It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Here is how very concerned the BLM is about the desert tortoise.
Beginning of destruction for desert tortoise
This Friday, First Solar will start digging threatened desert tortoises out of their burrows on about 2,000 more acres of good quality habitat in Ivanpah Valley, California and Nevada.
BLM will expand the nearby Ivanpah Desert Wildlife Management Area by more than 20,000 acres.
This story is all over the place. It's as bad as MH370 with speculation.
Did this land belong to the family, first and foremost? Some say the family owned it and it was siezed by the Feds, and others say otherwise.
Bundy has already lost two court battles in regards to his cattle grazing on what he believes is his rightful property.
Where is the paperwork, saying that Bundy owns the land?
Where is the paperwork, saying that the Feds seized the land?
Where is the paperwork...period!?
Isn't it easy to check who owns what land? Just have a show and tell of the land deeds no?
The BLM is fact, a de facto fraudulent usurper and not in any way a lawful Constitutionally recognized agency of the Constitutional Republic.
BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico.
Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it’s own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.
BLM, is actually classified as an: “Agent of Foreign Principle”, under the intergovernmental Personnel Act.
In other words, they don’t represent the Constitutional Republic or the interests of the American People but rather, a foreign owned principle i.e., the international banking/military corporate cartel of London City, England known as Crown Corporation as their supreme authority.
This has been openly admitted and exposed through Supreme Court cases since and even before 1938.
NOTE: It is now illegal to mention any of these pre-1938 Supreme Court citations in a current court of law in Amerika.
That should prove everything to you right there.
This private criminal foreign owned off-shore corporation (USA Inc.) has in fact, invaded and usurped our Constitutional Republic like a cancer invading a host body since 1871 to present.
The core issue here is that the BLM must be exposed for the invading criminal usurpers that they are. They have no legal/lawful standing and must be deemed as an invading hostile corporate/military enemy of We The People.
This is no different than having a snake-pit of London Banksters coming to Nevada to lord over the Bundy family, which is exactly who the real bosses of the BLM actually are by-the-way.
The only issue that should be addressed is, does the BLM have legal standing?
The answer is: No, they do not have legal standing and they know it. They just hope the American People never come to that realization.
reply to post by gariac
If I am not mistaken, the sheriff would have more jurisdiction over the matter then the BLM. If you look at a list of Law Enforcement agencies in Nevada, the BLM is not on the list and the sheriff could tell em to take a hike.
You are wrong. It is federal land. The state recognizes it as federal land.
Go commit a crime in a federal park, and tell me if you go to the state pen or the federal pen.
reply to post by TDawgRex
I know the EPA and the DNR have a lot of power, but is it "legal" authority?
From what I understand, a sheriff is damn near the end-all-be-all of law enforcement.
Prove that it is Federal land. Where is the documentation stating such? A press release?
I want to see proof that the land is Federal, or proof that the land is Bundy's.
Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the
ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public
lands in question.
As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.” CV-S-98-531 at 8 (citing United States v. Gardner,
107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320; that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands
outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320; that the United States‘ exercise of ownership over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319; that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass. See e.g., Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320
(under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze would be trumped).
reply to post by Bakatono
Meaning that if anyone has any right to annex the land it is the State, not the Feds.
Source that it's illegal? No smartassery.
So if the local government said it was illegal would that be OK?
Congress is limited by the Fifth Amendment, however, in the taking of private property without compensation.
reply to post by Card0
My question is this: If all they wanted to do was get him off federal lands, why didn't they just observe him breaking the law and then arrest him?
I think that is a fantastic question. I have no idea. It seems like an obvious solution right? That can go either way, they may not have a case or they're trying very hard to be kind. Considering the rancher lost 2x in court I'd say it's the latter.
reply to post by Card0
Source that it's legal? The federal government was established with limited powers. If this isn't a power specifically enumerated in the constitution or it's amendments, it's illegal.
The OP is reading the constitution literally. This has long eroded by SCOTUS decisions.
Remember, if you are a strict constructionist, you can't have an air force, since it wasn't mentioned in the constitution.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.