Mass Graves Discovered near Bundy Ranch in Nevada with slaughtered Cattle

[old steel]

(http://www.inquisitr.com/1220627/bundy-ranch-cliven-bundy-discovers-blm-mass-cow-graves-graphic-images/bundy-ranch-cattle/)

Sorry it's all i got. Graphic images of dead cows.







http://www.inquisitr.com/1220627/bundy-ranch-cliven-bundy-discovers-blm-mass-cow-graves-graphic-images/

[Dogman]

Bunch of buried cows, and one shot of a cow that died in place, note the ground staining around it , that one was above ground and not messed with. The stains of the body fluid speaks for itself.

I have no doubt that eyes need to be wide open and looking of what the gov will do and for sure say to explain why the did what they did.

But do not hold your breath, They will give a bland heavy weighted statement on their right to do and justify what they did.

The gov will cya (cover the ass) on any wrong they do and justify their acts!

[7th trump]

Bunch of buried cows, and one shot of a cow that died in place, note the ground staining around it , that one was above ground and not messed with. The stains of the body fluid speaks for itself.

I have no doubt that eyes need to be wide open and looking of what the gov will do and for sure say to explain why the did what they did.

But do not hold your breath, They will give a bland heavy weighted statement on their right to do and justify what they did.

The gov will cya (cover the ass) on any wrong they do and justify their acts!

Wasn't his land to begin with.

With that's being said, I have an elderly couple (80 plus years old) that live across the street from me that I volunteer mowing their yard for because John isn't capable of mowing it anymore.
Since I've mown their grass for the last three years it would be ridiculous of me to claim the ground is mine since I've mown their grass for the last couple of years.
This land isn't Bundy's and he wants to claim its his because he has rights to grazing his cattle their for quite some time.
Hes been to court to get his cattle off the land and he refuses so ....what would you expect to happen?
I'd shoot the cattle myself or make a public claim the cattle belong to the public (public land is it not?) to gather up and sell the damn things myself to get them off.
Bundy was ordered to get them off the public land and he refused.....definition of stupid and unlawful.

Let the flames and hate post against me begin.

[Ares]

Wasn't his land to begin with.

With that's being said, I have an elderly couple (80 plus years old) that live across the street from me that I volunteer mowing their yard for because John isn't capable of mowing it anymore.
Since I've mown their grass for the last three years it would be ridiculous of me to claim the ground is mine since I've mown their grass for the last couple of years.
This land isn't Bundy's and he wants to claim its his because he has rights to grazing his cattle their for quite some time.
Hes been to court to get his cattle off the land and he refuses so ....what would you expect to happen?
I'd shoot the cattle myself or make a public claim the cattle belong to the public (public land is it not?) to gather up and sell the damn things myself to get them off.
Bundy was ordered to get them off the public land and he refused.....definition of stupid and unlawful.

Let the flames and hate post against me begin.

It isn't the governments land either. It belongs to the state and as such is a state issue. Fed.gov is FORBIDDEN from owning land, let alone lacks the authority to even collect fee's for said land. Bundy was screwed the moment he stepped in a FEDERAL court, to contest so called "FEDERAL LAND". He has said numerous times he has no problem paying the grazing fee's but to the STATE not the federal government. By all accounts if you research how Nevada entered the union it was illegal. So the claim to any land by the government is null and void.

And as for Public land, how exactly is it public land when Harry "asshole" Reid makes land deals with international businesses? Takes a percentage of the profits, and the public gets nothing and now has had it's "land" assets sold for literally pennies on the dollar.. The last shady land deal Harry "asshole" Reid was involved with. The land ENN was looking at was valued at 29.6 million dollars. Yet it was sold to them for a little over 4 million dollars.

[7th trump]

It isn't the governments land either. It belongs to the state and as such is a state issue. Fed.gov is FORBIDDEN from owning land, let alone lacks the authority to even collect fee's for said land. Bundy was screwed the moment he stepped in a FEDERAL court, to contest so called "FEDERAL LAND". He has said numerous times he has no problem paying the grazing fee's but to the STATE not the federal government. By all accounts if you research how Nevada entered the union it was illegal. So the claim to any land by the government is null and void.

And as for Public land, how exactly is it public land when Harry "asshole" Reid makes land deals with international businesses? Takes a percentage of the profits, and the public gets nothing and now has had it's "land" size reduced.

First thing you need to do is not make that many assumptions.
Where I live I have an ex brother inlaw who works for the corp or engineers off the Rock Island Arsenal who goes around the complete mississippi river basin reclaiming all the wet lands back to the federal government.
Lands that was properly purchased from the government back 100 plus years ago.
So yes......the federal government owns land.
I do not know much about wildlife preservation laws, but I do beleive that this falls under federal jurisdiction....so lets not forget about the federally protected turtles that are threatened by the cattle. Wasnt this Bundy's reason into going to federal court in the first place.
Why wouldnt Bundy not step into a federal court?
The federal government took him to court over the cattle being a threat to the turtles (I could be wrong on this).

