Again: he had an understanding with the federal government to use our land.
The federal government then changed the rules on him, and gave very flimsy reasons for doing so.
He had a right to be displeased and to stand up for himself.
But now he is going deeper and deeper into Wesley Snipes lunatic land with his bogus constitutional and sovereignty theories that have no relationship with history or reality.
Sounds as crazy as that talk about "alter or abolish it." Best not go there and get back to rearranging the deck chairs on the current Titanic.
1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution,/a>
All true, and as John Hinderaker pointed out on his Powerline post from yesterday, just because Bundy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, he still deserves our sympathy. While there is probably no direct nexus between the solar power project and the Bundy’s problems, there is no question that the BLM is implementing a scheme that will drive every last rancher off of the land, and free up the resource for other, better connected interests.
Bundy’s situation is not dissimilar from those living in anti-gun states who all of a sudden find themselves owning “illegal assault rifles”. The people didn’t change, but our ruling elites managed to change the rules to make a few million instant felons.
Neither represent the rule of law. Both are examples of mere power politics and both the gun grabbers, and the land grabbers are acting for the exact same reason: because they can.
Cliven Bundy can certainly be forgiven for losing a few marbles under this level of relentless pressure. The question is, will we be forgiven for standing idly by and watching the smooth talkers dismantle both liberty and the rule of law that upholds it?
The federal government had no right to make those rules. See #22.
A fellow named Hage has fought things in court for as long as Bundy. The court ruled:
“In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court, and the burden on the Government of taking a few minutes to realize that the reference to the UCC on the Estate’s application was nonsensical and would not affect the terms of the permit was minuscule compared to the private interest affected. The risk of erroneous deprivation is great in such a case, because unless the Government analyzes such a note in the margin, it cannot know if the note would affect the terms of the permit such that the acceptance is in fact a counteroffer.
The Government revoked E. Wayne Hage’s grazing permit, despite his signature on a renewal application form, because he had added a reference to the UCC to his signature indicating that he was not waiving any rights thereby. Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights—a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights—the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed....
...The Government has sufficiently proved an ongoing trespass to warrant a permanent injunction, although not so broad an injunction as the Government desires. Defendants are also entitled to an injunction, as outlined, infra. There is a great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendants’ cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them. There is also a probability that Defendants will continue to permit their cattle to graze in excess of the incidental grazing permitted during stock watering that cannot reasonably be prevented. The Court will therefore enjoin all parties in certain respects and will require Hage to apply for a permit and the Government to grant it...
...THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne [*192] Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993—2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLM’s refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is enjoined from unreasonably interfering with the ability of Defendants Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage to bring cattle to those water sources and attendant ditches in which these Defendants have vested rights to water their cattle as identified herein. The Government may impose reasonable regulations upon access to these water sources, such as specifying which routes shall be used for ingress and egress, if it is necessary to impose such restrictions for legitimate purposes. Reasonable regulations are those that neither prohibit access to the water nor restrict access to the water in a way that unreasonably burdens the ability to access and use the water.”
A more productive course of action might be for the state of Nevada to sue the BLM, arguing the BLM is violating public law by trying to eliminate grazing on public land in violation of federal law.
I see/hear what you are saying and tend to believe there is something(s) Bundy seems to be missing or ignoring. On the other hand there are somethings that Bundy speaks to that need to be seriously taken. For example, I believe we now know why those thousands of rounds of ammo were bought by the Feds ‘civilian’ BLM department. We now know the Feds are willing to repeat such incidents as Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians to show the USA how strong government can be to ‘protect’ our safety and culture. Put these alongside the many khaki clothed, helmet heads, the deployed marksman to assure the few bad guys do not come out alive, and the available backup of tanks and flamethrowers to erase any visible remains, and you can see the conscience of our today’s government is not changed. Out of all this I would like to have all those jackbooted ‘American’ sunshine warriors on public display like they would have the likes of the Bundys.
Nope. He never signed a contract with them.
It is posted quite often that the contract included specific abuses of power such as his being forced to limit the size of his herd.
Alas, the nuts move first, and struggling against abusive bureaucracy will make one crazy. Poor guy is trying to make sense of nonsense, trying to play by the spirit of the rules while the umpires strain the letter thereof and change definitions to mean whatever they want.