Feds seize another ranch, this time in New Mexico.

Feds seize family's ranch. Property owners fight government 'land grab'.

When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.

Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land.

That day has arrived.

Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service.

But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.

First off, theres just way too much "federal land". Even if someone agrees with the idea of the government "owning" this land and "allowing" us to use it, it should be handled on the state level.

Mr. Bundy had an agreement in place with the state of Nevada but the federal ogres refused to recognize it.

Theres no reason for the power hungry Feds to be involved.

Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.

Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”

His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.”

Here is an example of what a Sheriff should do. This is what the Sheriff should have done in the case of the Bundy's.

When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land.

Standard operating procedure. They simply reduce the number of cattle making it impossible to turn a profit, forcing you to abandon your business. This is exactly what they did to the Nevada ranchers with Mr. Bundy being the last man standing.

Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government.

Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations.

The era of the federal power grab. Everything from gold confiscations to the disaster known as Social InSecurity.

The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.

Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.”

The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights.

Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.

He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back.

Look at this nonsense. Look at what an average citizen has to go through in order to preserve his livelihood.

Part of the problem is that government has been allowed to grow exponentially without restraint.

We had hope. We had a real chance to wage a non-violent revolution by electing someone who would have tried to take power away from the federal monopoly and return it to the states.

Lets not make the same mistake again.

*ETA

But hey, if the militia is going to head to New Mexico, do the residents a favor and clean up the Albuquerque police department while you're down there.

well, good for the government!

it is a very positive development and a true statement.

american way in it's purest form.

american dream for the elite of the USA.

american nightmare for the rest.

reply to post by gladtobehere


It certainly begs the question as to why now for this apparent intensification of confiscation and eviction orders?

I have been wondering why the sheriffs haven't been doing more in these cases.

They're trying to steal crown land, the land that belongs to the people. I knew this was agenda 21. And destroy cottage industry farmers, ie the people's farms.

And within minutes you'll have pro government posters applauding the removal of freeloading welfare bums....

I love how the federal government gets to write laws that empower them over us. Why shouldn't we do the same?

Any time the federal government claims "imminent domain" the citizens should claim "imminent # you" and the charge should be a public tar and feathering for any public official dumb enough to try it.

Maybe its time the people rewrote their constitution.

There is not too much people's land, the feds and the state are but hired minions, and the land belongs to people. That is the real law, anything else corporate law which means fascism and illegal unlawful laws that even law agencies must not follow, or enforce, because its a crime to enforce unlawful laws.

reply to post by demus


As George Carlin said, its called the American dream beacuse you gotta be asleep to believe it.

Peace

It's clear what this is turning out to be. It's not only an assault on hard working individuals and freedom loving citizens, but an assault on the US food supply.

I'm amazed at all the supporters of the federal government's control over millions of square miles of land, then on the other hand be the same to cry about over population.

eXia7


I'm amazed at all the supporters of the federal government's control over millions of square miles of land, then on the other hand be the same to cry about over population.

aint that the truth

LOL I'm seeing where the militias are heading next....

HomerinNC
LOL I'm seeing where the militias are heading next....

Its a trap to lure the militia to NM where they have set up acme anvils and drop off cliffs. Meanwhile back at the Bundy ranch the BLM will engage during the cover of darkness wearing acme rocket shoes.

reply to post by gladtobehere


This map shows a bit more definition, not that this situation isn't wrong:
Link

They should just sell that land to a developer. They get a nice bit of income from a new tax base and as a private owner the developer could just shoot the cows and the rancher when they came onto their property and ATS would be cheering them on for using the second amendment to give it to these corporate ranchers.

Terribly sad for the rancher and his family but, unfortunately, that's the cost of freedom, in the eyes of the gov't. What a stressful situation; if this man was a banker he would've commit suicide.

The graphic you posted was really interesting and informative. There are probably more legitimate reasons why the western half of the country has much more federally owned land, but it seems to give credence to the theory that when the SHTF the east coast will be obliterated and the capitol will move to the Midwest.

eXia7
It's clear what this is turning out to be. It's not only an assault on hard working individuals and freedom loving citizens, but an assault on the US food supply.

I'm amazed at all the supporters of the federal government's control over millions of square miles of land, then on the other hand be the same to cry about over population.

edit on 4/13/2014 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)

Ground beef selling for $5 a pound at the store. Assault is right...
I have also heard another report of someone being tased in Arizona over Land and Cattle.
Wow, some members really have it in for us out West as well. California attitude at it's finest. Go home and leave us be.

MrSpad
They should just sell that land to a developer. They get a nice bit of income from a new tax base and as a private owner the developer could just shoot the cows and the rancher when they came onto their property and ATS would be cheering them on for using the second amendment to give it to these corporate ranchers.

edit on 13-4-2014 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)

Youre so pro govt it reeks.
If they wanted to do that, they could have, they were apparently very happy ranching, whats wrong with that?>

Maybe the militia shouldnt have let the feds leave on the Bundy ranch.

cosmicexplorer
Maybe the militia shouldnt have let the feds leave on the Bundy ranch.

That could very well be where this is heading to. If making a peaceful stand only results in the feds moving their operation instead of stopping it, then removing their ground guys from the situation may become a reality.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I am confused this story is from 2004.....even older than the Bundy dispute...

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

I am confused this story is from 2004.....even old than the Bundy dispute...

Still very relevant to today's times.. perhaps a story that was ignored and forgotten.

fast-forward to today, and we still see a similar trend.