Eric Parker video made just days before his arrest
http://youtu.be/4JJ_gSFxawM
https://youtu.be/4JJ_gSFxawM
Printable View
Eric Parker video made just days before his arrest
http://youtu.be/4JJ_gSFxawM
https://youtu.be/4JJ_gSFxawM
Territorial jurisdiction -- 62 Statutes Chapter 645 Section 7(3)
"Any lands reserved or acquired for THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES." does not include PUBLIC LAND.
http://s19.postimg.org/er7yfge03/image.png
From the Pete Santilli Show's Guerilla Media Network
http://thepetesantillishow.com/bundy...ing-discovery/
Bundy Defendants Accuse Nevada Courts Of “Political Lynching” After Viewing Discovery
Home › News › Bundy Defendants Accuse Nevada Courts Of “Political Lynching” After Viewing Discovery
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...M-1024x568.png
Published by Guerrilla Media Network LLC — GMN has been a strong advocate for activist since 2012
IN NEVADA: Men arrested for being present at the 2014 Bundy Protest in Bunkerville, Nevada, are accusing the United States Government of purposefully withholding discovery from the media because they don’t want the public to see who pushed for the arrests, and just how weak the Government’s case against them really is. Judge Gloria Navarro, who refused to give any of the prisoners being held in Nevada a fair pre-trial release, is suspected of basing her opinion on a completely bogus narrative conceived by the Government, without even looking at the facts in the case. The defendants in this case feel she has a political agenda that aligns her decision with the man who helped her attain the bench, Harry Reid.
“It serves her political masters to have the discovery shrouded in secrecy, a source has told me; ” You would be hard pressed to find anyone close to this case that will tell you it wasn’t just by chance that Navarro was chosen to preside over this trial.”
The fact Judge Gloria Navarro was recommended by SEN. Harry Reid and appointed to the Bench by President Barrack Obama, moved Attorneys for Cliven Bundy to ask Navarro to recuse herself this past Spring.
After receiving and viewing a good portion of the “discovery” these men now say they finally understand why the Government wants to keep it all a big secret, and believe the information, once made public, will raise many questions about just why they are being held without chance of being released before their trial.
According to one prisoner, the discovery proves their ongoing incarceration is nothing short of a “political lynching” designed specifically to create the perception they are all guilty of committing a violent act so the Judge can claim justification for keeping them behind bars.
While they cannot divulge any portion of what they are seeing in the discovery they certainly have no court ordered “gag” preventing them from voicing their reaction to it.The public needs to remember why Bundy Ranch happened in the first place, said one prisoner. We didn’t all just show up in Bunkerville one day because we were mad about a cattle round-up. The facts are the same as they were in April of 2014. The BLM was acting aggressively toward the Bundy family. They had snipers trained on them, they reacted violently and beat a man for taking photos of them, they set up an illegal free speech area, they were killing cattle and burying them on “so called” public lands; and despite numerous warnings to “back off” by Clarke County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Governor Brian Sanddoval, and plenty of other State and Federal Officials, Daniel P Love escalated his militarized response and refused to to use diplomacy over violence.This accusation by the prisoner is backed by numerous statements made by both Gillespie and Governor Sandoval, during and after the time of the protest. In a statement made to the Las Vegas Sun, Gillespie said he warned BLM Special Agent In Charge Daniel P Love, that he had lost control of the situation and would only escalate it to violence if he did not stop the round-up. Love refused the advise of both the Sheriff of Clarke County and Governor of the State of Nevada. Many people who know Daniel P. Love say his over inflated ego would not allow him to heed that warning.
