What can we learn from the Bundy ranch situation?

[Riot]

Ron Paul warned us about making federal employees peace officers and giving them arrest powers in areas that they have no jurisdiction (aka the BLM confiscating cattle on public land).

<broken link removed>

Interesting speech...he talks about becoming a welfare state, the issues with militarizing our police force and special interests manipulating political decisions.

You would have thought that our current government used Ron Paul speeches like blueprints.

 

[fd15k]

Ron Paul warned us about making federal employees peace officers and giving them arrest powers in areas that they have no jurisdiction (aka the BLM confiscating cattle on public land).

What kind of public land are we talking about ? Because on BLM managed land (one form of public land) sworn BLM rangers have law enforcement powers, including arrest.

<broken link removed>

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So government can not sell any impounded property ever ?

You clearly don't understand that not only the source matters, but also its use. Wikipedia is typically a source aggregator, secondary or tertiary source. Sometimes people try to inject their opinions into the articles, and that is usually well moderated. In any case, references to the secondary and primary sources were provided. I did not try to sell wikipedia as the source of truth, I asked if the sequence of events was accurate, because in my mind that is what defines whether amount of force was appropriate.

Finally, correct me if I got you right. Government should never enforce any lawful orders if there is a risk of confrontation with an interested party. Ideally,only if interested party is the "correct party."

I clearly understand that you're doing a document dump to try to defend your position. I'm not going to go track down secondary and tertiary Wikipedia sources and research each one of the dozens of them involved in order to counter each one systematically. Your tactic is one with which I'm very familiar.

You're also really good at discounting, deflecting, and just plain ignoring facts that contradict your position. I've cited direct testimony from the Hage case that bears on the grazing rights in question in this case. You've managed to completely ignore that testimony. Here's the chain of logic involved. Nevada had a system of grazing rights under which Bundy and his mother's family operated that were established prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1936. The government's own expert witness testified that the TGA did nothing to extinguish those pre-existing grazing rights in Nevada. Therefor, there is a real question as to whether the BLM has anything at all to say about Bundy's grazing practices. The fact that two lower courts decided against Bundy does not mean that he's in the wrong. His error was in not obtaining a stay of execution until his appeals could be heard. Hage was in PRECISELY the same situation, and he eventually won $4.5 million from the BLM for damages to his business, when it used PRECISELY the same tactics against him.

Now comes the BLM with snipers, SWAT teams, dump trucks, helicopters, backhoes, and free speech zones to steamroller a single rancher who questions their authority. You cite the BLM's own self-serving pages as justification for their actions. Legally, they did not have title to the cattle, only custody. Despite what their web pages say, they had no right to dispose of the cattle.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

What kind of public land are we talking about ? Because on BLM managed land (one form of public land) sworn BLM rangers have law enforcement powers, including arrest.

<broken link removed>

According to the BLM itself, but it conveniently leaves out who granted them, and when. There are at least two instances of a county sheriff revoking law enforcement powers from federal agencies in their counties, one in California and one in Oregon.

 

[redmud]

It does not matter how many different laws or articles you quote fd15. You can't seem to grasp one simple point.
It is a difficult one to understand but when you do it will be an AH HAAA!! moment worth witnessing.

Its not about right or wrong according to the current administration. Or how the brainwashed media writes up current events.

Its about what should be and can be.

 

[Stomper]

I clearly understand that you're doing a document dump to try to defend your position. I'm not going to go track down secondary and tertiary Wikipedia sources and research each one of the dozens of them involved in order to counter each one systematically. Your tactic is one with which I'm very familiar.

You're also really good at discounting, deflecting, and just plain ignoring facts that contradict your position. I've cited direct testimony from the Hage case that bears on the grazing rights in question in this case. You've managed to completely ignore that testimony. Here's the chain of logic involved. Nevada had a system of grazing rights under which Bundy and his mother's family operated that were established prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1936. The government's own expert witness testified that the TGA did nothing to extinguish those pre-existing grazing rights in Nevada. Therefor, there is a real question as to whether the BLM has anything at all to say about Bundy's grazing practices. The fact that two lower courts decided against Bundy does not mean that he's in the wrong. His error was in not obtaining a stay of execution until his appeals could be heard. Hage was in PRECISELY the same situation, and he eventually won $4.5 million from the BLM for damages to his business, when it used PRECISELY the same tactics against him.

Now comes the BLM with snipers, SWAT teams, dump trucks, helicopters, backhoes, and free speech zones to steamroller a single rancher who questions their authority. You cite the BLM's own self-serving pages as justification for their actions. Legally, they did not have title to the cattle, only custody. Despite what their web pages say, they had no right to dispose of the cattle.

I don't worry about "converting" the stalwart statist supporters on these boards. My goals are aimed at the "lurkers" and casual readers who observe these types of threads.

If your comments/posts go unacknowledged, 90% of the time it's because they have no counter to it that can be spun to their own ends.

 

[2506]

I clearly understand that you're doing a document dump to try to defend your position. I'm not going to go track down secondary and tertiary Wikipedia sources and research each one of the dozens of them involved in order to counter each one systematically. Your tactic is one with which I'm very familiar.

You're also really good at discounting, deflecting, and just plain ignoring facts that contradict your position. I've cited direct testimony from the Hage case that bears on the grazing rights in question in this case. You've managed to completely ignore that testimony. Here's the chain of logic involved. Nevada had a system of grazing rights under which Bundy and his mother's family operated that were established prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1936. The government's own expert witness testified that the TGA did nothing to extinguish those pre-existing grazing rights in Nevada. Therefor, there is a real question as to whether the BLM has anything at all to say about Bundy's grazing practices. The fact that two lower courts decided against Bundy does not mean that he's in the wrong. His error was in not obtaining a stay of execution until his appeals could be heard. Hage was in PRECISELY the same situation, and he eventually won $4.5 million from the BLM for damages to his business, when it used PRECISELY the same tactics against him.

Now comes the BLM with snipers, SWAT teams, dump trucks, helicopters, backhoes, and free speech zones to steamroller a single rancher who questions their authority. You cite the BLM's own self-serving pages as justification for their actions. Legally, they did not have title to the cattle, only custody. Despite what their web pages say, they had no right to dispose of the cattle.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

 

[fd15k]

I clearly understand that you're doing a document dump to try to defend your position. I'm not going to go track down secondary and tertiary Wikipedia sources and research each one of the dozens of them involved in order to counter each one systematically. Your tactic is one with which I'm very familiar.

I don't think you understand anything. When I quoted wikipedia, I was lazy to type up the sequence of events, so I copy-pasted it from there. I needed to know what do guys see as "what happened", so I can check if that's how it went down. So far only one member said "no, that's not what happened". You so far have only been looking for a conspiracy. As for the rest, you should state "I have not verified bubblegum" instead of coming up with a bullbubblegum label to put on me. Yes, I am very "tactical".

You're also really good at discounting, deflecting, and just plain ignoring facts that contradict your position. I've cited direct testimony from the Hage case that bears on the grazing rights in question in this case. You've managed to completely ignore that testimony. Here's the chain of logic involved. Nevada had a system of grazing rights under which Bundy and his mother's family operated that were established prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1936. The government's own expert witness testified that the TGA did nothing to extinguish those pre-existing grazing rights in Nevada. Therefor, there is a real question as to whether the BLM has anything at all to say about Bundy's grazing practices. The fact that two lower courts decided against Bundy does not mean that he's in the wrong. His error was in not obtaining a stay of execution until his appeals could be heard. Hage was in PRECISELY the same situation, and he eventually won $4.5 million from the BLM for damages to his business, when it used PRECISELY the same tactics against him.

This case may or may not be decided correctly. It would be a topic for a different discussion. Most members here are concerned with whether BLM's actions are legally justified and/or proportionate to the problem at stake. I must also say that for a dozen posters here there are dozen reasons why they think BLM is wrong. What is fairly common for them is to support any argument that reaches the "correct" conclusion. Sign for lack of integrity.

He had 20 years to figure it out. I have not checked PACER to see what motions he filed (not spending a dime on that piece of bubblegum), but to say everything went down because he made that one mistake is silly.

Now comes the BLM with snipers, SWAT teams, dump trucks, helicopters, backhoes, and free speech zones to steamroller a single rancher who questions their authority. You cite the BLM's own self-serving pages as justification for their actions. Legally, they did not have title to the cattle, only custody. Despite what their web pages say, they had no right to dispose of the cattle.

Here is what the court thinks of BLM's authority to take and dispose of the cattle :

Moreover, in its 1998 Order, the Court acknowledged that the BLM is explicitly authorized to impound and dispose of the unauthorized livestock after written notice to Bundy of its intent to impound. Doc. #19, p. 10 (citing 43 C.F.R. §§ 4150.2, 4150.4, 4150.4-1, 4150.4-2; Klump v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 243 (1997) (government had not violated takings clause in impounding cattle as sanction for unauthorized grazing on federal lands)); see also 43 C.F.R. §§ 4150.4-1 to 4150.4-5; 36 C.F.R. § 2.60(c).

 

[fd15k]

According to the BLM itself, but it conveniently leaves out who granted them, and when. There are at least two instances of a county sheriff revoking law enforcement powers from federal agencies in their counties, one in California and one in Oregon.

You mean Sheriff revoked law enforcement powers from BLM rangers on original BLM jurisdiction ? Or did you mean there was some local authority explicitly granted to them by local government that got revoked ?

 

[Martini_Up]

What U.S. Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have to even own 81 percent of Nevada?

