Maureen Peltier 'Ssg. Moe' calling out for financial help,for John Lamb. John Lamb lost his brother shortly after returning to his Montana home.
http://youtu.be/4FXjxTeSTpE
https://youtu.be/4FXjxTeSTpE
Printable View
Maureen Peltier 'Ssg. Moe' calling out for financial help,for John Lamb. John Lamb lost his brother shortly after returning to his Montana home.
http://youtu.be/4FXjxTeSTpE
https://youtu.be/4FXjxTeSTpE
"Retired Sheriff Richard Mack the "Stand for Freedom" rally in Las Vegas"
Monty, could you please explain the basics of the Constitutional, rule of law, basic tenets that support the Bundys and Hammonds and the families associated with the Oregon and Nevada protests?
I am a conservative and I am a Christian, but I am not the kind of Christian that is totally in line with the founding principles of USA. I do not believe the Consitituion is "divinely inspired" but I do believe it is the best governmental document that I know of in my lifetime that best insures the common good of the people and, IF FOLLOWED, best protects each citizen's Creator-endowed, and Constitutionally enumerated, rights. The social teachings of my church has a rather different take on "freedom" Individualism" and "liberties."
I kind of feel like the phrase "government of the people, by the people and for the people" sure sounds good but it has pretty much been operated as a great racket by the moneyed elites from the get-go.
As far as I understand it the states are supposed to be superior, "states rights", but the states have been bought off. I support the Texas Nationalist Movement of Texas but really at the same time I think the USA was supposed to be group of states forming a UNION. So at the same time, I do not like the idea of breaking away from the federal government. Texas may have the assets or characteristics to make it possible for it to survive and function on its own, but almost no other states happen to be so blessed.
I have been through the Birch Society, Oath Keepers, Sheriff Mack, Mormon patriots, Gun rights, Constitution / rule of law, libertarian, conservative, patriot, indoctrinations but now I am out of all that, but I will always be a Christian conservative but I guess I just cling o the Middle Ages Catholic way of governing all the Europeans peacefully in true freedom under God, but I know that does not exist today and I do not see how that could ever exist again unless the Lord does something miraculous in that regard. My Church still exists and will until the Lord returns, but today on the surface it is not the true Church, the Church Jesus Christ called "My Church", but is Freemasonic, communistic, fascistic, one world death and slavery system for all, fake church.
I always just looked at the federal land grab as Agenda 21 and recently looked upon the western states happening to be sitting on the largest uranium deposits in the nation and Hillary & co. intend to own that and sell it to foreign countries, especially Russia, and take down the USA. All, repeat ALL, of our leaders have sold all of us out. They have given over our industries to foreign countries to line their own pockets and reduced we the people to a third world nation.
Please tell me, Monty, what the Constitution says about the federal government owning land, like a large percentage of land the BLM says is theirs. Please tell me the basics of the law that supports the Bundys and Hammonds. Thank you.
The Constitution say in Article I Section 8 Clause 17 that the United States can own up to 10 miles square (to become the Seat of government for the United States) which is now The District of Columbia "by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States and to exercise Authority over all Places purchased by Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;"
The above clause is the only place in the Constitution that authorizes the United States to purchase land within a State.
The "Property Clause" Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 says "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property of the United States . . . . ."
After gold was discovered in Sutters Creek in California the wealthy eastern bankers and entrepreneurs realized the vast mineral and timber wealth in the Western United States. I presume these same wealthy individuals lobbied their Congressmen to not turn title to the unappropriated land over to a newly admitted state. The United States has held title to the unapproriated land in every state admitted to the Union since 1850.
The Congress did dispose of some land through land grants to the railroad and by passage of various homestead Acts and mining laws.
in 1946, during the Truman Presidency the Congress reorganized the federal government and the federal court system.
I am not educated in law, but digging through the USC Title 28 I have concluded that the current US District Courts are not Article III Judicial Branch courts, with the exception of the US District Court in Washington D.C. which is backed up by the notes in USC Title 28 and the US District Court for the District of Hawaii because their Enabling Act to be come a State required the court remain an Article III court.
