Armed Fed Agents and Snipers in Nevada Battle with Local Rancher

rockflier
Here is how very concerned the BLM is about the desert tortoise.

Beginning of destruction for desert tortoise

Did you actually read the link?

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.

So the turtles get ten times the habitat.

Did it occur to you that the location picked for the solar facility is near waiting power lines so that less land needs to be disturbed?

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!?

TDawgRex
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?

pookle

Isn't it easy to check who owns what land? Just have a show and tell of the land deeds no?

You'd think it's as easy as that, but no one has produced anything from what I see. Both sides give statements, but no one has produced any documentation to back their claim.

It's a game of he said, she said.

trig_grl

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.

I see. Now we just quote "before it is news" rather than provide links to that BS website.

BLM history

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.

sheepslayer247
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.

gariac

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.

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. A news interview?

Until then, people are getting their panties all in a wad over nothing.

I want to see documentation.

reply to post by gariac


It may be federal land, but does the BLM, specifically, have any law enforcement authority?

ETA: Emphasis on the word "MAY".

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I wouldn't think so. Maybe the EPA, or more than likely the DNR. Hell, who even heard of the BLM two years ago? I thought they were a State agency.

Just looked it up. They belong to the Dept. of Interior. Looking more like a land grab to me now.

The Federal Government shall never own title to any real property which is not specifically authorized by this Constitution such as parks, forests, dams, waterways, and grazing areas without the consent of the State where same is located.

This is a direct violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of our American Constitution. It should be defended.

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.

sheepslayer247
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.

You would think.

But politics always muddys up the waters.

reply to post by TDawgRex

TDawgRex
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.

This is the link to the 5-page .PDF of the July 9, 2013 Federal District court ruling against Mr. Bundy. Link

From the ruling: (bolding by me)

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).

The problem is, lots of people don't like the way the courts interpret the federal supremacy clause (Article VI of the US Constitution).

Gray580 got Reids land plans on another thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Letter from Bundys daughter explaining the other side of the story.

www.americasfreedomfighters.com...

A little rough, but the meanings are clear.

Domo1
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?

lmgtfy

10th Amendment

Find anywhere in the Constitution that says the feds can do this. It doesn't allow for it, therefore, the 10th Amendment applies

Article II

Article II, preservation of State Sovereignty

Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power

This should give a good learning experience. Specifically:

Congress is limited by the Fifth Amendment, however, in the taking of private property without compensation.

Now it can be argued whether or not this rancher was the "owner" but obviously SOMEONE was before it was annexed by the fed gov.

and so on and so on.

Google, it is wonderful, isn't it?

Domo1
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.

Disagree. They are not being "kind". They are attempting to find workarounds via bureaucratic nonsense to attempt to justify their actions. If he was actually and clearly breaking a law he would be arrested and tried. These shenanigans are proof positive that they know they are on shaky ground as far as their legal "justification" for doing what they are doing.

gariac

Domo1
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.

Source?

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.

Well, you are absolutely right there. The Constitution has been continually eroded by the SCOTUS. However, who is the SCOTUS other than politically appointed henchmen on a bench?

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Declaration of Independence

So where's the news on this?

Unconfirmed: Fire at the Ranch? Militia are on site but how many? Cell Towers in the area have been shut down to prevent uploads of video and communication? Harry Reid is behind this? The Bundy Ranch has been declared a no fly zone? There are special-ops and black water operatives on site? People are being detained and stopped on I 15 under suspicion of going to the protest?

Edit to add only one source for the fire, second on ground source says only 8 militia on the ground at the ranch as of 2 hours ago, multiple no fly zone over bunkerville sources up to 3000 ft. not that high, but high enough to keep news choppers out and that's in effect till May 11th last I heard.