Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NV: Rancher Challenges Court's Jurisdiction
Sierra Times ^ | 21 November, 2001 | Sierra Times Staff

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)


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: brityank
Thanks for the heads up.......pumpkin pies need to be baked so I will bump for later reading.

God bless America and FR this Thanksgiving Day in the year of our Lord 2001.

21 posted on 11/22/2001 4:00:25 AM PST by Jackie222
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: SierraWasp
. 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!!!

Well, he's right, ya know!

I wasted 18 g*ddamned years milking cows and taking "vacations" helping my uncle round up cattle off'n g'vment leases - yellow jackets! rattle snakes! bumps & bruises - vacation??? bullshiT!

One day I got off the pharm. I went into one of them new-phangled super markets. . . .WOW! . . . Shelves & shelves of milk - beef, pork, eggs up the ol' wazoo! "They shore as hell don't need me tied down seven days a week doin' what I'm doin'", I thought to myself!

Today my call is, "Save the' pharmers! Phederalize pharmers! Phree th' pharmers!!!"

23 posted on 11/22/2001 4:46:34 AM PST by Phil V.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phil V.
Today my call is, "Save the' pharmers! Phederalize pharmers! Phree th' pharmers!!!"

Sorry, Phil; the last thing 'Phederalizing' the 'Pharmers' will do is allow them 'Phreedom'!

24 posted on 11/22/2001 5:02:49 AM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: D Joyce
Thank you for the informative post. Another reason why FreeRepublic is the best discussion board on the net.
25 posted on 11/22/2001 5:05:47 AM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Thanks for the flag!
26 posted on 11/22/2001 5:28:29 AM PST by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
The tresspass situation is something that a lot of persons don't know about. In New York state, the land owner is liable for any injury which occurs on his property. You may have legally posted the land, and if a tresspasser comes on it, say with an ATY, overturns and is injured, the land owner can be liable.

If the tresspasser is injured because of an "unsafe condition" on the land, the land owner is not only liable, but subject to penalities. What might such an unsafe condition be? How about the ATV driver running into a barbed wire fence? One then may have to convince a jury that one was not negligent because he had a fence to keep the cows in. Most city dewllers have no concept of what is required to operate a farm.

27 posted on 11/22/2001 5:45:29 AM PST by Citizen Tom Paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Guess I didn't word that well. It is similar in nature to the stories he tells. Does that work?
28 posted on 11/22/2001 6:07:07 AM PST by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
Most city dewllers have no concept of what is required to operate a farm.

The main reason we are working to get agriculture back in the classroom. I work with a coalition called Ag Net. One of our members went to a class to talk with the kids about ag and the teacher said "Mr. Smith is here to tell us what little animal cotton comes from." Ag Net has a grant through Cal Poly to make corriculum for K-12. It should be in the classroom by fall of 2002. We also work are on the advisory board for Ag in the Classroom.

29 posted on 11/22/2001 6:14:44 AM PST by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: brityank
BTTT
30 posted on 11/22/2001 6:16:52 AM PST by SuperLuminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
A few facts: When a rancher leases land from the Goberment, he is not leasing the "Land". He is leasing the right to graze his cattle and improve the land for the benefit of the cattle. He has no right to keep others off the land. The reason ranchers get pissed off with "tresspassers" is that most of the time, they do harm to the land, the improvements -read water holes, etc. - and sometimes, the cattle. Most city slickers don't realize that when you open a gate, you need to close it!
31 posted on 11/22/2001 6:22:52 AM PST by OregonRancher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OregonRancher
Couple of other points. Ranches in eastern Oregon and Nevada are usually made up of maybe 250 acres of deeded land and 25,000 acres of leased land. If it was not for the leased land, ranches in these areas would be non-existant. Not sure of the figures, but NV is about 98% federally owned - go figure... In eastern Oregon its about the same.... I know one ranch of 200,000 acres and only about 13,000 is deeded... Hey, you folks in the east, do any of you have any idea how big that is???? The Hearst ranch in Kalifornia is over 320,000 acres - over 500 sq miles...leased to the government..love it!!!!!
32 posted on 11/22/2001 6:30:39 AM PST by OregonRancher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
bump!
33 posted on 11/22/2001 6:39:51 AM PST by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OregonRancher
This is real hard for me to comprehend, all land in Texas is privately owned except for a tad here and there. What business does the government have owning state territory? This flies in the face of sovereign states, it's rediculous, how did this happen and why didn't the citizens slap their elected state officals in the face and make them do right?
34 posted on 11/22/2001 6:51:34 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Morning! Now my history is really rusty...as you get older, you know the files are there, it's just that you can't remember where you filed them..... I think that one of the conditions of statehood for NV was all property not privately owned was taken by the government...
35 posted on 11/22/2001 7:00:16 AM PST by OregonRancher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OregonRancher
Good grief, that's sad.
36 posted on 11/22/2001 7:06:39 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Sorry, can't help on NV politics. I don't live there, and have not followed it closely.
37 posted on 11/22/2001 7:43:09 AM PST by n-tres-ted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
Unfortunately, the feds are not likely to sell any land. In fact, even Repubs are supporting the feds buying billions more land every year. I got irritated with Hugh Hewitt early this year when he was supporting the idea that the new Bush administration should spend even more that Clinton did to take over more acres for federal ownership, pushing out private use of the land.

As to inconsistencies in the Constitution, I think the major problem is the unwillingness of the SCOTUS to stand in the way of government when it wants to take property without paying for it.

38 posted on 11/22/2001 7:49:57 AM PST by n-tres-ted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
This is real hard for me to comprehend, all land in Texas is privately owned except for a tad here and there. What business does the government have owning state territory? This flies in the face of sovereign states, it's rediculous, how did this happen and why didn't the citizens slap their elected state officals in the face and make them do right?

I know you won't like this answer. Don't like it myself. The North won the war. So what? Well, when they did, the 14th amendment came into being. Before, each state awarded citizenship to members of that state and by virtue of that those members were citizens of the nation.

The 14th amendment made citizenship only at the national level, with residence only at the state level. All rights, privileges and protections flow from citizenship. The mere fact that citizenship is defined at the national level reduce the sovereignty of the states to virtually nothing.

Let me repeat: that one action of taking away state citizenship changed the entire face of America, obsoleted sections of the state and federal constitutions, which, incidently, were not removed from the text thereof, the ommission of which was act of fraud and deceit.

It's been that way since the war, but little was done about it so as to not alarm the population until it was settled into custom and national thought.

The muscle is being flexed now and the only obstacle left is the American people's belief otherwise. But the courts knew, and knows.

Looking at the problem strictly objectively and unemotionally, probably the only way that can be reversed is another war. If you try to use the courts, "judicial notice" will eat your lunch every time.

I suspect that every politician in all offices at state and federal level understands this, but wouldn't dare breathe a word of it. When you make politics a profession it soon becomes filled with craven cowards addicted to the most corrosive substances to the human soul: power and money.

My opinion.

39 posted on 11/22/2001 7:58:20 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Thanks for the education, I had no freakin idea. This news will not set well with native born Texans, we feel we are barely in the Union as it is. I'm floored really.

I will bookmark this to my profile page, your explaination gives an insight into our situation that I have never heard before. Happy Thanksgiving to you.

40 posted on 11/22/2001 8:07:39 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson