Wilkie v Frank Robbins Case: Right to exclude argued

Pinedale Online! ^ | February 28, 2007 | Cat Urbigkit

[archy]

Main Story: Robbins case: Right to exclude, extortion at issue
Wilkie v Frank Robbins Case: Wyoming rancher refuses to grant BLM a right-of-way across his private land

December 4, 2006:
From ranch to sacred halls: Budd-Falen to argue in nation’s highest court

January 31, 2007:
Right to exclude argued

February 20, 2007:
Brief for the Respondent - Robbins Legal Response (60 pages, 321K PDF)

February 28, 2007:
Robbins case: Campaign of harassment detailed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Amici Curiae (Friend of the Court):
Others in support of Frank Robbins’ side of this case

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and Nevada Grazing Board
The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association represents ranching interests in Oregon. It exists to promote environmentally and socially sound industry practices, improve and strengthen the economics of the industry, and protect industry communities. The Nevada N-6 Grazing Board represents the interests of federal and other public lands ranchers in Nevada. The board advocates on their behalf to ensure that livestock grazing remains a viable use of the federal lands.

Oregon Cattlemen (159K PDF)
BRIEF OF THE OREGON CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION AND NEVADA N-6 GRAZING BOARD AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

----------------------------

New Mexico Cattle Growers Association
New Mexico Cattle Growers Association Legal Brief (32 pages, 168K PDF)
BRIEF OF THE NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION, NEW MEXICO FEDERAL LANDS COUNCIL, NEW MEXICO WOOL GROWERS, INC., GRANT COUNTY CATTLEGROWER’S ASSOCIATION, COALITION ARIZONA/NEW MEXICO COUNTIES FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND WYOMING PUBLIC LANDS COALITION AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT

----------------------------

Pacific Legal Foundation
An amici curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting Harvey Frank Robbins was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Washington Farm Bureau and the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation.

Pacific Legal Foundation (24 pages, 110K PDF)
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON FARM BUREAU, AND WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT HARVEY FRANK ROBBINS

----------------------------

Paragon Foundation
An amici curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting Harvey Frank Robbins was filed by the Paragon Foundation, Inc. a New Mexico non-profit organization created to support and advance the fundamental principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States of America. The Paragon Foundation, Inc. advocates for individual freedom, private property rights, and limited government controlled by the consent of people. The Paragon Foundation, Inc. has several thousand current or former members nationwide.

Legal Brief of the Paragon Foundation Inc. (12 pages, 86K PDF)
BRIEF OF THE PARAGON FOUNDATION, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

----------------------------

Public Lands Council
An amici curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting Harvey Frank Robbins was filed by the Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Wyoming Public Lands Coalition, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, as representatives of ranchers and cattlemen throughout the United States.

Legal Brief of the Public Lands Council et al (28 pages, 114K PDF)
BRIEF OF THE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION, WYOMING PUBLIC LANDS COALITION, OREGON CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AND NEVADA CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT

[avg_freeper]

Please change title to "Wilkie v Frank Robbins Case: Right to exclude argued"

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

The government also argued, “Government officials do not become racketeers or extortionists merely by taking overzealous regulatory actions.”

So they admit that they do take overzealous regulatory action?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

"Thrusting RICO into this context would chill government officials in a broad range of regulatory contexts from engaging in appropriate and vital regulatory actions."

Good.

[girlangler]

Ping. Saw this and thought you might find it of interest.

[Calpernia]

bump

ping

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Three cheers for property rights!

[Red Badger]

What's the difference between a "gang of thuggish criminals" and the government? The Government is the one with the biggest and most weapons...........

[lilylangtree]

Admission of guilt by govt officials, plain and simple.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

“The enormous threat of personal RICO liability was never designed to check overzealous regulation in itself."

Translation: "The law don't apply to us federal jackbooted thugs."

[Calpernia]

How about:

What's the difference between a "gang of thuggish criminals" and the government? The Government is the one with the biggest and most lawyers....

[Red Badger]

....but don't fire them...........

[Calpernia]

::rimshot::

[Enterprise]

"If we permit government officials to retaliate against citizens who choose to exercise this right [to exclude others from private property], citizens will be less likely to exclude the government, and government officials will be more included to obtain private property by means outside the Takings Clause."

Let me modify that a little because it is so powerful.

"If we permit government officials to retaliate against citizens who choose to exercise their constitutional rights, citizens will be less likely to resist the government, and government officials will more likely to retaliate against citizens by means outside of any Constitutional authority to do so."

[GrandEagle]

Government officials do not become racketeers or extortionists merely by taking overzealous regulatory action
Translation: "We are from the government and we should be able to do anything we want. You will assimilate."
Government racketeering is rampant - extortion is very common at nearly all levels.
I hope he wins.

[Enterprise]

"Sure Mr. Jones, we realize that your worked hard for your home, or vacation cottage, or your piece of forested land. But, we're from the Government, and we've decided that we want your property because we like it. So here's the deal. We're going to offer you much much less that your property is worth, and you're going to take the deal. If you don't, we're going to do some things you won't like. They aren't authorized in the Constitution, but we don't care. Go ahead and sue because we have thousands of lawyers and hundreds of billions of dollars for defense. And we won't be prosecuted either, because we're the Government. So what's your answer?"

[freekitty]

I couldn't believe that when I read it.

[GrandEagle]

exactly.
AND, if you make too big of a stink - well, it could be that you may be implicated if a drug bust. And of course, for the protection of the officers, we will have to bust your door down at 3:00am in the morning with no warning.
Now, if you mistake us for an intruder and happen to try and defend your family...well, you did point it at an officer...

[Enterprise]

That's another good point. If we, the Government, make a big stink, your life is going to be miserable is so many ways, you will stop counting. But if you make a big stink, you will do so many days in prison you will stop counting. What's your choice?

[stinkerpot65]

So, what's the point of having a Republican president if his employees act like Nazis?