“Federal Prosecutor Steven Myhre would now like the court and the public to believe that Dan Love and fellow BLM Agents are all victims of propaganda, and that the BLM did nothing to provoke a visit from an outraged Bundy Family which resulted in a video release exposing their aggression” said one attorney working on the case;
“I think if anybody would look at how they handled the protesting with the use of Tasers and police dogs, anyone who had been in policing would question those tactics,” he said. “And I believe that led to the heightened interest and escalating the situation.” ~ Douglas GillespieWhen the family approached the BLM that day, Ammon Bundy was tazed three times, a recovering cancer patient and grandmother, was violently thrown to the ground, and a pregnant girl was threatened by the release of a dog. That video is far from propaganda, it’s the truth, and it speaks volumes about the mindset of the BLM. Evidence will clearly show that the Bundy’s were right about the BLM killing cattle and burying them on public lands; and that, coupled with numerous other violent incidents perpetrated by the BLM, is what caused the escalation in Bunkerville in 2014. To say that the BLM and Dan Love are all just victims is simply not true. Click here to view the video.There has also been an unexplained number of plea deals connected to this case, and at least three men are now trying to back out of their deals after seeing the discovery.
Jerry Delemus who recently took a plea deal on the case has since changed his mind about that decision saying that he was forced into the deal by the FBI. Delemus, who is married to State Rep Susan Delemus of New Hampshire, now says he buckled under extreme pressure after the FBI threatened that they would go after the men who accompanied him to Nevada if he refused to take the deal. One of those men was his Son.
When Delemus asked Judge Gloria Navarro if he would be committing perjury when he lied under oath to say he was guilty, her response was, “Not necessarily.” So the Judge presiding over this case encouraged a defendant to lie under oath? So much for the dignity of the Nevada Bench.
Much time has passed since the 2014 protest and public memory may have faded, but the fact still remains; Sheriff Doug Gillespi told Cliven Bundy and the American People on the day of the protest that the BLM was leaving and the cattle would now be freed. When the Bundy Family, and the American People, accompanied by the media came to get the cattle, they were met with the threat of being shot by Daniel P. Love and his BLM. Was Daniel P. Love once again defying the orders of the County Sheriff when the people approached that gate? We think that’s exactly what the “discovery” will show.
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-co...sset_11500.jpg
Special Agent In Charge Daniel P. Love
According to an official statement by a BLM spokesperson in a report documented by E&E LLC the BLM narrative is very clear;“In a highly volatile situation with heavily armed antagonists, Love negotiated a peaceful resolution,” said Celia Boddington, who was serving as BLM’s assistant director for communications at the time and is now retired. “When all is said and done, he was the person most responsible for ensuring that nobody got killed that day. While many are eager to play Monday morning quarterback, history will judge him kindly.”In reality Daniel P. Love was forced to leave the premises by a Deputy Sheriff at the gate after refusing a direct order to do so several times. Daniel P. Love said he was not leaving and that Ammon Bundy was not taking those cattle. He said all of this after Sheriff Douglas Gillespie had already told a cheering crowd that he had ordered the BLM to vacate the premises and the Bundy’s naturally went to get their cattle, or at least what was left of them. Revised history may very well remember Daniel P. Love kindly, but those who stared down the barrel of his gun that day and know the truth, will certainly not.
End Article
PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO GMN AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE — STAY CONNECTED TO GMN FOR MORE BREAKING STORIES LIKE THIS ONE THAT YOU WILL NEVER GET FROM MSM.
Lawyer claims FBI posed as a film crew in the Bundy Standoff investigation.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...-investigation
Posted September 30, 2016 - 6:46pm
Lawyer says FBI agents posed as film crew in Bunkerville standoff investigation
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...eb_7118957.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy displays a bouquet of desert foliage that his cattle grazes on during a news conference at an event near his ranch in Bunkerville on Saturday, April 11, 2015. (David Becker/Las Vegas Review-Journal)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...03_7118957.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy carries a bouquet of desert foliage that his cattle grazes on during an event near the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville on Saturday, April 11, 2015. (David Becker/Las Vegas Review-Journal)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...05_7118957.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy speaks during a news conference at an event near his ranch in Bunkerville on Saturday, April 11, 2015. (David Becker/Las Vegas Review-Journal)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...z3_7118957.jpgEric Parker from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge as protesters gather by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) base camp, where cattle that were seized from rancher Cliven Bundy are being held, near Bunkerville, Nevada in this April 12, 2014 file photo. (Jim Urquhart/Reut
http://mm.reviewjournal.com/media/vi.../Bundy_thb.jpg
Previous coverage
See a timeline of events leading up Cliven Bundy's conflict with the Bureau of Land Management in 2014. Also, see the most recent reports involving Bundy and his family.
