(no subject)
SO while reading the paper here at work, I come across the editorials, I read this gem.
For those who don't like hyperlinks, or whatever, I'll sumerize. Rancher gets easement from Bureau of Land Management, then sells the land, due to clerical error the easement is never recorded at the BLM, so the buyer gets the land free and clear. However then the BLM decides that they want their easement, when they are turned away due to lack legal standing, they begin a harassment campaigne. Now it's gone up to the Supreme Court.
The case that the government is this, representitives of the US Government really don't have to bother with the Fifth Ammendment, they are perfectly in their rights to harass someone who doesn't grab their ankles for them anytime they want something. (yes I'm paraphrasing)
Am I the only one here who sees something off with this case?
I'll be adding more to this when I have more time to do so.
For those who don't like hyperlinks, or whatever, I'll sumerize. Rancher gets easement from Bureau of Land Management, then sells the land, due to clerical error the easement is never recorded at the BLM, so the buyer gets the land free and clear. However then the BLM decides that they want their easement, when they are turned away due to lack legal standing, they begin a harassment campaigne. Now it's gone up to the Supreme Court.
The case that the government is this, representitives of the US Government really don't have to bother with the Fifth Ammendment, they are perfectly in their rights to harass someone who doesn't grab their ankles for them anytime they want something. (yes I'm paraphrasing)
Am I the only one here who sees something off with this case?
I'll be adding more to this when I have more time to do so.