posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:44 PM
a reply to: Granite
A few considerations:
I have heard that BLM is not
a legal agency of the federal government (definition of federal government to be left open at this time). It
appears that any standing it may have derive from individual "charters" with states that must be renewed every two years. I'm no expert, but this
seems to be the case when one does web searches regarding their charter. Their stationery may list them below Department of Interior, but a cursory
examination of multiple reorganizations indicate that the BLM in fact may have lost legal standing as a federal agency due to mistake or omission -
thus the need for all the temporary charters.
The transition that most caught my eye was the merger of the western office (originally intended for grasslands manament, including the administration
of grazing leases) with the eastern office, which left a bunch of greenhorn yankees in charge of managing grazing rights agreements that had been in
place for generations, with no understanding of the history, conditions, or culture they were dealing with. This constitutes a failure point, and
where there is one failure point, there is likely to be others, so that's where I would look first to see if BLM has legally lost jurisdiction over
the western lands.
IF BLM does not have official federal standing, it would seem to follow that it likewise does not have a right to be classified as a LEO, and that its
agents are not legally allowed to use firearms or paramilitary tactics. I likewise question the legal definition of LEO in the context of an
administrative agency. Where does BLM derive the LEO status, and is it legislated or fiat? For example, the FDA is another agency that appears to be
entirely administrative in purpose, yet has recently militarized, primarily against sellers of raw milk, it seems. If this LEO status is, as I
suspect it is, illegitimately applied, what legal exposures does that constitute for the individual employees who dress in paramilitary gear and
threaten (or use) force?
Just some things I'm left wondering about. The Bundy attorneys do indeed have a real playground of documents and precedents to examine, and I hope
they do it well.