By JEFF GERMAN
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
FBI agents posed as a documentary film crew to gather evidence during their investigation into the April 2014 standoff near the Bundy family ranch in Bunkerville, a defense lawyer disclosed in court papers Friday.
Attorney Chris Rasmussen said undercover agents conducted video interviews of several defendants to “extract admissions” from them before they were charged.
He identified the company as Longbow Productions, which does not appear in online Nevada licensing records.
Attorney Dan Hill, who is defending Ammon Bundy, said his client was interviewed for several hours in Phoenix by Longbow Productions months before he was charged in the Bunkerville standoff with his father, Cliven Bundy, and other defendants.
“I believe that the FBI was pretending to be members of the news media in order to have lengthy conversations with Ammon and others,” Hill said. “Ammon has nothing to hide, but I still find it troublesome that the FBI would sink to that tactic.”
Another defense lawyer, Jess Marchese, said his client Eric Parker gave the company a 90-minute interview in Idaho, where he lives.
“From everything that I’ve seen, it’s my belief that Longbow Productions was the FBI,” Marchese said. “I know that there were interviews with some of the other defendants. It was definitely unique, but I don’t think it’s overly harmful to my client because his recitation of the facts has always been the same.”
Parker posted on Facebook in August 2014 that a member of Longbow Productions told him the company was making a documentary about the standoff and wanted his opinion about it.
“I was told that the Bundys were working with them and have given interviews for it,” Parker said in the post. “If I could have that confirmed, I would feel better about talking to them.”
Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman for the Nevada U.S. attorney’s office, would not comment Friday on Longbow Productions.
“We cannot comment on pending litigation,” she said.
FBI spokesman Huston Pullen also declined to comment.
The revelation came in court papers Rasmussen filed seeking to narrow a protective order that vastly restricts public disclosure of evidence in the high-profile case.
Rasmussen, who represents radio talk show host Peter Santilli, said he and other defense lawyers want to cite government evidence about Longbow Productions and other activity by federal agents during the standoff investigation in public motions challenging the government’s case.
Other government evidence expected to be the subject of defense motions includes Nevada Highway Patrol dashcam videos showing the standoff scene, bodycam videos from Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents capturing the events leading up to the protests, and aerial surveillance of the Bunkerville area conducted by federal agents, according to Rasmussen’s court papers.
A total of 19 defendants were charged in March with conspiring to assault BLM agents on April 12, 2014, and take back the impounded Bundy cattle that had been grazing on federal land. Two later pleaded guilty, and the rest are to stand trial Feb. 6 before Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro.
In his court papers, Rasmussen said defense lawyers should be able to remove personal identifiers from government documents and then file them publicly with their upcoming motions.
“Counsel should be allowed to make professional judgments and redact the personal information of any person outlined in police or FBI reports like counsel in this district has done in every case prior to this one,” he said.
Attorney Maggie McLetchie — who represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Battle Born Media and The Associated Press — has lodged objections in court papers to the protective order, calling it too broad and a blow to transparency.
Because of concerns about threats to witnesses and law enforcement officers, the order prohibits defense teams for all 17 defendants from publicly disclosing grand jury transcripts, FBI and police reports, witness statements and other documents the government collected during its two-year investigation.
McLetchie on Friday hailed Rasmussen’s bid to narrow the scope of the order, which was signed earlier this year by U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen.
“In short, the protective order in place is excessively broad,” she said. “It cloaks information that the public has a right to know about in total secrecy.”
McLetchie said there are First Amendment concerns and questions about the actions of law enforcement in the case.
“The public has a right to assess for itself whether the government engaged in problematic law enforcement practices and whether this prosecution is retaliation for criticizing the government,” she said. “The courts belong to the people, and law enforcement works for the people, too.”
Contact Jeff German at jgerman@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-8135. Follow @JGermanRJ on Twitter.
The Bundy Affair; The Shotgun approach from the justice department
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1689
Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom
Outpost of Freedom
when the government is pointing their guns in the wrong direction
« Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer? What Officer?
Burns Chronicles No 31 – Public Lands – Part 3 – The Queen has Ruled – Off with their Heads »
The Bundy Affair – #16 * The Legal Shotgun
September 28, 2016, 6:57 am
The Bundy Affair – #16
The Legal Shotgun
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 28, 2016
In a related article, “Burns Chronicles No 30 – Officer? What Officer?“, I addressed a common element to the Indictments from Oregon and Nevada. You may also want to refer back to that article to see how the federal government has, over the years, expanded its authority (jurisdiction) well beyond what the Constitution granted to that government. The article covered the extent of the Oregon Indictment, but only the common charge of violation of 18 US Code § 372. The Nevada Indictment goes a bit further. It charges the accused with violation of 18 US Code § 371 and endeavors to provide some substance to the charge, which was not done in Oregon.
We will start with the charge of violation of 18 US Code § 371, which reads, in the Indictment:
COUNT ONEConspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)Paragraphs 1 through 153 are incorporated herein in full…
So, what does US Code § 371 say?
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
It is interesting that this really overlaps 18 US Code § 372, the statute addressed in the previous article in that it says, “to commit any offense against the United States”. Now, § 372 is an offense against the United States, so why is there a charge that is already incorporated in another charge?
My guess is that it is what I refer to as a “legal shotgun”. In the Branch Davidian trial, Sarah Bain explained there were so many charges against the Davidians that the jury felt they had to find the Davidians guilty of something. So they took the charge with the lowest punishment, and found them guilty of that Count. So, if you throw enough peanut butter at a wall, some of it will stick. Not a very good concept of justice, but the government knows how human nature works. You could call it a “chicanery conviction”.
.So, here are some more shotgun pellets:
- 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b) – (Assault on a Federal Officer
- 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) – Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer
- 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) – Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence
- 18 U.S.C. § 2 – Aiding and Abetting
- 18 U/S.C. § 1952 – Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion
We will begin with:
18 U.S.C. § 111: Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees
(a) In General. – Whoever –
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;
(b) Enhanced Penalty. – Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Now, for the legal maze. The reference in (a)(1) of § 111 refers us to:
18 U.S.C. § 1114: Protection of officers and employees of the United States
Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished –
When these two statutes are coupled, it creates a rather impressive monster, in the eyes of the jury. The referenced statute, § 1114, begins with “Whoever kills or attempts to kill” and then includes any employee of any agency of the government. It goes on to say that if the person “is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties…”
Then, we refer back to § 111 and find that what falls into this characterization of kill or attempt to kill, some lesser acts. Those lesser acts, “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person”, should be of serious concern to all Americans.
There is a saying from the past, “The King can do no wrong!” And, § 1114 makes clear that if you find someone in government doing something wrong, and you attempt to stop them, you are guilty of a crime. Then, by reference (guilt by association), you are associated with killers.
Now, let’s jump back to § 371. When we do this, we can pull in anyone who you have even discussed your objection to some government person’s action, because, “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States”, then you are an accomplice. So, those who might believe that the King has done wrong, well, you have just become a criminal. It does not even contemplate whether the “government employee” was doing something wrong, or you were fully within the right.
Next pellet in the legal shotgun:
18 U.S.C. § 115: Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member
(a)(1) Whoever –
(B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
So, here we see the use of “official duties”, without regard to the lawfulness of those duties. If it is not private duties, you are snared in the trap.
So, let’s continue and see what other pellets exist in the legal shotgun. This is an “enhancement statute”, intended to make a crime more criminal if you commit the crime. However, understand that you must first commit the crime that is to be enhanced by the statute. However, it is another “Count” in the jurors’ minds. Here is the statute, with pertinent parts, only:
18 U.S.C. § 924: Penalties
(c) (1) (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime –
(3) For purposes of this subsection the term “crime of violence” means an offense that is a felony and –
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.
Now, let’s see if we have this right. We do have a Second Amendment that allows us to “keep and bear Arms”. Then, of course, Nevada is an “open carry” state, so the right to carry weapons is protected under the State laws, as well.
It would seem the first necessity in evaluating this from a criminal standpoint would be to determine if the carrying or possession of the weapons was a factor in the crime, if there truly was a crime, or if it was simply an exercise of rights.
You will note that the statute defines brandish in such a way that it excludes any other form of possession. However, if we look at the English definition of brandish, we find that it does separate the display of the firearm from mere possession, associating the word with how it was displayed.
From Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1970):
brandish. v.t. 1. to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly. 2. to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.
So, the government, by a form of verbicide, has made a common English word, by redefining it to an all-inclusive word, with the sole exception of the qualifier, “in order to intimidate that person.” Darn, that qualifier is almost lost at the end of the statute.
Now, probably the prime example that we can expect the government to take would be the case of Eric Parker. Eric Parker is the object of a well known photograph of a man on the Highway Overpass with his rifle sticking through the wall of the overpass. They will suggest that he was “brandishing” his rifle, and they will prove it with pictures. However, those “officers and employees” down in the Wash could not have even seen that he was holding a rifle, so how the heck could he have been “intimidating” them? So, what Parker did could, in no way, be considered brandishing. Instead, he was there to protect those in the Wash, should the government “officers and employees” escalate beyond the violence and intimidation that they had demonstrated, long before the Unrustling at the Wash. Surely, we retain the right to protect ourselves and others from enemies, both foreign and domestic. And, equally surely, absent actually brandishing the weapon in close proximity, where the “officers and employees” could readily see, and readily understand that the weapon was there to intimidate them, such as described by Webster’s, then there can be no merit to the application of this enhancement statute.
Now, here is a rather interesting pellet in the legal shotgun, as it presumes something that did not happen.
18 U.S.C. § 1951: Interference with commerce by threats or violence
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) As used in this section –
(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
.
First, let’s deal with “commits or threatens physical violence“. The only insinuation of violence was addressed when we looked at 18 US Code § 924(c). So, that leaves us with “robbery” or “extortion”, both of which are defined in the statute. And, since nothing was stolen, that leaves us with “extortion”. However, extortion requires the “use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear“. And, so far, we have seen no demonstration of either.
Finally, we must look at the definition of commerce, as used therein. Now we have to look at both pieces of this puzzle to get a proper perspective of what it says, so, we will start with “all commerce between any point in a State… and any point outside thereof.” Well, that would suggest that if the cattle were to be taken to another state, it just might apply. However, when we take the next part, “all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State”, we see that if there are intermediate points (within the same State), they are dependent upon going “through any place outside of the State.”
So, it appears that until the “commerce” is at a point wherein it will exit the State, it is not yet in interstate commerce, and won’t be until it reaches that point.
Now, as explained in “The Bundy Affair #10 – Again?“, the cattle could not leave the state before at least one more “point” was necessary before the “commerce” could leave the State, as defined in the statute. The Brand and Health Inspections had not been performed, and it would have been illegal for the cattle to leave the State, absent a stop at another “point” to inspect and obtain such certifications.
Now, we come to the final “pellet” in this legal shotgun. It is found in 18 US Code § 2:
18 U.S.C. § 2: Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
So, let’s look closely at the two sub-sections, (a) and (b). In (a), we have “Whoever commits… or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures [the] commission” of “an offense against the United States… is punishable as a principal.”
Now, let’s look at (b), “Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”
I’ll be darned if they don’t say the same thing. Perhaps there is some undecipherable distinction between the two, but for the life of me, I really can’t figure it out. What I can figure out is that if you, in any way, maybe even loaning somebody some money, aid and abet, or by loaning, participate in both inducement and procurement, or perhaps, even give some words of encouragement, you may be found to have willfully caused, the act — then you are as guilty as the “guy that pulled the trigger”.