As far as Nevada's history into the Union is of no concern (just patriot distractive bullshit). Nevada's been in the union for quite some time. And now these so called "patriots" are questioning Nevada's unionhood over Bundy's cattle huh?....how fucking pathetically convenient!
The antigovernment groups never employ distractive propaganda.....just the evil bad government....kiss my ass they dont!
Nevada's statehood is just Bundy distraction employed to pull at your emotions and it worked..........Joseph Goebbels would be proud!
They were just fine with Nevada's union admittence all these decades.....so why now?
I really have to question their patriotism the same as questioning Reid's motive itself.

Wildlife preservation land is not a null and void issue. Federal rules apply along with being federal prosecuted with a crime.

Now just because Reid wants to make a deal to put solar farm on the the same land where these turtles are isnt all that bad of an idea. The turtles can survive on the land along with the solar power farm....its a win win situation.
And if Reid can make this deal ....theres nothing stopping the ordinary joesixpack to make the same deal.
Whats stopping you!

[palani]

it would be ridiculous of me to claim the ground is mine since I've mown their grass for the last couple of years.

It could be if they told you NOT to do it and you did it anyway. There is nothing adverse about consent.

[palani]

It belongs to the state and as such is a state issue.

Land does not belong to the state. Ever. Think of the state as being the Boy Scouts. This a political affiliation. Or think of the state as being the Hoover Vacuum Company. This is a commercial venture. Either entity can establish boundaries around 'their' territory. In the case of the Boy Scouts the effect of the boundary is to establish an area where no other competing Boy Scout troup can draw members. They are of course free to set up a camp within this zone though. In the case of the Hoover Vacuum Company the boundary is for the benefit of their own salesmen to prevent other members of their own company from becoming aggressive with respect to sales tactics.

[Ares]

First thing you need to do is not make that many assumptions.

No assumptions here, just the truth.



Where I live I have an ex brother inlaw who works for the corp or engineers off the Rock Island Arsenal who goes around the complete mississippi river basin reclaiming all the wet lands back to the federal government.
Lands that was properly purchased from the government back 100 plus years ago.

Right but your state doesn't have the Federal government claiming over 87% of its internal land mass as Federal property..


I do not know much about wildlife preservation laws, but I do beleive that this falls under federal jurisdiction....so lets not forget about the federally protected turtles that are thretened by the cattle.

Possibly, but I've seen it where the feds make recommendations to the states and they usually abide by them. Example is when DDT threatened the bald eagle population. The Feds didn't come in to every state and mandate its protection at the barrel of a gun. The EPA made recommendations to the states and on the federal level banned the use of DDT.


Why wouldnt Bundy not step into a federal court?
The federal government took him to court over the cattle being a threat to the turtles (I could be wrong on this).

It wasn't so much the turtles which the locals seem to think aren't endangered at all, and never have been. The claim of endangerment is a catch all for a federal land grab and sell for international energy business interested in the land. Look no further than Harry "asshole" Reids mini empire in the state of Nevada. His hands have been all over large international land deals in that state since the 70's.


As far as Nevada's history into the Union is of no concern (just patriot distractive bullshit). Nevada's been in the union for quite some time. And now these so called "patriots" are questioning Nevada's unionhood over Bundy's cattle huh?....how fucking pathetically convenient!

This is where you are wrong. You need to do a little more reading as this was settled a LONG time ago. Back in 1845 in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html)

When Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.


The antigovernment groups never employ distractive propaganda.....just the evil bad government....kiss my ass they dont!

Of course they do, but they actually have the LAWFUL right to challenge the government for the over 80% federal land in Nevada. Western states are treated very unfairly when it comes to use of their own land which should rightfully belong to the state, and not the federal government upon statehood.



Nevada's statehood is just Bundy distraction employed to pull at your emotions and it worked..........Joseph Goebbels would be proud!

No comment here, as I'd like to keep the discourse civil.


They were just fine with Nevada's union admittence all these decades.....so why now?

Actually they haven't been. Ask any of the GSUS members that live in a Western state. I do not, so I can't comment on local history. But I've read many instances of land usage rights back to the late 1800's. It's been a sore spot for almost 2 centuries now. By right, and by that supreme court decision above when a state enters the Union the fed is SUPPOSED to release all land to the state. They haven't. That would be like you joining an homeowners association under false pretenses. You're told you get the land your house sits on after you join, only for them to say well you can have 20% of the land while we retain 80%. While your neighbors to the east have over 90% of their land to use... Does that seem fair to you?



I really have to question their patriotism the same as questioning Reid's motive itself.

Question all you like, I've looked into both sides. Following the law, the federal government has no right to Nevada land. As far as protecting the Desert tortoise, the BLM or EPA can give recommendations on how it should go about protecting it like they did with the Bald Eagle.


Wildlife preservation land is not a null and void issue. Federal rules apply along with being federal prosecuted with a crime.

It does if the land in question isn't the feds to begin with.


Both party's are in the wrong and two wrongs dont make a right.

I really only see one big wrong here, and that's the Fed saying that 80% of Nevada is theirs when it is not. Why even call it a state at all at that point? Instead just call Nevada, Washington D.C. 2.0.

[palani]

So yes......the federal government owns land.

No BANKRUPT entity owns ANYTHING!!!

[7th trump]

No assumptions here, just the truth.




Right but your state doesn't have the Federal government claiming over 87% of its internal land mass as Federal property..



Possibly, but I've seen it where the feds make recommendations to the states and they usually abide by them. Example is when DDT threatened the bald eagle population. The Feds didn't come in to every state and mandate its protection at the barrel of a gun. The EPA made recommendations to the states and on the federal level banned the use of DDT.



It wasn't so much the turtles which the locals seem to think aren't endangered at all, and never have been. The claim of endangerment is a catch all for a federal land grab and sell for international energy business interested in the land. Look no further than Harry "asshole" Reids mini empire in the state of Nevada. His hands have been all over large international land deals in that state since the 70's.



This is where you are wrong. You need to do a little more reading as this was settled a LONG time ago. Back in 1845 in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html)

When Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.



Of course they do, but they actually have the LAWFUL right to challenge the government for the over 80% federal land in Nevada. Western states are treated very unfairly when it comes to use of their own land which should rightfully belong to the state, and not the federal government upon statehood.




No comment here, as I'd like to keep the discourse civil.



Actually they haven't been. Ask any of the GSUS members that live in a Western state. I do not, so I can't comment on local history. But I've read many instances of land usage rights back to the late 1800's. It's been a sore spot for almost 2 centuries now. By right, and by that supreme court decision above when a state enters the Union the fed is SUPPOSED to release all land to the state. They haven't. That would be like you joining an homeowners association under false pretenses. You're told you get the land your house sits on after you join, only for them to say well you can have 20% of the land while we retain 80%. While your neighbors to the east have over 90% of their land to use... Does that seem fair to you?




Question all you like, I've looked into both sides. Following the law, the federal government has no right to Nevada land. As far as protecting the Desert tortoise, the BLM or EPA can give recommendations on how it should go about protecting it like they did with the Bald Eagle.



It does if the land in question isn't the feds to begin with.



I really only see one big wrong here, and that's the Fed saying that 80% of Nevada is theirs when it is not. Why even call it a state at all at that point? Instead just call Nevada, Washington D.C. 2.0.

Maybe you should read that again?

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

Your quote doesnt support your thesis. This court cite relates to the government owning territorial lands prior to the lands became a union state.
Territorries are under the jurisdiction of the federal government....they may not own the land, but they sure have territorial jurisdiction.

I wonder how many other patriots use this court cite out of context?
Any wonder why a government entity will use force against a force beleiving its acting within the law when in reality they arent?

I bet theres a zip code attached this parcel of land as well......I once had a government document (government website actually) that secifically stated all lands (and they listed territories, insulars and possessions and all the 50 states ) having a zip code were under the sovereignty of the federal government....that was during my research on the Buck Act.

[Ares]

Maybe you should read that again?


Your quote doesnt support your thesis. This court cite relates to the government owning territorial lands prior to the lands became a union state.
Territorries are under the jurisdiction of the federal government....they may not own the land, but they sure have territorial jurisdiction.

Maybe you should read it again, it's not my thesis. That is a U.S. Supreme Courts decision. It plainly says that the federal government had territorial jurisdiction, up until statehood. Once it's a state it's no longer a territory and the land belongs to the state.

[7th trump]

No BANKRUPT entity owns ANYTHING!!!

The US has been bankrupt many times before and paid off the debts.......what makes you beleive the US is bankrupt now?

[7th trump]

Maybe you should read it again, it's not my thesis. That is a U.S. Supreme Courts decision. It plainly says that the federal government had territorial jurisdiction, up until statehood. Once it's a state it's no longer a territory and the land belongs to the state.
Sure....but it doesnt say the federal government cant own land after it becomes a state.
How about the government owning arsenals, sea ports, airfields and army bases (thats land) within a state?
That court cite is about the government owning territorial lands before statehood.....thats it nothing else!
It has no merit or bearing on land after becoming a state.

All I'm saying is you used the cite out of context to support your emotions.
Bundy doesnt own the land and only had rights to graze his cattle.......those rights can be stopped at any time and he has to obey the grazing contract.
Bundy went to court three times over his cattle and he lost all three times.............thats plenty of shots fired across Bundy's bow.
All you are doing is siding with the lesser of two wrongs....and that doesnt make you in the "right".....it makes you "wrong".

[palani]

I bet theres a zip code attached this parcel of land as well......I once had a government document (government website actually) that secifically stated all lands (and they listed territories, insulars and possessions and all the 50 states ) having a zip code were under the sovereignty of the federal government....that was during my research on the Buck Act.
Bankrupt entities have no sovereignty. Neither do federal governments. The only sovereignty available flows from the RESPONSIBILITY of the member states and NONE of these use gold or silver in their payment schedules.

[palani]

what makes you beleive the US is bankrupt now?
The fact that I don't accept their negotiable paper as tender of payment.

The statement applies to my relationship to the federal government. I understand that others don't have the same status or the same relationship.

[monty]

Sure....but it doesnt say the federal government cant own land after it becomes a state. How about the government owning arsenals, sea ports, airfields and army bases (thats land) within a state? That court cite is about the government owning territorial lands before statehood.....thats it nothing else! It has no merit or bearing on land after becoming a state. All I'm saying is you used the cite out of context to support your emotions. Bundy doesnt own the land and only had rights to graze his cattle.......those rights can be stopped at any time and he has to obey the grazing contract. Bundy went to court three times over his cattle and he lost all three times.............thats plenty of shots fired across Bundy's bow. All you are doing is siding with the lesser of two wrongs....and that doesnt make you in the "right".....it makes you "wrong".


87% of a State for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings?

Also you are wrong about Pollards Lessee vs Hagan. The suit was over the State of Alabama, not the Territotry of Alabama.



To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


Friends and To Whom It May Concern...

My friend Thomas E. Brennan is retired chief justice of the Michigan Court and this is his comment about the cattle grazing fiasco in Nevada. It should be of high interest to all Nevadans. Pass it on...


"Thursday, April 17, 2014

WHO OWNS NEVADA?

The real estate that later became the State of Nevada was acquired by the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 which ended the Mexican War and called for the payment of some 15 million dollars to Mexico by the victorious United States.

Sixteen years later, President Lincoln authorized the folks in Nevada, without the required 60,000 inhabitants, to hold a constitutional convention and apply for admission to the union.

It was 1864. The Civil War was in full blossom, and Lincoln was running for a second term. The Nevada constitution was adopted on October 31, just eight days before the election and immediately telegraphed verbatim to Washington, D.C. It was the most expensive telegraph ever sent, costing $3,416.77.

And so it was, that on the 31st day of October, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln issued the following proclamation:

Whereas the Congress of the United States passed an act, which was approved on the 21st day of March last, entitled "An act to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and State government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States;" and

Whereas the said constitution and State government have been formed, pursuant to the conditions prescribed by the fifth section of the act of Congress aforesaid, and the certificate required by the said act and also a copy of the constitution and ordinances have been submitted to the President of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in accordance with the duty imposed upon me by the act of Congress aforesaid, do hereby declare and proclaim that the said State of Nevada is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

The Constitution of Nevada, which was approved by the President and the Congress of the United States begins with these words:

All political power is inherent in the people.

That statement, common to the constitutions of most of the American states, is not a mere academic observation. Used in a constitution, it is an assertion of sovereignty.

What is sovereignty? Very simply, sovereignty is the right to use force to impose your will. It is the right to govern. The right to rule. The right to make laws.

Unlike other nations, sovereignty in the United States is dual; it is divided between the states and the national government. The national government has international sovereignty as a member of the family of nations on the planet. It also has interstate sovereignty, as defined in the United States Constitution, to regulate commerce among the several states of the American union.

The states have domestic sovereignty, which is often called the police power. It is the authority to regulate the affairs of the people. It encompasses the full range of governmental control over the activities of the people; criminal laws, marriage laws, real estate laws, corporations, education, licensing professions, occupations and businesses, health care. The list goes on and on. Basically, the domestic sovereignty of the states includes the right to legislate on any and every subject, unless there is an express constitutional prohibition.

The sovereignty of the national government is just the opposite. The United States may only legislate on subjects specified in the national constitution.

The United States of America owns something like 86 to 89 percent of the real estate in Nevada. But it does not own that land in the same sense that it owns Puerto Rico or Guam. It owns that land in the same sense that it owns post office buildings and federal courthouses all over the country.

It owns that land subject to the domestic sovereignty of the State of Nevada. The United States has no more rights to the land upon which Mr. Bundy has been grazing his cattle than Exxon or General Motors or Bill Gates would have if they owned the land.

If your dog wanders into my yard, I don’t own your dog. I can’t kill your dog, I can’t sell you dog and I can’t refuse to give it back to you. If you build a house on my lot and live there for twenty years, you will own the lot by adverse possession. If you build a baseball field on my lot and use it for twenty years, you will, by prescription, create and easement that will allow you to continue playing baseball there.

Whatever rights Mr. Bundy has to graze his cattle on federal land should be determined by Nevada courts according to Nevada law. Whatever rights the United States has to keep Bundy from grazing his cattle on federal land should be determined and enforced by Nevada law.

The United States of America may own the land next to Bundy’s home, but it is not the domestic sovereign on such lands. It does not have police power there. It can no more shoot people for trespass than any other land owner in Nevada.

