Posted on 04/09/2014 8:28:06 AM PDT by xzins
Armed federal agents deployed last week to northeast Clark County, Nev., for what can only be described as a major escalation in a decades-long standoff between a local cattle rancher and the U.S. government.
.Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in the southern Nevada county, stands in defiance of a 2013 court order demanding that he remove his cattle from public land managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.
The 67-year-old veteran rancher, who has compared the situation to similar confrontations with government officials in Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, told TheBlaze that his family has used land in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s.
“I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights,” he said, explaining that among them is the right to forage.
“Who is the trespasser here? Who is the trespasser on this land? Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Or is it Cliven Bundy who is trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Who’s the trespasser?”
Claiming that all other options have been exhausted, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. National Park Service responded to Bundy’s inflexibility on the issue by calling on federal agents and contract cowboys to restrict access to the public land and to confiscate Bundy’s “trespass cattle.”
.“Cattle have been in trespass on public lands in southern Nevada for more than two decades. This is unfair to the thousands of other ranchers who graze livestock in compliance with federal laws and regulations throughout the West,” the Bureau of Land Management stated on its website about the case.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Legalized rustling. “Contract cowboys.”
I’m elderly and I’ve been watching this stuff since the 60s.
Of course the last few years have been the worst and I hate to leave this world to my grandchildren. (One of them has an Obama tee shirt)
What a mess.
.
It would be nice if someone was to post pictures that enable us to identify the thugs carrying guns, the snipers and the rest of them government cowboys. It wouldn’t take too much before we could identify where they live.
You know just let them sleep with one hand on the nightstand for a few months and see if they really want to be a G-man.
My opinion ios that if you work for the government, local , state or federal, then your name and picture with home address should be in the public registry for all to see. That would cure a lot of official thuggery right quick.
And be sure to tell that to the armed guard at the gate.
Think again hundreds are heading that way in caravans, militia, oath keepers,bikers and Truckers. He is not on his own. He has millions of supporters.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1481481458731019/1481888722023626/?notif_t=event_mall_reply
Have at it a lot of good info.
Yes.
“The cattle are dying and being slaughtered and buried in the desert by federal Agents... The protesters tried to stop a convoy of trucks and backhoes coming off of the PRIVATE land owned by the Bundy’s, so they could be inspected by a sheriff ... The agents then started tazing the protesters and throwing women to the ground ... Video will be up soon ....”
People are now being tased. An all come was sent out.
This is getting interesting. I am following facebook page and it seems like thousands are on their way.. Interesting times...
US, v. Clive Bundy
US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9 Jul 2013
“The United States filed a complaint on May 14, 2012, for injunctive relief to prevent Bundy’s alleged unauthorized and unlawful grazing of livestock on property owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, and for trespass damages.
In an order dated November 3, 1998, this court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his livestock within a different area, the Bunkerville Allotment, and ordered Bundy to remove his livestock from the Allotment before November 30, 1998. U.S. v. Bundy, No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998). The court also ordered that the United States was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the Bunkerville Allotment after such date.
In its complaint, the United States alleges that, not only has Bundy failed to comply with the court’s orders that he remove his cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment and pay the financial penalties, but that Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The United States seeks an order enjoining Bundy’s unauthorized grazing on the New Trespass Lands...
...Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”...Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320; that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320; that the United States’ exercise of ownership over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319; that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass...
...Nor is there a legitimate dispute that Bundy has grazed his cattle on the New Trespass Lands without federal authorization. The United States has submitted Bundy’s deposition excerpts indicating that Bundy has grazed livestock on the New Trespass Lands and further evidence of the trespass of Bundy’s cattle in those areas. Notwithstanding Bundy’s contentions that the observed cattle bearing his brand may not in fact be his own, such a denial does not controvert Nevada law regarding prima facie evidence of ownership of branded cattle...
...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#18) is GRANTED...IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands...”