What we are seeing in a Nevada Courtroom is a far more heinous “political crime”, God forbid that Free Americans have any right to question the actions of the government.
Share this:
Like this:
In the eye of much of the public the right amount of grazing on public lands is "No Grazing". http://rangefire.us/2016/10/03/why-a...r-on-the-west/
WHY? — a Perpetual Question in the War on the West
October 3, 2016 - Government/Politics, Public Lands, Ranching - Tagged: Clark County, grazing, Local Economy, public lands, Range, RANGEfire, wilderness - no comments
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x230.jpgBecause, in the minds of many, the right amount of public lands grazing is NO GRAZING, the Federal Government seeks to put the last rancher in Clark County (Cliven Bundy) out of business. WHY? The real idea in Southeast Nevada is to turn hundreds of square miles into another federal conservation area, if not an outright wilderness. WHY? In a country with a $20 trillion dollar federal deficit, where’s the economic benefit in that?
Excerpt reposted from the Las Vegas Review Journal — by Vin Suprynowicz
The Las Vegas Review-Journal regularly receives letters to the editor which are essentially form letters, though they bear different signatures. Typical was one received this month above the signature of Terri Rylander, a member of Friends of Gold Butte, in which she identifies herself as “a business owner living in Mesquite.” (Her business is marketing and web page design.) She further asserts: “People may visit special places like Red Rock Canyon and Gold Butte for different reasons – camping, hunting, hiking, bird watching – but all visitors spend money in our communities at restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and retail stores. Protecting Gold Butte as a national conservation area with wilderness will put this unique area on the map, drawing visitors … and ensure a steady stream of revenue to local communities like Mesquite.”
‘Not good for local economies’
A June 2011 study conducted by researchers at the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, holds otherwise.“We find that when controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions,” wrote USU researchers Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk and Randy Simmons. “Specifically, we find a significant negative relationship between the presence of Wilderness and county total payroll, county tax receipts, and county average household income.”WHY?
“Wilderness … is the most restrictive of all federal land-use designations,” the Utah researchers point out. “To preserve wild characteristics, the Wilderness designation prohibits roads, road construction, mechanized travel, and the use of mechanized equipment. Wilderness also impacts extractive industries such as mining, logging, and grazing.”
In a footnote, the researchers explain: “Grazing is expressly allowed in Wilderness Areas, but administrators may make ‘reasonable regulations’ including the reduction of grazing to improve range conditions.”
Ask Cliven Bundy about those “reasonable regulations.”“Environmentalists claim that Wilderness contributes to a healthy tourism industry,” the Utah researchers continue. But that argument “is simply not supported by the data.”Nor is it clear that cattle damage the range. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that ranchers, with their drip lines and water tanks – supporting quail and deer and other populations as well as cattle – and the ungulates themselves, cropping the graze close enough to the ground to allow new green shoots accessible to the tortoise while reducing the fuel buildup that fosters wildfires, are a net benefit to the country, before we even consider the benefits of local, organic beef.
A ‘state’ in name only
Citizens of any state east of the Rockies would likely riot at a proposal that the federal government take over 86 percent of their state’s land area. How did Nevada get into precisely that bind?
In his 1999 profile of Bundy for Reno-based Range magazine, Findley reported Bundy in the 1970s was willing to embrace the “multiple use” of the rangelands then being promoted. “He was patient and tried to cooperate with advice from those he considered his friends in the BLM,” Findley wrote.
“But everything we tried to do – every time we tried some compromise – they wanted more,” Bundy told Findley. “It was like talking to a greedy landlord. Everything became lockout or lockup.”
Findley introduces former Nevada District Court judge and rancher Clel Georgetta, author of the 1972 book “Golden Fleece in Nevada.” He presented the then “almost subversive” legal doctrine that claims by the federal government to more than 86 percent of the land of Nevada “amounted not only to a violation of the intention of Lincoln’s administration in promoting Nevada’s statehood in 1864, but of previous constitutional findings on the ‘equal footing’ of states admitted to the union.”