Posted by Thomas E. Brennan at 1:07 PM EST"

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[monty]

The US has been bankrupt many times before and paid off the debts.......what makes you beleive the US is bankrupt now?


15+ trillons of debt the can't pay.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Atocha]

I was always under the ASSumption that the American People owned all the public lands. That the Federal Government was caretakers of the land for the American People.

How did the old song go? "This land is YOUR land. This land is MY land"...

[mick silver]

i said it once i will say it again it OUR land , the one;s in gov work for us we are the goverment at one time

[7th trump]

The fact that I don't accept their negotiable paper as tender of payment.

The statement applies to my relationship to the federal government. I understand that others don't have the same status or the same relationship.

So what you are saying is you beleive the government went bankrupt because of the federal government outsourced its Treasury duty's to the privately owned reserve banks?
No such proof the US government went bankrupt when it outsourced its Treasury duty's to the federal reserve system.
So therefore you have authority to pop in threads and inject your beleif when that beleif doesnt apply to public affairs ...national and international?

Do I have that correct?

[Libertytree]

Too damn funny, arguing, debating about their rules, laws and dictates. It has been proven time and time and time and time again that they are corrupt beyond redemption and wholly unfit to administer anything without it being a clusterfuck! I think I'll stop while I'm being nice.

[7th trump]

I was always under the ASSumption that the American People owned all the public lands. That the Federal Government was caretakers of the land for the American People.

How did the old song go? "This land is YOUR land. This land is MY land"...

Theres a differences jurisdictionally between a "US citizen" and "The People".

1. The People are above-
2. The federal government, who are above-
3. US citizens

Which one are you...."the People" or "US citizen"?

[Atocha]

Theres a differences jurisdictionally between a "US citizen" and "The People".

1. The People are above-
2. The federal government, who are above-
3. US citizens

Which one are you...."the People" or "US citizen"?

I have no idea. To tell the truth, I thought "We the People, (or I the Person) were US Citizens. Being me, I see no difference BUT I know with the way you framed the words above, there must be a difference. I never considered it.

[monty]

I have no idea. To tell the truth, I thought "We the People, (or I the Person) were US Citizens. Being me, I see no difference BUT I know with the way you framed the words above, there must be a difference. I never considered it.


It is my understanding that Persons and US Citizens are creations of the state, basically corporations. We the people are citizens of the geographical United States, not the statuatory United States, unless we purposely or accidentally step into the others jurisdiction. A national of one of the states cannot sponsor an alien for residency or citizenship in the US. One must be a US Citizen to sponsor an immigrant.

And this thread is totally derailed

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Ares]

I have no idea. To tell the truth, I thought "We the People, (or I the Person) were US Citizens. Being me, I see no difference BUT I know with the way you framed the words above, there must be a difference. I never considered it.

There is, prior to the 14th Amendment there was no such thing as a U.S. citizen. There were Citizens Of The United States of America, and Citizens of their respective states (i.e. Indiana Citizen, or Iowa Citizen, etc..) After the 13th Amendment the slaves were stateless, none of the other states in the union would accept them as citizen so the U.S. government forced them to do it with the 14th Amendment and basically called them federal citizens. Which brings into question the validity of the 14th Amendment since the confederate states were forced back into the union at the barrel of a gun. But that's a topic for an entirely different discussion.

Now everyone calls themselves a U.S. citizen and not realizing that it's a 2nd class citizenship. All these laws that congress passes, voting, everything is a "privilege" for the U.S. citizen.

[hoarder]

i said it once i will say it again it OUR land , the one;s in gov work for us we are the goverment at one timeWe need to constantly remind people of this. In my area, over 90% of the land is administered by USFS. The locals call it "Forest Service Land". When I was a kid I remember USFS lands being referred to as "National Forest". I wonder who got us referring to it as belonging to USFS.

The USFS is entailed with the task of managing the National Forests for the benefit of it's owners........US. They are our public servants.
Just because they're hired to take care of it does not make it theirs. I have witnessed USFS employees referring to National Forests as "ours".

When does a caretaker become the owner? If the County Courthouse hires a janitor to mop the floors, does the courthouse become the property of the janitor because he takes care of it?

People cut their own throats in the words they choose. USFS and BLM lands belong to the people. Why call it gummit land?

[Libertytree]

"We the People", "Citizens", all this splittin' of semantical hairs! Some bullshit distinctions rules, dictates that was foisted on us, in secret no less, with the intent and purpose of perverting the original rules against us!

[palani]

So what you are saying is you beleive the government went bankrupt because of the federal government outsourced its Treasury duty's to the privately owned reserve banks?
I don't know where you come up with your ideas.

The U.S. government is bankrupt because I don't accept their paper. Your status has the U.S. government NOT BANKRUPT because YOU DO ACCEPT THEIR PAPER. Don't try to make things any harder or more difficult than that. PERIOD!!!!

[palani]

i said it once i will say it again it OUR land

So what is your definition of land?