Also in this reorganization of the federal government Congress had been attempting to pass an act for more than a decade to give the numerous bureaucracies, agencies and commisions the power to write their own rules and regulations. In 1946 Nevada's Senator Patrick McCarran was successfull in getting the Adminstrative Procedures Act passed. I believe this Act of Congress is unconstitutional because it abdicates the power of Congress to the Administrative Branch whose duty is to Execute the Laws of the United States, not to write them.
As you can see that has given the President and his Cabinet unlimited power with no Congressional oversight.
Early on in the history of the United States Congress created the General Land Office who administered the Homestead Acts and issued Land Patents and Mining and Mill Patents. In the 1930's Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and created the National Grazing Service because many of the ranchers were overgrazing the lands. The Supreme Court has ruled they have authority over the range lands in the Western States through the Property Clause to regulate grazing on the federally owned lands. In 1946 Congress merged the General Land Office with the Grazing Service and created the Bureau of Land Managemnet. In 1976 Congress passed an Act that they would no longer dispose of federally owned land. The Bureau of Land Managemant, like boiling frogs, has gradually usurped more and more power. They defy Congress as can be seen in the way they have treated Wayne N. Hage and Jeanette Finicum.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled once man has interacted with the land it is not public land in Bardon v Northern Pacific RR.
Quote:
5. According to Bardon v Northern Pacific Railway Company they are no longer "public lands" once rights have been established on them. Wayne Hage explained it best shortly before he passed away:
Quote:
TNA: This raises another question. Why are vast segments of the West designated “public lands”?
Hage: You are referring to what I often call the public lands myth. On much of the western land area, particularly the vast western range lands, the underlying land itself, the mineral estate, is held by the United States just as it had previously been held by the King of Spain and later by the Mexican government. What the rancher acquired were grazing easements over the lands of the government. These were inheritable rights. An inheritable right is known as a fee. The lands covered by these grazing easements, called grazing allotments, are in fact held by the United States, but are referred to properly as fee lands because the fee, the inheritable right to use, is owned separately from the underlying lands.
The term “public lands” has been erroneously applied to these lands. I say erroneously because the United States Supreme Court held in Bardon v. Northern Pacific Railway Company that “lands to which rights and claims of another attach do not fall within the classification of public lands.” Rights and claims of ranchers to water rights and grazing easements (range rights) cover virtually all these lands. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ranchers’ grazing allotments cannot be public lands.
TNA: The case you just cited — Bardon, I believe you called it — is that still applicable?
Hage: Bardon v. Northern Pacific Railway Company has been cited 133 times by other courts and has never been overturned in whole or in part.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...roperty-owners
Dr. Angus McIntosh explains ranchers property rights in this article. It may address your questions
[http://freerangereport.com/index.php...operty-rights/
Daschie, I am highly opinionated and biased on this subject, but all long winded theories and explanations aside, down to the basics, the federal courts do not have Constitutional authority to take jurisdiction in Nevada, Oregon, Texas, California, or any other State of the Union.
I intended to state that several environmental groups using federal grant money routinely sue the Bureau of Land Management. The environmentalists usually prevail. This forces the BLM to act unfavorably towards the ranchers who they are supposed to be assisting. The rancher ends up bankrupt because the new BLM regulations have made his business unprofitable. The environmentalist buys the property fro pennies onmthe dollar and turns it back to the governemnt. This is one way the United States owns land without the consent of the legislature.
Thank you, Monty.
Splendid clear and simple explanation and just what I needed to be straight on.
You write in what we Texans call cornbread English.
Here is a link to the US District Courts that used to appear in Wikipedia, but got scrubbed after Dr. John Parks Trowbridege Jr. filed his Objection for Denial of Due Process . . . https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...and-091415.pdf. After much searching I was able to find it here:
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/forms/ufc99.pdf (Understanding the Federal Courts 1999 page 5)
Edit:Page not found
The requested page "/forms/ufc99.pdf" could not be found.
the original text:
"The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. within limit set by the Congress and the Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all category of federal cases, including both civil an criminal matters." http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/forms/ufc99.pdf (Understanding the Federal Courts 1999 page 5)
Ryan Bundy's still unanswered Motion for Habeas Corpus update
http://youtu.be/2yRfAdKzTVY
https://youtu.be/2yRfAdKzTVY
The Stand For Freedom Rally at the United States District Court House in Las Vegas, Nevada 111°F 44°C. That is cool for Las Vegas, I've seen 112° at midnight.
Andrea Parkers Labrador dog got out, is at the vet, heat prostration, not out of the woods yet, they are asking donations for the $1800 vet bill.
http://youtu.be/mIRFMXkCjs8
https://youtu.be/mIRFMXkCjs8
Attorney General Jeff Session appears to be compromised by Obama's Deep State or lacks the courage to oppose them.
Larry Klayman HELP PROTECT CLIVEN BUNDY FROM OBAMA's DEEP STATE publidshed by WND
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
HELP PROTECT CLIVEN BUNDY FROM OBAMA'S DEEP STATE
Exclusive: Larry Klayman laments fact prosecution continues under AG Jeff Sessions
Published: 2 days
http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/01/Lar...man_avatar.jpg
LARRY KLAYMAN
About | Email | Archive
http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes...ages//feed.png Subscribe to feed
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugin..._famfamfam.gif Print
The political prosecution of Cliven Bundy, his sons and tens of other defendants is an outrage begun by President Barack Obama and his Justice Department, then run by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, essentially because Cliven used the word “Negro” in commenting that he and his family could appreciate how African-Americans were mistreated by the federal government, given how this same federal government, under Obama and Lynch, with the aid of former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, had attempted to enslave them, too. As just one example of how Obama took offense and then threatened Cliven, just watch the video below.
At a White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which occurred just after the successful standoff at Bunkerville, land Cliven’s family had ranched for over 150 years, Obama, with a sick, arrogant smirk, mocked and disparaged Cliven and in effect warned him about the consequences of using the word “Negro,” not coincidentally a term used by the great civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. to refer to himself and his fellow “Negroes.” Ironically, in the days of King, the use of the term “black,” which later gained acceptance, was thought racist. That is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was with King when he was tragically assassinated, later coined another term, “African-American,” to refer to his race.
Two years after the successful Bunkerville standoff, which resulted after Bureau of Land Management (BLM) mercenary goons, at the direction of Harry Reid’s handpicked head of the agency, whom Obama was happy to appoint, threatened the lives of the Bundys if they did not roll over to government power and then beat up Cliven’s sister, tased his two sons, attacked the family dog and secretly killed and buried tens of cattle when they did not submit – Cliven and the others were indicted. This occurred around the same time as two of Cliven’s sons traveled to Oregon in support of other ranchers who were also being harassed and persecuted by Obama’s BLM with the aim of driving them off their land.
During the course of this peaceful armed protest, whereby Cliven’s sons and others legally exercised their Second and First Amendment rights, necessary particularly after what had occurred earlier at Bunkerville, one of the protesters was shot dead by an FBI agent. It was recently revealed that this agent, under the direction of – you guessed it – corrupt former FBI Director James Comey, lied about and covered up this unprovoked murder at the hands of Obama’s federal government.
In this context, and to try to remedy the injustice that had occurred and was continuing to occur, after the confirmation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I called him and left messages on his cell and home phone to call me back. Having met Jeff many years ago when we both were young lawyers, I was impressed by both his gentlemanliness and legal competence. Later, during my years as the founder, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, I also encountered Jeff on several occasions and was always favorably impressed.
Consistent with his courteousness, Jeff did call me back, around 3 p.m. on a Sunday. During the call, I asked him if he would review the Bundy prosecution in an unbiased fashion, as it had been commenced, I believed for political and retaliatory reasons, by the previous administration. He said that he would do so but only after the nomination for deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, was confirmed. Of course, Jeff said that he and his staff would have to consult with the U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Nevada. I told him that I had no problem with this, as the truth and facts should be laid bare on the proverbial table.
