NV: Rancher Challenges Court's Jurisdiction

Sierra Times ^ | 21 November, 2001 | Sierra Times Staff

[SierraWasp]

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

That's purdy phrickin amazin!!! I have encountered quite a phew other dudes with yer re-shaped attitudes.

Rememmer, "crime does not pay?" Or, how 'bout "he that don't work, don't git ta eat?" Wassup wid alla these platitudes for alla yew phormer pharmin dudes?

[Phil V.]

Hey! If I caint pharm, then nobody else gets ta pharm.

'Nuff said. If y'all needs phood go ta th' store an' get sum.

[MamaTexan]

The mere fact that citizenship is defined at the national level reduce the sovereignty of the states to virtually nothing.

Good Sir,
This is a subject I've been studying for some time...
While your conclusions are disheartening, the 14th Ammendment itself is unConstitutional, and therefore null and void.

Also, I believe we are supposed to be American Nationals, NOT 'US Citizens'.

We can become American or US Nationals according to US Code Title 8 Section 1452:
(b) Application to Secretary of State for certificate of non-citizen national status; proof; oath of allegiance
A person who claims to be a national, but not a citizen, of the United States may apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of non-citizen national status. Upon -
(1) proof to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the applicant is a national, but not a citizen, of the United States, and
(2) in the case of such a person born outside of the United States or its outlying possessions, taking and subscribing, before an immigration officer within the United States or its outlying possessions, to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of a petitioner for naturalization, the individual shall be furnished by the Secretary of State with a certificate of non-citizen national status, but only if the individual is at the time within the United States or its outlying possessions.

Living as an American National, however, would make it extremely difficult to live in modern American society.

Until we can get the States to acknowledge the duplicity of the federal government, we are restricted to the choices of either living under the federal yoke, or living the comparative lifestyle of the last century.

[TrueBeliever9]

FYI

[William Terrell]

Dear lady, I don't think an amendment to the Constitution can be unconstitutional. An amendment is supposed to change the constitutional. I believe only a law can be unconstitutional since checking the law against constitutional provisions is what makes a law unconstitutional.

For a constitutional amendment to be unconstituional it would have be checked against another document that was considered a higher constitution and I don't believe there is such a thing.

It can be not properly ratified, though.

[lavaroise]

All I can say, is when the famine will come, those ranchers ain't gona protect the Americans that betrayed them. Bottom line, respect of protection of industries and volunteers of America will be learned the hard way.

[Rowdee]

To help non-ranchers understand that these 'huge' ranches are'nt really huge.....

A producer may be able to run two cow-calf pairs on well maintained, irrigated pasturage of a single acre........there are many places in the United States (think high desert areas, like Nevada, parts of Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, etc), based on the forage that grows naturally (non-irrigated, native grasses/bushes), it often times takes 30 acres or more to run one cow-calf pair!!

Before folks jump the gun and suggest that the domestic livestock just get off the range.....please consider that their grazing enhances the growth of forage making it better for ALL animals! Additionally, it is possible to feed domesticated livestock grains with seeds which are passed thru their digestive system which, after passing thru and being deposited in a pile of natural fertilizer and awaiting the occasional rain/snow, will take root and increase forage for all animals.

[Cleburne]

Grazing may benifit some areas, but that doesn't go for the close cropped sage barrens so prevelant in the Weast. Cattle and sheep are voracious eaters when there are lots of them. Thanks to immense herds of the four legged critters, large areas of native grass were cropped into oblivion, reducing native game to tiny, isolated fragments in the West, and allowing mass invasion of weedy species and the proliferation of sagebrush.

While grazing is benificial in moderation, al ot of people working the public lands don't care about moderation. After all, they break it, they don't have to pay to fix it (largely correct, yes?). Solution: either force them to change their ways (difficult) or privatize the rangeland. Of course, that'ld go over well I'm sure...

[Cleburne]

Also, speaking of benificial grazing: I've oft wondered why we don't try grazing the grand longleaf pine forests on the coastal plain-they were at one time kept open by large herbivors, and thus I can't see how limited anyway cattle grazing would harm them. The old Scott0Irish immigrants made their entire living off of it back before the Civil War. It would be an interesting experiment at any rate.

[The Man]

A couple of points.

One, if the federal government owns the land, it has the right to do with it as it pleases. If it has broken a leasing contract with Mr. Gardner, he has recourse in the federal courts to protect his rights.

Two, an Article III federal judge has jurisdiction to enforce the entire constitution. The issue is whether Mr. Gardner has any property rights that are being taken without compensation.

Three, the phrase "so-called" public lands might tip discerning members of this forum off that this so called constitutional scholar just might be a nutcase. These lands are either owned by the government or they are owned by someone else.

Four, it is well past time that the federal government sell these lands, as there is no real legitimate national interest in its keeping all of them.

[zog]

--your point three, care to elaborate more? Like, suppose this someone else who "owns the land" is neither the US federal goivernment, nor any citizens or persons currently living here? Who holds the title, could it be some foreign nationals/interests-and their progeny-from long ago?

Just wondering what your take is on this, thanks.

[brityank]

... if ... if ... he has recourse in the federal courts ...

The federal courts have unlimited funds. Does he?

an Article III federal judge has jurisdiction

See post #22.

These lands are either owned by the government or they are owned by someone else.

Nevada became a state 31 October, 1864. "Our property, our livelihood, our ranch which has been in the family since 1862 ..." He owns the land, not the federal government..

Four, it is well past time that the federal government sell these lands, as there is no real legitimate national interest in its keeping all of them.

Something we can both agree on. Do a search on Klamath Basin Crisis or CARA for more info.

[SierraWasp]

"it is well past time that the federal government sell these lands, as there is no real legitimate national interest in its keeping all of them."

Well, ya know what? You just brought up the crux of the whole matter! Times have changed. The settlers, be they ranchers or farmers did our government a huge favor in taming a wilderness our government was way over it's head in governing!

Now that the blue noses in the blue zones think they've got the whole world by the ass, so they can just spit on these people that have been some of the best Americans in taming the "wild wild west" while eaking out a living of sorts with all of their improvements. It's been kinda like a "triple net lease" deal. Their descendents aren't voluntarily leaving the improvements behind... they're being forced to, sometimes at the point of a bunch of armed Federal Agents like Mr. Hage was! It's criminal IMHO!

Now the smart-assed enviro-whackos have decided that they're gonna infest our GovernMental agencies with their EnvironMental totalitarianism, using the NGO EnvironMental litigators, pushed by EnvironMental allegators, alleging just what you are saying, except they want the land socialized, supposedly for "the good of all!"

It's a load of crap and nothing but GOVERNMENT BY WHIM!!!

I just knew this kind of renegging would start, the minute John Wayne died and Ronald Reagan lost his health! This all sucks major canal water and stinks to high heaven!

Nobody likes a renegger and the US Government is being made into one of the biggest reneggers in world history, toward the best of it's own people... western ranchers and farmers!!!

Here we thought the indigineous peoples were screwed by the US Government, now look what's happening. It's beyond shameful!

[Carry_Okie]

Here we thought the indigineous peoples were screwed by the US Government, now look what's happening. It's beyond shameful!

Yeah it is. They fought to the death to defend their land. It would seem that they understood the stakes better than do we.

[The Man]

As for post 22, it contains a number of errors.

The first two points it makes is that we are living under admiralty law and admiralty law is the same thing as martial law. This does not follow at all from the constitutional citations given. Admiralty law is the body of law pertaining to the seas and rivers, which is delegated to the federal government under the Constitution. Martial law is something entirely different.

If that were not crackpot enough, the post implies there is such a thing as an Article IV judge, which there is not (there are only Article I and Article III federal judges) and that Article III judges do not have jurisdiction over claims made under Article IV of the constitution, which in fact they do and have exercised constantly throughout the history of the country.

The real crux of the argument seems to be that because the state of Nevada was formed, the land which belonged to the federal government must of necessity have been transmitted to the state of Nevada, or the people of Nevada, or somebody else. This is also a crackpot argument, in my opinion, because the quoted sections of Article IV of the constitution explicitly state that federal government has the right to own land and make regulations concerning that land, even if that land is within the boundary of a state.

[The Man]

Which gets us to the question of who owns the land. If he has the title to the land, he owns it. If the federal government has the title to the land, the federal government owns it, no matter how long his family has been leasing it, (or for that matter, squatting on it).

There is a difference between what is fair, and what is legal. He may have a moral and sentimental claim to continue the usage of his family on the government land, but that isn't a legal claim.

[brityank]

If that were not crackpot enough, the post implies there is such a thing as an Article IV judge, which there is not (there are only Article I and Article III federal judges) and that Article III judges do not have jurisdiction over claims made under Article IV of the constitution, which in fact they do and have exercised constantly throughout the history of the country.

Since we're talking about him, might as well ping D Joyce to the conversation.

Go back and re-read Article III Section 2. Nowhere in that statement is there any reference to jurisdiction over citizens within a state. Such citizens are accorded jurisdiction as listed in Article IV Section 2. The Constitution recognizes that each state is a self regulating agency, and governed and supported by it's citizenry. The only times that the Federal Courts should become involved is where the jurisdiction crosses state lines, or involves a constitutional restriction.

