Skip to comments.Texas Rancher Discovers $2M Marijuana Growing Operation on His Land
Posted on 07/04/2014 3:11:31 PM PDT by Biggirl
A Texas man who was just hoping to graze cattle on the land he recently acquired was surprised to discover $2 million worth of marijuana plants growing in a back-woods area.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Virtually all of his land could potentially be seized and sold. Don’t know what I’d do. Burn it myself, I suppose.
He should have known, what with the rural 7-11 in the next field, the one that outsold the busiest 7-11 in Dallas, particularly in ‘salty snacks’!
That rancher is more likely to have his ass put in a ringer for grazing his cattle than anything happening to whoever planted the marijuana, considering it was likely the much vaunted “dreamers” that were running that operation.
Thank-you for mentioning your comment.
I doubt it myself since the TX LE folks are so overwhelmed with heavy influx of illegals coming into the country right now.
No, not really, go down a few postings to find out why.
Did he burn the field?
The rancher goes to burn it and gives everyone downwind for 3 counties a contact Buzz.
If it were me, I’d probably stakeout the area, lie in wait, and then shoot the dopehead dregs when they came back to check on their illicit crop.
“Boys? DO them steers sound funny to you?”
“Now that you mention it, boss, yeah, they do.”
“YOu ask me, it sounds like they’ve left mooin’ and are saying something ... sounds like, ‘Oh, wow.’”
“Boys, we’re in trouble.”
There were two military installations in the central Texas area that had marijuana plants growing in remote areas. One had a sophisticated watering system with underground pipes. Got caught when the guard put up new fences after 9/11.
Another article on this said he was leasing the land from the Corps of Engineers for grazing. Looks like the government will have to seize the land.....from itself.
Upon further investigation deputies say they discovered approximately 5,500 marijuana plants
with the help of the DPS' Special Crime Unit and their Air Wing Unit, as the area was not accessible
by vehicle. Deputies called for additional support once the magnitude of the growing operation was
realized. The plants were in various stages of growth and it appeared that the operation had been
in process for some time.
I have a green thumb. Plants and animals like me.
>Burn it myself, I suppose.
One joint at a time.
And cook me a mess of desert turtle meat over the rest.
What if the authorities had found it first?
“Sorry ’bout that, boys. Next time, get your own land.”
By whom? Do you mean the feds? If so, please consider the following.
As a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, and regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everbody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate either intrastate commerce or agricultural production. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from pre-FDR era Supreme Court case opinions.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
Otherwise, yes, the feds can seize and sell the land because of the marijuana. But the only reason that they would get away with doing so is because probably the vast majority of low-information voters do not understand that the states have never given the corrupt feds the power regulate / prohibit intrastate marijuana production.
In fact, note that the only reason that the feds once prohibited the intrastate production of booze is because the states ratified the 18th Amendment (18A) to the Constitutiion which gave Congress the power to make such production illegal. (Note that the states later repealed 18A when they ratified the 21st Amendment.) The tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause by FDR's puppet justices aside, the feds actually need an amendment like 18A to do the same thing with marijuana imo.
Wickard v Fishburn..
Yep, that's the response that FDR's court-packing threat elicited from the Supremes: turning the Interstate Commmerce Clause on its head to justify almost every liberal expansion of the federal government that followed from then until this day.
Beware even though it was reported, the gov’t may still use this opportunity to confiscate the land...Just Saying!
In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was necessary and proper to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit [emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as production, manufacturing, and mining were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR's justices had watered the 10th Amendment down to a wives' tale imo.
Hay, I got the burn (maryjoowanna) part right.
I thought you were referring to Lawrence Fishburne.
Hahahahaha! Hardly. That's merely a Jose and Cousin Juan turning a quick dime operation. No, an elaborate growing operation is in a temperature controlled building with grow lights and armed guards. A couple years ago in the states of Washington and Oregon, the National Park rangers put out notices and reports on tv and newspapers for tourists not to venture off the paths or they'd get shot by the marijuana growers. Illegals, of course.
“Tee for Texas, Tee for THC......”
No worries. When Governor Moonbeam was doing his original
term in the ‘70s he bought some property in the woods in
my part of CA. The hippies were growing pot there back
then and the debate was whether or not Gov Brown knew
about it. Bet he has a commercial operation these days.
If they want his land, it's entirely likely.
It's happened before.
And that, my FRiend, is the beauty of asset forfeiture laws. You don't need to be (and probably won't be) charged with anything. If they want your land, they just take it. It's up to you to prove your innocence to get it back.
Does away with all that pesky "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" business.
Of course, if they don't really want your land, you're golden.
As for all that stuff about corruption, yeah, so what's your point?
then again i may be one of the few that live in a county where that kind of corruption never got it's foot in the door