Source: https://studio1776.org/2016/01/17/oregon-protest-feds-and-blm-are-working-to-clear-the-land-uranium/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:16:36+00:00

Document:
Please help get these on all your social sites!!!
Federal facility in remote southeastern BURNS, Oregon Malheur National Wildlife 187,000-acre refuge in Harney County, headquarters that has been held by called anti-government occupiers that have been for the past two weeks a growing siege staged to protest the imprisonment of two local ranchers and a federal government that they say is out of control. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt, sits in a vast high-desert basin circled. Burns, a town of 2,800 and the county seat, is 30 miles away on a narrow, two-lane road.
Please listen and share to the following interview about the Feds and BLM’S land grab for URANIUM!
In rem jurisdiction (Latin, “power about or against ‘the thing'”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction). For further reading about this at bottom of this post!
Summary: Oregon State Senator Ted Ferrioli proves that instead of conserving precious resources, fundraising efforts to acquire land for conservation are a ripoff to the taxpayer with no guarantee that the promised benefits will materialize.
An Australian company wants to reopen uranium mining in Oregon.
In Malheur County, the poorest in Oregon, there is wealth buried in the ground.
It’s uranium—and the county has what may be the biggest sources in the U.S.
For the first time in decades, someone wants to mine uranium in the state. Oregon Energy LLC, owned by an Australian company, hopes to extract at least 18 million pounds of uranium oxide from a 450-acre southeast Oregon site called the Aurora property.
Uranium oxide, better known as yellowcake, now trades near $52 per pound, six times its value a decade ago. Yellowcake is used to fuel nuclear reactors and can be processed into a form suitable for nuclear weapons.
Oregon Energy President Lachlan Reynolds tells WW the mine will provide uranium for domestic nuclear plants, noting the U.S. produces only 5 percent of the uranium it uses.
But the project, three miles from the Nevada border, worries some industry critics. Uranium mining—not practiced in Oregon since the 1960s—often left hidden poisons in the earth and groundwater. The Aurora project would be the first test of a 1991 Oregon law aimed at policing mining operations that use chemical extraction.
The parent company, Energy Ventures Ltd. of Perth, Australia, has filed documents with the Australian Stock Exchange that say as much as 30 percent of the U.S. supply of uranium could come from the Aurora site. (Wyoming, Colorado and Utah are the biggest producers.) Potential buyers of the yellowcake include U.S. allies South Korea, South Africa and India, as well as rivals China and Russia.
In 1977, a now-defunct Canadian company discovered uranium on the Aurora property. Records show the site’s mineral rights changed hands many times before Oregon Energy purchased the claim for $2 million in cash last year.
Production is years away, even if the project gets all the necessary green lights. Oregon Energy obtained a state exploration permit in August 2010 but has yet to file a “notice of intent” with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries to mine the site.
State Geologist Vicki McConnell says the company had planned to file that notice this month but delayed the application pending further metallurgical study. “They have not determined precisely what chemical process they’d need to concentrate the uranium ore,â she says.
A September presentation to state officials by Oregon Energy sketches how the mining will take place.
Machines will scrape the earth from an open-pit mine a half-mile in length. The heavy clay soil, placed in vats, will be sprayed with a chemical mixture that probably contains sulfuric acid. The acid bonds with the uranium, which is extracted, dried and sold as yellowcake. The leftover dirt is discarded in a “tailings pile” near the site.
The 1991 Oregon law—pushed by Tuttle despite mining industry opposition—was intended to prevent environmental damage that such mining has created elsewhere.
Total production of uranium concentrate in the United States, 1996 – 3rd Quarter 2011 in pounds of triuranium octoxide.
Closer to home, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality continues to monitor groundwater contaminated with arsenic, radium, radon and uranium at the White King and Lucky Lass uranium mines 17 miles from Lakeview in Southern Oregon. Those mines closed in the 1960s.
Oregon Energy’s president says the mine will have no trouble meeting the state’s environmental standards. “We already support and operate under the equivalent of Oregon’s mining and environmental regulations in other jurisdictions,” Reynolds says.
The nearest town to the Aurora site is 10 miles away: McDermitt, Nev., population 513. The town is next to the reservation of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe.
Karen Crutcher, the tribal council vice chairwoman, confirms the company attended a council meeting last year and has been talking with tribal chairman Billy Bell.
