What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About

[livingston]

What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law
• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law. By Kevin Cramer | RUTHFULLY YOURS

 

[spat]

What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law
• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law. By Kevin Cramer | RUTHFULLY YOURS

So none of the land was acquired via eminent domain ?

If it's "privately owned" land because the government stole it and gave it to a private owner, you can't claim the new owner should have any right to it.

 

[Phauxtoe]

they dont own the property, but the pipeline is supposed to go thru a sacred area of land and or cemetery?

My issue with this is the use of "Eminent Domain", this is a Private companies pipeline!
Eminent Domain is for the use of Public projects like Highways!
now if they offer the people a per gallon fee, that might be fair...
but if they say no, then go around!

 

[holdover]

What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law
• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law. By Kevin Cramer | RUTHFULLY YOURS

Well I guess I stand corrected if the pipeline doesn't cross their land.

 

[livingston]

So none of the land was acquired via eminent domain ?

If it's "privately owned" land because the government stole it and gave it to a private owner, you can't claim the new owner should have any right to it.

My family has 2 pipelines going through our land . one was installed in the 40's and the other in the 70's . They sit about 50 -100 ft apart. Natural gas high pressure lines . In some cases the owners got paid for the 2nd one crossing their land in others they did not. It depended how smart your (the ) lawyer was when the first contract was written. . It sits perhaps 20 feet deep and the land was first stripped of topsoil (pushed off to the side ) and replaced when the job was finished .
We were paid for a roadside building lot and so much a running foot. We have total use of the land except putting a building over the pipeline . That section is mowed every few years at no cost if it is not in agricultural production.
I feel we were not burdened by anything outside of having the land out of production for a growing season. ( About 300 ft wide strip )
The only downside is that subsoil was mixed with the topsoil . The company will fly over the pipeline I think at least once a week to monitor leaks .

 

[Paxal]

Well I guess I stand corrected if the pipeline doesn't cross their land.

To say the pipeline doesnt cross "their land" is damn perverse.

 

[holdover]

How is that?

 

[spat]

My family has 2 pipelines going through our land . one was installed in the 40's and the other in the 70's . They sit about 50 -100 ft apart. Natural gas high pressure lines . In some cases the owners got paid for the 2nd one crossing their land in others they did not. It depended how smart your (the ) lawyer was when the first contract was written. . It sits perhaps 20 feet deep and the land was first stripped of topsoil (pushed off to the side ) and replaced when the job was finished .
We were paid for a roadside building lot and so much a running foot. We have total use of the land except putting a building over the pipeline . That section is mowed every few years at no cost if it is not in agricultural production.
I feel we were not burdened by anything outside of having the land out of production for a growing season. ( About 300 ft wide strip )
The only downside is that subsoil was mixed with the topsoil . The company will fly over the pipeline I think at least once a week to monitor leaks .

It doesn't matter how little or how much it infringes on your enjoyment of your property. What matters is if the people who owned the land at the time agreed to its construction and the easment, or if they were forced into it against their will.

Once the paperwork is signed the easement becomes part of the property rights, and if future owners ever wanted them back they would need to convince the pipeline owner to sell (unlikely). But if those rights were stolen via an eminent domain process to begin with, that's more like claiming the TV you bought from a guy off the back of a truck in a dark alley is yours because you paid him for it and the people he stole it from should be SOL.

 

[holdover]

"""But if those rights were stolen via an eminent domain process to begin with, that's more like claiming the TV you bought from a guy off the back of a truck in a dark alley is yours because you paid him for it and the people he stole it from should be SOL.""


That's true in civil court, but wars don't work that way. History tells a different story about land grabs . The rule of history has always been to the victors go the spoils , might makes right. those with the guns make the rules, ect ,you get the point. We still have troops in Japan and Germany , they didn't ""give us those bases"" they were taken under force of arms.

The only thing the natives have the power to do is ask , and that's about it. they just don't have the manpower or equipment to challenge the government.

Your dealing with a system that doesn't give two fucks about right and wrong , its profit driven , its tax driven. The Whole continent was stolen , the government isn't going to just give it back . The argument is flawed because right and wrong doesn't matter in this concern at all.

Rightfully speaking , the natives have a claim from coast to coast , no doubt hands down They have a legitimate complaint .

Practically speaking, there is no way on this earth that the US is going to cede the land back to the natives, no way , not happening .

The only way the natives take it back is by force , which they cannot do .

 

[spat]

"""But if those rights were stolen via an eminent domain process to begin with, that's more like claiming the TV you bought from a guy off the back of a truck in a dark alley is yours because you paid him for it and the people he stole it from should be SOL.""


That's true in civil court, but wars don't work that way. History tells a different story about land grabs . The rule of history has always been to the victors go the spoils , might makes right. those with the guns make the rules, ect ,you get the point. We still have troops in Japan and Germany , they didn't ""give us those bases"" they were taken under force of arms.

The only thing the natives have the power to do is ask , and that's about it. they just don't have the manpower or equipment to challenge the government.

Your dealing with a system that doesn't give two fucks about right and wrong , its profit driven , its tax driven. The Whole continent was stolen , the government isn't going to just give it back . The argument is flawed because right and wrong doesn't matter in this concern at all.

Rightfully speaking , the natives have a claim from coast to coast , no doubt hands down They have a legitimate complaint .

Practically speaking, there is no way on this earth that the US is going to cede the land back to the natives, no way , not happening .

The only way the natives take it back is by force , which they cannot do .

Your absolutely correct about right of conquest. If the government were using that rationale it would be valid. Eminent domain isn't right of conquest.

It is an attempt to exercise the right of conquest while pretending that you are not doing so. If they made the argument that "we've got the guns, so you lose" then the people who allow them that power would take it away. Eminent domain is fraud perpetrated on the American people, it is the attempt to dress up something ugly in enough ritual and paperwork to pretend that it isn't ugly.

 

[holdover]

I agree with you , but without Eminent domain we wouldn't have our coast to coast highway system or some dams or oil /gas pipelines .

In the end it is the same thing because if you refuse, you go to court and lose a lot of money then after you lose your court case you will be told to leave on a certain date, when you refuse to do that, Men with guns will eventually come and forcibly remove you , up to,and including lethal force . its the same as right of conquest , only they don't openly and officially own the land ............unless they need it .

 

[Burzum]

There are people downstate still sore (rightfully so) about losing their land in the 1930s so that the people who chose to live body on body in NYC could flood those upstate lands and have reservoirs for drinking water,,,,,,,,those land owners should have been allowed to shoot ANY official OR contractor who sought to steal that land.

The other issue is when the easement or land is stolen for a dangerous or deleterious activity like a high transmission power line, of course you can submit a stack of scientific papers/studies showing the negative effects on health as tall as the courthouse roof and the corporatist courts will still grant summary judgement in favor of the power company, so activists judges swing for BOTH sides. For liberals it means taking guns, for phony Conservatives it means sucking the crank of big business.