My opinion is that if you work for the government, local , state or federal, then your name and picture with home address should be in the public registry for all to see. That would cure a lot of official thuggery right quick. If you cannot do your job and hold your head up then perhaps your job is one that should be forbidden.
Some history:
“Beginning about 1954, Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM. For several years, Bundy or his father applied to the BLM to use the Bunkerville Allotment (”Allotment”) for livestock grazing and paid the BLM for the use of the Allotment. Beginning in March 1993, Bundy refused to pay the grazing bills or apply for use of the Allotment.
From 1973 or before until 1993, the BLM issued to Bundy’s father and Bundy, as his father’s representative, ephemeral grazing permits to graze livestock on the Allotment. Regions classed as ephemeral do not consistently produce forage, but periodically provide annual vegetation suitable for livestock grazing. 33 FED. REG. 18245. Before grazing on an ephemeral range, a person must submit an application to the BLM. The BLM will determine if adequate forage is available and that the use is consistent with all of the terms and conditions of the permit.
The last grazing fees paid by Bundy to the BLM was for the period of December 1, 1992 to February 28, 1993. See Exhibit 7 to #11, Mot. Summ. Jud. The last grazing application was for the same period. See Exhibit 8 to #11. The government contends Bundy did not have authorization to graze livestock on the Allotment after February 28, 1993.
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 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.
On January 24, 1994, the BLM delivered a Proposed Decision Order to Remove and Demand for Payment to Bundy by placing it on the dashboard of Bundy’s vehicle while he was in the vehicle. BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, walked out of his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him. He then returned to his truck, threw the decision out of the window and drove away. One of Bundy’s sons then picked up the decision, tore it into pieces and threw it on the ground.
On February 17, 1994, the BLM issued a final decision canceling Bundy’s ephemeral range grazing permit. On March 3, 1994, Bundy sent a check for $1,961.47 to Clark County for grazing fees. The BLM calculated that this amount is equal to the amount Bundy would pay to graze 85 cattle on the Allotment for a 12-month period if the fees were paid to the BLM in advance. Clark County returned the check to Bundy since it did not have jurisdiction over the Allotment.”
Good find, Mr Rogers.
The above piece of your post is the heart of this issue. It is clear that the federal government believes it is the owner of the land in the same way as you and I are property owners. At issue in my mind is whether they are owners or simply caretakers of lands belonging to the public. In that case, and based on the history of the USA, those public lands should be able to be purchased.
In fact, the first national park didn't come into existence until very late in the 19th century....Yellowstone.
My position is that the federal government is not enjoined by the US Constitution to become a huge property owner. At no point does the Constitution indicate that the government would need ownership of anything other than government buildings and military installations.
Too many things in our history indicates that the Fed was caretaker of lands within the borders established for the USA.
I’ve read one article in which the man claimed his family had had access to that land back to the late 1800’s. Any idea if that’s true?
Euthanize tortoises!!
Doesn’t that contradict their claim?
Articles on a couple of Facebook pages say the conservation organization ran out of money.
The land was owned by the federal government because it was a settlement from a war. The government did what it could to encourage settlement and gave land away for many years. The land it couldn’t give away became much of our current federal land.
Since the 1930s, the US Congress, in a series of laws, gave up trying to give the land away and started managing it.
“The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was enacted to remedy the deterioration of the range on the remaining public lands. This was the first direct authority for federal management of these lands, and implicitly began the shift toward ending disposals and retaining lands in federal ownership.”
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
It is currently managed IAW US law passed by Congress, as Congress has authority to do. I may not agree with all Congress does, but I do not pretend they lack the right to manage public lands. From the Constitution:
“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; “
According to court documents, Bundy and his family first started using the land for grazing in 1954. The sections in dispute include new land he started grazing on after the 1998 court case.
The key word in that to me is the word "needful" These are the same people who agreed that tomahawk claims and cabin claims were legitimate means of marking ownership of land "belonging to the United States."
So, in my mind the original sense of that is that the States United would find themselves with responsibility for land both set aside for offices and military and land as of yet unclaimed.
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.