Thus was born the Sagebrush Rebellion. Legislation introduced in 1979 by then-state Sen. Dean Rhoads, directing the state attorney general to sue the federal government for control of all federal lands not specifically set aside for federal forts, post offices or Indian reservations, “is still a part of Nevada law,” Findley reported, “backed even more by a statewide referendum in 1996 in which voters overwhelmingly supported the idea of state control of public lands.”
So why hasn’t it happened?
“The Nevada attorney general has never taken the argument to federal courts,” Findley explained.
‘Public lands are a myth’
In his 1989 book “Storm Over Rangelands,” the late Nevada rancher Wayne Hage detailed how ranchers, miners, and others possess split title to the Western lands. Here in the arid West, no rancher could likely make a living off a mere 160 acres of deeded land.So it’s not unusual for different parties to own, say, the grazing and water rights versus the mineral rights to overlapping parcels, while neither claims to “own” all that land, outright. Federal attempts to regulate those long-established rights out of existence violate basic constitutional rights, Hage successfully argued.The BLM confiscated Hage’s cattle, up Tonopah way. He fought them through the courts for years – and won. But he died soon after. His children continue the struggle.
The federal government controls at least 86 percent of Nevada’s land area. But the federal government can show no bills of sale for these lands, approved by the legislature of the “state” in which they lie – the only method provided by the Constitution for the central government to gain title to, or wield plenary authority over, any lands within the several states.
Ironically enough, Nevada ranchers themselves have resisted reform in the past. Findley’s piece for Range magazine has President Ronald Reagan asking his interior secretary, James Watt, why the federal government couldn’t end its dominion over nearly one-third of the nation’s lands by selling them off or transferring them back to the states.
Watt had to explain to the president that wasn’t really what the ranchers wanted.
Years later, addressing a 1994 cattleman’s meeting, “Watt said Nevada sabotaged the Sagebrush Rebellion,” related Demar Dahl, former head of the state cattleman’s association. “When it came down to it, a lot of the big ranchers were afraid of losing their (federal) allotments.”
Local politicians, as well, find it “hard to turn down that $5 million or whatever,” that Uncle Sam routinely showers on local municipalities, Bundy acknowledges. “My side don’t have much cash. But the other side has put us, what is it, $60 trillion in debt.”
Indeed they have. Yet one of these days they will descend again, with helicopters and contract cowboys, to try and drive the last cattle rancher in Clark County out of business.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/VS-1.jpg
Why?
Excerpt reposted from the Las Vegas Review Journal — by Vin Suprynowicz, who at the time was an assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel “The Black Arrow” and “Send in the Waco Killers.” See www.vinsuprynowicz.com. TM
RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback
Feds alter dash cam and body cam video in Bundy Ranch case
http://thepetesantillishow.com/nevad...en-bundy-case/
Nevada Defendants Accuse The Government Of Tampering With BLM Video Evidence In Cliven Bundy Case
Home › News › Nevada Defendants Accuse The Government Of Tampering With BLM Video Evidence In Cliven Bundy Case
http://youtu.be/oC-YIyWBYmQ
Guerilla Media Network LLC – Powerful – Advocacy Journalism since 2011
Las Vegas Nevada: Defendants in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al .. are accusing the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the FBI of altering dashboard and body-cam video in an attempt to cover-up their aggressiveness during the 2014 protest that led to the arrest of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and 18 others.
Defendants are also accusing the FBI “infiltration team” who posed as a documentary film crew called Long Bow, of editing video at crucial moments to make defendants who gave interviews look guilty of crimes they did not commit.
On at least 5 different occasions the defendants in the case say that video used to gain their indictments and create the Governments narrative that has kept them all in jail pending trial, was clearly altered at crucial moments to hide what they believe would expose the BLM as the aggressors and not the “victims” as Prosecutor Steven Myhre contends.
We have found at least 5 different clear cases of evidence tampering and have only viewed 1/4 of the discovery that was recently released to us by the Prosecutors office say defendants, who have begun the process of creating a power point demonstration that will be viewed by defense attorney’s on October 7, 2016.
