Some questions on the Bundy Battle

[jodywy]

Some questions on the Bundy Battle





I haven't had time to thoroughly reflect on the recent events, but here are some questions that have occurred to me:

Why did the Sheriff conduct "behind the scenes" negotiations instead of using his authority to prevent this overreach by the feds from ever happening?

Why won't the feds comply with state laws on livestock trespass? They are a landowner in the state and each state has trespass laws that all the other landowners follow. They comply with state law on water rights, on hunting, on speed limits and so on, so why not on trespass?

Why is the issue of jurisdiction never brought up? Which entity, the feds or the state, exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the BLM lands in question here? See Art. I, § 8, Cl 17 of the Constitution which limits federal jurisdiction.



Section 303(c)(1) of FLPMA states, "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." (Emphasis mine). Was the BLM in compliance with this section of the law?




Just where does the BLM get the authority to have official LEOs? In a recent GAO report the BLM cites an Executive Order for their authority, but don't give the EO number so the text can be reviewed.




We have seen the pictures showing BLM weapons, helicopters and attack dogs. Just how large is the BLM arsenal with respect to weapons, ammo, dogs, vehicles, drones and other devices and supplies? The same question should be asked of the Forest Service, Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service and the EPA.




Several articles referred to the FBI being on the scene. Who requested the FBI involvement and in fact how many total federal employees were involved and from what agencies?




Prior to the decision to stand down, what intelligence was gathered by the feds, by whom was it obtained, how was it gathered and what role did it play in the decision to stand down?




Whew! There's more rolling around up there but that will suffice for now. I'm sure you have questions too.
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2014/04/some-questions-on-bundy-battle.html?spref=fb

 

[HAY MAKER]

Damn boy you are full of wind today, in my mind the Feds as usual are tryin to run rough shod over Bundy.
I say the land belongs to the state of Nevada and state officials and Bundy can work out the lease agreement, Feds need to get their dysfunctional ash back to Washington and stay there.
Good luck

 

[littlejoe]

" The same question should be asked of the Forest Service, Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service and the EPA. "

Exactly! These goofs don't do all that exemplary of a job of doing their actual jobs---in recent yrs half their rigs have sprouted light bars and they've become cops. By whose authority and what is their 'mission statement'?

Of all the badges in the land, the ones mostly closely representing---and protecting---"We, the People......." are those worn by county sheriff's departments.

 

[Silver]

" The same question should be asked of the Forest Service, Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service and the EPA. "

Exactly! These goofs don't do all that exemplary of a job of doing their actual jobs---in recent yrs half their rigs have sprouted light bars and they've become cops. By whose authority and what is their 'mission statement'?

Of all the badges in the land, the ones mostly closely representing---and protecting---"We, the People......." are those worn by county sheriff's departments.

I'd bet that my ancestor Sir Robert Peel is rolling over in his grave.

 

[Anonymous]

Some questions on the Bundy Battle





I haven't had time to thoroughly reflect on the recent events, but here are some questions that have occurred to me:

Why did the Sheriff conduct "behind the scenes" negotiations instead of using his authority to prevent this overreach by the feds from ever happening?

As far as I've ever found out- negotiate is about all the "authority" the Sheriff has in such a situation... No matter how many urban legends and rightwing groups stories you've heard- in a case like this with Federal Court Orders involved signed by Federal Judges - Federal Law supercedes all State/local law..

There is something I would like every one to ask their Sheriff... What do they do if federal agents come into your county to serve a federal court order? And if he says- stop them--- ask how? Do they arrest the federal agents? Rip up the Federal Judges order?

I really want to know because I was involved in several such situations when I was Sheriff- Federal grazing reductions, cattle seizures, Freemen property seizures - and was involved with the Montana Sheriff's and Peace Officers Assn. when they tried to pass a law saying Federal Agents had to get permission from the Sheriff to work in their county- or notify them when doing work in the county... The bills all went nowhere as every attorney (private, state, federal) said its unconstitutional.....

If you can find a law- or a federal court ruling which gives the Sheriff this authority- I would really like to see it-- because like I said- every legal beagle in the country has looked for it...

Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate

Altho some would like to- Sheriff's can't make up a law, they have to follow those on the books....So if there is some law or Court ruling that gives Sheriff's power over Federal Agents or Federal Courts, please I would love to see it....

