Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch

[JRuby]

Specifically, @JRuby ; which members are you calling an idiot?

only one and even that I am not

Specifically, @JRuby ; which members are you calling an idiot?

Slingshot in direct response to his statement - he could not win otherwise so he started throwing names.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Just do a search on ruby and you will understand his intentions

 

[JRuby]

Anyone here actually know the law behind land in the public domain?

Here is a brief preview of my readings since this all started. That and living there since birth I've learned a few things about BLM.

Most BLM land exists due to taxation law.

Rewind a hundred years or so. When states were becoming states. There was a lot of land in the western states that was unclaimed. This land was then issued to the state as per it's becoming a state and it was not privately claimed.

Many states governments did not want to pay the federal government tax on this land.

In there own loophole they created public land. Which was technically a way out of anyone paying for said land. It became the land owned by the public domain of the United States of America. BLM is just the agency created to enforce the BS laws our government is forcing down our throats. The land itself should be referred to as public land.

Certain laws were put in place too at that time. Laws allowing folks to use this land for water, grazing, mining, etc.

Fast forward a few decades.

People started using this land as per how the government set it up.

Government got wind that these folks were using the land for profit. Then instituted fees, licenses, etc. On land they DO NOT OWN.

Being good old boys and not wanting to deal with intimidation or get into trouble. We paid those fines. For instance the BS law created in the last few years in NV to register off road vehicles when using BLM land.

Again these things are illegal as they do not own the land.

Basically everyone thinks the Feds own BLM, they are wrong. They do not have any sort of title to the land what so ever. Neither do the states that went along with the tax scheme.

So basically we have a government entity bullying us little idiots into paying out are bums since they want to profit from land they don't own once they saw there was a profit to be had.

Fast forward to now. People are looking into laws behind what is referred to BLM land and who actually owns it.

This is a good thing. Those who think the Bundy's are cheating the system are just uninformed.

Sadly this war on public land is not just happening in NV. It is happening everywhere. The governments are using intimidation and our ignorance to sweep up all this land.

Not to mention the media aiding in portraying this land as in fact government owned land.

As for the showing of militias and such. I feel that lots of folks truly hopes that this would have been the beginning of a revolution. I think we one this battle. The war on the other hand we are losing.

Rant out!

Who owns the land - if it is truly public land what right does any rancher have on it?

 

[Mike Honcho]

Who owns the land - if it is truly public land what right does any rancher have on it?

If we the people own it, then they have a right to it just as anybody else who is a American.

 

[Member 34319]

Who owns the land - if it is truly public land what right does any rancher have on it?

The people of the United States of America, more specifically the citizens of the state that the land resides in.

There are forms and documents that can be submitted and through old laws and processes. You can then patent then pay the state a fee for the public land. Then you own the land. The Feds must have forgot they need to go through the same freaking process to take ownership.

Basically this is a bunch of old BS law that is finally unravelling because some fed wants to profit now but didn't want to a few hundred years ago.

The Bundy's are just calling them out on their BS.

 

[JRuby]

Thank you for the reply - I am looking forward to this going to federal court. The outcome will be the outcome.

 

[Dunerunner]

Let's see, the Feds take a citizen to Federal Court....

It is time the Citizens take the Feds to Citizen's Court!! Won't happen, just venting!!

 

[Member 34319]

Thank you for the reply - I am looking forward to this going to federal court. The outcome will be the outcome.

The best way to think of public land is a trust.

In some states the land literally is placed in a trust for the citizens of the state. In some the state actually owns the land and through some BS law they created they don't have to pay tax on it because they let the public use it.

In those states were it is in a trust the entity of the trust owns it, which is the public. There are processes that need to be done to take ownership. Just as there are processes for a family trust and similar.

I never found out if Nevadas public land is in a trust for its citizens. I hope this sheds some light on all of it.

However it all goes to crud because laws were made, most were because the government figured out they f'd up giving us the land and wanted to make money.

Compounding law always makes for a poopfest.

Let's see them hold up to their own law on this one!

 

[willseeker]

Here's a link to the Clark County commissioners website.
It shows a meeting with Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, Harry Reid and a couple of Chinese representing the energy corporation.
Draw your own conclusion.
Entitled: Clean Energy Summit

<broken link removed>

 

[Dunerunner]

Found this posted on another forum...

