ron vrooman Loc: Now OR, born NV

Ryan is Pro Se or pro per I did not read which. In the Vegas trial Navarro is judging prior to impeachment.


https://scannedretina.com/2017/11/19/courtesy-of-henry-mayhew-ryan-bundys-opening-statement/

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The Irony of Cliven Bundy's Unconstitutional Stand

The Nevada rancher isn't just resisting the Bureau of Land Management—he's also fighting against his state's unusual constitutional history.

By Matt Ford

Twenty-one years ago, rancher Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees.

Bundy does not recognize federal authority over land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management disagreed and took him to federal court, which first ruled in favor of the BLM in 1998. After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle illegally grazing on public land last week.

But after footage of a BLM agent using a stun gun on Bundy's adult son went viral in far-right circles, hundreds of armed militia supporters from neighboring states flocked to Bundy's ranch to defend him from the BLM agents enforcing the court order. The states'-rights groups, in echoes of Ruby Ridge and Waco, came armed and prepared for violence. "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon," one of the anti-government activists told Reuters. Not eager to spill blood over cattle, the BLM backed down Sunday and started returning the livestock it had confiscated. The agency says it won't drop the matter and will "continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."

Federalism—genuine states' rights—is perhaps more familiar to Nevadans than to any other state's denizens. To boost the state's ailing economy in the early 20th century, Nevada exploited the federal architecture of American law to create uniquely permissive laws on divorce, gambling, and prostitution, bringing in much-needed tourism revenue and giving the state a distinctive libertarian character. Just this weekend, the state Republican Party dropped statements opposing abortion and same-sex marriage from its platform at their convention, bucking the party's national stance.

But Bundy's understanding of states' rights is far different. As he told Sean Hannity in an interview last week (emphasis added):

"Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue—that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want."

Bundy's claim that the land belongs to Nevada or Clark County didn't hold up in court, nor did his claim of inheriting an ancestral right to use the land that pre-empts the BLM's role. "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," Bundy told his supporters, according to The Guardian.

His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

'All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.'

The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada's first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863. Some 3,000 miles to the east, the Civil War raged between the federal government in the North and West and the rebellion that had swallowed the South. In early 1864, Abraham Lincoln—who wanted more pro-Union states in Congress so as to pass the amendment to abolish slavery, and a few more electoral votes to guarantee his reelection that fall—signed a bill authorizing Nevada to convene an official constitutional convention for statehood. The state constitution's framers, who were overwhelmingly Unionist, retained the clause in solidarity with the Union when they gathered in July 1864.

Even the states that retain the phrase "paramount allegiance" today don't share Nevada's explicit openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it.

Nevada isn't the only state with a paramount-allegiance clause. Republicans added similar clauses to Reconstruction-era state constitutions throughout the South, although few survived subsequent revisions after federal troops departed. Even the states that retain the phrase "paramount allegiance" today, like North Carolina and Mississippi, don't share Nevada's explicit constitutional openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it.

That pro-federal sentiment also guided Nevada's first congressional delegation when it arrived in the nation's capital in early 1865. William Stewart, the Silver State's first senator, proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in December 1865 that would've enshrined a weaker form of the paramount allegiance clause at the federal level:

First—The Union of the States, under this constitution, is indissoluble, and no State can absolve its citizens from the obligation of paramount allegiance to the United States.

Second—No engagement made, or obligation incurred by any State, or by any number of States, or by any county, city, or any other municipal corporation to subvert, impair, or resist the authority of the United States, or to support or aid any legislative convention or body in hostility to such authority, shall ever be held, voted, or be assumed or sustained, in whole or part, by any State or by the United States.

This proposed amendment—which would have resolved secession's constitutionality for all time—did not succeed. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in Texas v. White in 1869 that secession had been unconstitutional and that "the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible states." Stewart nevertheless left his mark on the Constitution the same year as White, when he wrote what would become the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing black suffrage.

Two decades after Nevada's founders proclaimed unswerving obedience to federal authority, Cliven Bundy's family first settled the land where he and his supporters now make their heavily armed stand against federal power. It's doubtful even the Nevada Constitution will change their minds—if legal and constitutional arguments could persuade the militia movement, there might not be a militia movement.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Common Conspiracy Myths regarding this conflict...

“This is a federal land grab of sorts!”

This has been US government property since it was taken from Mexico in 1848, before Nevada was an actual state.

“The Bundy’s have worked and maintained this land since 1877 (or for 130 years)”

As shown above, this has been US government property since before Bundy’s alleged ancestors began settling here. However, it turns out that Bundy’s “1877” claims was in fact bogus. An investigation by KLAS-TV Las Vegas reveals that Bundy’s parents moved from Arizona to Nevada and bought the 160-acre ranch in 1948, from its previous owners. The Bundy’s wouldn’t begin using this land for their cattle to graze until the 1950’s. A recent video released by Bundy’s repeat the erroneous ancestral claim (claiming that the Bundy family owned the land for for 130 years) .

From KTVLA:

Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946.

“Bundy’s great grandfather bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887”

This claim has been repeated numerous times but there appears to be no record of this. Since the Bunkerville allotment is part of federal land it is unlikely that any of the Bundy’s would have ever been sold the rights. This may actually be a conflation of the claimed “pre-emptive” rights, which some have claimed Bundy’s family to have. It would appear that this is nothing more than a subjective belief on the part of the Bundy’s, that their alleged longtime use of federal lands somehow gives them ownership. Furthermore, given that Bundy lost numerous court battles, it’s unlikely that he in fact owns the portion of the land in question.

As an interesting aside, this is land that originally belonged to the Paiute tribes.

“Cliven Bundy stopped paying because the BLM hiked their rates!!!”

The grazing fees are not determined by the BLM. They are a based on a formula which was originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 and modified via executive order (Order 12548 — Grazing Fees) under President Ronald Reagan in 1986. The fee falls and rises based on the cost of livestock production, beef cattle prices and current private grazing land lease rates. Known as the per animal unit month (AUM), today it is $1.35, compared to the $1.23 per AUM that it was in 1966. This is actually a decrease when adjusted for inflation, as $1.23 in 1966 would convert to $8.97 in 2014. It is also a fraction of what ranchers pay on private lands. Grazing fees from 1981 to 2012 can be seen here (PDF).

Bundy BLM Fees Nevada

These rates were set in stone by way of Ronald Reagan’s executive order as of 1986. Executive Order 12548 states:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year’s fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

“It’s because of Harry Reid and the Chinese Solar Farm Deal” & The “Why The Bundy Ranch – What You’re Not Being Told” Video

Ignoring the 20 years of illegal cattle grazing and the numerous court battles that Bundy lost, conspiracy theorists have made the argument that this is somehow in connection with a (now-defunct) 2012 proposal for ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in Nevada. The problem with this “connection” is that Laughlin (where the solar farm was going to be built) resides about 100 miles south of the Golden Butte area where the point of contention lies.

Harry Reid Chinese Solar Farm

There is at least one video (Why The Bundy Ranch – What You’re Not Being Told) falsely claiming that solar farm was to be built where the Bundy Ranch. The video cites this Reuters article (which actually states that the solar farm was to be built in Laughlin, NV–of course, the video provides no link to the actual article).
nevada chinese solar harry reid

It’s unlikely that Harry Reid is pulling strings to get ranchers off federal lands so that a Chinese Solar Farm can be built 100 or so miles away.

“The BLM’s removal of a cached page ties BLM to solar projects!”

The taking down of the BLM site’s old “Northeast Clark County Cattle Trespass” page has caused come conspiracy theorists to assume foul play (as if the BLM has something to hide). Namely, they believe that this sentence is revealing:

Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar

This is apparently a “smoking gun” for anyone subjectively trying to “find” some new world order conspiracy, and it is confusing for someone trying to objectively understand what this means. Fortunately, The Wildlife News translates this for the rest of us:

This is bureaucratic language but all it means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don’t think the solar power damage elsewhere can be mitigated here at Gold Butte because the damn cattle will tromp all over it and shit on it.

Yes, but, but, but are not then Bundy’s cattle stopping the solar projects that Harry Reid wants so much? Of course not. They are gleefully ripping up the desert anyway without wildlife mitigation near Gold Butte.