What U.S. Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have to have it's own quasi armed police force for use against it's citizens?

What about the 10th amendment?

 

[fd15k]

What U.S. Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have to even own 81 percent of Nevada?

What U.S. Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have to have it's own quasi armed police force for use against it's citizens?

What about the 10th amendment?

It is explained in the 1998 court order (linked earlier in this thread), please read it.

 

[Jamie6.5]

You mean Sheriff revoked law enforcement powers from BLM rangers on original BLM jurisdiction ? Or did you mean there was some local authority explicitly granted to them by local government that got revoked ?

The local Sheriff is frequently the LE with the most authority within a given geographical area, as (s)he is the highest ELECTED LE in any jurisdiction. That's why when then FBI rolls into town, the first person they are supposed to go visit with is the County Sheriff.
Despite what you've seen on TV.

http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com/

Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."

Try to remember that despite what the BLM may tell you about ownership and control of "public lands," in almost every case, those lands are under the jurisdiction of the local Sheriff.

For instance, when the USDA/Forest Service insisted on Sheriff's helping patrol/arrest violators of their new "closed roads" policy, many Sheriffs (especially in cash-strapped counties like Oregon's Josephine) told them to go pound sand, that they had more important things to do with their limited resources than to arrest and/or cite "trespassers" on federal land that was supposed to be "public land."

PS: I suggest that everyone here bookmark that page that I linked above, and review it before the next election!

 

[fd15k]

The local Sheriff is frequently the LE with the most authority within a given geographical area, as (s)he is the highest ELECTED LE in any jurisdiction. That's why when then FBI rolls into town, the first person they are supposed to go visit with is the County Sheriff.
Despite what you've seen on TV.

http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com/


Try to remember that despite what the BLM may tell you about ownership and control of "public lands," in almost every case, those lands are under the jurisdiction of the local Sheriff.

For instance, when the USDA/Forest Service insisted on Sheriff's helping patrol/arrest violators of their new "closed roads" policy, many Sheriffs (especially in cash-strapped counties like Oregon's Josephine) told them to go pound sand, that they had more important things to do with their limited resources than to arrest and/or cite "trespassers" on federal land that was supposed to be "public land."

BLM may contract local LEOs when they deem necessary, for law enforcement functions in their jurisdiction. That does not mean they have to, and does not mean such assistance must be granted. None of that affects the original BLM jurisdiction on BLM administered lands. And once again, BLM administered land is only ONE form of public land out of many.

43 USC 1733
(c)
(1) When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in
enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their
resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law
enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of
achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials
in enforcing such laws and regulations. The Secretary shall negotiate on
reasonable terms with such officials who have authority to enter into such
contracts to enforce such Federal laws and regulations. In the
performance of their duties under such contracts such officials and their
agents are authorized to carry firearms; execute and serve any warrant or
other process issued by a court or officer of competent jurisdiction; make
arrests without warrant or process for a misdemeanor he has reasonable
grounds to believe is being committed in his presence or view, or for a
felony if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed or is committing such felony; search without
warrant or process any person, place, or conveyance according to any
Federal law or rule of law; and seize without warrant or process any
evidentiary item as provided by Federal law. The Secretary shall provide
such law enforcement training as he deems necessary in order to carry out
the contracted for responsibilities. While exercising the powers and
authorities provided by such contract pursuant to this section, such law
enforcement officials and their agents shall have all the immunities of
Federal law enforcement officials.
NOTE: This section enables the BLM to contract with State and local agencies to
provide enforcement of Federal laws and regulations, but only when the BLM
determines that assistance in this area is necessary. Under such contracts, the State
and local agency would receive reimbursements for the services rendered. However,
any State or local officers performing under the contract must meet the law
enforcement training requirements of the Department of the Interior. The Department
of the Interior requires basic training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center. State and local agencies may receive reimbursements for services rendered in
enforcing their own State and local laws under a law enforcement agreement
pursuant to the authority of 43 USC 1733
(d) below. The above section also describes
the law enforcement responsibilities and authorities of the BLM law enforcement
officers that have been authorized pursuant to 43
USC 1733(c)() below.

<broken link removed>

 

[Jamie6.5]

BLM may contract local LEOs when they deem necessary, for law enforcement functions in their jurisdiction. That does not mean they have to, and does not mean such assistance must be granted. None of that affects the original BLM jurisdiction on BLM administered lands. And once again, BLM administered land is only ONE form of public land out of many.



<broken link removed>

Just because they "may contract with" or "offer" doesn't mean that the Sheriff must comply.
I suggest you read the article at the link I provided.
To refuse, would indicate willful ignorance on your part fd.

 

[fd15k]

Just because they "may contract with" or "offer" doesn't mean that the Sheriff must comply.
I suggest you read the article at the link I provided.
To refuse, would indicate willful ignorance on your part fd.

