Posted on 03/11/2016 3:52:33 AM PST by Nextrush
Jailed rancher Cliven Bundy refused to acknowledge federal authority and declined to enter a plea in a U.S. court to criminal charges that he led an armed standoff against federal agents two years ago.
Amid confusion about whether Bundy has a lawyer, a federal magistrate judge entered a not guilty plea today on Bundy's behalf and scheduled a detention hearing for March 17.
Arguments then will focus on whether the 69-year-old Bundy should remain in custody pending trial on 16 charges including conspiracy, assault and threatening a federal officer, obstruction and firearms offenses.
Convictions could get him life in prison.
Joel Hansen, an attorney who has represented property rights advocates in other cases around Nevada, served as Bundy's attorney.
But Hansen says that's temporary, and Bundy plans to get another trial lawyer.
Hansen, who referred to Bundy as a "political prisoner," said he's not sure if he'll represent him at the detention hearing.
Walking out of the courthouse with two bodyguards and two family members, Carol Bundy said only that her husband was 'doing fine.'.....
Nevada Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton who spoke to the crowd of nearly 100 people said the Bundy family and demonstrators were standing for God-given rights of liberty and freedom.
"Little by little, it's being taken away," Shelton said. "If we don't stop and pay attention, we will lose our liberties.".......
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
marked
Ping
Bump.
He is a very courageous man being persecuted by this government. But, notice how few people are commenting to this story. No one cares and so the government learns we have no will behind us and can pick off those dissenters at will.
Because there are no real patriots anymore. To speak out would mean the loss of jobs, homes, cars, big screen TV’s and the booze we drink while watching the “big game”. Somehow we have decided we have far more to lose than the Founders.
I believe FReepers care very deeply.
However perhaps they’re being cautious about putting their honest reaction to this DESPICABLE FASCISTIC GOVERNMENT in print.
Easy for me to say, over here in the UK.
Freedom-loving Americans need to be very smart in times like this, and stop trying to recreate the Boston Tea Party for personal aggrandizement. Because today the media is on their side, and are going to tell your story their way.
“Because there are no real patriots anymore. To speak out would mean the loss of jobs, homes, cars, big screen TV’s and the booze we drink while watching the “big game”. Somehow we have decided we have far more to lose than the Founders.”
You hit the nail right on the head, we all cherish our lives more than our freedoms...we are very comfortable and that is what matters most evidently.
Regardless of whether you are aware of it, the beast system is at war with you. The best form of war is to encircle your enemy (isolate them), cut off communication and supplies; then, either wait for surrender or assault them once they’re weakened (starved and run out of ammo).
The beast is completing the encirclement.
few people are commenting
I’ve learned to never broadcast your intentions if any type of conflict is looming.
That’s not being smart. That’s just pre-emptive surrender.
Bundy didn’t pick a fight with the Fed: he insisted on his God-given property rights and so became their enemy. He certainly hasn’t done anything for his personal aggrandizement.
Also: the legacy media never has told the truth and isn’t about to start now. That’s why they’re the legacy media and we are the new media.
The American people stood up to the Fed on Bundy’s land, and forced them to disgorge. They will do so again. A new President is coming.
Bundy didn’t pick a fight with the Fed: he insisted on his God-given property rights
**************
That’s part of Bundy’s problem. He only owns about 160 acres of land in fee and the
rest he’s using is owned by the federal gov’t. He hasn’t paid grazing fees since 1993.
Those leading in their respective Primaries are both Fed. lovers. Matter of fact it was just a week or so ago tRump was quoted as saying the land should be controlled by the fed because the state may abuse it. (Which I laugh at, as given he's the guy who likes using eminent domain to steal private land)
It's the scope and ownership of the grazing rights that is in dispute. Without sufficient grazing rights Bundy has no ranch and no livelihood.
In 1993 the Feds started an undeclared war on grazing rights - and therefore on ranchers - in the Gold Butte area.
The Desert Tortoise was given protected status, and cattle were denied grazing on 'tortoise-critical' land - despite the fact that the Desert Tortoise thrives in grazing areas due to the presence of moist cowpats. Seriously.
In 1998 Clark County - not the BLM - brought up all extant grazing rights in Gold Butte, to retire them in favor of the Tortoise. They didn't buy Bundy's, because his rights were in dispute as far back as 1994.
In 1993 the BLM sharply cut Bundy's grazing rights to starvation levels. Bundy disputes the right of the BLM to do this: he maintains that the change to the meager 150 head allotment asserted by the BLM is beyond their authority.
He maintains that in the 70's the rights were changed to 'ephemeral range classification' which means that cattle numbers could be matched with the amount of forage available. It seems that Bundy ran as many as 1,400 head of cattle back then.
Bundy also claims that his preemptive water rights are based on livestock beneficial use.
So ... it's a tangle. Since 1993 Bundy has been attempting to pay his grazing fees to Clark County, not to the BLM. As Clark County - not the BLM - brought the other grazing rights, it may be that Clark County are the only government agency that can legally own the grazing rights. If so then this means Bundy has a case in law.
But don't concentrate on the law. Concentrate on the federal overreach. Whatever the decisions of the Nevada courts: it's clear that the BLM have been deliberately running off ranchers in Gold Butte for 23 years. The land is being put aside as an offset for a solar farm in the vicinity, or some damn thing.
FReepers: if it turns out that Bundy doesn't have a case - don't shrug your shoulders. Don't salve your conscience based on some jot or tittle of a printed statute. Bundy is in the right: the BLM are indeed abusing wildlife protection laws to drive him off his land.
Remember that the American revolution was illegal in every single way, except that it was right.
You should acquaint yourself with Nevada grazing laws.
Bundy OWNS the grazing rights - why should he pay “grazing fees”. Grazing rights are similar to mineral rights.
What you call “grazing fees” are designated as “management fees” in the BLM enabling legislation. For which the BLM is supposed to maintain or improve grazing. They were not doing their job. Which of us would pay for services not received.
BTW - Oregon has the same grazing laws. The ranchers OWNED the forage that was burned. The “property” the feds claimed was destroyed by fire actually was owned by the ranchers NOT the government.
It should also be pointed that the problems that arose in both the Bundy case and the Hammond case were ruled on by judges. In fact it was a court order that gave BLM the authority of Bundy's stock.
In the article they mention the sign that Bundy's wife carried saying the land belongs to the people, and the Bundy brothers made that statement in Oregon.
That statement is in the realm of "Sovereign Citizens"
At other times you'll hear them say turn the land over to local government or county government.
That statement is in the realm of Posse Comitatus(force of the county). The problem with that is that the Clark County, NV sheriff and the Harney County, OR sheriff were not interested in backing any of the Bundys.
Historicaaly, Sovereign Citizens and Posse Comitatus never succeed and this is ultimately a conflict between two wings within the movement. So, if somehow the feds turn loose of these lands(not likely), it ain't going to the Bundys, To the People, or to Local Government. It will go to the states. That is why the states as well as the Mormon church refused to back the Bundys.
You can try to make this into a big issue but there have been only two significant cases that revolve around "reducing the herd" since congress passed FLPMA in 1976, forty years ago. Wayne Hage and Cliven Bundy.
There has been only a handful of significant cases dealing with the RS 2477 roads. You may remember Jarbidge Road.
But don't concentrate on the law. Concentrate on the federal overreach.
The Fed is too big and too corrupt, but I'd rather focus on the law for now. Thanks for providing some details.
Thanks. AS you say it’s a tangle.
Thanks for your input. Very little of some of the western states are actually
state/local/private owned, but rather is owned by the federal gov’t.
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.