The last sentence brings up an excellent point. The government doesn’t need to round up cattle to build solar farms. They can simply have them built (it’s federal land) with or without the cattle there. The very logic behind this “dot connection” is flawed to begin with.

If the BLM were truly trying to hide “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” reference, they could have just deleted that specific point, and it would have drawn less (if any) attention than deleting the page altogether. In fact, if this statement were somehow incriminating, it’s unlikely they’d have posted it on their website to begin with.

It’ worth emphasizing what the intended mitigation means. The BLM was stating that NGO’s want to use this place as a refuge for species being affected by solar development elsewhere. This is essentially a guarantee that NO solar development is scheduled to take place here. In other words, the statement makes the exact opposite point the conspiracy theorists have run with.

Furthermore the BLM page actually lists several problems Bundy’s trespass cattle presented:

One feral cow was hit by an automobile within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Cattle are frequently seen on public roads, including State Route 170 and pose a danger to vehicles and to members of the public traveling on public roads.
Overton Wildlife Refuge (State of Nevada) employee attacked by a Bundy bull.
Crop destroyed by Bundy cattle on private land.
Mesquite Heritage Community Garden damaged by trespass cattle.
Mesquite golf course damaged by trespass cattle.

Finally, in regards to the BLM “removing the Google Cached page” as well (in addition to taking if off of their own site): the BLM has no control over the Google cache. Google keeps a cached version of a page, which shows how the page appears when Google last crawled the page. If a page goes away, the Google Cache will remain until Google once again tries to crawl the page. Once Google “realizes” that the page is gone, the cache will disappear as well.

The government simply wants to lease this land for fracking!

Similar to the “Chinese Solar connection” this claim depends on a sloppy correlation between the Bundy/Gold Butte area and the mere fact that there may exist future energy development “somewhere in Nevada.” The source of this particular conspiracy did bother to show the map (PDF) showing the alleged relationship between the area of contention and potential fracking. However, the map clearly shows no potential oil-production in Gold Butte region.

“The BLM is just using the Desert Tortoise as an excuse”

The Endangered Species Act is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), not the Bureau of Land Management. The protection of the Desert Tortoise has long been a priority for animal preservation groups. And again, the point was to have Bundy pay his grazing fees. The government came to remove his cattle from this area, not to remove him from “his land.”

“But desert tortoises and cattle have co-existed for X amount of years!”

Like many other similar claims, this is true but misses the point: human encroachment has reduced the desert tortoises’ viability (reducing its population by 90%). This reduced viability means extra care must be taken in areas where a species still resides.

From The Wildlife News

The conflict between cows and tortoises probably started right away, but the rest of the Mojave Desert was still wide open and desert tortoises had other places to live. As the desert filled in, with Las Vegas, with strip malls, with power lines and highways, the federal lands remained relatively protected from harmful development, but not from cows.

Cows trample young tortoises, damage and destroy tortoise burrows and shrubs used for shelter, cause soil compaction, decrease the diversity of vegetation, remove critical forage, and spread non-native grasses that crowd out the native vegetation that tortoises depend on. Cows compete with desert tortoises for the nutritionally superior plants. Cows spread weeds that result in the subsequent diminished food availability for desert tortoises. Weed composition also affects fire intervals and intensity, which affects tortoises through habitat conversion, destruction, and further weed spread, in addition to direct mortality (i.e. burned tortoises). Some of these weed seeds get impaled in tortoise jaws, causing infection and difficulty chewing.

Cows need water if they are going to roam around the desert, but artificial water developments threaten desert tortoise by attracting tortoise predators such as ravens, and by and increasing weedy species and decreasing the foods tortoise prefer. Poorly designed water developments can also trap tortoises and cause them to drown. Same for the grates in roads (“cattleguards”) that prevent livestock from crossing fencelines. Tortoises drop down into those grates and can’t get out. [emphasis added]

As reported by The Sierra Club:

As with many species, the primary threat facing tortoises is habitat destruction and fragmentation. Rapid urbanization and development in tortoise habitat causes direct and indirect mortality. Examples of indirect effects include barriers to movement, introduction and increase in predators (e.g. domestic dogs), and spread of non-native plant species that displace important native vegetation and increase wildfires.

Roads and off-highway vehicles can have serious detrimental impacts on tortoise populations. A number of tortoises have been killed or injured by vehicles on both paved and dirt roads as well as off roads. Roads also accelerate the spread of invasive non-native plants.

From BiologicalDiversity.org

Environmental groups filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. Bureau of Land Management today for failing for seven years to report impacts to the desert tortoise and similarly threatened and endangered species from off-road vehicles, cattle grazing and other activities in California’s deserts.

From Tortoise.org:

Cattle impact desert tortoise in many ways. Cows trample tortoises, their eggs and their burrows, they compete for important food plants, degrade the habitat and promote the spread of weeds and nonnative vegetation” said Michael J. Connor, California Science Director for Western Watersheds Project. “This plan is particularly bad because it will increase the number of cattle grazing in desert tortoise habitat and concentrate those cattle in the most sensitive critical habitat areas in dry years, the very years when the tortoises are most at risk.

From the Mesquite Citizen

“Enough is enough,” said Mrowka. “As of December 2011, more than 80,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat have been destroyed in Clark County under the pretense that the agreed-on steps were being taken to help tortoises in protected areas. But since 1998, grazing that was supposed to be eliminated at Gold Butte has gone on, despite two federal courts saying it should stop.”

In 1994 the Fish and Wildlife Service identified areas critical to the long-term survival of the desert tortoise; one was Gold Butte. In 1998 the BLM released its current “resource management plan,” which clearly indicates that grazing allotments in tortoise critical habitat would be closed, Mrowka stated.

“If the BLM cares about Tortoises, why do they euthanize them!?”

Due to shortage of funding, the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center budget was running dry in 2013 (in part due to a slow economy, and perhaps in part due to people like Bundy not paying their grazing fees). The plan was to adopt out as many tortoises as possible, release some into the wild, and euthanize those who carrying diseases or who were too feeble to survive in the arid deserts.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Is Bundy Constitutionally correct?

Cliven Bundy says he doesn’t recognize the federal ownership of land he believes belongs to Nevada and has stated that “It’s a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution.” Of course, at the writing of the Constitution, much American land was in fact owned by the federal government. There is no “Constitutionality” in not recognizing federally-owned land.

Some have gone further, and incorrectly argued that the the US Constitution guaranteed that future states brought into the union would be granted full control over the territory of their borders. This is not only untrue, but the property clause, which states that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” grants the Federal government authority over public land. This is exactly what the Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Gardner (107 F.3d 1314 ). Most of the arguments being made by “Constitutional” proponents of Bundy were denied in the above case (which also took place in Nevada).

For example, Bundy proponents have cited the equality clause which was established in 1783 would indefinitely apply to every future incorporation into the union. However in United States v. Gardner, the 9th Circuit held that:

The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states….. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.

The same distinction applies to the enclave clause, which Bundy proponents have also invoked.

There is another problem: Until 1993 he did pay the federal grazing fees (signed into law under Ronald Reagan). So, it would seem that he did recognize the federal government as owning the land–at least up until 1993. Furthermore, the Nevada Constitution explicitly recognizes federal ownership of this, and other land within the Nevada territory. So in effect Bundy’s claimed allegiance to Nevada State Law is awkward at best, since he is in fact contradicting it.

EL Loc: Massachusetts

I like how the federal government just owned the land. Wish we all could just say we own land without paying for it.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing

By Ralph Maughan and Ken Cole; April 2014

In the acrimonious case of Cliven Bundy, it is important that folks understand a bit about the history of the U.S. public lands. Cliven Bundy, the rancher whose cattle were rounded up and then released by the BLM over the weekend, claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution (* and the ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT) state:

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”

If Bundy “owns the land then where is the deed? Where are the records he paid property taxes? It’s not his land. Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.

So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new grazing regulations promulgated by the Department of Interior under former Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to conform to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and found:

The words “so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of this subchapter” and the warning that “issuance of a permit” creates no “right, title, interest or estate” make clear that the ranchers’ interest in permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, “grazing privileges” shall be safeguarded, in light of the Act’s basic purposes. Of course, those purposes include “stabiliz[ing] the livestock industry,” but they also include “stop[ping] injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,” and “provid[ing] for th[e] orderly use, improvement, and development” of the public range.

He has no “right” to graze it. The federal courts have struck down every challenge Bundy has made about his claims, and has issued not one, but two, court orders to remove his trespass cattle. It’s not his land and he has no right to graze it. The simple truth of the matter is that Bundy is a freeloading, welfare rancher who has an inflated sense of entitlement. It also appears that he and his supporters’ use of threats and intimidation likely violated several federal laws. Inasmuch as they used (such as pointed) weapons to cause the government back down, it can be considered an armed insurrection. What about Bundy’s claim that his forebears bought the land he is now accused of trespass grazing upon? This land was once Mexican land, and was won by the United States after the Mexican-American War. It is part of what is known as the “Mexican Cession.” All of Nevada, California, Arizona and most of New Mexico were part of the Cession. Much of this land was privatized under various grants and laws such as the Homestead Act and the Desert Lands Act, plus mining claims. Several million acres were granted to Nevada for state lands, but those lands that were not privatized have always been Mexican lands or United States lands owned by the U.S. government. Before the Taylor Grazing Act, these government lands were called “the public domain.” They could be privatized, as mentioned, under the Homestead Act and such, but the acreage allowed per homesteader was limited to 160 acres. There were no 158,000 acre homestead privatizations and certainly no 750,000 acre privatizations. Livestock owners ran their livestock freely without a permit on the public domain. They didn’t even need a home base of property (a ranch). The result was disaster because the operator to find green grass and eat it first won out, promoting very bad grazing practices. That was the reason for Taylor Grazing Act — ranchers and others could see the public domain system led to disaster on the ground. Therefore, the more powerful ranchers with “base” private property received grazing permits. This got rid of the landless livestock operators. Taylor Grazing was administered on the ground by the U.S. Grazing Service. Now, ranchers with grazing permits had to pay a grazing fee to use their permits. Bundy’s ancestors probably got one of these grazing permits, but they most certainly did not buy the land. That was not possible. The public domain was not for sale and ranchers generally did not want it. After all, if they owned it, they would owe local property tax. In 1946** the Bureau of Land Management was created by executive order of President Truman to replace the Grazing Service. The Service had been defunded in a dispute between the House and the U.S. Senate. The BLM has since been affirmed by law rather than a mere executive order. It is supposed to manage the public lands for multiple uses and for sustained production (“yield”) of renewable resources such as grass. As before, you need a grazing permit for cattle, sheep, goats, or horses to legally graze. It is a privilege, not a right, and this has been firmly stated by the U.S. courts. Hopefully, this explains why Bundy’s assertions are wrong. It is too bad that few citizens are taught public land law or history in high school or college. We think it is vital for everyone to know these things because these are in a real sense your lands, held in trust by the government. Yes we know the government often does a poor job. They did in Bundy’s case by letting this go for 20 years. He should have been gone before the year 2000. End of story. – – – – –

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

More information applicable to Bundy supporters claims. This should garner their attention...the reality of Constitutional Law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Federal land transfers are not in the Constitution. Legal scholars debunk arguments about how founding documents support local control of all lands.

Bryce Gray Feb. 4, 2016

At the heart of age-old disagreements about who should own and manage public lands in Western states — the federal government, states, or local communities — is one key document: the U.S. Constitution. Supporters of transferring federal lands to state or local control, including the armed occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, often cite the Constitution, along with original statehood documents, to justify their cause. Here are three of their main arguments, and what mainstream legal scholars have to say about them.

Enclave Clause

In a Fox News interview two days after the Malheur occupation began in early January, a reporter asked ringleader Ammon Bundy, "How is what you're doing not lawlessness?" He replied: "I think that we have to go to the supreme law of the land to answer that question. And that is that the federal government does not have authority to come down into the states and to control its land and resources. That is for the people to do, and that is clearly stated in Article 1, (Section) 8, (Clause) 17 of the Constitution."

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

“(The clause) essentially makes (a particular federally-owned) land area an enclave, by giving it a different set of rules for jurisdiction,” says Deb Donahue, a professor of public lands law at the University of Wyoming. She says it has been applied beyond the “ten miles square” area it originally set aside for Washington, D.C.’s creation. When it comes to the West, Donahue says the reference to “needful buildings” has been extended to recreation areas and national parks. For instance, Yellowstone National Park acquired enclave status using that clause.

Legal scholars say Ammon Bundy is not only misinterpreting the Enclave Clause, but also overlooking the Constitution’s Property Clause, which further undermines his argument. The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840. “In an unbroken line of cases, the Supreme Court has upheld federal management of public federal lands under the Property Clause,” says Michael Blumm, a law professor at Oregon’s Lewis and Clark College who specializes in public lands.

Tenth Amendment

Land transfer advocates have also often used the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in their arguments. The Amendment reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In a recent entry on his blog, Cliven Bundy — Ammon’s father who was embroiled in another high-profile armed standoff with the government in 2014 — writes that, “In the 10th Amendment, only a very few powers are given by the people to the federal government. All other powers and rights are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”

But once again, constitutional scholars say that land transfer arguments involving the 10th Amendment ignore the Property Clause, which specifically gives the federal government the ability to manage land use.

“We have 175 years of consistent interpretation of the Property Clause and then we have the Bundys. Which is more persuasive?” asks Blumm.

David Hayes, the former deputy secretary at the Department of the Interior in the Clinton and Obama administrations and a current law lecturer at Stanford University, also points to the Property Clause. “The Tenth Amendment doesn’t come into play because the Constitution explicitly grants power to the Congress to regulate public lands under the Property Clause,” Hayes says.

Enabling acts

Bundy supporters and others who believe that federal land should be transferred to state or local control, have also cited agreements called “enabling acts” as evidence of federal overreach. Those acts outlined conditions under which new states were to be admitted to the union, and included agreements concerning public land.

In a 2012 op-ed, the land transfer movement’s most prominent voice, Utah assemblyman Ken Ivory, wrote that the federal government violated an enabling act promise “to ‘extinguish its title’ to the public lands.” In Utah's enabling act, reference to extinguishing titles appears here:

"The people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof ... and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States..."

Most public lands scholars say that state enabling acts actually justify federal land management policies, rather than limit them.

According to Blumm, enabling acts were a product of bargaining between the federal government and territories, prior to statehood. “They would agree on the conveyance of various federal lands to the states for various purposes, mostly having to do with schools, or roads, or state office buildings,” says Blumm. “In all those statehood acts, the states promised they’d leave federal lands alone…. They wouldn’t interfere with federal management.”

Overall, legal experts say the Constitutional rhetoric coming out of the Oregon occupation and the land transfer movement is deeply flawed.

“I think it’s fair to say they speak in generalities about very selective parts of the Constitution,” Donahue says of the Oregon occupiers. “They’re just not accurately representing what the Constitution says and how courts, including the Supreme Court, have construed it for over 200 years now.”

Following last week’s arrest of Bundy and other militants, the matter will be addressed in court. “I think that Bundy got what he wanted: He wanted to get before a judge and make an argument,” says Blumm. “Unfortunately (for him), we live in a world of precedent.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bryce Gray is an editorial intern at High Country News.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The details of "how the federal government just owned the land" are addressed (among other aspects of this dispute) within my posts. Whether accepted or liked by myself, the Bundys or anyone else...the constitutionality of the government's actions are clear.

ron vrooman Loc: Now OR, born NV

Slatten49. To put it politely you are full of shit. They own 160 acres. They have gazing and water rights recorded in Nevada. The amount owed and on the record with testimony of BLM $8,000 AND CHANGE. Everything Ryan said in court stands as unrebutted testimony. That is considered fact. what you wrote and wrote and wrote is hearsay.

Kevyn

The Bundy clan are criminals who damaged public property and ripped off American taxpayers for years and when held accountable they threatened law enforcement with weapons. It is amazing they are not facing terrorism charges. If they were black and pulled a stunt like that they would have been shot dead for their effort.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Thank you for being polite. I will only say that I think as highly of yours and the Bundy's opinions as you do of my facts/truth. However, the facts contained within my posts are circumstance and clearly refute the Bundy's bogus claims. I suspect you either didn't read any/all of my posts, or you just simply refuse to believe the facts of the case, as they don't align with your unwarranted beliefs. I give you a quote attributed to Ben Franklin..."If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." You've lost your reasoning, Ron, as a result of your unbridled passion.

However, so be it, as you appear to believe only as you choose to believe...facts be damned.

Insofar as "heresay" is concerned, and your claim of it:

The rule against hearsay is deceptively simple and full of exceptions. Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B (the "declarant") told me that the defendant killed the victim." The definition of hearsay is not too difficult to understand. But the matter can become very confusing when one considers all of the many exceptions to the general rule against hearsay.

Even if a statement meets the requirements for hearsay, the statement may yet be admissible under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions. Most of them are generally available, although a few of them are limited to times when the declarant is unavailable.

There are twenty-four exceptions in the federal rules that do not require proof that the person who made the statement is unavailable. These are:

Business records, including those of a public agency
Certain public records and reports
Evidence of a judgment of conviction for certain purposes
Evidence of the absence of a business record or entry
Excited utterances or spontaneous statements
Family records concerning family history
Judgments of a court concerning personal history, family history, general history, or boundaries, where those matters were essential to the judgment
Learned treatises used to question an expert witness
Market reports, commercial publications, and the like
Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates
Past recollections recorded
Recorded documents purporting to affect interests in land
Records of religious organizations concerning personal or family history
Records of vital statistics
Reputation concerning boundaries or general history
Reputation concerning family history
Reputation of a person's character
Statements about the declarant's present sense impressions
Statements about the declarant's then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition
Statements in authentic ancient documents (at least 20 years old)
Statements in other documents purporting to affect interests in land and relevant to the purpose of the document
Statements made by the declarant for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment
Statements of the absence of a public record or entry
The "catch-all" rule

The last exception, the so-called "catch-all" rule, bears some explanation. This rule does not require that the declarant be unavailable to testify. It does say that evidence of a hearsay statement not included in one of the other exceptions may nevertheless be admitted if it meets these following conditions:

It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
It is offered to help prove a material fact
It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
Its admission would forward the cause of justice
The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

A response I read on the internet which is simple and to the point of the whole matter, constitutionally & otherwise...

From Quora, May 3, 2014, Matt Wartell wrote:

'The government took him to court multiple times and in the two most recent decisions said if he won't pay as we order him to, you can seize his cattle to settle part of his debt.

If the government fined me for tax evasion, and I didn't pay, and they took me to court and the court said they can seize my assets in compensation then the marshals would seize those assets. The courts could have ordered that he be jailed for defiance of regulations and the courts, so Bundy should consider himself lucky on that count.

To back off from the multiple court orders is to send the message that if you get the right television exposure, you won't be penalized for ignoring the law and the courts. That's a bad precedent to set. Suppose I want to build an amusement park in Yosemite National Park? Why should the federal government have any right to stop me? If you consider that a slippery slope argument, then I'm sure we can find something between illegal grazing on scrub-land and my amusement park.

Bundy was given the his constitutional right to due process and he lost. He's been given his constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievance; they heard him and disagreed. For someone who waves the U.S. flag so readily, Bundy could really stand a lesson in what it represents.'

ron vrooman Loc: Now OR, born NV

again you quote bullshit. All refuted in open court as unrebutted testimony.

It is all published in the transcript. Wrong again slattern.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Really, Ron?

Definition of 'unrebutted'(Adjective)....Not having been rebutted.

re·but (rĭ-bŭt′) verb; re·but·ted, re·but·ting, re·buts
1. To refute, especially by offering opposing evidence or arguments, as in a legal case: rebut an allegation.
2. To repel or reject: She rebutted his advances.
3. To present opposing evidence or arguments.

You remain consistently wrong, Ron.

My posts contain testimony from previous trials, excerpts from the U.S. Constitution, legal transcripts and congressional records...as evidenced by the references.

Present the "transcript" of which you are so proud. Otherwise, yours is a vacuous/baseless argument. Or, better yet, read my posts in their entirety so as to become more knowledgeable of the futility of your argument(s). Try reading the basis for the admittance of what you have wrongly determined to be heresay evidence.

As Franklin wrote..."If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." And, as I suggested above, you've lost your reasoning as a result of your unbridled but misdirected passion.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Another little tidbit from the U.S. Constitution that the Bundys and their rabid followers conveniently overlook...

Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress shall have powers to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice and Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."