The 5th amendment (Bundy)

When this story first broke I wondered why if Bundy was doing something illegal did the federal government just not arrest him?

This is all I could find.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

www.archives.gov...

So if Bundy was a federal government freeloader and welfare recipient and a criminal why not just arrest him? Or was that not the case at all?

reply to post by txinfidel


If Bundy was and illegal immigrant, everything that has been the rage in the so called "political correctness, and government sympathizers corner" would be a non issue!

In fact Bundy would be a national hero!

Oh wait I found a few more reasons.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

mendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

Yep, this particular breach by the Federal Government has essentially the whole Bill of Rights wrapped into it.

Thats why people are pissed!

reply to post by txinfidel


It is the government commit act of treason, number 10000000000000000000 and 1. And would be punishable if the checks were balanced and the balance was checked.

reply to post by txinfidel


The key words in that amendment, are the words: grand jury. Show me which grand jury made the determination that taking his land is just? Futhermore, where is his compensation if eminent domain is applicable?

Amendment 7 also applies, as part of common law is the grand jury. Same with Amendment 9. We won't even go into article 6, treaties, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

It is hidden in plain sight.

More scary is thus:

Talking with my tax "lawyer" yesterday, about the situation at that ranch, i have found out multiple things. He called Bundy an insane madman, and called him a robber baron (even after i pointed out his wall street painting with bulls in the street next to his desk). Upon futher questioning, In lawyer think, Article 6 is revoked, grand juries are a waste of tax payer money, amendments are not ratified, yet applied anyway. Ignoring due process is just fine, so long as its for the greater good, and lawlessness is ok for our oligarchs. Oh and he never denied the legal status of reforming state grand juries, just "why would we do that", and it is "a waste of taxpayer money", each time i brought it up. Basically, the message i recieved was clear. What ever you do, don't reconstitute our 4th branch of government, the grand jury.

I understand why he would say such things, as grand juries may quash the lawyer cabal, and hence damage his own income. But, i digress.

If he is that concerned about taxpayer money, maybe we can use some ZIRP moneys for a grand jury, and avoid bloodshed. Also, Reid is guilty of TITLE 18 Section 241-242 if there is a conspiracy to take away rights, RICO, and other many laws, in regards to the solar power deal, if true. Reid is also in violation of his oath to keep the peace, as that is part of his job. And yet, not even a probe has started.

Understand, Article 6 makes the Constitution a closed system. All laws flow down from it, as it is supreme. You have been indoctinated the law goes bottom up, and that until it is ruled unconstitutional, it is lawful. This is not the case. If in conflict with the Constitution, it is null and void, immediately.

Learn to look at the Constitution, top down, and see the lawlessness first hand.

Want to start ending corruption? Return our government to the law, peacefully? Call for, and support, reconstitution of state grand juries. Let the people decide, as it has become self evident, that foxes, are guarding the hen houses.

reply to post by Not Authorized


Yes not to mention that judges are elected through merit selection and are usually ex lawyers.

Sometimes I wonder if the legal way, is the just way. It is just too corrupt and you could spend a fortune and a lifetime and never get justice in this system only pump more money into it to support it..

reply to post by txinfidel


If people can get together, and do something as silly as banning gay marriage via State constitutions, then it is just as easy to amend state constitutions and bind law enforcement to enforce grand jury presentments, indictments, writs, warrents, and true bills.

Stop being afraid. I want to see you be brave. The supremes left the door wide open for grand juries in United States v Williams 504 US 36 (1992). Step thru the door.

Go researching, learn the law. :-) lots of us are now. We are all in this together. The internet is powerful.

We are the 4th branch. Reclaim your government.

Happy Journeys. :-)

reply to post by txinfidel


He is doing something illegal. He's not paying grazing fees to the BLM for land owned by the USG. Why do people keep getting the idea he's getting land taken away? I guess it's what people want to believe. Just let that settle in.

That's not the legal issue though. If there is any legal issue it's an issue of ownership rights between Nevada and the USG. Nothing to do the cattle rancher.

The BLM is taking his cattle to settle a tax lien. He claims the state of NV granted him lifetime grazing rights for free. That might be true, but he entered into a signed contract with the BLM so those previous claims were nullified.

BTW,His cattle were going feral and destroying other people's private property but if you don't have an armed posse, I guess you get your rights subordinated.

All this other stuff is noise.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Slow me his due process. Show me the BLM's authority per article 6. Bundy wants to pay he State of Nevada. Not a private corporation. Let me see notorized documents, and signatures. This is the age of the internet. "Show me the money"

Or are you like my lawyer "friend" to? Ignoring the law for thier own benefit?

Besides, why are you ignoring Reid and his sons, involement and corruption? This can start a civil war you fool. You want that, for a 5 billion dollar solar plant for china? Who is the aggessor? Why now? Question authority.