Holy cow, Jamie. Didn't I say "does not mean such assistance must be granted" ? I basically said the same thing as you did, and you are now calling me out on that ? I will paraphrase for you : "YES, SHERIFF DOESN'T HAVE TO DO bubblegum FOR BLM". That still changes nothing in regards to BLM's jurisdiction on BLM land - they have federal LE authority granted to them by Congress in their specific jurisdiction.

 

[fd15k]

I don't worry about "converting" the stalwart statist supporters on these boards. My goals are aimed at the "lurkers" and casual readers who observe these types of threads.

If your comments/posts go unacknowledged, 90% of the time it's because they have no counter to it that can be spun to their own ends.

Here is some good read for you :
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Just because they "may contract with" or "offer" doesn't mean that the Sheriff must comply.
I suggest you read the article at the link I provided.
To refuse, would indicate willful ignorance on your part fd.

fd15k changed one very important word in that cited paragraph. He changed "shall" to "may". In the context of a federal statute, "shall" is a REQUIREMENT. "May" is an option.

43 USC 1733
(c)
(1) When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in
enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their
resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law
enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of
achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials
in enforcing such laws and regulations. The Secretary shall negotiate on
reasonable terms with such officials who have authority to enter into such
contracts to enforce such Federal laws and regulations.

The BLM is REQUIRED to contract with local officials when assistance is needed to enforce federal law. And by law, no local official has ANY law enforcement powers without the consent of the county sheriff. The county sheriff is the highest constitutional law enforcement authority in any county. The county sheriff can deputize federal officials to enforce state law within his county, and he may REVOKE that authority. It has been done in CA and in OR.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...ith-feds-likely-over-residents-carrying-guns/

The article mentions that the US Forest Service officers will still be enforcing federal laws, but that is contrary to what 43 USC 1733 requires. It requires that the US Forest Service contract with the sheriff to enforce those laws.

In a letter to the US Forest Service, Sheriff Palmer questioned the USFS's authority to engage in law enforcement within Grant county, declaring:"your jurisdiction as I see it is limited to the Federal Building in John Day" [the county seat]; and that the presence of USFS "Law Enforcement" violates Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

"Within the confines of Grant County, Oregon, the duties and responsibility of law enforcement will rest with the County Sheriff and his designees," he wrote.

Palmer's letter was apparently prompted by Forest Service attempts to pressure him into signing a "co-operative policing agreement" that would allow the agency to engage in law enforcement activities inside the lines of Grant County. [If the federal officers already had such authority why would they be pressuring the sheriff for such an agreement?]

Palmer said that in the near future, he'll be raising other issues about USFS's activities in Grant County, including its recent treatment of the local citizenry, illegal road closures, grazing, logging and other concerns that he and his community have. He also expressed concern about the way Forest Service LEOs had treated "treated citizens of this county in Oct. and Nov., 2010," but deferred giving details until a later time.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news260.htm

Another interesting article:

http://www.arizonadailyindependent....fficers-cracking-down-on-cracked-windshields/

 

[Stomper]

Here is some good read for you :
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm

Interesting read, and quite rational. But again, sound bytes, bullet statements, and sarcasm tend to nudge people's grey matter to think about what they're thinking about in political discourse.

One can sit for a lifetime on just one subject micro-analyzing every esoteric detail, and in the end be rendered non-productive, and already fallen victim to the political schemes of others because you're a "late bloomer".

Politics (just a form of warfare) is best approached IMHO via the "chess and checkers" method. Strategy, mixed with reflexive (sometimes "irrational") tactical reactions that make predictabity difficult. It drove the soviets bonkers back in the day, and progressives are no different.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

From your link:

Separate records from the website FamilySearch, which is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicate that Christena Jensen was born in Nevada in 1901 and that Bodel Jensen was born in Nevada in 1924. Christena Jensen's parents originally were from Utah. This is the side of the family where Cliven Bundy claims long-standing livestock water rights.

Federal grazing districts were established with passage by Congress of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The Las Vegas area grazing district was established Nov. 3, 1936. The Bureau of Land Management was formed in 1946, the year Cliven Bundy was born.

Most articles covering this aspect of the claims go into great detail about Bundy's father's family not being around until the 1950's, and ignore his mother's family's history which is documented back to 1901, well before the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, from which the BLM derives its authority over grazing rights.

 

[Martini_Up]

It is explained in the 1998 court order (linked earlier in this thread), please read it.

No, it's not.

Historically the Federal government did not retain property and following your links proves that. What has happened is that the Federal government began retaining property as we grew as a nation and nowhere in the US Constitution gave the power to do so. This has created an imbalance with the original states and those added after our country was founded. While a court has ruled on this they defined it so narrow as it begs to be brought to the courts again as the Federal government is clearly not treating states equally.

In addition to going back and reading in depth what you yourself have linked, here is some additional reading for you:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html