Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[bryant.coleman]

Nolo is right. Snipers and Reid calling those people terrorists were the right thing to do. BLM represents the law. Bundy owns BLM $650 Millions. If he cannot pay then he should be put down like those cows next time.

Are you on shrooms? When did Reid started classifying normal protesters as terrorists? Bundy does not owe a penny to the BLM. Since when is over-grazing punishable by a fine of $650 million?

[1714864209]

1714864209

[1714864209]

1714864209

[1714864209]

1714864209

[Nolo]

Even if what you say is true, its irrelevant.  Its the government's land.  They can use it for any legal purpose.  They don't have to get this guy's consent to use their own land as they see fit.  

It is not that simple as it seems. Bundy's family were the first European Americans to ever settle on that land, after defeating the Shoshone. The government used the services of that family to defeat the Indians. And in return, they were granted grazing rights to the whole area. How can the government take away something that was granted many years ago?

I would like to read the document that shows these grazing rights were granted free and forever.  Link?

Edit:  Also, was this document presented to the federal judge that ordered the cattle be seized?

I disagree with several of your statements thus far. Here are some rebuttals.

 - All US territory within the continental United States belongs to either the US Federal Government or to a State government. International US military bases and US territories like Washington D.C. are Federally owned while the ranch in Nevada is State owned. The State of Nevada has an arrangement with the Federal Government allowing the Federal government to use that property. The State of Nevada retains ownership of that land, not the Federal government and the usage of that property is shared equally with those authorized by the State of Nevada to use the property.

His ranch is privately owned.  The land the cattle was grazing on is publicly owned.  You're the first person I've heard say that there is an arrangement between the feds and Nevada, to allow the federal government to use this land.  Do you have a link to this agreement?

 - The right to use this property has been upheld for 150 years by the State of Nevada; one authorized user of a property can't place a fee or excise on the use of that property by another authorized user; even when that other authorized user is the Federal government.

I find it hard to believe that the agreement (if there is one) granting the federal government rights to this property by Nevada, would also state that Bundy (by name) has authorization to use this land free of charge forever.  Once again, no one apparently can produce either of these agreements.

- The land was settled by his family before the State of Nevada was entered into the Union. The lawful right to use that land is obvious, local history, and the court ruling which reversed 150 years of State history is unfair, unjust, and unlawful. The document you seek should be available at the Courthouse. The misplacement of that document by the Courthouse or custodians isn't enough to discount the existence of that document; especially when supported by 150 years of inter-family generational use.

Bundy, making the claim that he has the rights to free use forever of this land, has the burden of proving such an agreement.  If he could do so, we would already have seen it.  The lawful right to use that land is not obvious and apparently not recorded history.  Whether the federal judge's ruling is unfair is a matter of opinion.  For many years the Bundy's paid the fee.  Why pay the fee if you don't owe it?

- I saw you mention "bad law" and would like to expand on that to prove "relevance". There's a difference between legal and lawful. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to distinguish between what is legal, and what is lawful. The Constitution could not be more direct in this regard; unlawful laws are to be disobeyed without prejudice. If you read the notes and writings of our Founding Fathers regarding the Second Amendment, you'll find that disobeying unlawful law is a requirement for maintaining a US citizenship. Every US citizen of able mind and body is included in the definition and scope of the US militia; further, the Militia is bound by honor to take action when action is necessary in order to uphold the intent behind the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights. By refusing to subject himself to the whims of the BLM he is acting lawfully within the Constitution.

Completely incorrect.  The Collateral Bar Rule.  It is not a defense to violating a court order that the court order was unconstitutional.  The only way to challenge a court order that is believed to be unconstitutional is to appeal to a higher court.  This is what Bundy should have done.  It did not help his case, that he resorted to taking up arms and stating he refused to recognize all authority of the federal government.  The notes of the Founding Fathers are not law. 

- The Constitution was not written for lawyers, nor for scholarly debate among a few withering Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution was written for the common man. You're expected to have common sense, and the Constitution means just what a reasonable US citizen would interpret it to mean. The Bill of Rights is intentionally broad by design to provide sufficient protection (warning) against an exceptionally clever tyrant. The problems with the Constitution are those with the later Amendments where the intention was shifted towards disorienting and confusing the "reasonable US citizen" to allow for selective enforcement and profit.

Completely incorrect.  The Constitution is not interpreted by a reasonable person standard.  That's the standard for determining the duty of care in a negligence case lol.  The Constitution means what the United States Supreme Court says it means, not what I or you say it means.

- The BLM is an enforcement agency under the Executive Branch, not a law-making agency under the Legislative Branch. Allowing an enforcement agency under the Executive Branch to create and enforce regulations under force of law is unconstitutional. The "laws" created by these organizations are extra-Constitutional and subject to the laws within the Constitution. The judges who uphold these extra-Constitutional laws are leeching the life away from our three branch system of government and are enablers to the collapse of our system.

Completely incorrect.  Congress has the authority to delegate authority to the executive branch.  This includes rule making authority.  This delegation doctrine hasn't been challenged in quite some time, but every time it has been challenged it has been upheld as valid, as long as Congress lays out "intelligible standards" in which the executive agency must follow when it creates rules. 

- This "rich old man" isn't stealing anything from the government anymore than the Native Americans "stole from the government". He has the right to forage this property and forage rights are of an indefinite term. The only way to get him out is with his consent and just compensation for any and all expenses incurred as the result of improvement or upkeep. The $1.1 million he "owes" the government isn't lawful as he has the right to use that property.

You can't just give somebody a right and then charge a fee for the lawful use of that right. That would be like the Federal government charging a fee to publish a news article, or a fee to exercise the right to a trial by jury. Property rights are a fundamental point to the Constitution, the Constitution was created to protect property rights specifically, among other things...

You're confusing fundamental rights under the Constitution with the rights stated in an alleged contract between the government and a private individual. 

BTW, I think it's great when people challenge the conspiracy theories. However, challenging a theory requires the use of a scientific method...
 
When you mention specific sources and imply that those aren't reliable, and then claim that as a piece of supporting evidence for your disagreement about a conspiracy theory; it's no different than trusting the content word-for-word from a polarized opposite standpoint.

It doesn't provide anything of value to the debate unless you can support your opinion. If you disagree with any conspiracy theory, then I would challenge you to back up your opinion with verifiable evidence. If you don't contribute to the verifiable evidence behind a claim then you're acting as nothing more than another highly opinionated individual selling snake-oil.

"You might be crazy if you think they're after you, but you might not be wrong." -- Conspiracy is an attempt at solving an unknown by using a scientific method. Without a theory, you have nothing to test...

Nah.  I have no interest in proving Fox News, infowars, world net daily, etc. aren't credible sources.  That's already been proven by countless others.  Whether you accept their proof or not, is up to you.  I do. 

[jesse11]

Nolo lol, your funny!
  Is it about the desert tortoise or Harry Reid?
    “A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

“If only Cliven Bundy were a big Reid donor.”

The desert tortoise is the real loser, they do coexist with cattle but not if your name is Bundy.    

[Wilikon]

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

"What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

"We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms," Fielder said.

Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.


"It’s time the states in the West come of age," Bedke said. "We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado."

Ivory said the issue is of interest to urban as well as rural lawmakers, in part because they see oilfields and other resources that could be developed to create jobs and fund education.

Moreover, the federal government’s debt threatens both its management of vast tracts of the West as well as its ability to come through with payments in lieu of taxes to the states, he said. Utah gets 32 percent of its revenue from the federal government, much of it unrelated to public lands.

"If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger," Ivory said.

He was the sponsor two years of ago of legislation, signed by Gov. Gary Herbert, that demands the federal government relinquish title to federal lands in Utah. The lawmakers and governor said they were only asking the federal government to make good on promises made in the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to become a state.

The intent was never to take over national parks and wilderness created by an act of Congress Lockhart said. "We are not interested in having control of every acre," she said. "There are lands that are off the table that rightly have been designated by the federal government."

A study is underway at the University of Utah to analyze how Utah could manage the land now in federal control. That was called for in HB142, passed by the 2013 Utah Legislature.

None of the other Western states has gone as far as Utah, demanding Congress turn over federal lands. But five have task forces or other analyses underway to get a handle on the costs and benefits, Fielder said.

"Utah has been way ahead on this," Fielder said.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp

[Wilikon]

Nolo is right. Snipers and Reid calling those people terrorists were the right thing to do. BLM represents the law. Bundy owns BLM $650 Millions. If he cannot pay then he should be put down like those cows next time.

Are you on shrooms? When did Reid started classifying normal protesters as terrorists? Bundy does not owe a penny to the BLM. Since when is over-grazing punishable by a fine of $650 million?

Correction for those who did not get the general tone.

  Nolo is right. Snipers and Reid calling those people terrorists were the right thing to do. BLM represents the law. Bundy owns BLM $650 Millions. If he cannot pay then he should be put down like those cows next time.

[Wilikon]

Rand Paul: Harry Reid Needs to 'Calm the Rhetoric' on Bundy

http://youtu.be/5F6w1CB6rAU

[Wilikon]

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

[bryant.coleman]

85% of all the land in Nevada is federal land!

What is the need for this much?

[Nolo]

Excuse the term, but I believe this thread is one big circle jerk. 

Absurd claims about the law and government are made by those with no legal education.  Those claims are rebutted by an attorney who is extremely knowledgeable about constitutional law.  That attorney is told he wants snipers to shoot and kill the innocent. 

Good luck with your thread.  I won't be replying here any longer.  Opposing opinions are welcomed only by ad hominem attacks. 

(I'll save you the trouble of your next post.  I'm not saying I'm better than any of you because I am more educated on the subject of constitutional law than you are.  I am saying I know more constitutional law than you have learned by reading Wikipedia.)

[Wilikon]

Excuse the term, but I believe this thread is one big circle jerk. 

Absurd claims about the law and government are made by those with no legal education.  Those claims are rebutted by an attorney who is extremely knowledgeable about constitutional law.  That attorney is told he wants snipers to shoot and kill the innocent. 

Good luck with your thread.  I won't be replying here any longer.  Opposing opinions are welcomed only by ad hominem attacks. 

(I'll save you the trouble of your next post.  I'm not saying I'm better than any of you because I am more educated on the subject of constitutional law than you are.  I am saying I know more constitutional law than you have learned by reading Wikipedia.)

Actually I was learning a bit from you.

[AnonyMint]

The Truth About the BLM - Bundy Ranch Dispute Explained

http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8

The real goal (and Agenda 21 fits in) is Smart Growth which is moving people into cities to be slaves:

http://youtu.be/hfbpNpq0YBI

The man-made global warming hoax, environmentalism, carbon taxes, Smart Electric Meters, and Technocracy is all tied in.

Make sure you see my Agenda 21 and Georgia Guidestones posts upthread.

Dumb-ass masses have been manipulated by fear, and their pre-frontal cortex shut down and converted into Malthusians. Malthusians have never been correct ever in the history of mankind since Mesopotamia.

This is a global plan and you can see most of the dumb-ass masses all over the world have fallen into this "Save the Earth" mass delusion.

[Wilikon]

http://therightscoop.com/this-clip-of-chris-hayes-vs-bundy-supporter-assemblywoman-michele-fiore-is-awesome/


Last night, Chris Hayes face off against Assemblywoman Michele Fiore over the ongoing saga of the Bundy Ranch. Fiore reminds us why we love TV.

Fiore for the win! The Assemblywoman is feisty, unflappable, stays on message, goes at Hayes hard, and comes out looking great. A terrific segment and a good interview by Hayes, amazingly enough. The best part was when she left him flat-footed right at the end after catching him with the slaughter question. Although Hayes salvages the moment for himself with the barbecue crack. You can agree or disagree with Bundy or Fiore all you want, but that is how you handle a hostile interview.