Just whose side are you on? Lawful government, forcing government to play by the rules, or, anarchy, depending on the size of your bank account?

a reply to: Not Authorized

BLM's authority comes from Article 4 of the US constitution.

Bundy wants to pay the state for grazing rights that the state revoked 10 years ago. Bundy has no land (except for his 150 acres), he has no right to grazing (either from the state or the feds). He's so incredibly wrong on this issue.

You're wrong too, if you insist on defending him.

a reply to: links234

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. The enclave clause, disagrees with your accessment. Does that land have federal buildings, or military purpose? Or is this a land grab, so an utterly corrupt politician, and his son, can make bank, on "your public land" by solar plants and fracking?

Or did you want to tell me it is really about the turtles, whom, the BLM is euthanizing, probably to make way for the plant and fracking?

Government was limited to what it could do with said land, for this very reason.

This is not isolated incident, he's the last rancher there out of 50ish. This is what i would call, a pattern. A 5 billion dollar deal pattern, carried out slowly over time. And it works too, as this scenario is played out all over the place, with no way left to petition for a redress of grievances.

You also may want to look at Section 4 of Article 4. You forgot to mention the gaurantee of a republic in that article, or did you just quote it from an anarchist site, without investigating the context? It is to be read as one contiguous document. Not cherry picked like the "Bible".

Your turn now. Explain to me why you have not produced notorized documents from a grand jury showing due process. Article 6 demands it, amendment 5 demands it, and article 7 demands it. Show me legally binding juristiction the BLM has to enforce anything they are trying to do, within the strict confines of law.

Hint, you can't. That is why the Nevada courts sided with Bundy, and punted it to the Federal courts.

So, lets focus back on the law shall we? Let us up the ante and start discussing the failure of Reids Oath, known as Breach of Peace, (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1), RICO violations, and Reid, his son, possibly conspiring to take away rights (due process) under TITLE 18 USC 241-242, etc. Need i go on?

Instead of listening to your daily propaganda nightly news source (since domestic propaganda is "legal" again), go reseach the relevant laws, and think for yourself.

While you are at it, you should start at, and read Senate Report 93-549 for some "Enlightenment". That alone should open your eyes. It certanly did with mine.

Happy Journeys. :-)

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: links234

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. The enclave clause, disagrees with your accessment. Does that land have federal buildings, or military purpose? Or is this a land grab, so an utterly corrupt politician, and his son, can make bank, on "your public land" by solar plants and fracking?

Or did you want to tell me it is really about the turtles, whom, the BLM is euthanizing, probably to make way for the plant and fracking?

Government was limited to what it could do with said land, for this very reason.

This is not isolated incident, he's the last rancher there out of 50ish. This is what i would call, a pattern. A 5 billion dollar deal pattern, carried out slowly over time. And it works too, as this scenario is played out all over the place, with no way left to petition for a redress of grievances.

You also may want to look at Section 4 of Article 4. You forgot to mention the gaurantee of a republic in that article, or did you just quote it from an anarchist site, without investigating the context? It is to be read as one contiguous document. Not cherry picked like the "Bible".

Your turn now. Explain to me why you have not produced notorized documents from a grand jury showing due process. Article 6 demands it, amendment 5 demands it, and article 7 demands it. Show me legally binding juristiction the BLM has to enforce anything they are trying to do, within the strict confines of law.

Hint, you can't. That is why the Nevada courts sided with Bundy, and punted it to the Federal courts.

So, lets focus back on the law shall we? Let us up the ante and start discussing the failure of Reids Oath, known as Breach of Peace, (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1), RICO violations, and Reid, his son, possibly conspiring to take away rights (due process) under TITLE 18 USC 241-242, etc. Need i go on?

Instead of listening to your daily propaganda nightly news source (since domestic propaganda is "legal" again), go reseach the relevant laws, and think for yourself.

While you are at it, you should start at, and read Senate Report 93-549 for some "Enlightenment". That alone should open your eyes. It certanly did with mine.

Happy Journeys. :-)

Everything you just typed was racist.

Im sorry- I had to. I dont mean it-just beating him to the punch.

a reply to: txinfidel
The amendment refers to private property. The land in question was not his so it doesn't apply.

Why wasn't he arrested? Could be that he had friends in high places or the money to buy a favor or two.

a reply to: Not Authorized

You've asked a lot, so I'm going to try and stick to the main points; You should check the constitution of Nevada that states the following:

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.

That says who owns the most of the land.

As for the US constitution, Article Four, Section Three;

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.

Keyword being territory. Not buildings or property or military installations. We'll just stick to the constitutions for supreme authority and set aside the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, both of which confer BLM with authority over management of federal lands.

As for the courts; the state courts couldn't have 'punted' anything, seeing as the land is federally owned and all legal jurisdiction lies with the federal government. With that we have the federal judge issuing an injunction against Bundy in 1998 (five years after Bundy stopped paying), Bundy represented himself in his appeal and lost. The BLM is happy to provide you with information on two separate court rulings that says they can forcibly remove Bundy's cattle.

Do we have to continue or are you insistent that Bundy is in the right after all this?

I suspect we'll see a dramatic increase in anti-Cliven Bundy sentiment magically spring up across the web and through mainstream media as we approach the time when the feds conduct their middle of the night militarized raid on his ranch. DC withdrew and took a pause to manipulate public sentiment through their usual "me-too!" group think policies to ensure a larger portion of "America Yeah! We got that bastard!" nonsense following their raid. I'm sure this pause period will also be accompanied with non-MSM reports of Facebook removing pro-Bundy pages, lockdowns of Wikipedia pages to prevent non-sanitized verbage, and selective Reddit account bannings.

ETA: I'm also willing to bet a burger that we'll see an MSM report in the next couple of weeks citing that Bundy "used the n-word", "touched children or was abusive", or some other ass-end of dimentia generated personality smear they usually apply when they want public sentiment manipulated against someone.

a reply to: links234

I was going to write a long, lengthy reply, refuting everything you wrote. I decided not to. People can go google what a Jury really is. and the power it would hold in this case, themselves. And no people, it's not on wikipedia.

a reply to: Not Authorized

You do understand that the land was not his?

What power would a jury have in this case?

a reply to: daskakik

What could a jury do...? Ok. Here is the post I was writing:

I have accepted that the Constitution, is the Supreme law of the Land (Article 6). It is our silent, but, benevolent king. (9th/10th Amendment).

Everything else, is subservient to that. Government, Services, Treaties, You, Me, Everything, everyone, and everywhere within our boarders. Yes, that includes the BLM. No exceptions. That is what the rule of the land says about itself, and that is what it means. If you want to change any of it, it is a VERY difficult process, for that very reason.

That means the Constitution must *ALWAYS APPLY*. Just like if you lived under a monarch. It is your monarch. It demands itself to be given heed to, and paid attention with.

With that new thought, let us look this situation again at amendment v.

Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...”.

Understand the terminology used, NO PERSON. GRAND JURY. This is Vital. Is Bundy a person? Remember, this applies, and a Grand Jury is now a requirement. This is a command that you can not disobey, just like you would never deny Henry the 8th if he ordered you to kill his wives. If you denied him, he would have offed you too.

What is a Jury?

“As understood at common law and as used in constitutional provision, "jury" imports body of twelve men.” [State v.Dalton, 206 N.C. 507, 174 S.E. 422, 424; People exrel.Cooley v. Wilder, 255 N.Y.S.218, 222, 234 App.Div. 256; Hall v.Brown, 129 Kan.859, 284 P. 396.]

A Federal judge is not equal to 12 men, therefore, he/she is not a jury. Due process was denied. This is a violation of Amendment 5. If in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, the statue, judgment, etc, is null and void. (Did you want case law on that too?).

What could a Jury do? What is Jury Nullification? Scary if the people could judge the system themselves, eh?

"The jury has a unalienable right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice United States Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902

Jurors were not given the Ability to Nullify the the law for the benefit of the Nation in this case. Whither or not they would side with him or not, is irrelevant. This is unconstitutional. This whole situation has very bad feel around it, and can spark something really ugly in a hurry. Grand Juries are the peaceful solution.

The REAL Law, not BLM's law.

The United States is a Common Law Nation. With that said, the Constitution was written, to protect common law, and to preserve liberty. Not use it to abuse her people with "statutes".

“The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, -- Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261

"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process..." -- Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491]

Want me to continue, waste both of our times, or do you get my point? You have a LOT more to prove than 5 minutes of google research. Try a few months worth of research, because, at one time, I too would have agreed with you.

Speaking of which, the two injunctions? Given the recent light of how much corruption there really is today in our entire society, you think those judges would NOT rule in favor of statutes designed to keep the Oligarchs enriched, and in power? I would call that a fox guarding the hen house.

The whole system is corrupt, including the judicial. A jury can undo the corruption, and hold government corruption accountable one hearing at a time. That is what a jury can do. Do you know the penalty if someone dies, while being denied a constitutional right under color of law?

The involvement in solar power plants, possible fracking, and 5 billion dollars to enrich Reid and his son, at the VERY MINIMUM, should be sparking outrage and probes. This is by definition, racketeering. Go read the RICO act.

Now, good sir. Please, show me the Due Process and the Grand Jury documents. Put up, or Shut up. I know what the Supreme law of the Land is. So does the world. They are waiting for us to return to it.

"Legal" is not equal to "Lawful". Now, I implore you, read Senate report 93-549 and let it sink in. Learn the difference.

Happy Peaceful Journeys to you.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I agree seems very plausible...

I am wondering if they are going to go in guns blazing or the hard way..

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You will. It's necessary to keep the masses stupefied.

This is also a distraction for the Alternative Media. It is also to keep your eyes off the CIA Torture Memo.