In its presentation to state officials, the company says its mine will create 400 direct jobs in Malheur County, which the U.S. Census Bureau says has the highest poverty rate in Oregon.
Tuttle, however, says many of those jobs won’t go to locals. “People that develop mines and operate mines are specialists, and they’re transient,” he says.
The veteran activist doesn’t have the power to stop the Aurora mine on his own. But given that he helped create Oregon’s chemical process mining law, Tuttle is confident he can make a case to regulators that the project should not proceed.
Be sure to catch part 2….. Jimmie Carter regime exposed!! The game has been ongoing for quite sometime now!
Not real big on Pete as he comes off as another “Shockjock” like Alex Jones and has a tendency to push too hard, at the wrong time. But, that’s just me….
Secrecy is repugnant to a free society and the breeding ground for corruption & tyranny. I have no problem with Authority, I have a problem with TPtSB’s perceived authority.
Do you hear what I hear???? I am calling the Kings and Queens to come regain their rightful Crowns!
https://youtu.be/vooz–PPHQ8 Federal Judge Exposes BLM Conspiracy and thanks Bundy Ranch Supporters.
This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
In rem jurisdiction (Latin, “power about or against ‘the thing'”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction).
Within the U.S. federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immoveable property, or real property, located within the court’s jurisdiction. The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of the vessel.
Within the American state court systems, jurisdiction in rem may refer to the power the state court may exercise over real property or personal property or a person’s marital status. State courts have the power to determine legal ownership of any real or personal property within the state’s boundaries.
A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.
Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. Courts fell into the practice of styling a case not as “John Doe, Unknown owner of (Property)”, but as just “Ex Parte (property)” or perhaps the awkward “State v. (Property)”, usually followed by a notice by publication seeking claimants to title to the property; see examples below. This last style is awkward because in law, only a person may be a party to a judicial proceeding – hence the more common in personam style – and a non-person would at least have to have a guardian appointed to represent its interests, or the interests of the unknown owner.
The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.
Case of One 1985 Nissan, 300ZX, VIN: JN1C214SFX069854, 889 F.2d 1317. 1989 case heard by the Fourth Circuit using the older naming style, because the owner was murdered before the government could arrest him on suspicion of drug trafficking.
United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola (1916), brought under the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) against, not The Coca Cola Company itself, but rather “Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola”.
United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar — Early Food and Drug Administration case.
United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936), a case involving contraceptives Margaret Sanger attempted to import, heard by the Second Circuit.
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, the landmark 1933 ruling by John M. Woolsey that James Joyce‘s novel had sufficient literary merit to overcome its obscene portions. Upheld on appeal as United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce.
Marcus v. Search Warrant, full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri. An unusual in rem case heard by the Supreme Court where the named object was not the seized property but the warrant under which it was seized. Since all the government agents involved were indisputably acting within the law as it stood, the only way for the petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the seizure was to name the search warrant itself as defendant.
Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case holding seizure of allegedly obscene materials unconstitutional without prior hearing to determine obscenity.
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule prevents the forfeiture of material seized in cases where the Fourth Amendment was violated.
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, an obscenity forfeiture case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, a case very similar to the above heard by the Supreme Court two years later.
United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976). Held that the seizure provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act do not violate the Due Process Clause.
United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency (2006), an asset forfeiture case based on drug law.
United States v. 127 Shares of Stock in Paradigm Mfg., 758 F.Supp. 581. A 1990 case from California where a former spouse and children sought to recover securities allegedly purchased with the husband/father’s proceeds from drug sales.
United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case involving eminent domain, holding that cost of replacement for taken property does not have to be calculated in its fair market value.
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins (9th Cir., 2008). Asset forfeiture case under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000.
United States v. Various Pieces of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, 649 F.2d 606 (8th Cir., 1981). Company that was caught trying to sell them to the Soviets claims the long delay between seizure and forfeiture proceedings was a due process violation.
United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton (2012). The case was brought to stop the sale of a dinosaur skeleton that had allegedly been looted from the Gobi desert in violation of Mongolian law.
Previous PostWhats really going on in Oregon with the Patriot Militia Protest latest News!Next PostBreaking News Please listen to an emergency interview with whistleblower Jodi Davies of Michigan , probate court destroying her life!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.