Posted on 04/09/2014 8:18:46 AM PDT by FBD
LAS VEGAS -- The son of a rural Nevada cattle rancher has been freed from federal custody, a day after his arrest by agents working to remove cattle from disputed grazing areas northeast of Las Vegas.
A U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman in Las Vegas said Monday that 37-year-old Dave Bundy is accused of refusing to disperse and resisting officers.Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, says U.S. Bureau of Land Management agents arrested her son Sunday in a parked car on State Route 170 near Bunkerville.
Pictures obtained by the 8 News NOW I-Team show where David Bundy had parked his car to take pictures of the cattle eviction.
Bundy says he was only exercising his First Amendment rights when federal officers told him to leave the area and when he didn't, they grabbed him."Two officers surround me, third one in front of me. They jumped me and took me to the ground. You can see they scraped up my face," Bundy said.Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, says his cattle are entitled to graze in the Gold Butte area."They steal my cattle, and that is bad enough. But they make my son a political prisoner," Cliven Bundy said.
This weekend wranglers, hired by the federal government, started removing cattle owned by Bundy from a stretch of land near the Virgin River Gorge.
(Excerpt) Read more at 8newsnow.com ...
"It appears that we have lost our court system. It is no longer available to the masses. Expense and time generated by ridiculous laws and rules of procedure move the court system out of the reach of those who need it the most. It addition, far too many judges have forgotten the Constitution, a grave omission tantamount to treason."
Indeed.
THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY! (Nevada Rancher)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143026/posts
The OathKeepers are responding:
Oathkeepers call to action
volunteers and donations needed
The state of Nevada did not exist at that time, it was the Nevada territory. Under the terms of the treaty negotiated by Trist, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico. This was known as the Mexican Cession and included present-day Arizona and New Mexico and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Colorado (Article V).
As for the consent of the legislature, that was done when Nevada became a state. During the first attempt at statehood, the Congress stated that Nevada would have to have certain clauses in the enabling act in order to be accepted as a state. The requirements of the congressional enabling act were duly incorporated at the beginning of the constitution in a section called “The Ordinance.” This included the outlawing of slavery, and the statement that all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government and could never be taxed by the state.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html
Yes the federal government does push people around. That is not germane to this topic. What is germane is who owns the land in question. The fact is that the US government owns the land and under the most basic of rights, has the authority to decide what is to be done with their property.
You know, using the liberal tactic of name calling and profanity when you run out of reasoned discourse and can not refute the facts does not help your cause any.
Having been a part of Texas, Eastern New Mexico and Eastern Colorado (i.e., everything east of the Rio Grande) were already part of the USA via the Texas Annexation.
The facts are obvious and the answer is simple, not liking the answer doesn’t change the facts. If you want to play you have to pay. He stopped paying. Should the gentlemen who lease out most of our ranch stop paying it would be no different.
LOL! I understand how Free Republic was neutralized.
The "Horatio on the Bridge" tactic is very effective.
Too bad it didn't do Danny Rather any good, but that victory was quite some time ago.
Sure it is, if you're a Constitutionalist, as you claim.
Actually, I started out as a Constitutionalist many years ago on Free Republic, until I realized that the Left (and people like you & Dusty, but I repeat myself...) actually likes constitutional argumentation, because they can wrap their opponents in endless "interpretation" quibbling, as we see here on this thread.
A really good example of the tactic, and its strategic end, is the endless debate over the quite-clear Second Amendment.
In order to cut the Gordian Knot of the endless Constitutional debating, one simply becomes a Declarationist, because, after all, the Constitution sprang from the Declaration.
The Declaration is poison to Constitutional quibblers. It's like a silver cross to a vampire to them, whereas true Constitutionalists rush to embrace the Declaration as the dear old friend that it is.
As we saw above, when you two were confronted with the various Declaration interpretations of the Bundy situation, you studiously ignored them. Oh, yes - it's ALL about the Constitutional quibbling with you two Horatios.
taxcontrol brusquely allows that the millions of dollars being spent (“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”) might be a bit much, but then plunges right back into the quibbling.
The "eating out of the substance" is RIDICULOUS, boys, as is the tyrannical actions of the Fed bully-boys. "First Amendment areas" - what a despotic clown-show.
It's clear on the face of it that this power play was started by the Clintonites immediately after his first election, with a view to locking up the lands out West.
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping.
There's a reason MomJeans Obama became a "Constitutional scholar" - the same reason you find yourselves arguing over "buildings" and "forts" and "Article 1 section 8" and "sentence 3 of clause B of subparagraph 2".
It's trivially easy for a noble Horatius or two to divert attention from the grievously Despotic actions of the tyrannical Police State and over to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
No, we have a situation where swarms of officers are harassing Cliven Bundy and other citizens, and eating out all of our substance paying million-dollar contracts to government mercenaries, ala the Hessians, and where the King's Men are setting up "First Amendment areas", and beating up and arresting people for "resisting arrest".
Tyranny in our time.
Exactly
Don't worry, comrade 0bama will be establishing 'Collectives' where, after re-indoctrination, family farmers will be employed producing food for the proletariat.
/sarc
The government will point to the Nevada Disclaimer Clause. When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would "forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States . . ." The Nevada state constitutional convention did so.
Cliven Bundy says the Disclaimer Clause is illegal and unconstitutional. With respect to another Nevada rancher making the same claim, a federal court ruled that the Disclaimer Clause was legal and constitutional. Note I'm only saying what a federal court ruled.
The government did change the rules. Twice.
The government has never lied about that.
Under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, the federal grazing contracts had ten-year terms. The Bundy family first entered into a Taylor Grazing Act contract and began paying grazing fees in 1934. The first grazing contact expired in 1943, and subsequent contracts expired in 1953, 1963, 1973, 1983, and 1993.
At any of those points, the government could change the terms of the grazing contract.
In 1993, the government changed the contract to provide for an increased grazing fee and a massively decreased limit on the amount of cattle that Bundy could graze on the old Bunkerville allotment . . . because of the presence of desert tortoises, which the Fish & Wildlife Service had placed on the Endangered Species list in 1989.
Cliven Bundy refused to sign a new contract and continued to graze his cattle on the old Bunkerville allotment.
The government has never lied about that.
In 1988, the government made another change. The BLM declared the old Bunkerville allotment a 'no-graze' area because of the presence of desert tortoises. The government has never lied about that.
We can discuss the point, but I don't consider it to be changing the rules after the fact when a property owner (a) offers different terms in a new contract upon the expiration of a previous contract, or (b) changes the rules for use of its land, affecting someone who consciously chose not to renew a contract or pay a grazing fee for the land.
One of the BLM's legal reasons for claiming the right to remove Bundy's cattle is trespass. Bundy has claimed in legal documents that the BLM is essentially lying about that, and the true legal basis being asserted by the BLM comes from the Endangered Species Act.
I don't think the "science" about the Tortoises is "settled", though the Harry Reed run BLM does.
On that point we agree completely. One one hand, I don't see the Constitutional power of the federal government to own this land. We could spend the rest of the weekend listing things the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do and we wouldn't exhaust the list.
On the other hand, we have Marbury v. Madison, a boot-strapping assumption of power by the federal judiciary. Yet, someone has to interpret federal laws and the Constitution. How should these be done?
Full support of Cliven Bundy doesn't mean chasing the BLM away from the old Bunkerville allotment, or passing legislation to take this power away from the BLM. It requires stripping away centuries of legal precedent established by Marbury v. Madison. The federal judicial law opposing Mr. Bundy predates the BLM and the Taylor Grazing Act.
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.