Someone call Michele Fiore and tell her to seek higher office immediately. Or at least have her email me for an interview!!

[AnonyMint]

I hold a law license.

Well it is time now to prove we have an utter fool who claims to know law, but doesn't know jack.

I am going to embarrass the fuck out of this n00b Nolo because he deserves it.

This has nothing to do with politics or an authoritarian government overstepping its bounds.

Bull fucking shit. This is about even more sinister aims than that.

You fucking ignorant dweeb.

It is government land.

No it is not. You fail the basic knowledge of the Constitution.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/

[snip]

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

The government in this case is showing far more restraint than can be said for these nutjobs.

You are fucking pansy-ass slave.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/18/reid-call-his-opponents-domestic-terrorists/

You can tell a REAL journalist from a propaganda artist by their characterization of Bundy as a tax cheat who breaks the law. Congress can pass a LAW that says you must kill your first-born. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent Congress from passing ANYTHING that crosses their mind. So to simply justify the massacre of Bundy and his supporters in Nevada based upon the fact they have broken a LAW is totally outrageous and they had better understand the government structure we have.

What is UNLAWFUL is the fact that we have a pretend tripartite government where Congress can enact absolutely anything its member think of or are paid to do corruptly and it is the Judiciary’s job to say it is lawful or not - but only if it wants to hear the case. Yes, we have the circuit courts of appeal sitting on top of district courts. But did you realize what that TRULY means? The Second Circuit can uphold the old common law Prima Noctum and allow the governor of New York to demand the “first night” with any woman who gets married because that was the English tradition for a governor. The Fourth Circuit in Virginia can disagree. It is then the Supreme Court that is supposed to resolve differences in the LAW among the circuits – but only if it WANTS to hear the case.

The Supreme Court’s ability to declare a Legislative act of Congress or Executive act of the President to be in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). However, when exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

Therefore, there is no ABSOLUTE rule of law in the United States because the various circuit court of appeals are all independent and their “view” of the law need not agree with any other circuit. That means the law is NOT the same around the country. Consequently, anyone claiming Bundy is violating the “law” and is really an “outlaw” and thus not a patriot but a terrorist is a propaganda artist and NOT a legitimate independent journalist. We do not have a system that requires a law to be tested BEFORE it is enforced. The constitution is NEGATIVE and is therefore intended to be a restraint upon Congress, but it is the burden of the people to say NO.Under this reasoning of obvious questionable journalists, you can be forced legally to give your daughter to sleep with the governor or to execute your oldest son because Congress passed a law. That is NO excuse to simply do as Congress demands under our system BECAUSE it is the very obligation of the citizen to defend his own personal rights. Hello – read the very law you use to justify killing Bundy and his supporters!

In Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych passed a law that no more than 5 cars can travel in a group because he was trying to suppress the people. That was the “law” in Ukraine and the people said NO. They had signs in the back of the car – Do not follow me I am the Fifth Car. If Viktor Yanukovych was wrong then so is Harry Reid. You cannot be inconsistent in your opinion without being just biased. What is right is right.

Sorry – Harry Reid is the one acting totally unconstitutional in EVERY possible respect. That is the REAL legal system in America. Passing “laws” do not make them right morally or ethically. Do not forget, those same arbitrary laws imposed by George III prompted the American Revolution. So those who call Bundy an “outlaw” are the same type of people who said George III was right and Jefferson should have been hung with Franklin, Adams, Washington, etc, etc.

[AnonyMint]

Furthermore, the Constitution never provided for the Federal government to own and manage large tracts of land. The Constitution limits the Federal power and they were to acquire facilities only as necessary to serve their function. Precisely because our forefathers were quite aware of what happens when the fox controls the hen house.

I am slightly confused. Which side is the Fox News currently? Check this:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/18/exclusive-rancher-cliven-bundy-hits-back-after-reid-calls-family-domestic-terrorists

"Well, I guess he's right," Bundy said, "I don't know what else we'd be. We're definitely citizens riled up. I don't know whether you could call us terrorists. There are the most loving people here I've ever met in my life."

The plan as always is to pretend to generate genuine inquiry to defuse the skepticism of a media conspiracy (or blackout), but then bury the original clarity under heaping shit-loads of endless talking heads, so the public tunes out to the original focus.

Overload them with stimulus and the brains of the masses are fried.

[Dr.Zaius]

Furthermore, the Constitution never provided for the Federal government to own and manage large tracts of land. The Constitution limits the Federal power and they were to acquire facilities only as necessary to serve their function. Precisely because our forefathers were quite aware of what happens when the fox controls the hen house.

I am slightly confused. Which side is the Fox News currently? Check this:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/18/exclusive-rancher-cliven-bundy-hits-back-after-reid-calls-family-domestic-terrorists

"Well, I guess he's right," Bundy said, "I don't know what else we'd be. We're definitely citizens riled up. I don't know whether you could call us terrorists. There are the most loving people here I've ever met in my life."

The plan as always is to pretend to generate genuine inquiry to defuse the skepticism of a media conspiracy (or blackout), but then bury the original clarity under heaping shit-loads of endless talking heads, so the public tunes out to the original focus.

Overload them with stimulus and the brains of the masses are fried.

The forefathers you speak of also constituted the wealthiest and largest landowners of the colonies at the time of the revolution. The civil war also answered the question of both state and individual sovereignty. Put it simply, it ended both(if they ever really existed in the first place). The federal government became defacto sovereign. These United States became The United States. The 14th amendment also makes it clear that US citizens are SUBJECT to US government jurisdiction(which the civil war answered). Pre revolution colonies under the King had more autonomy then post. 20 years after the revolution, people were already being nostalgic about the good old days. After the Civil War, the US became a nation state and as of 1941 an empire.

Sorry to tell you but the US constitution was never a holy document with any real meaning. The federal government right from inception, has time and time again proven it can do whatever it wishes. When you build a foundation based on revolution, it will always be on unstable(lack of) principles. What they wrote on paper and what they did in reality are two different things. This goes back to the "founders" all breaking oaths they took. Why would men who broke their own word, be able to enshrine integrity into anything they created? Ever since the federal government has persistently followed no principles, constantly changing its tone based on what it sees fit at a given time. Every constitutional amendment has been redefined or reinterpreted time and time again. New ones were added to justify innovations(income tax). The constitution never had any real meaning. People pray to it like a holy relic. Talk about misguided and misinformed(state sanctioned education).

Bundy is fighting a losing battle that will cost him his wealth, well being and quite possibly even his life. What's the point? When he dies he will be forgotten about quickly.

You also keep quoting a convicted fraudster who read's tea leaves for economic projections as scripture. Martin Armstrong is a joke.

[AnonyMint]

Agreed the Constitution died in the 1860s. I posted a video link upthread explaining about that. Nevertheless you are agreeing with me that we are slaves.

You also keep quoting a convicted fraudster who read's tea leaves for economic projections as scripture. Martin Armstrong is a joke.

Haha, you are highly misinformed. I've already answered this nonsense assertion in the my archives. Have fun finding it. You don't deserve my effort to dig it up for you.

[LatinF]

Some bizzare story

[bryant.coleman]

lol... the Feds are in for a really tough time.

Civilian Militia Remains at Bundy Ranch After Standoff Ends

A group of armed militia and protesters, some sporting nametags reading "domestic terrorist," remain camped out on a cattle ranch in Nevada, where they have been purportedly defending the property since a tense showdown ended with the federal government last week.

[Wilikon]

[bryant.coleman]

Harry Reid received more than 50% of the votes during the United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010. But check this:



He won just because the illegals and the Mexican cartels voted for him. Out of the 17 counties, he won just 3 counties which are heavily populated by the illegals.