My definition of land is a volume, a 3 dimensional description of a bit of space, bounded in one dimension by the stars overhead and the center of the earth below and in the other two dimensions by metes and bounds not shared by any other individual and owned by me.

[palani]

"We the People", "Citizens", all this splittin' of semantical heirs!

Fixed it for you.

[palani]

I thought "We the People, (or I the Person) were US Citizens. Being me, I see no difference BUT I know with the way you framed the words above, there must be a difference. I never considered it.

I saw a need to get a document legalized at one time so I sent a money order to the state department and instructed them to do so. They chose to return the money and refuse to do their job. I suppose they thought I might be a U.S. citizen judging by their actions. So I wrote them a nice letter instructing them instead to apply the great seal of the U.S. to my document. Now to someone who had any sort of political power this is a no-brainer. They have to do it. They have no option. Instead I have never heard back from them.

Now any time anyone brings up the topic of citizenship I refer back to this instance because this experiment will let you know everything you need to know to determine what your own status is. The paper to be legalized was nothing more than a picture ID that requested safe passage from anyone who received it. Certainly nothing diabolical.

[7th trump]

I saw a need to get a document legalized at one time so I sent a money order to the state department and instructed them to do so. They chose to return the money and refuse to do their job. I suppose they thought I might be a U.S. citizen judging by their actions. So I wrote them a nice letter instructing them instead to apply the great seal of the U.S. to my document. Now to someone who had any sort of political power this is a no-brainer. They have to do it. They have no option. Instead I have never heard back from them.

Now any time anyone brings up the topic of citizenship I refer back to this instance because this experiment will let you know everything you need to know to determine what your own status is. The paper to be legalized was nothing more than a picture ID that requested safe passage from anyone who received it. Certainly nothing diabolical.

So you were trying to trick the government into an ID that requested your safe passage.
My take on this is they cannot guarantee anything and setting them up for the impossible and a lawsuit....I wouldn't sign it either and would return the money...and if you wrote a letter I'd just throw it away as another idiot trying a scam.
Mean while you're taking it as if you have some sort of "status"....sounds immature!

I take it you were wanting to be treated as a dignitary even though you weren't ever elected for such an office.
Yeah....you want a public service funded by tax payer dollars for nothing because you're somehow "special" and above and beyond the average joesixpack tax payer.

[palani]

So you were trying to trick the government into an ID that requested your safe passage..

Legalization has nothing at all to do with 'trickery'. The document was notarized. The secretary of state of Iowa had legalized it; i.e., had recognized that the act of the notary was valid. The next step in the process is for the secretary of state of the U.S. to recognize the seal of the Iowa secretary of state. This is what they refused to do. Had nothing to do with the fact that the document was a simple picture ID with a simple request (safe passage). The U.S. state department refused to recognize the valid act of the state of Iowa.

Since the rest of your statement was a direct result of your ignorance I consider it to be nonsense.

[7th trump]

I don't know where you come up with your ideas.

The U.S. government is bankrupt because I don't accept their paper. Your status has the U.S. government NOT BANKRUPT because YOU DO ACCEPT THEIR PAPER. Don't try to make things any harder or more difficult than that. PERIOD!!!!


You're a nut case palani.
You are telling everyone here the government is bankrupt because "palani" doesn't accept frn's.
The only status the us government recognizes any American as is either..."The People" (state citizenship)....or as a "US citizen" (federal citizenship) .
They determine this by your voluntary nature to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof....the 14th amendment.
Need I remind you of these court cites that completely blows your theory about frn's clear out of the water?


The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.
Jones v. Temmer, 829 Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993)


"No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.


"The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.
and that provision is the Bill of Rights...the first 10 amendment of the US Constitution.

“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
This court is saying that "The People" (state citizenship) is a complete different class from the "US Citizen" (federal citizenship).


“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
The difference between the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.


“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
The Bill of Rights are natural and inherent vs the national citizenship rights (Civil Rights act of 1866).


“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 , for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)
What this court recognized is that the Bill of Rights are [U]NOT the same as the rights of the Civil Rights Act of 1866


“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)


“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


You lost another argument palani...one of which if you don't understand you are lost in the law and resort to making up bullshit to fill in where you lack what is going on.

[palani]

The only status the us government recognizes any American as is either..."The People" (state citizenship)....or as a "US citizen" (federal citizenship) .
First ... American is how the nationality of a U.S. citizen is described. Each of the several States has their own nationality as outlined in the US Government Printing Office 'Style Manual'.

Second ... the status of being an American (U.S. citizen) or a citizen of one of the several States (Idahoan, Illinoian, etc) are most definitely two distinct statuses but NOT the ONLY status. My claim is that I was born on land that was once French and by French law may therefore claim French nationality. This most certainly is a valid status for 'in the mean time' until a state dedicated to the principles of the Federal constitution comes into being as agreed to by conveyance signed by both the French and the U.S. governments in a document called the Louisiana Purchase.

