Wilkie v Frank Robbins Case: Right to exclude argued

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

[NonValueAdded]

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

au contraire, it would seem to me that racketeering and extortion is an apt description of overzealous regulatory actions. When malice can be proved, the full weight of the law including RICO provisions should fall on the bureaucrats.

[Just sayin]

I am no legal beagle so would any paticular ruling in this case affect private property rights to the tune of being able to exclude non smokers from a bar (by the bar's owner) in order to combat smoking bans in private businesses and even private clubs?

I know it is a loooong stretch, but it was an idea that popped into my head and I had a question so I thought I would ask.

[HardStarboard]

Well, if the bar owner excludes non-smokers, and the Gummint excludes smokers, bidness is gonna get purtty slim.

Thats my take, and I'm stickin to it

[archy]

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

It gives some folks the opportunity to treat them like Nazis.

[archy]

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

Hats off to the seamless correction by the Sidebar Moderator, or whoever. I glitched it.

[Who is John Galt?]

The American public would probably be astounded by how common such abuses of power have become within the BLM. I know a retired federal LEO who was present at a meeting on November 17, 1994, where Mr. Bill Calkins, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Director (and supposed 'civil servant'), stated the following:

"Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives."

Think about exactly what that means. That's a direct quote, written down by the retired LEO, who was physically present at the meeting. The same gentleman told me that the most amazing thing (to him) was that the BLM State Director didn't think twice about making that statement in a room literally full of federal LEOs. That's how pervasive the corruption has become within BLM: many of the managers think that violating the law and the regs is no big deal ('business as usual,' in fact)...

[Who is John Galt?]

By the way, in June 2007, the black-robe-wearing denizens of the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the 'civil servants' of the BLM, and threw Mr. Robbins under the bus:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-219.pdf

Why? Because they were worried that too many Americans might have cause to file suit against various federal agencies (including the BLM) - and the justices didn't want those Americans to clog the courts in defense of their constitutional rights...