Rancher Cliven Bundy Refuses to Enter Plea Because He Does Not Recognize Authority of Federal Govt

Yesterday, Cliven Bundy was in court in Las Vegas, Nevada to face federal charges stemming from his 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land Management.

He faces 16 felony charges.

In court, Bundy stated, "I make no plea before this court." The judge entered a plea of "Not guilty" for him.

According to Bundy's lawyer:

"His position is that he should be subject to Nevada law and not federal law," Bundy's attorney, Joel Hansen, told me after the hearing in front of the Lloyd George federal courthouse. "And so, because of that position, he doesn't recognize that he should be here."

He remains in custody and will return to federal court next Thursday for a detention hearing. His trial is set to begin May 2nd.
news3LV


Now, here is the thing. Cliven tried this specific tactic back in 1998. It did not work.
Please see United States of America V. Cliven Bundy, 1998

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss #4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. [*6] Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue.

This is the court's conclussion on the matter:

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#4) is DENIED.

C. Federal Lands
Bundy argues the federal [*13] government cannot
have authority over lands "inside an admitted state." See
Motion to Dismiss (#4), p. 10. That argument must fail
because federal lands located within states are federal
territories under federal jurisdiction

I'm really not certain why he thinks this argument will magically work this time.

I like the quote from his own lawyer in that link.

"Cliven has known that this might happen for the last 20 years," says his attorney, Joel Hansen.

So he''s been knowingly breaking the law for at least that long...
Good thing he's old and in med ward...I don't think he'd last long in gen pop.

Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts.

Why are people rallying around this nutjob again?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts.

Why are people rallying around this nutjob again?

'Cuz 'Merica...er...state's rights? Free man somethingorjobber?

a reply to: Olivine

Pity he's gonna spend his last remaining years behind bars.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
Why are people rallying around this nutjob again?

Quite. If this was some Jihadist people would bay for his blood.

I guess he will then have to recognize the authority of steel bars.

So the Judge entered the plea of 'Not guilty'. If I was the Judge I would have pleaded guilty and save a whole lot of time and money. He missed a trick there

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I don't know if a judge can do that...

...but it would have been cool

And I bet Bundy would have believed enough in the federal court to enter a plea voluntarily.

Yeeeah. Well Cliven, thisy here is a law man from the Yoonited States an he don't reckon you're playing with a full deck. So he's just gonna escort you quiet like over to this here cell where you can stop and think about the whole Federal thing for, oh, say a bunch uh birthdays...

Maybe he would understand that???

AB

a reply to: Olivine

Cliven is becoming more obvious to being an absolute moron every time something new comes out in the media.

I get the why behind some of his actions, but once you've shown yourself to be this far out there, I must take the moment to distance myself from you.

(Psst...Cliven...you do realize that when you break federal law, you go to federal court, right?)

a reply to: Olivine

Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States

there you go. plain as day, yet everyone is just sitting around letting this happen.

when they (the Fed) are trampling him they (the Fed) are trampling you.. and all you scoff.

fools & idiots one & all.

originally posted by: reeferman
a reply to: Olivine

Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States

fools & idiots one & all.

Yep. Bundy and company sure are for thinking they could get away with ever increasing shenanigans. He's not the first person to try this kind of thing. Just the most high profile in the last few decades.

a reply to: reeferman
Just because Bundy says it, doesn't make it reality.
Here are some specifics of why Bundy's 1998 motion to dismiss was denied.

This is the full finding from the 1998 court case, rebutting Bundy's position. It can be found in the paragraph following the one you partially quoted. source

Bundy is correct that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. However, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. Section 1331 provides that: "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Section 1345 provides that: "the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States ..." 28 U.S.C. § 1345; Page 2 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835, *2 United States v. State of Hawaii, 832 F.2d 1116, 1117 (9th Cir. 1987).

I know, I know...this isn't in the Constitution, but the Constitution did establish the courts, so...

a reply to: Olivine

First word and last word so far...nice.
You done did good. It's hard to argue with precedent especially when dealing with the same person.
The Bundy bunch believers are probably creating their own thread about the unconstitutional detainment of Cow Flops Bundy and his angry horde of wannabe Revolutionaries.
Until then.

originally posted by: Olivine
Yesterday, Cliven Bundy was in court in Las Vegas, Nevada to face federal charges stemming from his 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land Management.

He faces 16 felony charges.

In court, Bundy stated, "I make no plea before this court." The judge entered a plea of "Not guilty" for him.

According to Bundy's lawyer:

"His position is that he should be subject to Nevada law and not federal law," Bundy's attorney, Joel Hansen, told me after the hearing in front of the Lloyd George federal courthouse. "And so, because of that position, he doesn't recognize that he should be here."

He remains in custody and will return to federal court next Thursday for a detention hearing. His trial is set to begin May 2nd.
news3LV


Now, here is the thing. Cliven tried this specific tactic back in 1998. It did not work.
Please see United States of America V. Cliven Bundy, 1998

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss #4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. [*6] Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue.

This is the court's conclussion on the matter:

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#4) is DENIED.

C. Federal Lands
Bundy argues the federal [*13] government cannot
have authority over lands "inside an admitted state." See
Motion to Dismiss (#4), p. 10. That argument must fail
because federal lands located within states are federal
territories under federal jurisdiction

I'm really not certain why he thinks this argument will magically work this time.

Good hopefully he wont contract with them, Pity he did not ask the judge if it was legal for him the use the legal name first, but lets hope he's been getting some help from Dean Clifford in Canada.