Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ladd, I missed your answer to this question?

So ladd is it right if a state has a law that allows someones cattle to be seized for neglect without someone with "reasonable qualifications as approved by the State Board of Animal Health" (approved vet or State Vet Field inspector) making a determination that neglect had actually occurred prior to the seizure?

Should these seizures of private property (cattle) for neglect here in ND be allowed based on nothing more than a "law enforcement officers belief" and sworn affidavit?

I ask this because it seems the new law allows for the seizure of cattle without any actual "proof" the cattle have been neglected (an assumption of guilt) and the rancher then has to prove he was innocent of these charges. (possibly after his cattle have been sold and he has no standing to hold the county responsible and recoup his losses because the law prevents it)

I always thought that the courts presumed someone innocent and the courts had to prove their guilt rather than the other way around.

Sum1's picture
Sum1
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/12/08

Ladd Said:
 This case was on the nightly news tonight:

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/nevada-rancher-stands-against-feds-o...

If this story is correct in the ranchers have lost their claims in court and the BLM is enforcing the court orders then the ranchers and their supporters are in the wrong.   The rancher they interviewed called the public land "their land" which is where the problem lays.  It is not their land..... If he wants to base his claim that it is "their land" by going back to the 1880's for his claim  that he has an ownership interest in the public land then why can't the local Indian tribes go back a little further and trump his claim of ownership and kick him off the land?????????

This seems like Gordon Kahl type mentality.......

They better hope this feller is no Gordy Kahl. He sure put an ass whupen on them boys back in the day. WOLVERINES!

 "Play it Mr.Toot"

ndraised's picture
ndraised
Offline
Joined: 3/27/05

the RADICAL right is wrong again !!!  Show the bill of sale for the land Mr. Bundy.. It IS THAT SIMPLE. 
The RADICAL right wing shows up with guns...
YEA RADICAL RIGHT WING don't know sh47t

Sum1's picture
Sum1
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/12/08

ndraised Said:
the RADICAL right is wrong again !!!  Show the bill of sale for the land Mr. Bundy.. It IS THAT SIMPLE. 
The RADICAL right wing shows up with guns...
YEA RADICAL RIGHT WING don't know sh47t

WOLVERINES!

 "Play it Mr.Toot"

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ndraised Said:
the RADICAL right is wrong again !!!  Show the bill of sale for the land Mr. Bundy.. It IS THAT SIMPLE. 
The RADICAL right wing shows up with guns...
YEA RADICAL RIGHT WING don't know sh47t

It really is "not that simple".

Did you read or watch the videos in another thread about Wayne Hage's case over almost the very same thing that the courts upheld?

Western land usage is tied to water rights.

Mr. Hage was able to show a clear link to the purchase of water rights and usage which maintains ownership back to the time they were actually purchased long before the BLM was in existance.

After the BLM came into existance these ranchers (or the generations before that had purchased these land usage rights) allowed the BLM to begin "managing" them knowing little back then what it would lead to.

Understand these issues are far different in Nevada than they may be in ND.

Read a little about these cases that have been provided and others and you can see it really is not "THAT SIMPLE".

 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

cynical Said:
So what would prevent the federal government from doing the end around on land granted to people in the Homestead Act?

Pretty scary thought. 

One thing about the cow is that she is a walking mini factory. She can take a blade of grass that nobody was going to use for anything and turn it into new wealth. That has been known for ions. Laws were written that someone or government or company cannot purposely obstruct her between grass and water.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hell, now even the Obama administration says the 9th District Court is full of it.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/obama-justice-departments-decision...

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

ndraised Said:
the RADICAL right is wrong again !!!  Show the bill of sale for the land Mr. Bundy.. It IS THAT SIMPLE. 
The RADICAL right wing shows up with guns...
YEA RADICAL RIGHT WING don't know sh47t

That was already addressed on page one. The rancher doesn't own the surface estate, but he has a contract of sorts with the fed/gov to the "use" of the grass and water.

Fritz wrote,

The rancher has been there so long working the land he referred to it as "their land".
I'm sure that he does recognize that he does not own the surface estate. But it is "fee" land. Severed. He has a vested interest. The "use" of that land for grazing and water. Fee refers to the estates in lands, not the land itself. 

With a grazing allotment the title becomes split. Much like when someone sells an easement on their property, the title is split and recorded at the deeds office. These grazing allotments also have value. If the owner dies, his heirs have to pay a tax in an estate settlement to the IRS because they view the allotment as real property. The fed/gov can't have it both ways. Either these grazing allotments are property or they are not. Since 1913 the western ranchers have paid billions to the US Treasurey. 

The misnomer is in the words "public lands". The correct terminolgy is land that has no liens, holds, easements, fees, rights or permits attached. Most land in the U.S. would not qualify as "public lands."
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

So here is a question for those still believing Mr. Gordon was in the wrong by trying to pay Clarck county his grazing fees, if these lands are public Federal lands controled by the BLM, how can the Clark County commissioners vote unanimously to sell these publiclands to a Chinese firm?

http://seriouslyepicstuff.com/harry-reids-son-representing-chinese-solar...

The son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Rory Reid, is the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, a Chinese energy company seeking to build a $5 billion solar panel plant on a 9,000-acre Clark County desert plot in Laughlin, Nevada.

ENN scored big when Clark County commissioners unanimously voted to sell the Chinese company the public land for just $4.5 million, despite the fact that it was appraised at $38.6 million.

Sen. Reid has been one of ENN’s biggest supporters, having recruited the company during a 2011 trip to China. According to Reuters, last month Sen. Reid tried to “pressure Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as ENN’s first customer.”

Both Rory Reid and Harry Reid deny having ever discussed the $5 billion Chinese solar panel plant deal:

“I have never discussed the project with my father or his staff,” said Rory Reid. Kristen Orthman, a spokeswoman for the senator, said he had not discussed the project with his son.

This isn’t the first time the Reids have come under fire for alleged cronyism. In 2003, allegations emerged that Nevada industries frequently lobbied Sen. Reid through his well-connected relatives.

Read more: http://seriouslyepicstuff.com/harry-reids-son-representing-chinese-solar-panel-plant-5-billion-nevada-deal/#ixzz2ymuOvxub

I wonder how the desert tortoise will fare on these 9000 acres of development?
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

http://seriouslyepicstuff.com/faa-declares-3-miles-bundy-ranch-site-fly-...

sect_4_1687

The FAA has declared 3 nautical miles surrounding the Bundy Ranch as a designated no-fly-zone from April 11th, 2014 thru May 11th, 2014 in preparation for the Federal Government to take over the land.

No pilots may operate an aircraft in the areas covered by this NOTAM (except as described).

ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE

This never happens for such an extended period of time and is typical only when Air Force One is flying over a city.  Never before has such a massive area been locked down for such an extended period of time.

If you are one of many people fathered inside this zone during the next 30 days I advise you to group together and form some kind of common exit plan in case anyone needs urgent medical help.  May God be with you all.

For up to the minute updates on this matter from the FAA please go to their website here.

Read more: http://seriouslyepicstuff.com/faa-declares-3-miles-bundy-ranch-site-fly-zone-30-days/#ixzz2ymwK1T5j

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

still want tobelieve this is about cattle and desert tortoises.  Remember the Hughes corporation mentioned earlier?

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/23/nation/na-sons23

In Nevada, the Name to Know is Reid

THE SENATORS' SONS

Members of one lawmaker's family represent nearly every major industry in their home state. And their clients rely on his goodwill.

June 23, 2003|Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper | Times Staff Writers
    •  

    • Email
      Share
    •  

WASHINGTON — It was the kind of legislation that slips under the radar here.

The name alone made the eyes glaze over: "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002." In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters -- all in Nevada.

For The Record
Los Angeles Times Friday June 27, 2003 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 1 inches; 58 words Type of Material: Correction
Lobbyists -- A graphic accompanying an article in Monday's Section A on Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's lobbyist relatives incorrectly said that the University of Nevada at Reno paid $10,000 a month to the Lionel Sawyer & Collins law firm. In fact, the university paid the firm $40,000 in the last half of 2002, according to federal lobbyist reports.

