rancher neighbors. Crazy, huh?

@Farmhand: In your state, there may be an "exclusive use" clause tied to making a squatter's claim, but in most other states that doesn't appear to be the case. Here in Maine it is not. I own a 22 acre parcel of land here, of which 20 acres is wooded. If someone goes into my woods, cuts some trees, builds a cabin, and lives there without permission to do any of this then that person is a squatter. That's my land, and only I have the exclusive use rights to farm the land, harvest timber from it, build structures upon it, or to occupy any such structures. For the squatter to file a claim on the land he is using, he would have to prove that he has continuously used the land for a certain number of years in defiance of my request that he cease and desist from such use. Knowing that a squatter could make such a claim, I can't imagine why anyone would allow such a trespass to continue without a legal remedy (eviction, criminal charges, restitution for property damages and legal fees). I would imagine that there are very few cases in which such a claim is successful. The land within your property bounds which used to be a public way of thoroughfare, or whatever, could probably be claimed by you if allowed by state law, but would not be considered a squatter's rights case. Even though you have used and maintained that parcel, and erected a fence around it, there would be nothing adversarial about that use unless the town, which evidently has ownership, had noticed your use and asked you to cease such use, after which you defiantly continued using it. They're probably happy to see that someone is maintaining the property, and because of the narrow bounds of the old thoroughfare, it would not qualify as land that the town could sell to anyone. I'm sure they would be most pleased if you pursued a legal inclusion of the strip to your property, as then they could tax you for the additional land size, so there wouldn't be much point in you pursuing it. There's a similar old thoroughfare along the northern border of my property which can still be walked but has some downed trees across it and some smaller trees and bushes growing inside it. I'm planning to clear the path of obstructions and use it to gain access to my land with my tractor, as otherwise I would have to build a bridge across the stream which divides my property. Might as well make use of an old roadway that is already there. It runs along the town line, so I'm not certain whether my town or the bordering town (or both) actually own it, or if it was considered a private or shared private road that remained a part of my and my neighbor's land, or reverted to such ownership at some point in time. I'd have to do some research at the registry of deeds, and through old town records (if they still have them) to determine this.

[Allcanadian]

squatter's right (noun, Law, Informal) "A claim to real property [real estate], especially public land, that may be granted to a person who has openly possessed and continuously occupied it without legal authority for a prescribed period of years."

Can anyone see a problem here?, first this is like asking to borrow your neighbor's shovel and then ten years later saying well no it's not your shovel anymore it's mine which is absurd in my opinion. It shows a complete lack of respect and consideration as well as a twisted sense of entitlement on the part of the individual. As well it is completely outdated in our modern world and only applied when land was plentiful with few people to occupy the land which is obviously not the case today.

The fact of the matter is that if anyone has not paid for something in full or earned it through a service having an equivalent value to the owner then why would anyone in their right mind believe they are entitled to anything?. Personally I find most peoples twisted sense of entitlement offensive and I don't see the government as the enemy as they are supposed to be acting in our best interests. This is not to say there will not be bad people within any level of government however we should never confuse the two.

The people I do not trust are the lawyers and corporate people because we can be almost 100% sure they are putting their self-interests above all others. In any case I see all this as nothing more than a classic case of "The pot calling the kettle black" because all parties concerned really don't give a damn about what is in our best interests in a larger sense only their own.

As well let's face reality here if these rights were universal and timeless then all American's and Canadians would be homeless. We took the land by force and enslaved the native population in semi-concentration camps which is a fact beyond reproach. As such I find the hypocritical self-serving attitude of most who believe they are entitled to something for nothing offensive to say the least.

AC

[Allcanadian]

Let's look at the facts, the real facts, of why everyone here is clinically insane following the rule that the only one's who are truly insane are the one's who believe they are not in some way... I am insane.

Where do you come from?
What is your history?

Now to understand this we have to look past the narrow minded thinking we have been taught and take a more universal perspective. Where do we come from, what is our history?, well we came over in boats and then started killing any of the native population that did not agree with our ways. The rest were basically enslaved and placed in concentration camps while we looted and plundered the natural resources. Which is odd isn't it when considering that so many people speak of their nation as being proud and free and standing for human rights when in fact their history is based on nothing less than a barbaric form of terrorism.

So how does one rationalize this? well we say that these things happened long ago so let's just pretend it didn't happen. We will just embrace a make believe world where we are the pillars of moral fortitude in this universe despite the fact our actions throughout our real history paint a very different picture. We will just ignore all the bad things we have done and continue to do on a daily basis and create a make believe world where we can do no wrong and are not responsible for anything.

You see my problem is that a while back I came to a sort of universal understanding of how the primary fields work and in fact what they are. At which point many things started making perfect sense as all the random dots of knowledge became connected. I felt a strange sense of connection with the universe as I looked outward to the heavens finally understanding where we are and what we are and how things work. Then I looked inward and to be honest what I found was disturbing.

I understand almost nobody will have a clue what I'm talking about so let's do a thought experiment. You are now an entity looking down on our world examining what we do and why we do it and see yourself "down there"... think about that. What motivates you?, what is your purpose?, I mean beyond jumping the wife, your 9 to 5 job, the ball game on TV or that yard work you have neglected. Why are you here and what is your purpose?, you see in this light all this nonsense of entightlement seems rather petty doesn't it.

Now imagine we could see our history pass before us "down there". At which point I believe all this flag waving and talk of pride and freedom becomes rather a mute point because our past is based on taking from others by force and negating all the supposed rights and freedoms we speak of. You can pretend to be whatever you like but you cannot undo the past which is the foundation we stand upon.