In the meantime, both before and after Rosenstein’s confirmation, I sent to Jeff and his staff various materials about the case, including video footage of the BLM attacks on Cliven’s family and dog. In so doing, I asked his scheduler, Erical O’Brien, to set up a meeting with the attorney general, Rosenstein and others at the Department of Justice after the materials were reviewed. She assured me that this would be done and that responsible persons would be reviewing the case in the meantime.
But after that, despite my many inquiries, Erical never set up a meeting and later did not respond at all to my further emails and telephone messages. As a result, and needing to get some response as time was running short before Cliven’s prosecution was scheduled to begin, I decided to physically go to the Justice Department and ask for some dates for this eventual meeting. After I did so, about an hour or so later I was emailed a letter at the direction of the attorney general advising that the materials I had provided to him and his staff were being sent to the Acting U.S. attorney, Steve Myhre, who was prosecuting Cliven, his sons and the others.
I was shocked, as this obviously was nonsensical if Jeff and his staff indeed were conducting an independent review to determine if the prosecutions begun under Obama and Lynch should proceed, or in some way be cut back in scope. It became clear that Jeff, with all of his problems – he is under constant attack by the leftist media and rabid Democrats – simply went into a “defensive crouch” and thus punted on his commitment and referred me instead to the very Obama Deep State prosecutor who has been and continues to engage in prosecutorial misconduct, too numerous to list in this column. To say the very least, I was not just disappointed, but saddened as I thought that this new attorney general would have the courage to do the right thing and honor his word. While over the years I have become more than cynical about the honesty of government officials, I held out hope that Jeff Sessions was different.
The crowning blow to my confidence in Jeff and my hope that he might be different came just in the last few days, when I traveled to Las Vegas to visit with Cliven in federal prison. Coincidentally, I learned that the attorney general was in Las Vegas also to give a speech at the U.S. attorney’s office about sanctuary cities. I therefore emailed Erical again, and asked if she could schedule 15 minutes of Sessions’ time for me to meet with him over the Bundy prosecution. In response, I was told that he did not have time. A day later, it was reported that during his time in Las Vegas, Jeff told the media that he fully supported the prosecutors for their courage to pursue justice, but was “not taking sides or commenting on the case.”
This “double talk” regrettably is at best what not just Cliven but the American people have come to expect from their government and the justice system. And, it’s why I urge you to go to www.clivenbundydefensefund.org and donate to Cliven’s legal defense. While its now clear that even the attorney general has been compromised, and that Cliven’s prosecution will proceed in the next few months, the good news is with your strong support he can wage a full and aggressive legal defense, not just to protect his rights but the constitutional rights of all of us to be free of government tyranny.
Media wishing to interview Larry Klayman, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/help-prot...tecpb87AEvc.99
The Stand for Freedom Rally With Roger Stone
Rallies support defendants in Bunkerville standoff case
Posted on July 16, 2017 by Doug Knowles
https://itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-...1517cs_010.jpg
https://itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-...1517cs_006.jpgAttendees listen at a fundraising event in support of the Bundy family at Rainbow Gardens in Las Vegas on Saturday, July 15, 2017. Chase Stevens Las Vegas Review-Journal @csstevensphoto
By Jessie Bekker and Max Michor Las Vegas Review-Journal July 15, 2017, 11:57 pm
Hundreds of supporters turned out at a Las Vegas event Saturday night supporting the defendants facing trial in the Bunkerville standoff case.
They gathered at Rainbow Gardens to hear speeches from Las Vegas City Councilwoman Michele Fiore, members of the Bundy family and even Roger Stone, an on-and-off adviser for President Donald Trump.
A trial in the Bunkerville standoff case opens Monday at the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse, but instead of trying a new set of defendants, prosecutors will begin their second attempt to convict four men accused of conspiring against the government with rancher Cliven Bundy.