On April 9th, 2014 a video was released by Guerrilla Media Network [Pete Santilli] that showed the brutal tazing of Cliven Bundy’s Son, Ammon Bundy. During that protest there was also a vicious attack by a BLM agent on Margaret Houston, a 57 year old cancer survivor and Cliven Bundy’s sister. It was not until Fox News picked up the video and aired it live the following morning on the program Fox and Friends, that people from across the Nation felt compelled to pack up and come to Bundy Ranch in protest of the aggressive attack on the family. While the defendants are not allowed to disclose what was said by BLM agents leading up to the attack on protestors, they allege that at least 5 seconds of audio recorded during the protest on April 9th, was altered by the BLM to cover-up what BLM agents actually said.
Defendants also stated, that BLM video shot during the protest on April 12th, 2014 – of protestors that accompanied Ammon Bundy to retrieve cattle Sheriff Douglas Gillespi said could be released, was again altered to omit some of what Daniel P. Love and other agents were communicating back and forth to one another.
Protestors and media who accompanied Ammon Bundy to the wash, were in far more danger than even they knew, says one defendant;
If people could actually hear what the BLM was saying to one another and how eager they were to have a confrontation, Prosecutor Steven Myhre’s fairytale about BLM Agent Daniel P. Love and his underlings being fearful for their lives would be seen for exactly what it is — a lie.
Being bound by a protective order that effectively hides vital information of what the BLM was doing and saying during the Bundy Ranch protest, defendants say they are unable to gain public support needed to force the discovery into public record where it can be scrutinized by the press and potential witnesses who were present during the protest. Not being able to convey the governments case to the public stifles our legal council’s ability to get the attention of those people who were there and may have vital information that would counter the BLM ’s accusations say the defendants, and it gives the government unfair advantage over we the people and also gives the Judge the leverage she needs to deny us pretrial release.
“I can’t tell you what was said, but I can say – generally speaking, the killing of those protestors was nothing but a game to them. The audio will prove that they were eager to kill and were never fearful for their lives being outnumbered, or being out-gunned, as Prosecutor Mhyre says. We believe the evidence shows exactly the opposite and that once the press and public are allowed to see it they will come to the same conclusion.
Attorney Maggie McLetchie represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Battle Born Media and The Associated Press in a lawsuit against the United States Government in order to gain access to discovery for the Press and Public.
We believe if the public could hear and see what the BLM was saying and doing for the duration of the protest, before and leading up to the BLM confronting the protestors by threatening lethal force, the narrative would go back to what it was initially about and that is that a Government agency was violating the civil rights of a rancher and his family and those of the people who came to protest the brutality of it.
Magistrate Peggy Leen enforces an order that tells the public, you may scrutinize and repeat all of the bad stuff the defendants said on social media but you are not allowed to see and repeat all the bad stuff the BLM was doing and saying behind the scenes that led up to such a passionate protest by the defendants and other protestors.
Please contact Nevada officials and demand transparency for this case:
Please consider donating to Guerrilla Media Network. Your donations are vital to our ability to keep the news real and current during the Bundy Ranch trial. See the link at the top of the page and thank you in advance for your contribution.
Sarah Redd-Buck seeking a copy of Pete Santilli video from 2014 Bundy Standoff where Dan Loge tells Santilli he can shoot Bundy cattle if he wants to. I don't recall ever seeing that video.
Sarah Redd Buck
1 hr ·
URGENT PLEASE SHARE!!!
We Need help finding the video and/or audio of Pete Santilli at the Bunkerville standoff. The one we are looking for is the one where BLM agent Dan Love says he can kill the Bundy cows if he wants to. This is extremely urgent. Need within the next few hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
Maybe this is the video they are looking for. I tried to listen to it but don't hear well.
http://youtu.be/fTQSJV_stE8
^ I thought there might be something in that video too but I listened to it and didn't hear anything about him shooting cattle. Love did say he had enough people with him to take care of how ever many people showed up to take the cattle back.
I think I remember something about them shooting cattle out of a helicopter when they were rounding them up but I don't recall whether it was a video or something that was written.