Bundy refuses to acknowledge federal authority, enter plea

Jailed rancher Cliven Bundy refused to acknowledge federal authority and declined to enter a plea in a U.S. court to criminal charges that he led an armed standoff against federal agents two years ago.

Amid confusion about whether Bundy has a lawyer, a federal magistrate judge entered a not guilty plea today on Bundy's behalf and scheduled a detention hearing for March 17.

Arguments then will focus on whether the 69-year-old Bundy should remain in custody pending trial on 16 charges including conspiracy, assault and threatening a federal officer, obstruction and firearms offenses.

Joel Hansen, an attorney who has represented property rights advocates in other cases around Nevada, served as Bundy's attorney.

Hansen, who referred to Bundy as a "political prisoner," said he's not sure if he'll represent him at the detention hearing.

Walking out of the courthouse with two bodyguards and two family members, Carol Bundy said only that her husband was 'doing fine.'.....

Nevada Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton who spoke to the crowd of nearly 100 people said the Bundy family and demonstrators were standing for God-given rights of liberty and freedom.

"Little by little, it's being taken away," Shelton said. "If we don't stop and pay attention, we will lose our liberties.".......

How and why would a person “lease” their own property? I doubt that they signed any “lease related documents” for something they owned. They own the grazing, by Nevada law - it doesn’t matter who owns the land: railroad, private party or government, the ranchers own the grazing rights - similar to mineral rights, which can be held independent of the real estate. By law, the payment is not a lease payment, it is a management fee, for which the BLM is obliged to maintain and/or improve the grazing. Demands of herd reduction is clear evidence of non-performance.

Yes, judges ruled, and the judges were wrong. In fact, the Hammonds were convicted for destruction of government property, when they owned the forage that was burned. A judge also ruled that they should serve additional time after they served the original sentence, using the “destruction of government property” charge as the basis for this erroneous ruling.

A judge ruled in favor of the taking of my brother’s herd in a palimony case - the judge had no authority or basis for the ruling, but she made it anyway. Judges can be just as wrong and/or corrupt as anybody else. The judges in these cases did not follow clear and established law. Treaties with various tribes were broken under “color of law” years ago. This has been going on for a long time, but it is still wrong.

The whole issue regarding federal land is that the state, representing the “people” should own and control the land. This is the argument being made by the Bundys.

We have 38 acres that we own the surface rights and 50% of the mineral rights. Someone else owns the other 50% and they have the right to access them if they ever want to. They would need to negotiate access and compensation for damage etc. But I would have to allow access of some sort.

This seems no different.

The difference is that grazing rights are surface rights. Mineral rights can only be accessed from the surface.

Anyone who disturbs the surface must first have permission from the holder of the grazing rights. There are people who own land in Nevada that cannot do much with it because of grazing rights.

My brother owns grazing rights near Fallon, NV. In fact, he owns rights within the city limits....which puts him in the catbird seat: Some homes were built that destroyed his forage and impeded his access to his property, without his permission. He could demand that they be removed...but he is currently negotiating with the city.

There are a huge number of grazing leases thru-out the west which are available to those who contract with the feds and pay grazing fees, which are very, very cheap. The grazing fees on federal land are much cheaper than on privately owned land.

At any given time there are always some(usually a small number) who are not current on their grazing fees , but they all pay.

But you tell me Bundy owns the grass, or grazing rights. Evidently, he is the only one in Nevada and the US.

Then you tell me there is no difference between grazing rights and subsurface mineral rights.

I don't think you know much about split estates. You need to read up on it. I'll get you started.

BLM Page on Split Estates

And while you are at it, you should also read up on the Taylor Grazing Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Tell me where I said there was no difference between grazing rights and mineral rights. I never made such a statement. I did say they were similar, (I assume you understand there is a difference between “the same” and “similar”) in that they each could be held by someone other than the land owner.

Actually, my brother owns grazing rights - some within city limits. The city council has recognized the strength of his claim, and they are currently in negotiation with him to settle (since houses were built on “his” graze without his permission).

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.