The retrial comes after an April mistrial, when jurors deadlocked on 50 of the 60 counts against the first group of defendants in the three-part case. Prosecutors eventually plan to try 17 men on charges stemming from the April 2014 armed standoff between individual rights activists and Bureau of Land Management agents, who came to Bunkerville to seize Bundy’s cattle from public land over unpaid grazing fees.
The overarching theme at Saturday event: The “mainstream media” hasn’t given the Bundy family a voice.
“They’re supposed to be unbiased. They’re supposed to be dealing with facts and truth,” said Jeanette Finicum, wife of the late LaVoy Finicum, who was present at the 2014 Bunkerville standoff and who was shot by an Oregon state trooper during another standoff at an eastern Oregon wildlife refuge last year.
Fiore recalled explaining her understanding of the Bundy case — “the ‘B word,’” she said — to constituents preceding her election. “I would say to them, after five minutes, ‘Now you support the Bundys,’” Fiore said.
Throughout speeches, members of the crowd shook their heads, clapped and wiped away tears. On and off, they hollered and shouted affirming yeses.
Stone closed the evening Saturday by accusing the FBI and the Bureau of Land Management of “threatening death, … slaughtering livestock and laughing in our face about it.”
The crowd whistled and offered a standing ovation to welcome him to the podium.
“I am here for one important reason. I stand in solidarity with every member of the Bundy family,” Stone said. The crowd responded by chanting, “Roger! Roger! Roger!”
“I have not followed this case with the intensity that I might have,” Stone said. Still, he noted, “The more I read, the angrier I got.”
Over time, he said, Americans’ constitutional rights have been eroded to the point of being unrecognizable. “This is the oppressive and of a military jackbooted government that has lost all sense of law or morality.”
Stone called out U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not offering direct support to the 17 defendants.
Then, he appealed Trump to “review this case in the name of justice, in the name of mercy … pardon every member of the Bundy family.”
Again, the crowd chanted his name.
Stone announced he plans to post a petition on the InfoWars website, urging the president to review the Bundy case.
For Carol Bundy, wife of Cliven Bundy, the message was strength, despite feeling that her “heart is in a prison cell.”
“God let you hit rock bottom so that you can discover that he is the one at the bottom,” she said, choking back tears. “I’m tired, I’m tearful, I don’t know how to help everybody that needs help, but come morning time, I pull myself up by the bootstraps and say, ‘Yup, I’ve got this for one more day.”
In addition to fighting for the release of the 17 men being held on charges stemming from the April 2014 standoff, speakers advocated for a militia over an organized military and a traditional reading of the constitution that would ban federal control over land.
Doug Knowles, who runs activist group It Matters How You Stand, said the event was, besides a fundraiser, an effort to raise awareness.
“These are real human stories here,” he said. “We’re not against the government. We’re anti-corrupt government.”
Peaceful protest
Earlier Saturday, several dozen people rallied peacefully in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Las Vegas in solidarity with defendants.
Ace Baker, a rally organizer who said he was with the American Warrior Revolution, said the morning rally participants wanted to send a message to Judge Gloria Navarro and prosecutors in the case: “We, the people, the fourth branch of government, have you in our sights and all we’re asking for is a fair, constitutional trial.”
“Everything’s at stake here — for any American, anyone who’s a proud American,” Baker said. “If they think you’re too proud or too patriotic, suddenly you’re being charged for terrorist acts.”
Maureen Peltier, who said she was a citizen journalist and a retired staff sergeant with the National Guard, said she believes the “mainstream media” has done a poor job covering the issues surrounding the case.
“We see men taking a stand and we see their plights and the mainstream media is ignoring it,” Peltier said.
“This is much bigger than a few individuals. This is much bigger than us all,” she said. “Our First Amendment right has been attacked. All our rights are at stake.”
Billy Sessions of Arkansas expressed skepticism about the upcoming trial.
“They’re not gonna give them a fair trial,” he said. “They’re going to make an example of them — anyone who stands up against the federal government is labeled a domestic terrorist.”
Contact Jessie Bekker at jbekker@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-4563. Follow @jessiebekks on Twitter.
Contact Max Michor at mmichor@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0381. Follow @MaxMichor on Twitter.