Sunday June 14, 1903 the brothers Sam and Will Martin robbed more than 75 people who traveled on the old road to Pawhuska near Liza Creek three miles west of Bartlesville. They committed several other robberies across the region and finally they camped near Wooster Mound south of Pawhuska. Sam and Will found two women cooking at a “cow camp,” robbed them and demanded a meal. The very next day they were so bold as to return to the same camp, and this time they rode away with a large pot of beans.
A granite stone was placed south of Pawhuska as a historical marker, beside the highway across from the Bronze Horse Foundry. It bears these words: THE BATTLE OF WOOSTER MOUND Near this site on August 8, 1903, U.S. Marshal Wiley G. Haines, Chief of Osage Indian Police Warren Bennett, and Constable Henry Majors ended the career of the notorious outlaw gang known as the Martin Brothers. The outlaws were wanted for murder and robbery over a five state area. During the fierce gun battle Sam and Will Martin were fatally wounded. Marshal Haines was seriously wounded but recovered. “No better stroke for law and order in the territory was ever struck than in wiping out the vicious Martin Gang.” (Judge Horace Speed)
It has been said that a large amount of money was cached in this area. My search located the camp, the actual site of the gunfight, several copper jacket slugs, and an assortment of markers that may lead to one or more caches of ill gotten money.
Copyright Bill Wade #grampawbill
Posts Tagged With: money
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have standing to proceed with a lawsuit against US President Barack Obama’s administration over his signature healthcare law, a federal judge said Wednesday, handing them a significant and somewhat unexpected victory in the ongoing legal battle.
US District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled Wednesday against the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case. Collyer said House Republicans do have the standing to pursue their challenge, which argues that the Obama administration violated the US Constitution by spending money on the law that had not been appropriated by Congress.
That was a key question in the lawsuit, which the White House and House Democrats have continually dismissed as a “political stunt.”
In her ruling, Collyer rejected that argument, calling the House’s challenge valid.
“Despite its potential political ramifications, this suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the Judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” she wrote.
The case centers on the more than $175 billion the administration will spend over the next decade under a cost-sharing program with health-insurance companies. The Obama administration has said it’s spending previously allocated money.
The attorney for the House, Jonathan Turley, called Collyer’s decision “historic and profound.”
“The ruling today means that the United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the power of the purse,” he wrote in a statement posted to his website. “We are eager to present the House’s merits arguments to the Court and remain confident that our position will ultimately prevail in establishing the unconstitutional conduct alleged in this lawsuit.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who’s leading the lawsuit against the president, said he was “grateful” for the court’s ruling.
“The president’s unilateral change to Obamacare was unprecedented and outside the powers granted to his office under our Constitution,” Boehner said in a statement. “I am grateful to the court for ruling that this historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended.”
The most important issue facing all Americans in their battle against the regulatory power of a growing central government is a very simple one: whether money is property.
In recent decades the federal government has grown at a much faster rate than the economy as a whole. And the power enabling it to affect — and often devastate — the finances of Americans is dependent upon the idea that local, state and Federal agencies can seize the wealth of Americans without any due process.
Due process may seem a distant and innocuous concept, yet its connection to the ability of government to regulate the lives of Americans is a crucial one, one that must be revisited soon if Americans are to live in an environment of free choice.
This is because the ability to levy fines — to take money away from citizens — is the lifeblood of most federal agencies. Here’s a simple comparison that illustrates the point: if a police officer gives you a ticket for a parking violation, the ticket has a court date on it. This court date allows you the opportunity to exercise your right to dispute the traffic violation. And the most important aspect of this is that you are automatically given this “due process,” the opportunity to challenge the parking violation, by the police department and local government. But an EPA official can fine a farmer $10,000 for spraying pesticide too close to a wetland, and there is no automatic hearing. Without due process there is no presumption of innocence.
The Constitution clearly states in Article V: “No person may… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Due process means a hearing before a jJudge where the accused has the right to the presumption of innocence, legal notice of the hearing, discovery, and so on. No branch of government; local, state, or federal can take your property first and then allow you the opportunity for a hearing. The word “without” clearly means that a person may only be deprived of property after having been given due process safeguards.
If the Constitution were to state that no one could be deprived of liberty or money without due process, then the distinction would be more obvious. Right now bureaucracies confuse the issue and treat money as if it were not property.
That money does not seem to be property at this time has led to some conduct by government that the Constitution was written to prevent. In the state of Idaho a couple named the Sacketts obtained all the local permits necessary to build a house. Everything was properly done, according to the local building code. But the EPA noted that the couple raised the level of the site by adding dirt and stones, and fined the couple $75,000 per day until they complied with EPA guidelines. What made the Sackett case more disturbing is that the EPA refused to give the Sacketts a hearing. They had no way to challenge the EPA finding in court.
It is this loophole, the issue of “who decides” if due process takes place and when, that is the unconstitutional aspect. In the Sackett case the infamous Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Clean Air Act precluded “pre-enforcement judicial review” and that such preclusion did not violate due process. The Fifth Amendment clearly does not allow any preclusions, and the Clean Air Act, or any other Congressional Act, cannot ban judicial review. All Congressional Acts must allow citizens the protection of the Constitution per the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
If I leave my wallet and pair of gloves on a bench seat of a restaurant, and somebody takes it, no one would argue that he could claim that the gloves and wallet were his property. And if the wallet is my property then all the contents of the wallet, including the money inside, is my property.
So it seems that the concept that money is property is well established in the understanding of property and possessions by the American people. But the real question is, is money “property” in the constitutional sense, and does it deserve Fifth Amendment protection?