Here ... YOU like case cites


U.S. Supreme Court
Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141 (1940)


3. The "laws" meant by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
are not abstractions, but are expressions of policy arising out of specific difficulties,
addressed to the attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies.
The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion
to be treated in law as though they were the same.

[7th trump]

First ... American is how the nationality of a U.S. citizen is described. Each of the several States has their own nationality as outlined in the US Government Printing Office 'Style Manual'.

Second ... the status of being an American (U.S. citizen) or a citizen of one of the several States (Idahoan, Illinoian, etc) are most definitely two distinct statuses but NOT the ONLY status. My claim is that I was born on land that was once French and by French law may therefore claim French nationality. This most certainly is a valid status for 'in the mean time' until a state dedicated to the principles of the Federal constitution comes into being as agreed to by conveyance signed by both the French and the U.S. governments in a document called the Louisiana Purchase.

Here ... YOU like case cites

I highly doubt you're going to get the us government to recognize you as "French". Reason being the French sold the territory to the US government and we both know there is no legal remnant of France having any claim since.
Your probably going to have better luck claiming an indigenous indian nation of the region than French.
My opinion....your just pissing in the wind.
And yes, they are the only two statuses the government will recognize...the third is your personal claim which is nothing but opinion based on a foreign territory which is no longer.
Good luck with your endeavor.

[palani]

we both know there is no legal remnant of France having any claim since.
You are quite mistaken. I expect you believe that the Louisiana Purchase is a treaty when it actually operates as a conveyance. Furthermore article III of that conveyance is a condition annexed to the agreement. There is no expiration date on this condition and English (and American) common law both agree that conditions annexed to conveyances actually never expire .... EVER!!! That principle being settled we now turn our view to what the condition annexed actually is. Feel free to check it out on your own. Just like any right a claim must be articulated to have any validity at all. If it cannot be articulated then it really doesn't exist. My claim is based upon very solid law and your view in my opinion is as worthless as tits on a boar.

[7th trump]

You are quite mistaken. I expect you believe that the Louisiana Purchase is a treaty when it actually operates as a conveyance. Furthermore article III of that conveyance is a condition annexed to the agreement. There is no expiration date on this condition and English (and American) common law both agree that conditions annexed to conveyances actually never expire .... EVER!!! That principle being settled we now turn our view to what the condition annexed actually is. Feel free to check it out on your own. Just like any right a claim must be articulated to have any validity at all. If it cannot be articulated then it really doesn't exist. My claim is based upon very solid law and your view in my opinion is as worthless as tits on a boar.

Nowhere in Article III does it say the future inhabitants does it palani?
Nope nowhere!
All this says is the inhabitants of the ceded land (you weren't born as of yet to be an inhabitant) shall be incorporated into the union according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all rights, privileges and immunities set forth by the US constitution.

They are now free of any French laws....so why wouldn't they not enjoy their new freedoms of the government that just purchased the territory they are inhabitants of?

And then it continues saying in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in their free enjoyment of liberty and property, and the religion they profess.
Sounds to me the French government wanted the French inhabitants to be guaranteed nothing will change for its people upon ceding the land to a foreign government and that they will be protected under the US Constitution.

I don't see anything anywhere in article III about the future inhabitants.
What drugs are you on palani?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the government sent your money back....you're way out there in lala land.

[Libertytree]

7th and Pal. Starring in this and former threads.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srO4LTzVTE

[palani]

Nowhere in Article III does it say the future inhabitants does it?
'Future' is an adjective and acts to reduce the population of the noun it modifies. Had they intended the provision to apply only to 'present' inhabitants (present being another adjective) they would have said 'PRESENT INHABITANTS'. They did not so they meant ALL INHABITANTS from now to eternity. Had they written the condition such that future inhabitants will be excluded then next comes the question WHEN DOES THE FUTURE START?

Nice attempt at an argument but you have failed again. In any event I hardly need your approval for any of my actions or claims. Your opinion matters not at all.

[7th trump]

'Future' is an adjective and acts to reduce the population of the noun it modifies. Had they intended the provision to apply only to 'present' inhabitants (present being another adjective) they would have said 'PRESENT INHABITANTS'. They did not so they meant ALL INHABITANTS from now to eternity. Had they written the condition such that future inhabitants will be excluded then next comes the question WHEN DOES THE FUTURE START?

Nice attempt at an argument but you have failed again. In any event I hardly need your approval for any of my actions or claims. Your opinion matters not at all.

I didn't fail but from looking at your responses from the government you failed when they returned your money.

So in your demented mind you think France was covering the inhabitance after the territory was purchased and unionized into states.
If that was the case I'd think France would be to this day saying the inhabitance are French citizens...but we don't see that happening.

Just keep pissing in the wind and playing the role of a circus clown.

[palani]

I didn't fail pissing in the wind and playing the role of a circus clown.

