NV: Rancher Challenges Court's Jurisdiction

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

[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)

[forester]

Very interesting thread Waspman, but I am not up on this stuff enough to comment in detail. What little I know has come from Marsh2's writings and my personal experience with dealing with the agencies. As Marsh points out in her post above, going to 'admin court' with the guvmint is a total waste of money unless they have failed to follow their own rules -- and even then, it's still a crap shoot.

Although we know what the problem is (government ownership) and what the solution is (privatize it), public ignorance/apathy is preventing us from getting from here to there. IMHO, we ought to be thinking in terms of intermediate steps that would gradually move the issue towards resolution. I say this because I doubt that a judge will give us the silver bullet decision we would all like to see.

[SierraWasp]

"(The West was not part of the United States when the Constitution was written.)"

Then, if that be true and we have no equal footing with the others, don't we have more reason to abandon the Union than the South ever did?

I think I have a clue what you were referring to as the "Corporate Congress," and the "Corporate US Gov." but I want to be sure, could you refresh me on this concept?

[marsh2]

By corporate I mean a body made up of representatives of citizens from many states that acts as one entity - a union - a corporate entity. (Originally, in the days when the dual sovereignty of the States and federal government was stronger and more distinct, the Senate was elected by the State legislators, so the corporate body included representatives from every state.)

This would be different than a Confederation, where the several parties retain their separate identities.

When the original states ceeded ownership of the wastelands, it did so through a deed of cession. There had to be a legal corporate entity to receive ownership of that property. This corporate entity was a federal union of representatives of and from all the states in Congress.

[Carry_Okie]

As I recall, there has been a recent chink in your thesis re the 14th in NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); Nos. 91-543, 91-558 and 91-563 Argued March 30, 1992, Decided June 19, 1992. In it, state citizenship was acknowledged as an extant doctrine. The decision was regarded as a landmark ruling, but has not manifested as such, for reasons that comport well with your argument. If you wish, I will go look at the text and cite it if I can.

[Carry_Okie]

This corporate entity was a federal union of representatives of and from all the states in Congress.

I think that there is more to it than that. In my deep memory there were some shenanigans pulled in court cases soon after the Civil War that converted the US government into a corporation capable of owning property. It was that corporation that went bankrupt in 1933.

[William Terrell]

If you wish, I will go look at the text and cite it if I can.

Thanks. I'll dig it up. I want to read the case. "Extant doctine", huh. But then, all I have are the words of a couple federal district court judges and a lot of innuendo in some older SC cases.

[William Terrell]

I read the case. Basically it's about a waste disposal issue with Congress trying to force the state in question to make certain legislation. There are references to 10th amendment rights of the states and protecting states sovereignty.

I get the distinct impression that "protecting states sovereignty" is more policy guided by the 10th amendment than law required by the 10th amendment, and, if something really important came up, like a national retail sales tax, the lip service to the 10th amendment would come to a screeching halt.

But then, I'm a cynic anyway.

[Carry_Okie]

Just thought you might find it interesting given that it is fairly recent. I'm pretty cynical too, but not so much as to ignore an opening that might be useful to widen. Perhaps it is a beginning.

[Ben Ficklin]

When Texas joined the Union she was allowed to keep her lands. The other states would have turned their lands over to the National govt. The Acts that Congress implemented to get the western lands(beyond the 98th meridian)settled did not allow these lands to be turned over to settlers in large enough acreages. Texas did not make the same mistake and did allow large ranches to be formed.

All of the land problems, such as the one in this article, that are becoming worse and worse can be traced back to these old federal land policies.

[MissAmericanPie]

Little wonder then that so many are fleeing to Texas.