If money is property, then the EPA cannot take money without due process. This would almost put the EPA out of business since many of their fines are outrageous. And if the EPA’s fines had to be approved by juries, very few juries composed of homeowners or farmers would allow Americans to suffer the EPA’s bureaucratic abuse.
Right now there is a long established and intimate connection between property and money. After all, County tax assessors use money as the measure of the value of real property. Nothing other than money is used as the basis of a valuation of property.
In fact, there are only two measures that define property: its physical location and money. Now the discussion starts to close in on an interesting distinction: the EPA cannot seize the physical location of the property without due process, yet it can seize the money of the owners and that does not always need due process.
If the location of a piece of real estate and its monetary value are so intimately connected then it would seem that money is property, and that fines cannot be levied by the EPA, IRS, or any other agency without a court hearing. Yet every day in every part of the U.S. local officials issue building code violation fines, etc. without court hearings. This is particularly true of Federal officials, who do not derive their authority locally but from a distant, national authority.
One may argue that fines are acceptable, since taxes, which are also money, are levied without due process. But taxation is a different administrative issue: taxes are applied equally to everyone. A fine is applied to only one specific person or corporation at a time.
And taxes cannot be written to target individual persons or individuals. They must be generally applied. A new hamburger franchise, for example, cannot be taxed differently than existing hamburger franchises. No unit of government can tax one person or entity uniquely.
If this entire discussion seems rather tedious, it is only because government, and in particular the federal government, has entangled its administrative power with Constitutional corruption to enable themselves to dominate America’s social and political fabric.
The tendency of governments to seize property without court hearings is one of the three abuses of individual rights that motivated the Fifth Amendment. As government grows and encroaches upon individual rights there is no doubt that while it may not yet be able to seize property without due process, every day more regulations are written by the Obama Administration that allow it to seize money without due process.
Legal foundations should take it upon themselves to challenge federal administrative guidelines and bring this issue to the Supreme Court. If the time ever comes when money is defined as property by the Supreme Court bureaucratic powers will be greatly weakened. The government’s ability to seize the wealth of Americans and transfer it to themselves will be severely curtailed.
It’s not to hard to figure out Obama’s priorities. He’s trying to screw the military, and use the money to help his terrorist friends.
Thank a liberal for this.
How much money does the United States currently contribute to the United Nations and its various agencies? Surprisingly, no one knows for sure.
The State Department does report on its spending at the United Nations, but it is only one of several federal agencies that give money to the world body each year.
In its fiscal 2014 State and Foreign Operations budget proposal released in April, the Obama administration asked for $1.57 billion for contributions to international organizations, including $617.6 million for the U.N. operating budget — up from $568.8 million in fiscal 2012.
But other agencies giving to the U.N. include the Departments of Labor, Energy, Agriculture, Defense, and Health and Human Services, CNS News reported.
Fiscal 2007 legislation stipulated that the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) report all federal agencies’ contributions, but the requirement expired in 2011.
Now Republican Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah, and others, are submitting legislation that would reinstate the requirement.
“It’s disturbing that no one, including our ambassador to the United Nations, knows exactly how much money we send the U.N. every year,” Enzi said in a statement.
“With a national debt exceeding $17 trillion, we need to be able to account for every dime we spend, including what we send to the U.N.”
The last OMB report to Congress on U.N. contributions was issued in June 2011 and covered fiscal 2010. It showed that State was just one of 17 government agencies giving money to U.N. organizations, funds, affiliates and other bodies, and the total expenditure that year was $7.69 billion — more than 10 times the amount requested for State in fiscal 2014.
In addition to the billions being contributed to various bodies within the U.N. system, the United States provides 22 percent of the U.N.’s operating budget, more than twice as much as the No. 2 contributor, Japan (10.8 percent).
Other legislation likely to be introduced in Congress would change the way the United Nations is funded, allowing the United States to fund only those activities and agencies that are “efficient and in the national interest,” according to CNS News.
As the Insider Report disclosed earlier, the United States did cut off funding for the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) after it voted in October 2011 to approve the Palestinian Authority’s full membership in the agency. But that move was required by U.S. laws.
Where did all the money go?
“Your guess is as good as mine,” David Montoya, the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, says of $700 million in missing taxpayer money that Louisiana homeowners were given in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to elevate and protect their homes from future storms.
A new report released from the inspector general’s office shows that more than 24,000 homeowners who received grants of up to $30,000 to elevate their homes either misspent or pocketed the money.
“The fact of the matter is that the money they received was for a specific purpose and the specific purpose was to elevate these homes to avoid future catastrophes,” Montoya tells Power Players.
He rates the home elevation program as little more than a complete failure.
“Considering there was just under $1 billion earmarked for this particular program and there’s $700 million that wasn’t used for that, I’d give it a very low D,” he says.
But the lessons learned from the failed home elevation project provides a useful roadmap as Congress moves to offer recovery funds to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
“Clearly, to give money out on the front end right after a disaster, when many of these people lost everything, with a promise to do something down the road, I think is counterproductive to what the program was designed to do,” says Montoya.
Montoya says his office will recommend that, for future disaster relief programs, funds are disbursed to individuals only after the project has been completed.
It is time to say “OK, we are leaving”….He has nothing but complain for the past two years on a regular basis. He wants our money and equipment but does not appreciate anything.
We should pull out and just let him fail and then refuse to go back. $Billions have been spent and given to his country and a fair share ended up in his pockets and the pockets of his cronies.
Bring our Troops home.
The country hit its $16.4 trillion debt limit December 31, and the Treasury is on track to run out of funds in February. If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling on time, the United States would default on its debt payments and roll markets worldwide.
Do you find it Ironic that the Left was filled with hate and vile over Mitt Romney and his money, yet when one of their own is paid $40 Million for a movie, they sings songs of praise and act like the sun rises and sits on them……the communist way of thinking….