Some have asked why didn't my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800's they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against.
Now after over a hundred years of preemptive rights by beneficial use recognized and protected by the state, the federal government claims that the land is not state land but US territory and theirs for the taking or charging of fees.
So here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.
Now more questions; Should the people of Nevada have the right to govern their own state? Why did the federal government retain 89% of Nevada land after statehood? Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land? A good study of these questions will answer why Cliven Bundy refuses to pay an entity for something that is not theirs.
Thank you,
Ammon Bundy
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
A law abiding citizen would have continued to pay what they were required to and this matter could be handled in court. The Bundy's could have sued for all funds and legal fees associated with there unjustified fees. Mr. Bundy in this case is just making excuses for being a free-loader. My family and forefathers came over on the Mayflower and relieved themselves anywhere they wanted. By God I have to pay a $60 flush tax for the priveledge of using my own toilet. I am declaring my toilet a federal toilet and Maryland can kiss my grits. Grab your shotgun Bubba! They'll have to pry that Charmin out of my cold dead fingers.
ReplyDelete* Neil Kornze, former Reid aid, is now a BLM Director and is well involved in the Bundy seige. Kornze was responsible for planning the allottment of 285,000 acres to dedicated Solar farm development (a pet Reid boondoggle). These Solar development zones are Tortoise and Bird kill zones - see BrightSource. So Reid knows damn well what is going on at the Bundy Ranch and could stop the BLM Gestapo cold.
ReplyDelete* It turns out Brightsource is also a big Reid contributor. See how this works? Hundreds of thousands of acres set aside to kill Tortoises for Friends of Reid, nothing for the Bundys who have worked and preserved the land since 1870.
* Harry Reid killed more Tortoises in cahoots with Brightsource solar and jailed buddy Harvey Whittemore than Bundyranch.
* Reid helped good friend and bigtime lawyer/lobbyist Harvey Whittemore procure environmental waivers for the Coyote Springs golf and residential development, a short distance from the Bundy Ranch. L.A. Times did a big expose on Reid and Coyote Springs special deals for Whittemore. Reid was happy to let Brightsource propose to cover 8,300 acres of tortoise land of the 42,000-acre Coyote Springs. These included powerline changes and most importantly, a land swap with BLM for Desert Tortoise land.
Whittemore claims Harry had nothing to do with the dubious Tortoise landswap, like anything in Nevada happens at Reid's displeasure.
There's a lot more
What in the heck are you talking about 12:33? You're talking smack. You are not cute, not clever, nor funny. You are asinine and an ignoramus. His permit was cancelled in 1994. He couldn't have paid even if he had wanted to. He kept the cattle on the land out of principle. They were trespassing according to the BLM and the court order issuing the right to impound was based on trespass cattle not any debts incurred.
ReplyDeleteYou are now dismissed. You are welcome to return only if and when you educate yourself to the facts of this case.
1:18 Thanks so much for your excusing me away from your free education. I was referencing his daughter's letter posted yesterday. He "fired" the BLM? He "chose" not to take a buy out. He "chose" to offer to pay his county instead. He "felt" the feds weren't using his paid fees to "his" liking. No I'm not being cute or funny. Why was his permit cancelled? I'm only pointing out that his argument would be no grander than mine. I don't feel that my $60 is being spent to my liking. Therefore I will "choose" to offer my money to someone else that I "feel" would use it more to "my" liking. I will enjoy my federal toilet until the state comes and takes my house for not paying my taxes
ReplyDelete1:18 If your landlord cancels your lease you cannot stay in the house "out of Principle". These people are note worth defending.
ReplyDeleteBack in the days that his family settled the land there was NO LAW! If you wanted something you shot the other person and took it!
ReplyDeleteIf is federal land then China can claim it when(not if when)the US defaults on the trillions of dollars it owes China.And you can be sure they will.
ReplyDelete12:33 1:59 this situation is not so much about people breaking a law, it is about people beiing sick and tired of the federal government coming and deciding to TAKE their land. you do realize they offered to pay the state for the use of the land. this is about the federal government taking over our country whether we like it or not. it is now happening in Texas. same thing feds decide they want it they take it. so if you think the bundy's are not worth it, you are sadly mistaken because at least they have the guts to stand up for their owne rights. ill bet they don't have an ebt card
ReplyDelete@1:59 -
ReplyDeleteTo correct your analogy, somewhere around 1870, Bundy's family purchased rights from the state of Nevada to use that land for grazing, water, and productive use. In this agreement, Nevada would be the landlord. And the lease says that as long as he uses it, he retains possession. This system worked just fine for 120 or so years.
Now, the BLM (which was established AFTER Bundy's rights), claims to be his landlord. At first, they attempted to purchase his rights, acknowledging their existence. Then they tried to unilaterally change the agreement. If your house was sold to a new owner, they could certainly buy you out of your contractual rights if you agreed. But they couldn't just make up the right to jack your rent, control the number of people in the house, or take away any other rights that you have under the lease agreement that is valid and in place.
Bundy's first argument is that the Federal Government has no legal rights to the land. Remember - the Feds did try to buy out his rights before. Why would they, if the rights didn't exist? While Federal courts have ruled it is Federal land, I am not sure that Nevada has given up control. Furthermore, having the Federal Government own the land would be a direct violation of the Enclave Clause of the constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17). The Feds can only own DC, forts, magazines, and things directly related to the protection of the country.
Bundy's other argument is that the BLM failed in their "service" of "managing" the land, so he stopped paying them. You might hire somebody to cut your grass, but if they do a poor job or use your payment to try and kick you out of the house, you can fire them. His fees and the regulations limiting his cattle herd were going to regulate him out of existence. This is just like the mob charging protection money, and then telling you what you can do with your business.
There are many nuances to this story. And if the legal precedent is set, expect to see more and more legal rights and private property assumed by the federal government. One day that might be your house that they take over.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete1:18 If your landlord cancels your lease you cannot stay in the house "out of Principle". These people are note worth defending.
April 23, 2014 at 1:59 PM"
That's a ridiculous analogy. You cannot compare private property to public lands. It's disingenuous and adds nothing to your line of reasoning. The BLM on their own site stops short of claiming the federal government owns public lands but states "The Bureau of Land Management administers 264 million acres of public lands, located primarily in the 12 Western States"
"administers" means oversees, manages. They also go on to state public lands are owned by the United States. No where does it say the US or federal government owns public land. Through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 Congress made it clear that the public lands should be held in public ownership and managed for "multiple use"
3:12-What ended up happening was 50+ ranchers were bought out by Clark County and their permits "retired." Yes, why would these permits have to be purchased if these rights didn't exist? They do follow a property deed (the leases can not be sold separately) and are taxed along with property taxes on their value. Property values for real estate purposes are determined by these leases.
ReplyDeleteOne important point is you can not apply for a public land permit of any kind unless you own property bordering the public land. The idea surrounding these leases was an economic incentive. Getting people to settle out west by offering them use of unclaimed land if they purchased some land. This systematic government take over which has led to a decrease in NV's 2nd most (tourism being #1)industry (agriculture) is a major contributor to the economic mess NV has become. NV has the highest unemployment rate in the country.
Prior Bundy becoming a household name, NV had formed the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force tasked with, among other duties gaining more control for the state of public lands. Some results are due to be released this Thursday. In part to be released Thursday are; the transfer of 4 million acres of Bureau of Land Management property could bring in $31 million to $114 million a year to the state.
ReplyDeleteThe estimate is based on a review of four Western states with significant trust lands under their control.
"Preemptive rights" are what is also known as a "grandfather clause."
ReplyDeleteA lot of downtown properties have "grandfathered" that they aren't required to have parking. Whereas if you were to purchase ground and build a new building the parking requirements would have to be met.
Basically what they did to Bundy (and other ranchers) was change the rules during the game so to speak. They put limits on the number of cattle allowed to graze which effectively put many ranchers out of business.
Government "won" based on preemptive rights only apply to private property. This is not spelled out anywhere and that's where it's murky and why now deceased rancher Wayne Hage was awarded $4million + dollars by a court, which was ultimately appealed to a higher federal court by the BLM and reversed.
Read the state of Nevada constitution. Sec.2. Feds trump everything.
ReplyDeleteExcept for a person's Inalienable Rights, 4:32. Despite the Nevada constitution’s capitulation to supreme federal authority (authority, remember, that does not exist in the "other" Constitution), there is another article in that document that would supersedes the other article’s cession of state and popular sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteSection 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” of the Nevada constitution 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."
This is exactly what Bundy contends. According the state constitution he is correct. It sounds bizarre but I assure you that this conception of rights is fairly widely shared in Constitutional law.
The government isn't contending that he doesn't have the right (because they would probably lose as they did in Hage) but that the public would best be served if Bundy's cattle were gone.
Copied directly from a related motion-
"The United States has also demonstrated that the equities
and the public interest strongly favor an injunction. The public interest is best served by
having the federal lands managed without the presence of trespassing cattle on lands that
are closed to grazing. The public interest is also best served by removal of trespassing cattle
that cause harm to natural and cultural resources or pose a threat to the health and safety of
members of the public who use the federal lands for recreation. The court finds that the
public interest is negatively affected by Bundy’s continuing trespass."
It's the same strategy used in eminent domain cases; the power of the government to seize private
property without the owner's consent if they can "prove" it's for the public good.
Looks like Bundy is being dropped like a hot potato. .....looks like s real moron after all.....
ReplyDelete