Actually it appears to be publicly traded: http://www.halliburton.com/about/board_gov.jsp
not that I have researched the matter beyond that quick google. Suppose the peace activists are shareholders? Do you actually know that the land in question is public? Would it be ok to roust campers in Yellowstone National Park? Personally I think it's clear that the people who did this were trying to start trouble. Dana >Halliburton is a private company; its books are stored on private property. > >These people don't own the property they are on, therefore they have no >expectation of privacy. Your hippies would go to jail. > >The property that these people are living is public land, and therefore >these American citizens have every right to be there, and they do have the >right to make arrests if they find undocumented (read illegal) peeps living >out there: > >http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm > >I admit I was wrong about it being an actual responsibility. Apparently in >CA you don't have to interfere in something like this unless you have been >trained to give medical aid, and such aid is required. That being said, in >CA you can arrest someone for even a misdemeanor, unlike in DC and VA where >you can only do so in the case of a felony. > >"The District of Columbia and states such as Virginia and Louisiana limit >citizen's arrests to felony-level crimes only, but other states, such as >California, permit a private person to make an arrest for a misdemeanor, so >long as it's been committed in his presence. As a result, the number of >citizen's arrests differs wildly from state to state and even from city to >city. The Washington, D.C., police reported no citizen's arrests over the >past year; the LAPD reported 6,441-all for misdemeanor offenses." > >http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2004/termsofart_marsh_julaug0 >4.msp > >It goes on to show that: > >"THE IDEA THAT CITIZENS ARE RESPONSIBLE for policing their communities dates >back to before the Norman Conquest of 1066, when the sheriff, or "Shire >Reeve," could call on any free male subject to serve on a posse. Free male >subjects were expected to constrain felons and in some cases to administer >justice. Once a representative of the king declared someone to be an >"out-law," anyone could kill or capture that person without further >intercession from the authorities. > >Police forces are actually a relatively recent development: Up through early >19th-century America, the only forces were private ones hired by the wealthy >to protect their interests. In the tradition of British common law, it was >considered a citizen's duty to step in and make an arrest when he witnessed >a crime. Magistrates and sheriffs were employed to help citizens process >criminals; it was not the job of the former to catch the latter." > >Also, it has been repeatedly found in the Supreme Court that the government >and law enforcement agencies do NOT have to protect you. > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html > >So therefore you have not only the right, but the responsibility to act in >your own defense, and the defense of your community, supported all the way >to the Supreme Court of the United States, and going back into British >common law. > >So yes, we do have this right, and we do have this responsibility, whether >you like it or not. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:35 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: border lunacy in San Diego >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:207173 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
