Public Land Use and Ex Post Facto Probibition (Bundy Ranch Situation)

Obviously the Bundy incident is what drove me to delve into this. It is the national highlight of such and it caught my attention for the mere fact that there are two specific clauses within the Constitution of the United States of America where ex post facto law is strictly prohibited.

Article I, Section 9 states the following:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

and Article 1, Section 10...

No state shall...pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts...

This it seems, along with a more recent ruling in Bond v. United States that Bundy is setting himself up to take this battle to the Supreme Court (so long as prevailing heads keep their cool on both sides) and the issue will be determined if Acts of Congress supplant an individual's claims to land or even their recognized jurisdiction other than that of the Federal Government.

If we are to assume that Bundy's claims to the land were legal and valid prior to any Acts of Congress, ex post facto determination of those lands is simply invalid and unless he (which he originally did) agreed to any new contract (his pitfall regarding this argument of course), the Federal Government has no claim.

That being fact, that Bundy at one time was in contract with the BLM, he subjected himself to be placed outside of the prohibition of ex post facto law. At one point, Mr. Bundy agreed to the new legislation and by doing so, his claims that the lands in which his cattle graze are not subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States via the Bureau of Land Management, are invalid in my estimation.

My theory is that if Mr. Bundy, from the beginning, denied the acts of Congress, would have been able to claim the legislation was ex post facto and the claims would have had a foundation to stand on.

Mind you, I am strictly looking at this from this point of view. There are of course other issues at hand that muddled the waters in both the Government's claims and Bundy's.


Fixed some gross grammatical errors...

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I believe this is state land of Nevada - managed by the BLM?

And how does state land end up being given to a chinese company to us for a solar farm? by a private citizen - harry ried's son, rory ried?

I'm asking. I don't know, for sure.

Solar farms are very detrimental to the environment - especially the endangered tortise, that they happened to be euthanizing because "there were too many of them."

What this really is, is globalist greedy polticians making money for themselves, while selling off america and calling it agenda 21/UN.

It's happening all over the US - there are a lot of Cliven Bundys' out there.

I heard that Glen Beck was siding with Feds on this and out of curiosity I checked it out. Not a fan of Beck but the conversation between him and Cliven seems important, in depth and revealing. Bundy explains his entire point here and addresses state and federal constitutions. The vid is from today.

reply to post by Happy1


That issue is separate from what I am theorizing upon, but a valid one (just not within the scope of what I was conveying).

In terms of the highly speculated and suggested notion of Chinese influence (I mean, this could very well be about a land deal that the Bundy's didn't want to agree with)...I still am holding to how Bundy (or any of us for that matter) could fight encroaching Federal statutes via the prohibition of ex post facto law via the Constitution.

But delving into the above, I believe Nevada could stop this instantly if they invoke their own statute, which reads:

NRS 37.015  Necessary access for owners, occupants of ranges, grazing lands: Exercise of power of eminent domain.  The State of Nevada or any political subdivision or district which possesses the power of eminent domain may, in addition to other uses for which the power may be exercised, exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose of providing necessary access for the owners or occupants thereof to ranges and grazing lands.

They could, in effect, claim eminent domain over the BLM on this land and instantly end this standoff. Of course, it would be a reverse of what we normally see; a State doesn't take land from the National Government....; but it would effectively place the battle back into the courts rather than the perceived pitted notion of the People v the overly armed Government reaction.

Someone correct me about this.

Ex Post Facto protects from passing a law and then charging people with breaking the law before the law was enacted.

Bundy says he can trace his family land back to before there ever was a BLM. Don't know how they can charge him with any crime.

American Thinker

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Thats the point of my post. At one point, Clive Bundy recognized the law and legislation and thus, ex post facto cannot apply. That to me, is his downfall and where my support legally ends. If he were to have never paid to the changes in the law and argued from that point, I would stand behind him that the Government is imposing ex post facto; which is strictly prohibited.

Now of course we can argue; and it would be valid; that regardless of ex post facto prohibition, the creation of new law/legislation cannot punish past actions but future infractions can and will be dealt with. For instance, hanging a black man, merely because he was black may not have been an implicit infraction and the inclusion of newer legislation or law to close that equality gap doesn't exclude those who performed such practice in the past to be allowed to continue in the future.

Instead, it gives action to present the recourse to the Courts and challenge the legislation/treaty to its jurisdiction. In this case though, I am arguing that because of his initial acceptance of the most recent legislation (evident of his payments for grazing fees prior to stopping them), his argument for recourse becomes invalid in my opinion.

The only caveat I can see, is if those payments were made prior to ownership of the land and upon gaining stewardship of the ranch, denial of such payments were protested, his claims of land will be be tough.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I see what you're saying - thanks for starting this thread.

The sad part is, is that the state (state or federal) seems to have endless amounts of time and money to throw at lawsuits, where the private citizen rarely has hundreds of thousands of dollars - not to mention time - to spend in countless hearings and other legal meetings. The stress these private citizens are put under is horrendous.

reply to post by Happy1


On the contrary I believe you are ill-informed in that aspect. There are a multitude of organizations that are willing to go to bat for the People in terms of court-actions. Sadly, some are highly partisan, but even then, at least they are represented.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I am not entirely sure That this is a fight Mr. Bundy can win. Under the Land Ordinance of 1785 the original legal owner of the land would have been Mexico who then ceded the land to the United States. The Bundy family could not legally settle the land without first purchasing it from the Government. The State of Nevada nor does any other State own all the land within their borders they never have, they only own the land which the US Government established for them to settle.

For Mr. Bundy to win he has to be able to prove the land in question was legally purchased or at the bare minimum prove that it was at one time open for settlement. Lax enforcement on his use of the land in the past does not mean he has ever owned it.

ownbestenemy
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

Thats the point of my post. At one point, Clive Bundy recognized the law and legislation and thus, ex post facto cannot apply. That to me, is his downfall and where my support legally ends. If he were to have never paid to the changes in the law and argued from that point, I would stand behind him that the Government is imposing ex post facto; which is strictly prohibited.

Now of course we can argue; and it would be valid; that regardless of ex post facto prohibition, the creation of new law/legislation cannot punish past actions but future infractions can and will be dealt with. For instance, hanging a black man, merely because he was black may not have been an implicit infraction and the inclusion of newer legislation or law to close that equality gap doesn't exclude those who performed such practice in the past to be allowed to continue in the future.

Instead, it gives action to present the recourse to the Courts and challenge the legislation/treaty to its jurisdiction. In this case though, I am arguing that because of his initial acceptance of the most recent legislation (evident of his payments for grazing fees prior to stopping them), his argument for recourse becomes invalid in my opinion.

The only caveat I can see, is if those payments were made prior to ownership of the land and upon gaining stewardship of the ranch, denial of such payments were protested, his claims of land will be be tough.

According to the interview with Beck, he never paid fees to the feds because he didn't recognize the federal government as having the authority or legal jurisdiction to impose the fees because, according to his belief, the land was "owned" by the state of Nevada and it's people. He said his contract for grazing was with the state of Nevada and not the federal government. His narrative of how the land was "given" to the feds was to allow Congress to "act" to form the state of Nevada and that once a state, the rights of the state and it's peoples, were equal to that of every other state. The governance of the land would revert back to the people of Nevada "at the moment" they became a state.

KeliOnyx
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I am not entirely sure That this is a fight Mr. Bundy can win. Under the Land Ordinance of 1785 the original legal owner of the land would have been Mexico who then ceded the land to the United States. The Bundy family could not legally settle the land without first purchasing it from the Government. The State of Nevada nor does any other State own all the land within their borders they never have, they only own the land which the US Government established for them to settle.

For Mr. Bundy to win he has to be able to prove the land in question was legally purchased or at the bare minimum prove that it was at one time open for settlement. Lax enforcement on his use of the land in the past does not mean he has ever owned it.

He's not claiming to own the land. His claim is that the land was only federally owned up until the point at which the "territory" of Nevada became a state and that the ownership was a matter of process for statehood, after which the state of Nevada and it's residence were due the same rights and privileges as those of every other state. He's never claimed to own the land. He's only claimed to have been ceded grazing rights in perpetuity and for a fee, but a fee paid to the county in which the land resides.

ownbestenemy
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

Thats the point of my post. At one point, Clive Bundy recognized the law and legislation and thus, ex post facto cannot apply. That to me, is his downfall and where my support legally ends. If he were to have never paid to the changes in the law and argued from that point, I would stand behind him that the Government is imposing ex post facto; which is strictly prohibited.

But why did Bundy recognize the law? If Bundy can produce evidence of being compelled under threat, meaning ultimatum based on extortion by the BLM/USG, he could claim duress, couldn't he?

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by Happy1


The land was sold not given to the Chinese solar Co but I don't know if was a fair price.

The solar farm had a giant requirement for habitat mitigation and all they are saying is that trespass cattle screw it all up. Cattle are not native and they have a heavy impact on the environment. That's why they are managed and taxed.

If you have been on BLM public use trails you have probably seen the trail damage and you can't drink any water from any stream because of cattle parasites in the water.

The cattle are damaging other people's private property. No one seems to care about those property rights. I find that interesting.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


My paltry contribution notwithstanding, this thread should win award for badassness. It's the best information I've seen anywhere.
I feel like I actually understand the issue at this point.

Star it up!

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


That is where it requires some understanding of the law, the offers presented to him and his ranch and if any of their original contracts were broken (by either party).

Overall as I am reading the court documents, Bundy really put himself in this situation by A. not renewing his license in 1993 and B. just stopped paying for the grazing fees.

He makes use of NRS 321.596-599, which reads in part:

NRS 321.596  Legislative findings.  The Legislature finds that:

The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because...Federal administration of the retained public lands, which are vital to the livestock and mining industries of the State and essential to meet the recreational and other various uses of its citizens, has been of uneven quality and sometimes arbitrary and capricious...

He actually lays claim to a lot but he has a major problem; In U.S. v. Nye County, that very statute was placed under scrutiny and the Ninth Circuit held it unenforceable based upon a torrid of Supreme Court precedents that recognize a particular broad swath in terms of land ownership via the Federal Government.

It is beginning to look like he just didn't want to accept that legally, he lost the battle. I am, for all intents and purposes, on his side that I do not see why the Government is given the amount of authority (I believe in strong, yet simple land management; not what our Federal Government does today) in terms of land management and the declaration of public lands as "off-limits".

This is of course highlighted by the BLM's actions to designate a "free-amendment zone" (because the Public land in which the Public was going to was actually closed to the Public......)

I also see he didn't even try to appeal the Ninth -- which is the MOST overturned court in our history. This makes me believe that he knew that his claim on the Nevada statutes was bunk in the first place and trying to show cause to the Supreme Court would get him no further than some clerks desk.

So my original question it seems answered: Cliven Bundy originally recognized the BLM as the land managers, but not in the strictest sense as the relationship was tenuous at best when the Bunkerville Allotment was converted to the "New Trespass Lands" within the Gold Butte area.

Given this, my thought of ex post facto is no longer viable nor has any pertaining notion to the situation that this rancher is in.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Totally agree on the cattle and their impact on those marginal western lands. If it is truly "public land", what if I don't want cattle messing it up? Separate issue I know but this story has a number of those.

And if it is public land, how come it was sold? It may happen often but that does not minimize the issue. And to a foreign company?

Sounds like the ranchers got out $$$ by the new kids in town, Chinese solar. The fact either gets their way over the rest of us makes me mad.