Well, it’s been my understanding that the county sheriff is responsible for serving eviction orders and that the feds do not have jurisdiction is such local matters. Maybe I’m all wet.
“the county sheriff is responsible for serving eviction orders and that the feds do not have jurisdiction is such local matters.”
I’m not a lawyer nor a cop. I cannot say for certain WHO is supposed to take the cattle...but Bundy had his day in court and lost. He did not appeal. No appeal means it is over, legally.
There are many court cases that piss me off, and Justice Thomas is about the only person on the Supreme Court that I think has any honor, but I just don’t see this as the right fight.
I’d much rather make a fight over the right of ranchers to protect themselves along the border, or the right of a town to repair water lines that were installed before anyone heard of a wilderness area. Frankly, I think all wilderness areas should be dissolved immediately. But this fight will not resonate with anyone who reads the court order.
From 1998:
“On February 26, 1993, Bundy sent an Administrative Notice of Intent to the BLM, which stated his intent to graze cattle “pursuant to my vested grazing rights.” See Exhibit [*3] 10 to #11. Bundy sent several more Administrative Notice[s] of Intent in the months that followed. On June 16, 1993, the BLM sent Bundy a letter informing him that his application had not been received to graze livestock for the June 15, 1993 to August 31, 1993 period. The BLM included another application for Bundy to fill out and return. See Exhibit 12 to #11. Bundy responded to the BLM letter with another Administrative Notice and Intent, stating, among other things, that the BLM has produced no documents showing it had jurisdiction over the public lands. See Exhibit 13 to #11. The BLM began trespass detection efforts at the end of June 1993.
On July 13, 1993, the BLM sent Bundy a Trespass Notice and Order to Remove and gave him ten days to respond. As requested by Bundy, the BLM informed Bundy in a July 27, 1993 letter that it would extend the response time to 30 days. On August 19, 1993, Bundy sent another Administrative Notice and Intent, stating the BLM lacked proof that it had jurisdiction. See Exhibit 16 to #11...
...In December 1994, Bundy or his agents served a Constructive Notice on a contractor hired by the BLM to gather wild horses and burros. In August 1995, the BLM sent Bundy another Trespass Notice and Order to Remove. Bundy responded by sending a Constructive Notice [*5] and Order to Stop, in which he again questioned the United States’ authority to manage the Allotment. See Exhibit 28 to #11.
In September 1997, the BLM tried to set up a meeting with Bundy to resolve the trespasses, but Bundy declined to meet with the BLM.
The government contends it could have impounded Bundy’s livestock, but it took no action because any action could have resulted in physical confrontation. Since the trespass detection efforts began in late June of 1993, the BLM has kept a record of observed livestock grazing on the Allotment.
On April 17, 1998, Bundy, a pro se defendant, filed his Answer and Motion to Dismiss (#4). Bundy alleged that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. On July 22, 1998, the United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#11) requesting injunctive relief and damages.
Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss (#4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. [*6] Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue...
...In his Reply (#7), Bundy explains this action started in 1992 when he received a “Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment” from the BLM. Reply (#7), p. 5. The letter to which Bundy refers is in fact dated January 28, 1993. Bundy claims this “decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented, would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County,” and his ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5. The decision from the BLM does not inform [*8] Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month, February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision.
The decision informed Bundy the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing permit for the Bunkerville Allotment. Mot. Dism. (#4), Exh. E. The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example, if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount.”
I always thought the US Marshals office served evictions and seizure orders for the fed courts, but I could be wrong. Maybe they both do or can serve orders as directed by the court?? Someone on here knows for sure.