At which point one might ask how did everything get so screwed up, why do we live in a make believe manmade world that is artificial if not completely non-existent in the rest of the known universe?. My moment of understanding was that I don't actually have to believe nor embrace the petty and completely artificial BS we have created happening all around me. I can think on a universal level rejecting the hatred, self-entitlement, the segregation of humanity and the artificial borders which do not exist in reality. I can start acting like a responsible adult, an Earthling who believes the Earth is my true home beyound the absurd notions of countries, states and cities.

You see what you reject and fear on a level you have yet to understand is that in the future we will all become so connected that borders and forced segregation will no longer be relevant. We have done it with people, it is happening to soverign countries joining one another in union and in the context of this planet it is our future. So while our thoughts and the posts here may imply an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance it is little more than noise not unlike the low hum of that bee hive in the tree outside our house.

There is another world out there on the horizon and it is the same one we live on today but it is not like the one we know. It has purpose and it has no room for the petty sense of self-entitlement shown here.

AC

[aljhoa]

There is another world out there on the horizon and it is the same one we live on today but it is not like the one we know. It has purpose and it has no room for the petty sense of self-entitlement shown here.

Europe still haunted by antisemitism
Europe still haunted by antisemitism | Human Rights Comment



Latvians honor Nazi allies from World War II By The Associated Press | Mar. 16, 2014 | 8:40 PM |
who fought alongside Nazi troops.

Latvia, which gained its independence after World War I, was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, then by Nazi Germany a year later, and again by the Soviets in 1944. The country restored its independence in 1991, after nearly five decades of Soviet occupation, in the wake of the Soviet collapse.
*Nazi allies from World War II


Al

[Allcanadian]

@aljhoa
This is a slippery slope and many religions or lifestyles define their identity through their indifference towards others. That is to say if some are not given special privileges which were expected in the past then there may be feelings of being persecuted. It may be perceived as persecution but could be simply a lack of special treatment.

Which is a way of saying if you do not do what I say and treat me special then you are a bigot and a racist which is just plain silly in my opinion. I think we all understand that the squeeky wheel always gets greased first.

AC

[aljhoa]

This is a slippery slope

How the Jews of St Eustatius saved the
American Revolution
http://www.ahava.org/SephardicPirate...tionaryWar.pdf

― Kurt Vonnegut, Bluebeard

Al

[dutchdivco]

AllCan,

Regarding your post, (We're ALL insane, etc.) I heartily agree, but I would point out your taking a 'short view' of mankinds history.
Look at it from an ARCHEOLOGICAL pespective.
'Modern' man has been on the earth for at least 100,000 years.
Civilisation, which archeologists define as when man STOPPED being hunter/gatherers, has only been around for 10-14,000 years.
As H/G's, we were at the 'top' of our 'game; we had achieved our 'level of competence', in Peter Principle terms.

No 'government', no wars, no taxes, no property disputes, no 'currency', no employment or wages, we lived in a society and lifestyle which promoted co-operation, rather than competition. In fact, you know John Lennons 'Imagine'; well, you don't have to imagine it, we HAD it. We lived in co-operation with our environment, as well.

Then, we made a collective decision, to stop h/g'ing, and'settle down' in one place. And everything devolves from that ONE decision; settlements became towns, and then cities. Governments became 'necessary', as well as property bounderies, courts, taxes, war, employment, wages, currency, competition instead of co-operation, and on and on. In short, the 'insanity' began.

All these things become inevitable, once we made that KEY decision; lifestyle dictates it, and human nature. We focus on the 'positive' results of this decision, and ignore or put up with or engage in denial of the obvious inevitable negative aspects of the results of this decision. We develop systems, to try to address the 'downsides', but that only creates MORE problems, which we then try to 'fix', which only creates MORE problems.

And, few if any want to 'give up' the supposed 'benefits' of civilisation, and go back to being H'G'ers. And so the coarse we are on is 'set', and will inevitably lead to our destruction, or at least the destruction of civilisation.

We have (in Peter principle terms) promoted ourselves to our level of incompetence, and there we will stay, until the whole thing falls apart.

The irony is, "Those who don't UNDERSTAND their history are DOOMED to repeat it! which means even after civilisation collapses under its own weight, assuming some survive, they will probably begin developing small settelments, (staying in one place, rather than hunter/gathering), which will start the whole mess up again.

As a H/G, groups must remain small, possesions are limited to what you can carry, co-operation is promoted by the lifestyle, thievery and lieing is counter-productive, sociopaths are 'expelled' from the group, and so are unlikely to reproduce, living in concert with nature is promoted.

In civilisation, just the opposite is true; the lifestyle promotes greater #'s, competition, the need for governments, armies, courts, war, currency, employment, debts, sociopaths have a survival 'advantage' and so become an ever greater percentage of the population, and on and on.

There IS no 'answer', to the problems we have created for ourselves; these 'problems' are all a direct result of this decision, 10-14,000 years ago, and NO one wants 'go back', or even appreciates the nature of the problem, or its 'cause'. IT is broken, and can't be fixed.

That such a basic 'simple' decision could have such far-reaching and inevitable consequences is mind-blowing. That the long term consequences of the decision are inevitable, and unavoidable is obvious.That we should totally fail to SEE it, is 'human nature'.

Its as if the patient has Cancer, and all the Dr.'s are standing around, debating whether they should cut the patients toenails, or give him hair cut.

Without truly recognising the true nature of the problem, and how it developed, how can you possibly 'solve' the problem?

Such is the 'archeological' perspective. ALL these 'attempts' to 'fix' things, are just 're-arranging the deck chairs, on the Titanic', and engaging in collective Denial. Or, so I see it. Jim