As he introduced it, Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.

What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show.

The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.

Barringer is listed in federal lobbyist reports as one of Hughes' representatives on the measure that his father-in-law introduced.

Other provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid's sons -- by moving the right-of-way for a federal power-transmission line off his property and onto what had been protected federal wilderness.

The governments of three of Nevada's biggest cities -- Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson -- also gained from the legislation, which freed up tens of thousands of acres of federal land for development and annexation. All three were represented by Reid's family members who contacted his staff on their clients' behalf.

The Clark County land bill, which was approved in a late-night session just before Congress recessed in October, reflects a new twist in an old game: These days, when corporations and other interests want to cement a vital relationship with someone in Congress, they're likely to reach out to hire a member of the family.

Reid said he supported the bill because it was good for Nevada -- and not because it helped his family's clients. And when it comes to lobbying relatives, he said, he has plenty of company.

"Lots of people have children, wives and stuff that work back here," he said. "It is not as if a lot of cash is changing hands."

Seeking favors is as old as the Capitol, but the new tendency to come at it from the side -- through family members -- may be a consequence of campaign-finance reform: As restrictions have tightened on traditional political giving, interest groups have cast about for new ways to ingratiate themselves.

Nothing strikes quite such a personal note as channeling fees or lucrative jobs to relatives -- whether the relatives lobby Congress or perform other services. There are no restrictions. Neither House nor Senate rules bar the practice.

At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.

But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.

In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.

So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.

Reid's chief of staff, Susan McCue, said he has had broad support in his state for the Clark County bill and other legislation that he has championed for those groups.

"In every instance, Sen. Reid acted in the best interest of the people of Nevada and Nevada's economy," she said.

In an internal memo, McCue said Reid's family members had lobbied his staff by "supplying research, technical support and strategic guidance." She described them as "effective advocates for their clients."

Reid said he thought he might have had casual conversations about legislation with his family members but could not remember specific cases or times.

"Have they said something? I am sure they have," he said. "I don't have meetings with my children to go over business things."

Reid's sons -- Rory, 40, Leif, 35, Josh, 31, and Key, 28 -- work for Nevada's largest law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins.


One lone rancher left in an entire county before there is no one left to stand in his way. But hey it has to be this one rancher who is corrupt and in the wrong cause Nevada developers and Las Vegas and politicians have always been so transparent and pure in their dealings.

Only after the cover was pulled back and a light shone on the real reasons behind this were the BLM agents told to stand down.

If he had just gone quietly like the 52 before him who would have known?

Sadly just as a decade before when this selling out of America by politicians such as Reid was exposed in articles such as this, this glimpse into what happens all over this nation will be covered up once again and forgotten.

Because the people that want to be will be fooled into believing it is the rancher as blamed who is resisting just and right Federal law and in the wrong. And they  will continue to believe what the govt places upon the yoke they wear that is destroying this nation.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

I am actually not sure if a new Homestead Act would be a good idea?   Under the old acts you got free land if you set up a residence.    The land went from public ownership to private ownership.   Not sure some of that shouldn't happen.   Maybe not free land anymore, but they could look at divesting some of it perhaps.

 All this stuff is one big double edge sword.  The private ownership didn't work because too many people went broke and left the land.   The western senators that came up with the two Bankhead/Jones Acts, the Taylor Grazing Act, and all the subsequent farm bill provisions created this current system where the public has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in water projects, roads, livestock indemnity, and other things to fund a way of life.    The economic returns on the lands are a fraction of what it costs the public to sustain.  Because most these lands are so marginal, Bundy has 900 cattle which if it takes 300 acres per cow per year to feed would be 27,000 acres of pasture, and is why the nations beef supply is from private land ranchers but for a small fraction.

The double edge comes with the social policy of maintaining a way of life by federal subsidies of the production costs.  When the feds get involved it brings bureaucracy, legal requirements, multiple use rules, and frustration for the ranchers.   Without the federal money there would be no sustainable ranches in a lot of these areas, and with it  you have what we have.   The reason public grazing fees are a fraction of their value is more social policy stuff.....This Bundy family is a very poor example in what they are doing by not paying fees for grazing public land for 20 years..  In the long run they will hurt the reputation of public land ranchers the more their story is told because they have no valid claims to water rights or the land.   Again, if they want to go back to the 1800's to make legal claims then the Indians should get their land......

 

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 oops I fat-fingered a zero.....It's 270,000 acres.....

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
I am actually not sure if a new Homestead Act would be a good idea?   Under the old acts you got free land if you set up a residence.    The land went from public ownership to private ownership.   Not sure some of that shouldn't happen.   Maybe not free land anymore, but they could look at divesting some of it perhaps.

 All this stuff is one big double edge sword.  The private ownership didn't work because too many people went broke and left the land.   The western senators that came up with the two Bankhead/Jones Acts, the Taylor Grazing Act, and all the subsequent farm bill provisions created this current system where the public has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in water projects, roads, livestock indemnity, and other things to fund a way of life.    ladd, under the Taylor Grazing Act and the establishment of the BLM th fees paid by the ranchers themselves were used to establish the water systems and management benefits you mention. The economic returns on the lands are a fraction of what it costs the public to sustain.  Especially thru the management of these lands by a govt which believes it takes $3 million dollars to round up a few hundred cattle or a million dollars to run a tortoise center every year. Or perhaps the millions of dollars spent feeding horses in feedlots because the govt itself is preventing them from going to slaughter. Lets put the responsibility of the cost to the public where it belongs. Because most these lands are so marginal, Bundy has 900 cattle which if it takes 300 acres per cow per year to feed would be 27,000 acres of pasture, and is why the nations beef supply is from private land ranchers but for a small fraction.

The double edge comes with the social policy of maintaining a way of life by federal subsidies of the production costs.  When the feds get involved it brings bureaucracy, legal requirements, multiple use rules, and frustration for the ranchers.   Without the federal money there would be no sustainable ranches in a lot of these areas, and with it  you have what we have.   The reason public grazing fees are a fraction of their value is more social policy stuff.....This Bundy family is a very poor example in what they are doing by not paying fees for grazing public land for 20 years..  Once again, they tried to pay them to the entity they beleived had authorative control over these lands. Apparently as the county commission had the authority to vote to sell these lands to the Chinese one could possibly understand this thought process. In the long run they will hurt the reputation of public land ranchers the more their story is told because they have no valid claims to water rights or the land.  ladd, remember the courts have so far determined that Wayne Hage does indeed have these valid rights. It is why there has been a chain reaction to trace the required stipulations of maintaining ownership of water rights thru proving them up back to the ancestors that purchased them in other cases a couple of which have been provided here.  Again, if they want to go back to the 1800's to make legal claims then the Indians should get their land......Seems the EPA is considering this.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 oops I fat-fingered a zero.....It's 270,000 acres.....

Perhaps these "public lands set aside for the endangered desert tortoise" would be better off being sold to Chinese companies for solar energy than these ranchers using them.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

gst Said:
ladd, I missed your answer to this question?

So ladd is it right if a state has a law that allows someones cattle to be seized for neglect without someone with "reasonable qualifications as approved by the State Board of Animal Health" (approved vet or State Vet Field inspector) making a determination that neglect had actually occurred prior to the seizure?

Should these seizures of private property (cattle) for neglect here in ND be allowed based on nothing more than a "law enforcement officers belief" and sworn affidavit?

I ask this because it seems the new law allows the possibility of the seizure of cattle without any actual "proof" the cattle have been neglected (an assumption of guilt) and the rancher then has to prove he was innocent of these charges. (possibly after his cattle have been sold and he has no standing to hold the county responsible and recoup his losses because the law prevents holding law enforcement or the county accountable for wrongful prosecution it as it is written)

I always thought that the courts presumed someone innocent and the courts had to prove their guilt rather than the other way around.

ladd, any thoughts?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

http://theulstermanreport.com/2014/04/12/interesting-within-hours-of-rei...

Interesting – Within Hours Of Reid/China Report, FEDS Back Away From Nevada Cattle Ranch

 
 

Mere coincidence?  Perhaps, but what cannot be denied is Nevada Senator Harry Reid’s absolute silence during the nearly week long standoff between the Bundy family and armed federal authorities who surrounded his ranch and were actively rounding up his cattle.  Bundy still faces a million dollars in land use fines, lost cattle, destruction of his property by BLM operatives, and perhaps the ongoing ire of a certain, high ranking, U.S. Senator.

(via InfoWars)

Feds Back Down From Bundy Siege After Infowars Exposé of Chinese Land Grab

 

The federal government backed down and ended their siege against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy less than 24 hours after an Infowars exposé connecting the land grab to Harry Reid and a Chinese-backed solar farm went viral, becoming the biggest news story on the Internet.

…This morning, the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas Gillespie, announced to thousands of Bundy supporters gathered in Bunkerville that a deal had been brokered with Cliven Bundy that would see the BLM cease its roundup of the rancher’s cattle.

A press release has already been put forth that the BLM is going to cease this operation,” stated Gillespie, to a huge roar from the crowd of Bundy supporters.

Further reports established that, “the BLM wants to proceed with the sale of the cattle already gathered during the roundup but is reportedly willing to share the revenue from the sale with Bundy.”

This represents a huge victory in the fight against big government and the federal agenda to seize public land in the name of pursuing notoriously corrupt and wasteful “green energy” projects.

It serves to remind us of the power of media spotlight and grass roots activism in affecting real change.

The victory also illustrates the increasing irrelevance and declining influence of mainstream media. The national corporate media was forced to reluctantly carry this story only in the last couple of days, before which it had already generated a firestorm of interest solely as a result of grass roots media like Infowars.com, Drudge and other burgeoning independent news outlets.

If this operation was a test on behalf of the feds of where Americans draw their line in the sand, then the outcome spells disaster for big government, which has been handed a huge defeat in the battle to restore constitutional freedoms and property rights in the face of out of control tyranny.  LINK

___________________________

The Info Wars report is right in that this was not only a victory for the Bundy family, but the alternative media that pushed the story out there to millions, and forced the Mainstream Media to give it recognition.  This in turn placed increasing pressure upon Nevada officials, and then federal authorities, including a likely “uh-oh” moment within the Obama White House itself.

Such victories may prove short lived though, so continued vigilance is required.  But for now, all of you readers who took to this cause so quickly, deserve much praise for doing so.  Each voice is part of a greater cause, and in that, there is far more power than any yet realize.

As for the allegations of Harry Reid having connections to the attempted land grab via a Green Energy schemed involving Chinese manufacturers, I would say anything is more than possible with those who control leadership positions within the current Democratic Party.  And certainly the timing of the Feds backing off of the conflict so soon after the Reid/China story broke, gives that possibility even more credence.    -

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 gst -  I think if deputies or state's attorney's don't like someone they should be able to just shoot their cows for no reason...........

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

 Those articles say a lot about his sons, Reid was also caught giving his daughter a helping hand with campaign money. The story changed pretty quickly to how out of the goodness of his heart he would replace the money with his own.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 gst -  I think if deputies or state's attorney's don't like someone they should be able to just shoot their cows for no reason...........

That is quite the cavalier response to a serious question. 

I am just curious what you think of the wording of the new state animal care standards law.

Should the county or state have to prove the ranchers guilt in these cases or should the rancher have to prove his innocence?


sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

Who is to say they don't and if you knew they did who exactly would you report it to?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sickofthesmoke Said:
Who is to say they don't and if you knew they did who exactly would you report it to?

?

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 The burden of proof is on the state as it is.....The new animal law makes no sense anyway. It is full of more than one bad idea....  It wasn't the product of a problem with the old law.    It you want to change it I don't care.  Go ahead..... 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 The burden of proof is on the state as it is.....The new animal law makes no sense anyway. It is full of more than one bad idea....  It wasn't the product of a problem with the old law.    It you want to change it I don't care.  Go ahead..... 

In this I agree whole heartedly. And for the record I do know you tried to get some common sense language interjected into it later in the process which was appreciated.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Wait till the end to hear Dirty Harrys comments.

Course it's not over, Harry Reid needs this land to mitigate his solar deal with the Chinese.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

 All other things aside g, when your renter stopped paying rent, how soon would you evict? Would you wait 20 years? I think not. Feel free to ask 20 questions rather than answer the question. 

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Meelosh Said:
 All other things aside g, when your renter stopped paying rent, how soon would you evict? Would you wait 20 years? I think not. Feel free to ask 20 questions rather than answer the question. 

Meelosh, if that said renter could establish a constant unbroken link of lawful proving of rights back to the purchase of them on what ever he was renting, who would be in the right to evict whom?

Did you happen to watch the videos in the previous thread about the Wayne Hage case right there in Nevada where the courts sided with him on the very premise Clive Bundy is claiming?


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Here is an interesting article by a law professor given Reids comments about breaking the law.

Cliven Bundy and Eric Holder's 'Rule of Law'

Jason Kissner
 

See also: Ruby Ridge Redux?

By now, you’ve surely heard tell of a land dispute between the federal government and a certain  Nevada rancher.

A publication back in Texas called The Blaze has relayed certain pointed, and mighty raw, sentiments of one Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who would match tricks with the federal government:

The 67-year-old veteran rancher, who has compared the situation to similar confrontations with government officials in Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, told TheBlaze that his family has used land in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s.

“I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights,” he said, explaining that among them is the right to forage.

“Who is the trespasser here? Who is the trespasser on this land? Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Or is it Cliven Bundy who is trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Who’s the trespasser?”

The Federal Government’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has no truck with Bundy’s late 1800’s tradition-based claims, and thinks him an unkind man.  BLM lays it down that commencing with the 1934 Taylor grazing act, sufficient rights with respect to land were conferred upon the federal government by an august, self-respecting body known as Congress, such that in 1993, BLM was authorized to abridge, in the interest of a varmint referred to by the rude as a “desert tortoise,” certain grazing-related rights theretofore enjoyed by Bundy. 

Bundy, clearly an ornery sort, has not complied with federal court orders that would vindicate BLM’s varmint interest in the land.  In essence, BLM views Bundy and his cattle as illegal invaders of what amounts to federal land in terms of title.

A fellow at Forbes by name of David Blackmon offers a level-headed analysis, filed in a different cabinet as it were, of what many consider to be the by-and-large unreported substance of the enmities:

The dispute in question goes back to 1993, when the BLM cut the grazing rights of the rancher in question, Mr. Cliven Bundy, from a herd of thousands of head of cattle to one of no more than 150 head in order to “protect” a species of desert tortoise that inhabits the same area of the state.  Most mainstream news media reports on this story naturally did not inform their readers of this fact, or of the fact that this tiny herd allotment would be spread over the 158,000 acres of land to which Bundy held the grazing rights.

Thus, by effectively slaughtering the bulk of Bundy’s herd in such a blunderbuss way that the varmint interest is scarcely served, BLM can be understood by reasoning folk to have attempted to run Bundy -- and other ranchers -- off the land entirely.  Here again is Blackmon:

When one understands these key facts, one realizes that such a tiny herd of cattle on such an enormous space would have no impact at all on the desert tortoise or any other plant or animal that lives there, and that no rancher could possibly make any sort of a living running such a tiny herd.  Thus, the obvious conclusion is that BLM rendered its absurd decision with the clear expectation of running the Bundys off the land entirely.  And that is a very reasonable conclusion to reach.  After all, Mr. Bundy is in fact the “last man standing” here – the BLM strategy has worked so well that every other rancher with grazing rights in the region has given up and abandoned what had been their family’s way of life, in many cases, for generations.

Thus, BLM’s regulatory determination and implementation was very arguably, in the language of judicial review as it applies to administrative “lawmen,” “arbitrary and capricious” -- and therefore unlawful, whether a federal court has so declared or not.

Now, if you fancy, let us add some context.  The same federal lawman, Mr. Eric Himpton Holder, that contends Bundy is an invader successfully argued in the 2010 9th Circuit case United States vs. Pineda Moreno that the warrantless trespass of DEA officers onto a private driveway, in the curtilage of a home, in order to physically attach a GPS device to the homeowner’s vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

And BLM and therefore “lawman” Holder are talking about trespass with respect to Bundy and his cattle?

It’s mighty understandable if by now you’re mad as a hornet.    

And what of the spy state snooping -- doesn’t much of that meaningfully implicate forms of unconstitutional trespass?  And illegal immigration -- is that not trespass? 

Back to Holder.  He participated in an armed insurrection while at what’s said to be a school of learnin’ called Columbia, but would eliminate the Second Amendment if he could. Some think that makes him a terrorist.  In addition, “my people” Holder is a pesky racist; and not just because he scotched the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case.  There are many other reasons to believe this is so (Fast and Furious; the IRS; etc.); one that stands out is his played out “no comment” posture in response to the New Black Panther Party’s placement of a February, 2012 $10,000 bounty on George Zimmerman’s head -- which sounds more like prairie justice than givin’ Zimmerman his day in court, doesn’t it?  What does that say about Holder’s commitment to the rule of law?

And, Holder remains mum as a church mouse with respect to February, 2014 death threats against Zimmerman -- even though Zimmerman by then had been vindicated in court (that shouldn’t make a difference, but remember who we’re dealing with).

Then there’s the fact of Holder’s white shoes, white collar, Wall Street lawyer pedigree and his “Wall Street is Too Big to Jail” Justice Department.  We mustn’t forget to mention, of course, the District of Columbia’s scared up prosecution of Mark Witaschek for possession of a single shotgun shell, while having totally excused odious David Gregory’s brazen display (see link), and therefore wilful and knowing unlawful (according to unconstitutional D.C. Code) possession of a firearm. 

So, what law is it that Bundy is alleged to have crossed again?

And, we might ask, given Holder’s avowedly racist proclivities and his support of the New Black Panther Party: what if Bundy were, shall we say, different-toned?  Would he be contentedly grazing his cattle, perhaps with financial assistance from BLM and pats on the back from deputies (of a sort) Shirley Sherrod and Tom Vilsack?

In closing, here is a very incomplete list for still more context: DHS, DEA, ATF, FBI, FPS, IRS, DOE, HUD, SSA, USPS, all agencies with federal law enforcement capacities, and all heavily armed.  And, 200 armed and armored snipers aiming at Bundy’s head--all over a little set-to about a patch o’ land they’d be hard-pressed to budge Bundy from were he an actual unlawful invader.

We have to wonder: might the unfettered growth of federal law enforcement power be related to the federal government’s own brazen lawlessness?

Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno.  You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.


Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

 

gst Said:

Meelosh Said:
 All other things aside g, when your renter stopped paying rent, how soon would you evict? Would you wait 20 years? I think not. Feel free to ask 20 questions rather than answer the question. 

Meelosh, if that said renter could establish a constant unbroken link of lawful proving of rights back to the purchase of them on what ever he was renting, who would be in the right to evict whom?

Did you happen to watch the videos in the previous thread about the Wayne Hage case right there in Nevada where the courts sided with him on the very premise Clive Bundy is claiming?


You sure like to give fishmahn, plainsman, etc. a lot of shit for dodging questions.....

1. You state yourself, he is a renter, thus he has no rights to evict anyone.
2. Nope. Don't know what thread you are talking about but it's likely I thought I had better shit to do. 

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

outofrange's picture
outofrange
Offline
Joined: 12/17/01

GST, has Bundy established a clear chain of title to support their water rights claims? Is there any evidence of property dispute as Nevada entered statehood (at which time the state gave up any ownership of federal lands and citizens who had proper title to own land were able to keep it)? 

If they had proof that they actually owned the land at one point, I'd be right with you, but the fact is that chain of title does not prove that and the state does not and has not ever claimed ownership. If the Bundy family would have had proper rights to the land, it would have become theirs at the inception of Nevada statehood. 

Pages