Seems to me that the difference between us is that you see the constitution the way they teach it in the Government Indoctrination Centers; as providing the government with permissions to act. I, and most here, see it as restrictions against government action. My government glass is half full, and I want to drain it some more. Your government glass is half full, and you want it filled up. Well, I am proud to say I side with the boatloads of terrorists that fought against my Royalist brethren, and give thanks I was able to join them, albeit a few years later.

[The Man]

In fact the language of Article III section 2 does give jurisdiction to the federal courts over citizens within a state, and the federal courts have exercised that jurisdiction since the beginning of our republic. The key phrase is that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States . . ." Any citizen of any state could and did sue, be sued, or be prosecuted if the case involved a question of federal law or the federal constitution. Additionally, by the way, there is another specific grant of jurisdiction "between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states."

With all due respect, I think the difference between us is that I am reading the constitution as it actually reads and was historically intended by the founding fathers to mean while you are instead pulling words and phrases of the constitution out of context and giving them meanings and interpretations which they have never had.

[The Man]

And, by the way, the Constitution is both an enabling and restricting document, and I want to see that it is followed, nothing more, and nothing less.

[marsh2]

Too bad I just took down a couple of hundred pages on our website explaining all this. (Had to make room for coho studies.)

The original colonies became separate states in a confedration afterthe Recolutionary War. They each inherited all the sovereign lands that had formerly been owned by the king. (Sovereign lands include wastelands not settled as well as bed and banks of navigable streams up to high or low water mark depending on tidal influence.) The "wastelands" could be patented to individuals by the state.

The "western wastelands" east of the Mississippi were in disputed ownership. The money from their patent to individuals would be used to settle the state's war debt. The solution was to deed much of these lands to the new corporate federal entity created by the new Constitution. These were ruled by Congress as if they were colonies under plans that allowed for the creation of new states and admittance at a certain population level. Congress sold the unused wastelands to individuals for the money. It kept no lands in federal ownership.

The area west of the Mississippi was not deeded to the corporate Congress. For the most part, it was aquired by treaty from European Countries or Mexico. The rule there under international law was that the old country's laws would continue until supplanted by new. They were treated like a territory in the Courts.

The wastelands, however, did not belong to the federal government. They belonged to the nation as public domain. The definition of "public land" is actially land that has been surveyed and is ready for disposal into individual hands.

The West was governed under derivatives of Roman property law. This recognized the equitable principals of "first in time, first in right," occupancy and continuous beneficial use. Homesteaders established equitable rights to water and land, perfect among men on the State level, but not perfected with a title against any claims of "the Sovereign."

What this means, is that the federal government had to issue a patent on land, which served as its quit claim and tribunal judgement that Indian occupancy was extinguished and there was no international treaty obligation upon the land. (There has been a ruling that the federal government cannot fail to issue a patent if there are no outstanding national obligations and the claim has been perfected.)

Old grazing allotments are property under equity that the federal government has refused to issue a patent on. (The grazer generally also owns the water use right which is a property dependent upon state law.)

The grazer is taxed for his exlusive right to use by the state with a possessory tax. The IRS also taxes the market value of the grazing allotment as part of the total ranch operation under estate taxes.

Under the "Equal footing" doctrine, all states were to be admitted on an equal footing with the original 13. This has not been the case. The federal government has "withdrawn" large areas of the public domain into federal ownership by declaring them off limits to individual acquisition. They have done this by refusing to issue a patent. (The public domain lands were a trust while the lands were in territorial status for the benefit of the future citizens of the new states that would contain them. Instead, the trustee has kept the benefit of the trust for itself. East of the Mississippi, federal lands were either purchased or donated and deeded to the federal government.)

The "Federal lands" inside the Western states are held by the corporate federal United States as belonging to all the states. The laws governing them are made by all the states in Congress. The Courts for those rules are administrative courts. Under Kleppe v. New Mexico, SCOTUS denied the supremacy of local police powers as applying to these "federal lands." Although the Constitution does provide for exclusive federal legislation in forts, arsenals, etc., absent a deed of cession of jusrisdiction from the state, legislative exclusivity was never intended to apply to vast areas inside a state. (The West was not part of the United States when the Constitution was written.)

Anyway, that is some of the basis for Cliff's claim. He is basing his claims on possessory, equitable rights good against all men to continue grazing the land as was done before the trustee "withdrew" the lands. He is questioning the feds right to preempt state jurisdiction and oust his Constitutional rights. (Did you know that in a Administrative law court you can't bring in your own evidence, cross examine witnesses or get a jury trial?)

It is obvious that the Western states are not on an equal footing with the eastern states.