The Irony of Cliven Bundy

Source: The Atlantic Monthly -  The Irony of Cliven Bundy’s Unconstitutional Stand

“I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

Somewhat ironic is it not that Bundy is claiming he abides by the Nevada laws and Constitution but selectively…

As to Bundy’s claim that the land belongs to him through his ancestors, again that does not hold up to scrutiny either.

Two decades after Nevada’s founders proclaimed unswerving obedience to federal authority, Cliven Bundy’s family first settled the land where he and his supporters now make their heavily armed stand against federal power. It’s doubtful even the Nevada Constitution will change their minds—if legal and constitutional arguments could persuade the militia movement, there might not be a militia movement.

 

 

NV – US v Bundy – My thoughts

I have been sharing my research on the Fogbow, but I’d like to also share it with the readers of this blog
Whatever4 wrote:
He also relies heavily on NRS 321.596-599, a Sagebrush Rebellion statute that Nevada passed saying Federal Lands in Nevada were now State Lands. He’s claiming that the Feds were only supposed to act as exclusive real estate agents for those lands, they weren’t supposed to hold them forever. He even has quotes. I’d love a real expert to take a gander at these and dissect them. (I miss Loh…) :cry: :xo
The Statute was found to be unconstitutional by the 9th circuit court of appeal in U.S. v. Nye County, Nev. 920 F.Supp. 1108 (1996) and the lower court’s ruling. The Nevada State Attorney also stipulated to that fact. He overlooks a simple fact: The Federal Government has full control over said lands, and they do not need a commerce clause to implement rules. Check out US v. Gardner, 107 F. 3d 1314 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997:

Defendants-appellants Clifford and Bertha Gardner (“Gardners”) appeal the summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff-appellee United States. Gardners claim that the 1316*1316 state of Nevada, not the United States, is the rightful owner of the public lands within Nevada. The district court granted the United States’ request for an injunction against Gardners’ unauthorized grazing of livestock upon federal forest land, and also ordered Gardners to pay a fee for the unauthorized grazing. We affirm.

The defendant argued

Gardners argue that grazing their livestock in the Humboldt National Forest without a permit does not constitute trespass because the federal government does not have title to the land on which the grazing took place. Gardners contend that, while the United States may have received the land in question from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the United States was entitled only to hold the land in trust for the creation of future states, and was not authorized to retain the land for its own purposes. After Nevada became a state, Gardners argue, all of the public lands within the state boundaries reverted to the state of Nevada.

The court found that

Thus, as the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848, the land is the property of the United States. The United States Constitution provides in the Property Clause that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the expansiveness of this power, stating that “[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.

Nevada, before joining had disclaimed all rights to unappropriated public lands

When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would “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….” Nevada Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, 13 Stat. 30, 31 § 4. The state constitutional convention did so. Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution.[5]

In this case the Nevada statute was found inapplicable rather than unconstitutional since it does not include national forest lands, which was relevant to Gardner.

[2] Gardners point out that Nevada recently passed a statute claiming ownership over all public lands within its boundaries, Nev. Rev. Stat. 321.5973. Gardners claim that the passage of this law further demonstrates that title to the public lands in Nevada properly rests in the state, not the federal, government. Gardners fail to note, however, that the Nevada statute by its own terms excludes national forest lands from the public lands claimed by Nevada. See Nev. Rev.Stat. § 321.5963.

In Nye however the court (9th circuit) found that

As noted earlier, while Nevada has statutorily claimed the public lands within Nye County, it ` concedes that this claim is constitutionally untenable. While this concession is tantamount to a consent to judgment, the court also concludes that the statutory claim is unsupported, unconstitutional, and fails as a matter of law.

Bundy has no foundation for his claims. In fact, he was not even denied a permit but rather the new 10 year permit stated that in years turtoises were found, the release of the vegetation to the cows would be delayed until the vegetation had reached a sufficient strength.

Bundy never had a legal right to the land and the federal government’s rights are without limitation. It’s time for Bundy to start paying up what he owns us.

Continue reading

The Bundy-incident – What next?

The recent incidents involving Cliven Bundy and his refusal to pay grazing fees to the Federal Government may escalate further in court as Think Progress speculates

One of the options for further prosecution affects those who crossed state lines to participate in furtherance of a civil disorder. This is the same law that resulted in Darren Huff’s conviction “18 U.S. Code § 231 – Civil disorders”

[w]hoever transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder”

Domestic terrorism deserves our fullest attention.

As to Cliven Bundy, in addition to liens on his property, there are opportunities to have him be held in contempt of court. The fact that Bundy has defied the Court for many years, could end in the Court holding him in contempt, especially since the Federal Government has shown significant constraint. The rhetoric by Bundy will surely be introduced to the Court.

Rodney Class – The courts have rules

In a somewhat hilarious development, Rodney Class has figured out that the Federal Courts have rules, and that there are even local rules.

On the Friday Night Call (4.11.14) Rod emphasized the importance

of the Rules of Evidence in court cases and court proceedings.

Especially in light of his DC Gun Case.

Rod went and found the Rules for 3 states. They are pretty much the

same with a few exceptions. Look for your states’ Rules to be sure !

Rod wants everyone to know that getting the RULE Books
(long versions with annotations, if possible) is of Paramount Importance
so you can rebut the contentions made by those moving against you with
Motions, Orders, etc. !

Here are those Rules for Maine, North Carolina and Ohio:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hm3ztgl5h7uebg4/kg7K_X89Qw

Seriously? He did not figure this out until just recently?

I hope that he understands that he should be looking at the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure since the Civil version does not refer to a polite alternative but rather to suits outside of the criminal justice system.

OMG, did Rodney get his hands on state rules rather than federal rules? Really?… Someone help the guy…

And yes, one can submit statutes but there is no need to fully cut and paste them as it is sufficient to quote the relevant parts or refer to the actual code. What Rodney does not appear to understand that quoting a code, statute or amendment is not sufficient to raise a claim.

DC – US v Class – Next Steps

I had not even noticed, but the court already rejected some filings.

ORDER as to RODNEY CLASS, leave to file is denied as to defendant’s Motion to Discharge Notice of Default Failure to File Entry of Appearance Failure to Follow Procedure Violation of Oath of Office; Motion for Entry of Appearance, Third Party Intervenor; and Motion for Clarification of Parties because they are repetitive of Motions already pending with the Court. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 4/8/2014. (tth) (Entered: 04/08/2014)

The following order sets the stage for the likelihood the Judge is going to grant Class’s myriad of motions.

ORDER as to RODNEY CLASS, defendant, having knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, shall be permitted to represent himself, and the Federal Defender, A.J. Kramer, is appointed as stand-by advisory counsel to the Defendant; no later than 4/15/2014, Defendant shall file any Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Admit Other Crimes Evidence Pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Government shall file its Reply no later than 4/22/2014. Jury Trial set for 7/7/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 4/7/2014. (tth) (Entered: 04/07/2014)

The only issue the court is interested in is Class’s response to the Government’s motion to admit other crimes. Class has to respond by 04/15/2014. In order to respond efficiently and avoid the motion to be granted, Class will have to find relevant case law and argue as to why the motion would be prejudicial to him. While Class has a stand-by counsel, Rod and his friends are likely to try to put something together themselves.

While they may want to re-argue issues of jurisdiction etc, there is only a limited issue on the table right now.

Why we see faces everywhere

“The brain is really a predictive organ,” said Nouchine Hadjikhani, a neuroscientist at Harvard University. “We try to find sense in the noise all the time, and we fill things with information.”

The phenomenon of seeing faces where there are none is a form of information-filling called pareidolia. It’s something all humans do.

Source: Why Do People See Faces in the Moon?

Perhaps now we know why birthers see a smiley face in the signature stamp of President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate?

DC – US v Class – Rules…


Rodney has found out that the US laws and Constitution are ‘admissible’. Wow… Poor soul. Of course, he can submit US laws and Constitution but he cannot interpret the laws and Constitution, that’s the court’s task.

Rodney also ‘discovered’ that they have overlooked the rules and local rules of the Courts.

Hilarious.

Now we have the ‘rule books’, this changes a lot of how we deal with them.

Harvey explains why a 3rd party intervenor is applicable even though the court has pointed out that there is no such right to intervene in a criminal case. If they want to follow the rules, then they should first familiarize themselves with said rules.. For goodness sakes, Rod should be focusing on his defense…