Posted on 04/09/2014 8:18:46 AM PDT by FBD
LAS VEGAS -- The son of a rural Nevada cattle rancher has been freed from federal custody, a day after his arrest by agents working to remove cattle from disputed grazing areas northeast of Las Vegas.
A U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman in Las Vegas said Monday that 37-year-old Dave Bundy is accused of refusing to disperse and resisting officers.Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, says U.S. Bureau of Land Management agents arrested her son Sunday in a parked car on State Route 170 near Bunkerville.
Pictures obtained by the 8 News NOW I-Team show where David Bundy had parked his car to take pictures of the cattle eviction.
Bundy says he was only exercising his First Amendment rights when federal officers told him to leave the area and when he didn't, they grabbed him."Two officers surround me, third one in front of me. They jumped me and took me to the ground. You can see they scraped up my face," Bundy said.Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, says his cattle are entitled to graze in the Gold Butte area."They steal my cattle, and that is bad enough. But they make my son a political prisoner," Cliven Bundy said.
This weekend wranglers, hired by the federal government, started removing cattle owned by Bundy from a stretch of land near the Virgin River Gorge.
(Excerpt) Read more at 8newsnow.com ...
Whatever. You win. There’s a nice trophy by the door.
What up with that?
The Feds can round up trespassing cattle, but not trespassing Mexicans?
Which is a more cost effective budget helping action?
Rounding up illegal aliens.
Fact 1 is wrong. Your adherence to the law, rather than the Constitution, says nothing good about you.
When your premise is wrong, it kinda negates all the other stupid crap you must said.
I find that hillarious.
In the VAST preponderance of these cases, the citizen side of the conflict does an absolutely horrid job of researching the relevant code and legal precedents that got them to the point they are at.
Case in point in CA - there has been a huge steal there with the "temporary moratorium" and "banning" of suction dredging on mining claims. IMHO, the ENTIRE purpose of the legislation is to get claim holders to forgo their claims and then subsequently "permit" a few (obviously very well connected) "environmental" firms to suction dredge for residual mercury from the 1800's with the side benefit of recovering a crapload of gold. The affected folk have made their stand contesting things like the bulls*** environmental reports, when they should have taken the 2 most obvious routes, contesting it under 1872 mining law and contesting it as a taking (mining claims are real property under the law) with very generous considerations for any given claimholders potential for the recovery of their claims gold. You get a few hundred guys claiming that the state owes them for what they estimate is 2500-10,000 ounces of gold on their claim, they will BTFO pretty quickly.
Crappy weak cases and fights are less than worthless to the liberty minded, they appear in the media to set some "precedent" and they also demoralize others who probably have as good or better a case in their instances.
As a friend commented recently, the educational system devotes absolutely zero time to teaching the concept of contracts to students, but upon graduation they are given the opportunity to enter into hundreds of complicated ones throughout the rest of their lives. This guy has cows. At one point in time, he entered into a contract with the government which he probably did not need to do technically given the concept of open range and how I understand it works in NV. Once he did that though, he went down a path where he had "accepted as fact" that he was obligated to, among other things, pay the government to graze cows on public land. If it wasn't actually from that particular contract, then they could select some other agreement "freely entered into" (like social security for instance, and your parents had authority to enter you into it as a minor) in which the state can say "well, you agreed to play by our rules when you joined or signed this, or accepted this benefit.
You can’t equate a private property right with the states rights. The State “owned” property is actually the collective property of the people and it’s legislative use has been, in the past, strictly defined and then subsequently “regulated” by unconstitutional acting or mandated bureaucracies and the latter instances are almost ALWAYS done to further the interest of some type of connected individual or corporate or organizational interest.
Private property is just that, private.
And who do a 1000 times more environmental damage...
The government contends Bundy did not have authorization to graze livestock on the Allotment after February 28, 1993.
The way I see it is they should have fenced the property and kept Bundy’s livestock off their land then. Nevada is Open Range Land. That means the property owner must fence his property to keep free ranging livestock and wild horses off their land. Case settled IMO.
‘Zackly.
My square mile is bordered on 4 of it’s sides by BLM sections. If, at some time, I get some cows on it, I’m not building a fence, the government is, on one side of each of its four adjacent sections...
This is in the checkerboard sections created by the government ceding every other section for 20 miles each side for the transcontinental railroad.
The people I care about aren’t thieves.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
I would classify sending hundreds of heavily-armed "pretend soldiers" to Nevada as a DEFINITE "eating out of the taxpayers' substance".
The government is stealing from the taxpeasants at gunpoint.
Don't EVEN get me started on the "First Amendment area":
[Nevada governor] Sandoval says he’s most offended that federal officials have tried to corral people protesting the roundup into a "First Amendment area."
Yes - exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.
We live in a tyranny full of laws - but the laws are only for the peasants. Lois Lerner & Eric Holder in jail yet?
Didn't think so.
...Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”...Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320; that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320; that the United States’ exercise of ownership over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319; that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass...So as I thought, Bundy's gone all sovereign citizen and has decided he's going to be the Supreme Court over all the laws. That'll get him nowhere.
...and damn it, they deserve having sniper cross hairs taking a bead on their skulls. That’ll teach’em from illegal grazing.
Eric Holder was deputy atty general when woman and children were BBQ’d up in Waco. We gonna have another Ruby Ridge or Waco over cattle grazing?
This is F’n ridiculous!
There's a "First Amendment area" for the likes of you, peasant GAFreedom.
Make sure you shut up till you're in it.
It fascinates me that the bashers of Cliven Bundy are TOTALLY IGNORING the hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpeasant money that the tyrant Federales are burning on this smackdown.
They can smell the burning flesh from the ovens, but they'll claim afterwards that they didn't...
Oh, and BTW - the lawless black-robed clowns on the Supreme Fart can go commit an act of self-fornication, after their little "decline to hear the Gay Bob wedding photography attack suit" performance.
They wouldn't know what the Constitution was if somebody crammed copies down their collective lying throats.
Outside the First Amendment area?
*******************************************
What a ridiculous terminology these G men come up with. The “first amendment area” is the whole USA and the territories. Any designation of a place to speak your mind is an infringement of the right of free speech, and that’s the truth.
Any of the King's men-at-arms that mouth that phrase should be beaten till they puke blood, for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws.
Of course, what's really happening is that the rancher's son is being beaten and made to crawl by the King's men-at-arms for "being outside the First Amendment area".
Oh, and for "resisting arrest", AKA "assaulting their fists and boots with his face and ribs".
Spot on.
“It would be nice if someone was to post pictures that enable us to identify the thugs carrying guns, the snipers and the rest of them government cowboys. It wouldn’t take too much before we could identify where they live.”
Well, you could start by contacting the contract cowboy, Shayne Sampson. Here’s the million dollar contract he was awarded:
http://www.cbd-net.com/index.php/search/show/19994365
.
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.