I see that now.

http://i61.tinypic.com/ra2j2c.jpg

[monty]

First thing you need to do is not make that many assumptions. . . . . Nevada's been in the union for quite some time. And now these so called "patriots" are questioning Nevada's unionhood over Bundy's cattle huh?....how fucking pathetically convenient! The antigovernment groups never employ distractive propaganda.....just the evil bad government....kiss my ass they dont! Nevada's statehood is just Bundy distraction employed to pull at your emotions and it worked..........Joseph Goebbels would be proud! They were just fine with Nevada's union admittence all these decades.....so why now? I really have to question their patriotism the same as questioning Reid's motive itself. Wildlife preservation land is not a null and void issue. Federal rules apply along with being federal prosecuted with a crime. Now just because Reid wants to make a deal to put solar farm on the the same land where these turtles are isnt all that bad of an idea. The turtles can survive on the land along with the solar power farm....its a win win situation. And if Reid can make this deal ....theres nothing stopping the ordinary joesixpack to make the same deal. Whats stopping you!

Nevada used to claim ownership of the fish and wildlife in the state. I don't know if that holds true today.

We have issues over Western Land ownership for more than a century!



This paper is far too long to post here. For the entire article: http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec13.htm

The First Sagebrush Rebellion:
Forest Reserves and States Rights in Colorado and the West, 1891-1907
Michael McCarthy
University of Denver

In Nevada in the summer of 1979 the Sagebrush Rebellion began its long sweep across the American West. Five years later, like a stream that overflows its banks, spends itself, recedes, and dies, it was gone. In its brief life it constituted a virtual war between the federal government and insurgent westerners over the question of federal ownership and regulation of western public lands. In a region where the government owns a landmass larger than western Europe, and where massive regulation goes hand in hand with ownership, the rebels of '79 simply came to believe that federal "landlordism" was destroying their economic lives. By eroding the economic development of western people, they also believed the government crippled the states in which they lived. Attacking "federal colonialism" and "boodle-passers" who had "taken charge of our assets," they insisted, like the Idaho Cattlemen's Association, that they had become "serfs" in their own homes, unable to control their "destiny" while, as one said, "Washington controls the land." As Governor Ed Herschler of Wyoming expressed it, "the system is badly out of kilter. Federal encroachments on state and local governments are at an all-time high."

From the beginning, the heart of the rebellion was the belief that excessive federal control and regulation of the western public domain stripped people and states of their rights—rights to graze cattle on the public domain, rights to mine it, rights to generate tax base from it, rights, echoed Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, to control their own "destiny." To reverse the trend, to regain lost "rights," the Sagebrush Rebellion attempted two things: in the short run, improved, "fairer" federal management of the public domain, and in the long run, cession of federal lands to the states in which they lay. In the end, it got neither; the question of rights remained as unresolved as before, and the rebellion ultimately flared out and died. In its brief life, however, it stunned all who witnessed it, and it set all its observers to wondering where it had come from.

In fact, it came from the past. It was not the first Sagebrush Rebellion, it was the second—a distant echo of an earlier conflict that crisscrossed the West in the 1890s.


The First Sagebrush Rebellion:
Forest Reserves and States Rights in Colorado and the West, 1891-1907
Michael McCarthy
University of Denver

In Nevada in the summer of 1979 the Sagebrush Rebellion began its long sweep across the American West. Five years later, like a stream that overflows its banks, spends itself, recedes, and dies, it was gone. In its brief life it constituted a virtual war between the federal government and insurgent westerners over the question of federal ownership and regulation of western public lands. In a region where the government owns a landmass larger than western Europe, and where massive regulation goes hand in hand with ownership, the rebels of '79 simply came to believe that federal "landlordism" was destroying their economic lives. By eroding the economic development of western people, they also believed the government crippled the states in which they lived. Attacking "federal colonialism" and "boodle-passers" who had "taken charge of our assets," they insisted, like the Idaho Cattlemen's Association, that they had become "serfs" in their own homes, unable to control their "destiny" while, as one said, "Washington controls the land." As Governor Ed Herschler of Wyoming expressed it, "the system is badly out of kilter. Federal encroachments on state and local governments are at an all-time high."

From the beginning, the heart of the rebellion was the belief that excessive federal control and regulation of the western public domain stripped people and states of their rights—rights to graze cattle on the public domain, rights to mine it, rights to generate tax base from it, rights, echoed Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, to control their own "destiny." To reverse the trend, to regain lost "rights," the Sagebrush Rebellion attempted two things: in the short run, improved, "fairer" federal management of the public domain, and in the long run, cession of federal lands to the states in which they lay. In the end, it got neither; the question of rights remained as unresolved as before, and the rebellion ultimately flared out and died. In its brief life, however, it stunned all who witnessed it, and it set all its observers to wondering where it had come from.

In fact, it came from the past. It was not the first Sagebrush Rebellion, it was the second—a distant echo of an earlier conflict that crisscrossed the West in the 1890s.

Continued . . . http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec13.htm

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner