Posted on 04/12/2014 11:09:47 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
BUNKERVILLE (KSNV MyNews3.com) -- The gathering of rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle in northeast Clark County has been stopped by the director of the Bureau of Land Management.
The BLM announcement came as Bundy was meeting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie about the week-long dispute.
The BLM had been using contract cowboys to round up Bundy's 900 head of cattle that have been grazing over 600,000 square acres in northeast Clark County for more than 20 years without his payment of grazing fees.
As of Friday they had secure 389 cattle from the Gold Butte area, nearly 90 percent of them marked with the Bundy Ranch brand.
New BLM Director Neil Kornze made the following statement this morning:
"As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders, a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.
"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.
Ranching has always been an important part of our nation’s heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."
Gov. Brian Sandoval reacted to the BLM decision with a statement.
"The safety of all individuals involved in this matter has been my highest priority," the email said. "Given the circumstances, today's outcome is the best we could have hoped for. I appreciate that the Department of the Interior and the BLM were willing to listen to the concerns of the people of Nevada."
I’ll bet many Nevadans do not realize their tax payments really belong to the demand of the Federal Government. Indeed with all this stuff in Nevada I could think that at the bottom of the historical land ownership my home belongs to the Feds according to their claims.
A litigant may plead alternate theories and defenses.
Bundy has argued in a Motion to Dismiss that a federal court lacked lacks jurisdiction because Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claimed that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States. Bundy also cited religious teachings as evidence courts lacked jurisdiction over him.
So, is it appropriate for Nevada to claim sovereignty over all the land within its borders and assert that it has first ownership to the land in the state?
We could be here all day discussing the history of Nevada and land claims. There was the 1851 Washoe Code, in which LDS and non-LDS ranchers and miners agreed on a system of land rights. Brigham Young laid claim to the land which is Nevada in 1857, by annexing it as a county of Utah, predating the Nevada Territory.
what if Nevada (and Wyoming, Arizona, etc) decide to reclaim the "public" land within their state? it's not like the gum'ment is gonna evict a state. And I'd challenge that law anyway, seeing as it's not 'equal treatment' in relation to other states.
“what if Nevada (and Wyoming, Arizona, etc) decide to reclaim the “public” land within their state? it’s not like the gum’ment is gonna evict a state.”
What they do is go to court, and the court would then ignore the state because those issues have already been before the courts - going back into the 1800s - and the courts have consistently handled them the same way. It would take an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which would have to overturn nearly 200 years of precedence in favor of giving the states much stronger rights than they have been held to have for the last 200 years.
Is that going to happen? Nope. The state would lose.
You look under a few rocks, not very big rocks and you don’t have to look very hard, and you find all sorts of stuff.
Neil Kornze is the 34 year-old son of one of dingy harry’s biggest donors Barrick Gold. This from Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/02/harry-reid-gold-member?page=2
All politicians are dirty and all who deal with them are dirty.
But Reid’s ties to mining run deeper than his sentimental connection to his rough-and-tumble origins. His sons Rory and Leif work for law firms that represent mining companies. Since 1999, his son-in-law, Steven Barringer, has earned as much as $3.7 million lobbying for mining interests including Barrick Gold, though he does not lobby Reid directly. Reid’s natural resources staffer, Neil Kornze, is the son of a geologist who discovered Barrick’s Betze deposit outside Elko. Since 1994, mining interests have donated more than $269,000 to Reid, including at least $82,000 from Barrick and its employees. Any suggestion, however, that these links have swayed Reid is “an attempt to draw a conclusion that would be inaccurate,” says his spokesman Jon Summers. (Reid declined to be interviewed for this article.)
And this from a Nevada paper.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/obama-picks-neil-kornze-as-next-blm-head
At the BLM, as senior advisor, Kornze worked on renewable and conventional energy development, transmission siting, and conservation policy. He was instrumental in the Western Solar Plan, which established 17 solar energy zones on public land, and in approving nearly 50 utility-scale renewable energy projects.
I think Neil was just confirmed in March... he sure got busy paying back debts fast didn’t he?
I’m not a lawyer. My rancher friend mentioned this case last night, and I finally found it. It involves the estate of Wayne Hage, who wrote “Storm Over Rangelands” and whose second wife was congressman Helen Chenoweth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Chenoweth-Hage).
“”No thief who has to pay for what he steals will steal for long.”
— Nevada rancher Wayne Hage, explaining to High Country News in 1995 why he had filed a lawsuit against the federal government over restrictions on his livestock grazing.
That landmark Sagebrush Rebellion lawsuit, hailed as protecting the rights of Western ranchers on public land, ground through the courts for 21 years. Early victories, including a multimillion-dollar award, caused anti-government advocates to hail Hage as a hero. But Hage died in 2006, and in late July this year, a three-judge federal appeals court panel overturned the award. “The court case is over,” says Karen Budd-Falen, a prominent Wyoming property-rights attorney. “But the conversation will go on. What (the Hage case) did was make people in the West, and in the federal land agencies, think about what kinds of rights they have and what kinds of responsibilities.”
http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.16/one-sagebrush-rebellion-flickers-out-or-does-it
More background at:
http://watchdog.org/56194/nv-wayne-hage-and-the-rout-of-property-rights-an-american-tragedy/
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/09/local/me-hage9
“Grant and Hage’s family now advocates not for “rebellion” but “cooperation,” a theory that the federal government is compelled by law to work more closely with states and counties when revising public lands policy.”
http://news.yahoo.com/central-sagebrush-rebellion-case-suffers-defeat-172420051.html
The decision [United States v. Estate of Hage, No. 2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Injunction (D. Nev. May 24, 2013)] in 2013 runs over 100 pages. While it rejects Hage’s legal theories on grazing rights, making improvements, etc, it also found:
“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.”
The full case is available online here. I think it covers, in a sensible fashion, a lot of the legal issues on how the USFS & BLM manage land. I think it correctly blames the federal agencies for outrageous behavior while also saying the rancher’s legal theories are inaccurate. I haven’t read the whole thing, but I plan to over the next few days:
One of my maxims has been that the attitude of the staff is a reflection of the attitude of the management. Example from leaders leads.
Until slick willie came along most people and kids had not ever heard of oral sex and then it became mainstream to the point that we have an outbreak or oral sex diseases.
obastard has shown that there are not real laws. He picks and chooses which ones he follows so why shouldn’t everyone else?
This government is a sham. It upholds itself as righteous but it is as corrupt and contemptible as any on the planet. More so in fact because other are at least honest about their corruption.
I wondered how the Brits were able to manage India with such a small garrison. For awhile they did it because they upheld the law mostly equally for all. Something the Indians had never seen. When the Brits began not to do that their hold decayed. Something about consent of the governed isn’t it?
The GOP is no better than the DNC. It is all about money and power now. My wife noted that Kerry was after a peace prize because he already has money. McLame is afer, what? McFlake is after... what?
Honest and politician are not words that go together very often at all. I read once that politics is a course of action set upon to achieve an unavowed purpose. Sounds dishonest by definition to me. At least deceitful.
Good info, Mr Rogers. Thanks
What we’re dealing with here and in the info you gave is a sense that the government thinks it is an overlord.
They are not lords and ladies. They don’t decree and we jump.
Hage first sued in 1991 - after 2 terms of Ronald Reagan and during the term of Bush Sr. At that point, Republican Presidents had been in charge of the BLM & USFS for 10 full years without interruption.
As the judge noted, the whole thing started when Hage added a note to his application saying he was not surrendering any rights he was entitled to, and the government used that EXCUSE to deny him a grazing permit that was in all other ways reasonable.
It is depressing to think that after 10 straight years of Republican administrations, the federal government was acting in a way that “shocks the conscience of the Court”!
That landmark Sagebrush Rebellion lawsuit, hailed as protecting the rights of Western ranchers on public land, ground through the courts for 21 years. Early victories, including a multimillion-dollar award, caused anti-government advocates to hail Hage as a hero. But Hage died in 2006, and in late July this year, a three-judge federal appeals court panel overturned the award.
And just like that, the court over turned the ruling.
What good is law like this? What we have is too complex, too much room for interpretation, too many prevarications, too many shenanigans.
What part of illegal alien sounds like any part of lawful to you? Why should there ever be any doubt or debate on the matter?
The law in this nation is not blind. It is bought by the highest bidder.
When the rule-of-law for all is dead the nation is dead. Just like in India, there is nothing of value provided to the governed and their consent will be withdrawn if at all possible.
Frankly, I predict that someone will come along with a better deal than this government is offering before too long. We will be taken over when we are broke.
You make it sound like the courts are charged to uphold the policy of the current power regime and not the law.
Gosh, that can’t be, can it?
“What we’re dealing with here and in the info you gave is a sense that the government thinks it is an overlord.”
Exactly. It reminds me of when I went to my local county to get a permit to build a corral for our horses. It took me 4 hours of arguing to get permission to build a corral that met all county codes from the beginning. They kept demanding I provide a survey of my land (all 2 acres) and “engineering drawings” for a corral made out of standard, above ground interlocking panels. The survey would have cost me more money than the corral parts!
After 4 hours of fighting, a guy came out of his office, looked at the county regulator, and said, “It’s just a damn corral! What is the problem?” The regulator then shut up and signed off on my application.
I don’t think that is how life in America was supposed to work.
My old college roommate said he had spent his entire adult life working the allotment system, and had been able to make it work for him personally, but that he was tired of fighting every year. He also said that each year for over 30 years, there has been less and less grazing allowed.
In the past, it never seemed to bother him much. He’s a few years older than I am, and I think he is now looking at what kind of ranch and business his sons will inherit. I think it scares him...and he doesn’t scare easily.
“You make it sound like the courts are charged to uphold the policy of the current power regime and not the law.”
I’ve reviewed a lot of decisions. Many are based almost entirely on the whim of the judge. Not all are. Some judges, thankfully, DO take time to apply the law fairly and rationally. The 2013 Hage decision seemed like one of those where the judge tried to honestly apply the law to the facts of the case. The previous appeals court ruling that threw out the judgment seemed to be making excuses for the government.
In theory, the right of the federal government to regulate grazing on public land is straightforward and beneficial. The problem comes when the individuals who are hired to administer things fairly are, in their hearts, crooked power-loving people.
I think it really comes down to democracy only being suitable for moral people, and it fails when the majority of people reject morality and God. I’ve concluded the only hope for America is religious revival. We’re past the point of being saved by ‘good politicians’. We need good, moral people who fear God and who therefor obey laws and act justly because it is the right thing to do. Government reflects the morality of the people. It does not instill it.
Government reflects the morality of the people. It does not instill it.
Indeed. Paul Harvey said that self government without self discipline will not work.
I tell my folks that when you are faced with a hard decision choose the one that is most difficult for you personally. That will usually the right decision.
I agree, we have forgotten God and become immoral.
I’m as dumb as lemons when it comes to law and such, but may I ask your opinion one more thing?
In 1864 Nevada became a state, and I understand the conditions in “The Ordinance”, but in 1866 northern Arizona territory was shaved south down to the Colorado River and given to Nevada (to punish Arizona for siding with the Confederates). This new territory included most of Clark County. If the new state was given that new land by the feds, and this was outside of the original conditions for statehood, i.e., “all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government and could never be taxed by the state. These provisions would be “irrevocable” without the consent of Congress and of the people of Nevada,” wouldn’t Nevada then own Clark County and not the feds?
“...in 1866 northern Arizona territory was shaved south down to the Colorado River and given to Nevada...wouldn’t Nevada then own Clark County and not the feds...”
Since the US Congress had authority over the land, I assume that authority transferred with the land. The act itself protected mining rights of individuals in the land, but doesn’t mention anything else. I doubt the Arizonans who owned property in that area lost their ownership, or that Nevada took title to all 32,000 sq miles.
If Congress did NOT have the authority to take land from Arizona and give it to Nevada, then the land would still be part of Arizona, not Clark County. If anything, I think that strengthens the case that the federal government and US Congress owned and controlled the land, to the extent that a simple act of Congress could take away 11,000 square miles from Arizona (and 21,000 from Utah) and make it part of Nevada.
There are probably court cases somewhere that deal with it, but I’m not sure how to do a search for them.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=74
http://www.nevadaobserver.com/Boundaries%20of%20Nevada%20%281881%29.htm
Does this translate to “BLM will be back when crowds have been dispersed”?Yup. And they'll make sure everything is legit and legal and probably will have the state and county backing them up this time.
The federal government is not the owner of the land, and any fees should be paid to Nevada.Nevada law, constitution, and government says otherwise. Are all three of those wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