Altho I would have to say that we had a pretty good rapport built up with our local Federal Agents and utilized their services often- and they kept us as much informed on their operation as their agency allowed...

Why won't the feds comply with state laws on livestock trespass? They are a landowner in the state and each state has trespass laws that all the other landowners follow. They comply with state law on water rights, on hunting, on speed limits and so on, so why not on trespass?

Why is the issue of jurisdiction never brought up? Which entity, the feds or the state, exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the BLM lands in question here? See Art. I, § 8, Cl 17 of the Constitution which limits federal jurisdiction.



Section 303(c)(1) of FLPMA states, "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." (Emphasis mine). Was the BLM in compliance with this section of the law?




Just where does the BLM get the authority to have official LEOs? In a recent GAO report the BLM cites an Executive Order for their authority, but don't give the EO number so the text can be reviewed.

I did a little more digging and found that the first BLM rangers were hired in 1976- apparently after passage of the The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to contract with local law enforcement or hire their own law enforcement...The Act was signed by President Ford on October 21, 1976, and became Public Law 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743. While the first Rangers were hired for California in 1976 it appears they did not receive full federal law enforcement authority until 1978...

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/history/sidebars/law_enforcement.html

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA (Pub.L. 94–579), is a United States federal law that governs the way in which the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management are managed. The law was enacted in 1976 by the 94th Congress and is found in the United States Code under Title 43.

(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.
(2) The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources.
Public Law 94–579—Oct. 21, 1976, as amended through May 7, 2001 ———— 23
Such designated personnel shall receive the training and have the responsibilities and authority provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(d) In connection with the administration and regulation of the use and occupancy of the public lands, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the regulatory and law enforcement officials of any State or political subdivision thereof in the enforcement of the laws or ordinances of such State or subdivision. Such cooperation may include reimbursement to a State or its subdivision for expenditures incurred by it in connection with activities which assist in the administration and regulation of use and occupancy of the public lands.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Secretary from promptly establishing a uniformed desert ranger force in the California Desert Conservation Area established pursuant to section 601 of this Act for the purpose of enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands and resources managed by him in such area. The officers and members of such ranger force shall have the same responsibilities and authority as provided for in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of this section.
(f) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as reducing or limiting the enforcement authority vested in the Secretary by any other statute.

http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf

Interesting- the choice is given to the Interior Secretary to contract with local law enforcement agencies or hire their own... Like any good bureaucrat given a choice to build upon their empire - guess what they did :???:

And I find it interesting- what some are calling a mandate in the FLPMA actually says "The Secretary is authorized to"... Sounds like it was left open to the discretion of the Secretary if he works with local regulatory and law enforcement officials and definitely doesn't say he has to as being put out by some folks and groups....

We have seen the pictures showing BLM weapons, helicopters and attack dogs. Just how large is the BLM arsenal with respect to weapons, ammo, dogs, vehicles, drones and other devices and supplies? The same question should be asked of the Forest Service, Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service and the EPA.

The Federal Agencies share equipment back and forth all the time- and with local law enforcement on some occasions....


Several articles referred to the FBI being on the scene. Who requested the FBI involvement and in fact how many total federal employees were involved and from what agencies?

FBI, Marshals Service, DEA, all federal agencies share manpower the same as local agencies call in manpower under mutual aid agreements...




Prior to the decision to stand down, what intelligence was gathered by the feds, by whom was it obtained, how was it gathered and what role did it play in the decision to stand down?

Have to ask the Feds... But I bet they won't tell how they gained their intelligence... After the Freemen were taken down- I found out that an FBI Agent who is a good friend of mine had spent several months undercover in the Aryan Nation camp in Idaho- where he had got to be friends with most the Freemen leadership- which played a big role in taking down both groups...




Whew! There's more rolling around up there but that will suffice for now. I'm sure you have questions too.
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2014/04/some-questions-on-bundy-battle.html?spref=fb

 

[HAY MAKER]

When the Feds planted a few snitches in the Bundy group as they always do, they then knew ole Bundy meant business and was willing to go all the way with the fed mob.
The federal government have proven them selves dysfunctional at every level.
The only thing they seem to be able to do well is pass laws that feather their own nest every damn one of them are in agreement on that.
Like the 10% wage increase every year regardless of how the country is doing or what they got done he'll some of them don't even show up.
Unless they are trying to pass something like Obama care that specially excludes them and the families .
You see these folks are special they have a platinum health care plan for life Paid for by You.
Good luck

 

[Tam]

Why won't the feds comply with state laws on livestock trespass? They are a landowner in the state and each state has trespass laws that all the other landowners follow. They comply with state law on water rights, on hunting, on speed limits and so on, so why not on trespass?

This might help jodywy

Nevada Livestock rules

]TITLE 50. ANIMALS
CHAPTER 568. GRAZING AND RANGING
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS


568.230. Grazing interfering with customary use of land unlawful; exceptions
1. It is unlawful to graze livestock on any part of the unreserved and unappropriated public lands of the United States in the State of Nevada, when grazing will or does prevent, restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or his grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the graziers of the region involved.
.......snip

568.300. Herding or grazing of livestock on land of another without consent unlawful; liability for damages; attachment
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to herd or graze any livestock upon the lands of another without having first obtained the consent of the owner of the lands so to do. The person claiming to be the owner of such lands shall have the legal title thereto, or an application to purchase the same with the first payment made thereon.

2. The livestock which is herded or grazed upon the lands of another, contrary to the provisions of subsection 1, shall be liable for all damages done by such livestock while being unlawfully herded or grazed on the lands of another, together with costs of suit and reasonable counsel fees, to be fixed by the court trying an action therefor. The livestock may be seized and held by a writ of attachment, issued in the same manner as provided in chapter 31 or 71 of NRS, as security for the payment of any judgment which may be recovered by the owner of such lands for damages incurred by reason of violation of any of the provisions of this section. The claim and lien of a judgment or attachment in such an action shall be superior to any claim or demand which arose subsequent to the commencement of the action.

Now if I'm reading this right and I'm sure if I'm not somebody will let me know. :wink:

Like it or not the United States does hold the title to the public land, that the Bundy's claimed to be their. The State of Nevada does recognizes this right in their own Livestock laws. The family lost their grazing permit in 1994 due to nonpayment according to court documents, as according to Cliven's own repeated testimony he did not recognize the Federal Government exists so he was not paying any fees to them.

The family then took it upon themselves to make the rules on land that did not legally belong to them. They were so defiant in their protest against the US government that they not only continued to access the land they once were legally permitted to use but also grazed land they never had legal rights to according to court documents and did water development on the land without getting legal permits to do so, again according to court documents .

After two FEDERAL lawsuits, as like it or not it was Federal Land and has been since before the Bundy family settled there, and attempted failed appeals, legal court orders were granted against the Bundy family to deal with the illegal trespassing. Even though the family allowed the public via the MSM and social media to believe the BLM were stealing their cattle that brought out armed militants resulting in the standoff, according to Nevada Trespass law the cattle could and were legal seized under court authority as the Bundy's owed over a million dollars in fees and fines to the legal land owner, again like it or not the United States Government.

Now here is the kicker after all this was over in an media interview Bundy himself admitted if this was legally Federal land he was in the WRONG. Ask yourself what was it going to take for him to admit it was Federal Land, and that the Federal Government even exists? :?

This is not over by a long shot as it was reported, the family inspected the herd for damage done due to the actions taken by the BLM and reported they had 12 young calves show up without mothers. Which in my opinion was to be expected given the friggin stupid time the BLM chose to impound the herd. But count on this, this whole screwed up mess of a story will now set aside the illegal trespassing the family were doing on Public lands and turn to their missing 12 cows and how the Federal Government needs to replace them, or pay them for the damages and maybe even a little for the stress put on the family. :roll:

 

[HAY MAKER]

tam you probably don't understand much except what you read, and if it is called a so called "LEGAL" Document them it's fact right ?
The feds are out of control and proven dysfunctional at every level all that crap you posted don't mean a damn thing to a cattleman fighting for his way of life, feds no more own that land than you do, how do you think they got it ? Grew it ?
feds are fast to grab any and all land so they can control the country, luckily they don't own and land in Texas, they claim some buts that's BS any lands within a states borders are state land period.
feds have run around this country taxing folks poor while they pass laws that grant them royalty treatment, folks are tired of it.
I say this is state land and a state issue and what weakens my position is people exactly like you that march in line like a good lil girl.
Damn feds trying to run other countries and caint run this one, somethings gotta change what makes it hard is cheer leaders like yourself cowtowin to the skunks.
Nevada and Bundy can work out a lease agreement, and truthfully if they had a big enough army that is exactly what would happen because you see Missy it's always the big dog making the rules/laws, don't believe it ? Ask the American Indian.
Good luck

 

[mwj]

If you would look at the preamble to the constitution of the state of Nevada it explains that the land is indeed Federal property from the time the state was formed.

 

[Tam]

tam you probably don't understand much except what you read, and if it is called a so called "LEGAL" Document them it's fact right ?
The feds are out of control and proven dysfunctional at every level all that crap you posted don't mean a damn thing to a cattleman fighting for his way of life, feds no more own that land than you do, how do you think they got it ? Grew it ?
feds are fast to grab any and all land so they can control the country, luckily they don't own and land in Texas, they claim some buts that's BS any lands within a states borders are state land period.
feds have run around this country taxing folks poor while they pass laws that grant them royalty treatment, folks are tired of it.
I say this is state land and a state issue and what weakens my position is people exactly like you that march in line like a good lil girl.
Damn feds trying to run other countries and caint run this one, somethings gotta change what makes it hard is cheer leaders like yourself cowtowin to the skunks.
Nevada and Bundy can work out a lease agreement, and truthfully if they had a big enough army that is exactly what would happen because you see Missy it's always the big dog making the rules/laws, don't believe it ? Ask the American Indian.
Good luck

WOW big man, do you want the government to hold all law breakers accountable or just the ones you chose? :?

Let me explain something in my defense :wink:

1. I want Lerner of the IRS held accountable for her illegal actions.
2. I want Clapper held accountable for his lying under oath about NSA Snooping
3. I want Holder in prison for stonewalling the Fast and Furious investigation and his lying under oath about his involvement in intimidating the press,
4. I want Hillary held accountable for her lies dealing with Benghazi,
5. I want Sebelius held accountable for her lying under oath about Obamacare
6. I want Obama to be held accountable for all the messes in his Administration of the last 6 years

While there are lots of examples of government overreach and rules breaking that I want something done about I also do not want to be considered a RINGWING HYPOCRITE by backing a rancher that knowingly broke the law out of Protest because of rules he did not want to follow.

It is funny how all you guys are willing to take up arms to protect this guy and attack me because I have a different opinion but when I post an article about a family in Wyoming that the EPA is over reaching on over a stock pond they put on their private property with all the legal state permits required and have done everything to follow state laws, only to be told by the EPA they are facing $75 k a day in fines, if they don't removed the pond because they did not use the Army Core of Engineers to design it and get permits from the EPA to built it, and you guys are silent on that government over reach. If the EPA gets away with this crap in Wyoming when will they be in Texas telling you, you can not put a fully Texas State permitted stock pond on your land? :? :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Yep-no doubt its federally owned- and instead of the folks that have leases paying property taxes to the local government-- the Federal government gives PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) money to the local (county/city) governments... In some of these counties that are predominantly owned by Federal government- the government agencies would not be able to operate without the subsidy of the PILT money...
And altho I never looked into the PILT Act - I doubt much of the annual AUM grazing fees come close to what the PILT money is...

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

Welcome to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Website





"Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (or PILT) are Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands within their boundaries. The key law is Public Law 94-565, dated October 20, 1976. This law was rewritten and amended by Public Law 97-258 on September 13, 1982 and codified at Chapter 69, Title 31 of the United States Code. The Law recognizes that the inability of local governments to collect property taxes on Federally-owned land can create a financial impact.

PILT payments help local governments carry out such vital services as firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search-and-rescue operations. The payments are made annually for tax-exempt Federal lands administered by the BLM, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (all agencies of the Interior Department), the U.S. Forest Service (part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture), and for Federal water projects and some military installations. PILT payments are one of the ways that the Federal government can fulfill its role of being a good neighbor to local communities.
http://www.doi.gov/pilt/index.cfm

 

[George]

WOW big man, do you want the government to hold all law breakers accountable or just the ones you chose? :?