Origin... http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-crisis-causes-us-ask-actually-owns-americas-land/

Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control "public land"? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government "owns" approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate's soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the "Property Clause". Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….
In America's infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers' understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was "necessarily paramount." However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an "individual proprietor." This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.
Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.
What does Nevada's Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled "Inalienable Rights," reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).
In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
Bundy's family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was "violating the law of the land." Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency's presence in Nevada.

 

[oknow]

Does Bundy have a title or a deed to the property - if not to me he is nothing more than a squatter. To me he wants to control of a piece of property that he has no legal right to just because he and his family has had the privilege of using it for decades does not mean he has the right to use it forever. Using armed force to take over property that does belong to you is stealing in my opinion.

You might do a little research before you prove some people are right

 

[erudne]

Everyone there that threatened a Fed Officer will be arrested under the Patriot Act

 

[Riot]

Who owns the land - if it is truly public land what right does any rancher have on it?

Not to have his castle confiscated

 

[ZigZagZeke]

In an almost identical case this was the outcome:

Sept. 4, 2012

RENO, NV—Friday, August 31, a weeklong show-cause hearing ended with Chief Federal District Court Judge Robert C. Jones finding Tonopah Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manager Tom Seley and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Service ranger (USFS) Steve Williams in contempt of court. The contempt, including witness intimidation, occurred during the pendency of the five-year-old forage right case, U.S. v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage and Wayne N. Hage.

Seley was specifically found having intent to destroy the Hages' property and business interests. "Mr. Seley can no longer be an administrator in this BLM district. I don't trust him to be unbiased. Nor can he supervise anybody in this district," the judge stated in his order from the bench.

http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/239864/86d36d9a87/569000697/9e9d8d7a64/

The final judgement in the main case was $4.2 million for the Hage estate. When a higher court sent the case back to this judge for review he reinstated the $4.2 million judgement and added on another $150,000.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And JRuby, you OWN water rights just like you own mineral rights. Miners don't own the land upon which they file claims, but they certainly OWN the claims. Grazing allotments are based on water rights, on how many cattle and acres the water will support. These water and grazing rights are called pre-emptive rights because they allow exclusive use of the property by the holder, just as mineral rights allow exclusive use of a mining claim by the holder. The fees involved with grazing rights were originally voluntary, to help offset the cost of having the federal government fairly create and maintain the grazing allotments. Over the years they became mandatory fees. When Hage (and Bundy) were prevented from using their water and grazing rights they stopped paying, just like you'd stop paying rent to a landlord if he shut the water off. The BLM is entirely in the wrong here, and it's nothing new. Multiple similar cases prove it.

 

[JRuby]

Thank you for the explanation howeer this is what I dont get / understand

If the water and grazing rights were "turned off" how come he is still grazing cattle there or is it simply that he cant graze as many as he wants?
If he is grazing cattle there why does he not pay for what he is using - to me this seems like an entitlement for him at the taxpayers exspense.
I read that he owese over a million dollesr to the BLM for grazing rights - seems to me he must have raised a lot of cattle as they typically charge by the head of cattle grazing an area.

Currently, the BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee
of $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM). For fee purposes, an AUM is defined as a month's use
and occupancy of the range by one animal unit. You cant feed a pet for that amount of money but the racnhers think they should be able to get by with paying that per head. In this case the rancher doesnt even feel he has to pay that.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf

 

[Jamie6.5]

He has, and is willing to pay the standard grazing fees JGR. What he objects to, is the penalty fee imposed for "environmental degradation" that was implemented by the Clinton administration in 1993. That penalty fee schedule drove many of his fellow ranchers and neighbors out of business in the last 21 years.
It is also a significant portion of the supposed $1.1 Million the feds say he owes them.

Those penalty fees were never decided upon by congress or any other constitutional process. They were just arbitrarily levied by pro environmental forces within the Clinton admin and the Dept. of the Interior/BLM.

Bundy's great-great-great,... Grandfather homesteaded his land in the late 1800s, with the understanding and promises by the government that settling the land, and stewardship by cattlemen would help provide oversight and improvements, to not only their own land, but for the adjacent public land(s). The actions by environmental factions since the '70s-'80s and '90s have changed all that and have made ranchers out to be the bad guys that have never done anything good for the land, and have exploited it to the detriment of all other uses.
That is not the case. The enviros claim that cattle are bad for the desert tortoise, and that the two can't co-exist, without the cattle threatening the tortoise's existence. I think the fact that Bundy's cattle have been on the land in question for over 150 years exposes that for the lie that it is.

The fact that Nevada based BLM district managers have been disciplined by the courts for favoring environmental causes like the tortoise and the wild horse should be proof enough that the government that once valued its partnership with ranchers, has undergone a paradigm shift towards eliminating residency of those that have provided stewardship for decades, and/or generations, and in Bundy's case, more than a century.
And as far as many American are concerned, is yet another indicator that we have somehow elected a government, and built a bureaucracy that is hostile to its citizens.

 

[JRuby]

As I understand it Congress is ultimately repsonsible for the management of public Domain lands from my research , congress has decided that the BLM would manage and control that land - is this correct - if it is the BLM has authority that was granted by congress to manage those lands. That being said the BLM's should be ultimately responsible for what is best for the land - not play favoritism to the environmentalists or the ranchers.

People keep saying that Bundy's ancestors started running cattle in that area back in the 1800's that I believe - what was the actual agreement and where is the piece of paper stating what was agreed to? Without proof the best you got is what he states as fact - that which cannnot be proven to me is not fact. It is merely one mans word. In a court of law that does not count for much.

I do not believe that the tortoise is any more endangered than the spotted owl was but it is easier to use a living creature as a tool than it is to use the real purpose. This I understand and do not agree with. Howeer the ranchers being such good stewards have endangered and made certain species extinct in thier own native range- wolves in this case come to mind. I would argue that if it is not in the ranchers advantage any improvements would never happen.

 

[AMProducts]

Any human activity has impact on the natural environment. There are myriad species that owe their survival or extinction to human activity. The desert tortise likely flourishes on the ranch because there is water available to them, at the same time wolves were driven out of huge swaths because they were an apex predator that would regularly kill cattle. At the same time, the california condor should have died out several centuries ago, yet ranching in california guaranteed a relatively large food source (dead cows) that they could maintain the species long enough for someone to take an interest in them. At the same time, new human activities like wind and solar energy are again putting the future of the condor in question, as the birds regularly fly into windmills, and will fly near solar thermal concentrators and be vaporized.

We always have an impact on our environment, picking winners (california condoor, despite itself) and losers (wolves). If we removed ourselves from these environments, it's likely the roles would be reversed and the condor would have gone extinct sometime in the 1600s, and wolves would still be controlling deer and elk populations all through the northern plains and rocky mountains.

The thing I don't take lightly is the capricious use of natural resources, and the desire to waste things simply for the sake of wasting them. The balance of nature is that all living things are made out of calories, and all living things need calories to continue living, meaning that life will always take life to live. Our role in this is not insignificant, but it is an important thing to bear in mind.

 

[gaijinsamurai]

Does Bundy have a title or a deed to the property - if not to me he is nothing more than a squatter. To me he wants to control of a piece of property that he has no legal right to just because he and his family has had the privilege of using it for decades does not mean he has the right to use it forever. Using armed force to take over property that does belong to you is stealing in my opinion.

x2. I've been reading various posts on multiple sites (mostly gun-related, with a conservative or Libertarian slant), and fail to feel a lot of sympathy for Mr. Bundy or outrage at the government.

1. He grazed his cattle on land that wasn't his, even if his family had used it "forever" (tell that to the American Indians), and refused to pay the fees. What did he think would happen?

2. I hear a lot of outcry about armed government "thugs", but when armed citizens show up to support to law-breakers, you can rest assured that the government will bring more & better weaponry, if for no other reasons, officer safety and to make sure they don't lose.

3. Yeah, I know the Feds are remiss when it comes to inforcing immigration laws, and I know Reid, Pilosi, Feinstien, and gang are corrupt, lying politicians. But if we decide to pick and choose which laws to obey, we're no better than them.