Posted on 11/21/2001 7:46:30 PM PST by brityank
NV: Rancher Challenges Court's Jurisdiction
Sierra Times 11.21.01
RENO - Cliff Gardner, long-time Ruby Valley, Nevada rancher, his wife Bertha, their family and supporters went before Federal District Court Judge Howard D. McKibben, on Tuesday.
The case, United States of America v. Clifton P. Gardner, alleged failure to remove livestock from ranges the family has run cattle on since the Ruby Valley Treaty in the 1800’s. Gardner says he has not been afforded his Constitutional Rights as a citizen of the State of Nevada. Gardner had previously presented the magistrate judge a list of 15 constitutional rights, which have been denied because of jurisdictional questions.
Gardner’s contention is that Nevada’s 89% so-called Public Lands are being governed as territories of the United States Government, not as Nevada lands in a sovereign state. Under territorial status constitutional protections do not apply. Hence, Gardner’s constitutional protections have been denied.
"Article IV was originally included in the Constitution by the founders for the purpose of governing territories belonging to the union. In numerous instances the Supreme Court has said that Article IV jurisdiction is without limitation and does not afford citizens their constitutional rights and protections. Mistakenly, it is now assumed that Article IV jurisdiction can be applied to citizens within sovereign and admitted states to the union. Hence, all basic God-given constitutional rights and guarantees are denied citizens who are made subject to the authority under which the BLM and Forest Service operate namely Article IV. In other words, they are treated like citizens of a territory without constitutional rights instead of citizens of a sovereign and admitted state of the union with the full protection of the Constitution," explained Rancher Cliff Gardner, a long-time Constitutional scholar.
"As an example, if the Congress suspended the Constitution in 89% of Nevada tomorrow, people would understand how serious the circumstances my wife and I faced in court today," continued Gardner.
"Our property, our livelihood, our ranch which has been in the family since 1862 is on the Forest Service chopping block. We have no due process, no redress of grievance; our property is being taken without just compensation. The Forest Service has regulated us off our land," stated Cliff Gardner.
At one point when it was clear that the jurisdictional/constitutional issues would not be addressed by the court, Gardner said, "I will not go before a court that will not afford me my constitutional rights." Gardner picked up his papers and left the table and started to leave the packed courtroom. Judge McKibben called him back but the issue could not be resolved. When Gardner and his family left the courtroom all of his supporters followed him out of the courtroom leaving Judge McKibben and the Forest Service counsel virtually alone to continue the trial. Judge McKibben issued a warrant to force Gardner to return.
Ultimately, after Gardner was incarcerated the Judge reduced his bail from $10,000 to $5,000 on the condition that he return to his next court date set for Dec. 6, 2001 at 9am. Judge McKibben was obviously rattled. The judge also stated that although he would not respond to the jurisdictional issue further that this did not preclude Gardner from appealing these Constitutional questions. Judge McKibben said, "This court is acting as an Article III court." Gardner said, "This creates the great paradox. How can an Article III court hear an Article IV question or vice versa?"
Standing on the Courthouse steps after he left the courtroom Gardner said, "We have our rights today because our founding fathers like Patrick Henry and William Penn were willing to stand up against the Kings Courts."
If the Government should prevail against Gardner not only will Gardner be removed, but this will assure that the Nuclear Dump will be forced on all Nevadans. The Nuclear Dump at Yucca Mountain is located on the same so-called Public Lands as the Gardner grazing rights. The Federal government bureaucrats contend that they have power without limitation over 89% of Nevada’s lands, under Article IV.
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com
All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2001 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
So could this explain why the BLM rides roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens it wishes to oppress?
B4Ranch you might want to see this.
Cliff Gardner bump!
(or should that be "rattled judge" bump?);o)
Wayne Hage, Stewards of the Range and even former Congresswoman Helen Chenowith of ID who eventually married the widower Hage, have been locked in a blood-sucking battle in the Federal Court of Claims with little to show for victory with these despots.
I used to think the old latin phrase... "Illigitimi Non-Carborundum" had some hopeful meaning with our Federal Judicial system. I 1994 I had great hope when Helen was elected in the Congressional landslide that maybe our political system had righted it'self, until the fiasco at OKC was used by CC&G, Inc. to destroy the conservative momentum that had developed.
I talked with my young nephew from NV who didn't like the "Sage Brush Rebellion" because he didn't like ranchers who ran him off from his favorite fishing hole on their land. He wanted the land made public so he could trespass without care or concern. No amount of logical explanation about the ranchers liability from his trespass made any difference since it interfered with his weekend "recreation" that he viewed as a much more important "Constitutional Freedom," as he referred to it, than any rights or responsibilities of said rancher.
He'd also became convinced of that relentless line of B.S. that ranchers are ripping off the people with their undervalued leases of public lands for grazing rights and felt that this long-standing institutionalized practice was to be eliminated in the future for his children and their children. He felt is was wise to exert political pressure "for the good of all!"
He didn't care one whit about the stuggle to survive against the forces of nature our pioneers endured to establish such ranches/farms in unsettled lands and I doubt he even considered the lives and fortunes our founding fathers sacrificed to keep the land free from the totalitarian rule of a king/queen or other oppressive governmental system. He's a "Trust Fund Baby" and totally certain he's right in every respect and a bunch of Red-necked Right Wing Conservative Crazies with their Constitutional rhetoric are ever gonna change his danged mind, so fergeddaboutit!!!
Sounds like something right out of Carry_Okie's book.
I'll add you to the Klamath one. It is the same issue, different state.
Good to see someone finally alive and functioning on this site tonight, just about the time I gotta leave. It's been dead here.
Your thanks should be directed to "brityank." All I did was grumble some more. I certainly enjoyed your comments about your experiences... tell us more, please.
What can you tell us about the popular State AG in NV, Del Pappa. She's been no help whatsoever!!! IMHO
He's also a pretty good carpenter. I know because 43 years ago he helped build my parents' house in Illinois and it is still in good shape. His father was the Superintendent of schools in my hometown and the judge was well liked and had/has an impeccable reputation there. I am aware of at least one very high profile case that he handled very well and very fairly from all reports.
Freepers shouldn't blame the judge for the fact that the Constitution is riddled with vagaries and internal inconsistencies. I have some sympathy for the cattle ranchers, but the only solution is to sell all government land to the highest bidder.
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.