Let me explain something in my defense :wink:

1. I want Lerner of the IRS held accountable for her illegal actions.
2. I want Clapper held accountable for his lying under oath about NSA Snooping
3. I want Holder in prison for stonewalling the Fast and Furious investigation and his lying under oath about his involvement in intimidating the press,
4. I want Hillary held accountable for her lies dealing with Benghazi,
5. I want Sebelius held accountable for her lying under oath about Obamacare
6. I want Obama to be held accountable for all the messes in his Administration of the last 6 years

While there are lots of examples of government overreach and rules breaking that I want something done about I also do not want to be considered a RINGWING HYPOCRITE by backing a rancher that knowingly broke the law out of Protest because of rules he did not want to follow.

It is funny how all you guys are willing to take up arms to protect this guy and attack me because I have a different opinion but when I post an article about a family in Wyoming that the EPA is over reaching on over a stock pond they put on their private property with all the legal state permits required and have done everything to follow state laws, only to be told by the EPA they are facing $75 k a day in fines, if they don't removed the pond because they did not use the Army Core of Engineers to design it and get permits from the EPA to built it, and you guys are silent on that government over reach. If the EPA gets away with this crap in Wyoming when will they be in Texas telling you, you can not put a fully Texas State permitted stock pond on your land? :? :roll:

There are many examples of abuse of our people by the government - - - I went to court in 1984 when the "Production Credit Association" tried to take my property as well as many other farms in the area.

I Sued in Federal Court for $5,000,000 and by the time it got to court all of the people at our local PCA were fired - - - their lawyer stated there was no defense for the misdeeds of a previous administration. The government dropped all claim to my farm and I was awarded $5.00 - - - the judge was sentenced to jail 3 years later for receipt of bribes! Five of the seven farms that were in question got taken by the government. This was just in a small area in east central Indiana - - - I'm sure many others were lost to corrupt officials!

About 6 months later another family in Rushville Indiana was awarded $26,000,000 in a jury trial against the same PCA - - - a week later the judge overturned the ruling and stated the jury had acted more on emotion than law - - - the government ended up taking their farm and they lost everything!

 

[Ho55]

mwj. There is a big difference in a territory and a state. When Nevada became a state it was to be on equal footing with the original 13 states. That's why this is state land not Federal. Nebraska was admitted into the union the same year as Nevada. Nebraska is 4% Federally managed, Nevada 87%. And oldtimer says these little rural counties need the PILT monies to survive. BS if there wasn't so much government oversight, we could drill, log, graze and manage our resources for we the people of our counties and I believe be in a lot better shape financially.

 

[Tam]

5 hours and counting and not one comment from any of those supporting Bundy's, on the EPA over reaching on a family that followed all the laws paid all their fees on an issue that is going to effect every US land owner if they do not support the Wyoming family in their battle against the EPA. :?

 

[George]

Please read this short article

''http://www.conservative-daily.com/2014/04/13/breaking-harry-reid-corruption-behind-nevada-standoff/

 

[mrj]

Tam, I'm certainly in support of the family in WY, given that he has not affected badly with his little dam.

In fact, it seems like the type of dam more should be built like. Small, but of value to people and critters. Less water flowing downstream to cause problems in wet seasons. More moisture to evaporate during dry times, eventually to return as rain. This one little dam may not amount to much, but millions of them sure would.

And that is yet another in the endless stream of government overreach!

mrj

 

[Tam]

Tam, I'm certainly in support of the family in WY, given that he has not affected badly with his little dam.

In fact, it seems like the type of dam more should be built like. Small, but of value to people and critters. Less water flowing downstream to cause problems in wet seasons. More moisture to evaporate during dry times, eventually to return as rain. This one little dam may not amount to much, but millions of them sure would.

And that is yet another in the endless stream of government overreach!

mrj

Well that now makes three in agreement over this water use government over reaching problem in 24 days of repeatedly mentioning it, how long do you think it will take before the rest wake up and realize this little pond has very big repercussions if the poor family can't stop the EPA? How many $75,000 a day fines will be bankrupting families before everyone realizes the EPA is attempting to controlling EVERY BIT OF WATER IN THE US including the water on the Government owned land in Nevada while they are distracted by some rancher that has spent the last 20 years defying the law and doing what he wanted on land that does not belong to him and on land that NEVER was permitted to him. :?

Could this be why 51 Nevada ranchers lost their BLM land as people just did not wake up to the fact that a corrupt government agency was moving in and rewriting laws to suit themselves before it was too damn late to stop them? And I'm the one that is accused of not caring enough to look beyond my own ranch gate to see what is happening. :roll: