Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
I add this to highlight that the lieyers are using Public Policy and the law of necessity to run over anyone who gets in their way.
Public Policy vs Public Law vs your rights vs the courts run by the practitioners of Black Magic...:flute:
The TRUTH About COURT ROOMS! STAY OUT!
In our legal system it is all or nothing. You are either a sovereign
or a slave. There is no middle ground.
In previous versions of this book, I went into detail on the statutes
concerning liens and levies, and assessments, the United States Code,
the Code of Federal Regulations, etc., and documented how they were
not being upheld by the courts. But even with these arguments,
coupled with the inalienable rights arguments, patriots were still
losing in the courts.
WHY? When I learned about the federal bankruptcy and the change to
martial law, then everything fell into place. We have learned, that
as U.S. citizens we have no inalienable rights protected by a
constitution. But we were still losing in the courts on statutory
issues even though there is no statute that makes you liable for an
income tax. I proved this, with the statutes and court decisions, in
previous versions. But the courts would not uphold the statutes
either. They would not actually disregard the statutes, they would
just find any excuse and any loophole they could come up with, or
fabricate, to dismiss your case. And the Department of Justice
attorneys know this so they can make a half hearted attempt at defense
and still win the case. I wanted to know why the courts would not
uphold the plain words of the law. Then, recently, I found out.
What first dawned on me, is that American Citizen's have no standing
in court. Therefore any time an American Citizen went to court and
claimed not to be liable for income tax, because the constitution says
direct taxes have to be apportioned, they were ruled against. It IS a
frivolous argument, because only a U.S. citizen has standing in
today's courts, and since you WERE in court making a claim, the
presumption was made that it was a U.S. citizen making the claim (a
correct presumption), and since the U.S. citizen does not have
inalienable rights secured by the constitution, it was a frivolous
argument and against public policy. Only sovereign American's can
claim inalienable rights, secured by the constitution, and sovereign's
will not be found in court.
U.S. citizens can only claim privileges and immunities secured by the
statutes, so anytime you enter the court's jurisdiction, your are
correctly presumed to be a U.S. citizen, there on a statutory issue
or a contract dispute.
An Oklahoma Supreme Court justice stated it in a nutshell when he
described the first level state courts in Oklahoma as "statutory
non-constitutional" courts. The same is true in all states and in the
federal court system. When you file a federal case you must submit a
cover sheet showing the nature of the suit. Nowhere on the sheet is
there a space for "inalienable rights". The only section that is
close is labeled "civil rights".
The courts today are private corporate courts run by the BAR (British
Accreditation Regency) Association. Think about this a minute.
Attorneys are considered by statute and by court decisions to be
"officers of the court". Their first duty is to the court, not to
you! Judges, Prosecutors and private practice attorneys are all
attorneys and therefore are all officers of the court. Since all
these officers are dealing in the same commodity, statutes, they would
be statute "merchants", as "merchants" is defined by the Uniform
Commercial Code at (UCC) 2-104(1).
All the statutes are written by attorneys. Most business legal
decisions are made by attorneys. Prosecutions are made by attorneys.
Defenses are made by attorneys. Judgments are made by attorneys.
Officers of the court are in fact just government agents. These
agents are also U.S. citizens and their main job is to collect
revenue to pay the federal debt. Therefore the whole court system and
all attorneys have just modified the legal system into a business
entity, designed to run as many people through as fast as they can,
and collect the most revenue. And what is the one product of this
business? Statutes. There are over 3 million law and statute BOOKS,
and over 60 million statutes! Do you know them ALL? Remember,
ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Again, all definitions quoted in this chapter are from Black's Law
Dictionary 6th Edition, unless otherwise noted.
Up until 1933, we operated under Public Law. After 1933 we operated
under Public Policy. What is the difference?
Public law. That branch or department of law which is concerned with
the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including
constitutional and administrative law, and with the definition,
regulation, and enforcement of rights where the state is regarded as
the subject of the right or object of the duty, . . . That portion
of law which is concerned with political conditions; that is to say,
with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which
are peculiar to political superiors, supreme and subordinate.
Before 1933 we had public law, based on rights, constitutions,
statutes, etc., and the state was the subject of the rights and the
object of the duty to protect those rights. If you went to court, you
went as a sovereign with inalienable rights, and the courts upheld
them.
After 1933, when everybody's status changed, we then went under public
policy. Public policy doctrine. Doctrine whereby a court may refuse
to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy.
Public policy. Community common sense and common conscience, extended
and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, health,
safety, welfare, and the like; it is that general and well-settled
public opinion relating to man's plain, palpable duty to his fellow
men, having due regard to all circumstances of each particular
relation and situation.
So, what's the difference?
Under public law, the courts upheld the constitution, the statutes,
and enforced your inalienable rights, even to the detriment of the
public. This is still applicable to all cases where there is a
dispute as to the terms of a contract that does NOT affect the general
public or the government. If you have a contract to provide a service
for someone, then the courts will enforce that contract. But if you
are a corporation and you sign a contract with a supplier that says
you will not sell any products to women, then the court will rule that
your contract is against public policy and will refuse to enforce the
contract.
Under public policy, you have no rights to uphold, or contracts to
enforce. It is really just a democracy. If the majority of the
public has the same opinion, then that becomes public policy, law. If
your rights or contract interferes with what the government thinks is
best for the welfare of the general public, or is contrary to public
opinion, they may refuse to uphold your rights, or enforce your
contract. That is why most contracts have to be on government
approved forms before the courts will uphold them. The whole court
system, at all levels, is just a private business set up to collect
revenue for the government. They mostly handle their own business,
collecting revenue for violations of their corporate statutes, but
occasionally they will listen to a dispute between two private
citizens.
As applied to court cases, if you have a property line dispute with
your neighbor, the court will enforce the laws as written. If you
have a dispute with the IRS because they assessed a tax after the
statute of limitations was expired, the court may uphold the statute.
If you are claiming that the IRS cannot tax your property income
directly, due to the inalienable rights of property, the courts will
not uphold your rights, because the public needs the tax money. If
you are claiming your inalienable rights against the government, what
are your chances? You are fighting Goliath in Goliath's court! If
you make constitutional arguments in court, the judge will tell you
that if you persist in making these arguments, he will find you in
contempt of court! WHY?
Because a U.S. citizen does not have any Constitutional protections.
They are property of the corporate government and property does not
have rights.
BUT, if you do like I did in my court cases (and older editions of my
book), the courts will rule against you, under public policy. In my
court cases I provided documented proof that the Internal Revenue Code
(IRC) Section 7805 says that the Secretary of the Treasury must
prescribe regulations for the 'enforcement' of the tax code. And that
without these regulations being promulgated, that the collection and
penalty statutes were not enforceable. I even quoted IRC 6202, which
says: "The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the
taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or
regulations prescribed by the Secretary." There are NO regulations
prescribed for, assessments, liens, levies, frivolous penalties, or
ANY other type of collection action, THAT APPLY TO INCOME TAX.
All these collection regulations only apply to the BATF. If there are
no rules or regulations prescribed for assessments, how can the IRS
make a valid assessment for income tax when you don't file a return?
They can't! Did this argument make any difference when I presented
it? NO! I had documented proof! I even provided Supreme Court
decisions to back up the argument, along with other statutes that said
the same thing. I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were
no regulations for ANY collection actions, for income tax, in the Code
of Federal Regulations. (26 CFR Part 1 Income Tax.)
I provided MANY authorities. But the court ruled against me. They
would not address my argument and would only state that my argument
was frivolous and without merit. WITHOUT MERIT! I had tons of
documentation from their own laws to prove my case! But I lost
because I was ignorant! Ignorant of the doctrine of Public Policy.
The law and the statutes are NOT valid! Public opinion is the
determining factor. And who determines public opinion? The legal
system!
If my arguments WERE addressed by the court, then they would have to
uphold the law as it was plainly written. But, my win would have
exposed the fraud of the income tax collection actions applied against
us, and would have had a major impact on the way the government
collects taxes. It would result in a great loss of revenue. And a
loss of revenue, would be against public policy, because we have to
take care of the welfare of the people, and pay off the bankruptcy,
and that would put a damper on it. Therefore, due to the doctrine of
public policy, my arguments were without merit. What, REALLY, is this
doctrine based on? It is based on another doctrine, the Doctrine of
Necessity!
You have probably heard of patriots who have gone to court with a
claim against the government, and the courts dismissed the case for
"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted", or was
dismissed because the argument was "without merit". These patriots
thought they had a great case, and they did! That was the problem!
They could not be allowed to win, because it would cause a revolution!
What does necessity mean?
Necessity. Controlling force; irresistible compulsion; a power or
impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct. That which
makes the contrary of a thing impossible. The quality or state of
being necessary, in its primary sense signifying that which makes an
act or event unavoidable.
When the government takes your property to build a road or make a
park, (eminent domain) that is done under the doctrine of necessity.
It is in the best interest of the public, therefore you must give up
your property right! Suppose you killed someone in self defense.
That is under the doctrine of necessity. You HAD to do it to save
your life! The government says the same thing for your court
arguments. They had to rule against you, because THEIR life was at
stake! When it comes down to your life or their life, which way do
you think they will rule? What do you think Goliath would have done
if David filed a court case against him, in Goliath's court? If it
came down to David's life or Goliath's life, how would Goliath rule?
He would rule out of the doctrine of necessity. STAY OUT OF GOLIATH'S
COURT! Throw your stones instead! You cannot beat them in their own
courts!
Many patriot arguments were based on constitutional claims, as were
mine. As we learned in previous chapters, only a U.S. citizen has
any standing in any court, and the U.S. citizen does not have any
inalienable rights secured by the Constitution or Bill of Rights! He
has only privileges granted by his master, the government. That's why
14th Amendment citizens had to be given privileges and immunities that
corresponded to all the same rights that sovereigns claimed in the
Bill of Rights. Privileges and immunities are pseudo rights that can
be granted and taken away at will by the government. So when a U.S.
citizen makes a constitutional rights claim, the court cannot grant
relief, because he has not made a claim upon which relief can be
granted. He has no 'constitutional' rights. He only has privileges
and immunities, under the 14th Amendment, as a citizen of the United
States.
Since all law is based on contract, the courts and the government
agencies automatically 'presume' that you are a U.S. citizen making a
statutory claim against the corporate government, Goliath. And you
waived ALL your rights when you signed the contract for U.S. citizen,
so what's your beef? You have not stated a claim upon which relief
can be granted!
The Laws of War, International and Municipal Law, and Emergency
powers, are not real law. The Supreme Court has ruled in the landmark
case of Erie Railroad v. Thompkins 1938, that stare decisis, which
means case law, in statutory construction, is a useful rule, not an
exorable command. This means that former court cases may or may not
be used to set any precedent for the law, because the standard of law
previous to 1933 was based on the constitution. After 1933, the
constitution no longer applied, so any cases decided before 1933 no
longer were required to be upheld. The same is true today. If you
are in court, the judge will only acknowledge case cites before 1933
if they are not against current public policy, because they are not
valid today under military law. He won't tell you that though! WHY?
Because necessity knows no law! And necessity is the basis of the
emergency powers and martial law.
Before 1933 you still had full constitutional rights and you could
argue those rights in a court of law in your real name spelled in
upper and lower case letters. Before 1933 you were still under
emergency rule, but were not the declared enemy of the United States.
After 1933, all enemies of the United States only had standing in the
military court as legal fictions, U.S. citizens. The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure were instituted on September 16, 1938. But the
biggest rotten apple in the barrel was another doctrine, called stare
decisis.
Stare decisis. To abide by, or adhere, to decide cases. Policy of
courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point.
Doctrine that, when court has once lain down a principle of law as
applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property
are the same.
Under doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after
argument on question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary
to its determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the
same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent
cases where the very point is again in controversy.
The key word here is 'necessary.' The previous case must be followed,
except under the doctrine of necessity. These 2 doctrines have lost
us more freedoms that any other. How? Let's take an example. Let's
say I go to court and make a claim that the IRS has levied my property
without following proper procedure. In order to make a levy, they
first had to make an assessment. And since I didn't file a return,
before they could make the assessment, they had to send a notice of
deficiency. They goofed. They didn't send a notice of deficiency,
made an assessment anyway, without any regulations, and then levied my
property as they pleased. By the way, this is MY true story.
I, not being versed in legal procedure, and not being able to afford
an attorney, decided to educate myself in the nuances of law. Boy did
I learn a lot! A lot of what is in this book. I already knew that if
I hired an attorney, that the attorney works for the courts, not for
you. I knew that every attorney and every judge was a member of the
American BAR Association, and that the ABA was a private corporation.
I knew that an attorney is obligated, by his membership in the bar, to
uphold the principle of the court, to the detriment of his client, if
need be. Also that he was not going to be made fun of by the judge,
by presenting a tax case that they considered frivolous (of which they
considered ALL of them frivolous). So I became pro per, or pro se,
because that's what all the patriot books said to do. What I did NOT
know then was that the terms 'pro per' and 'pro se', both are
designations of artificial persons! I had just announced to the court
my status!
Any way, I learned all the rules of civil procedure, and learned how
to write briefs, and learned, I thought, all I needed to know. Wrong!
What I didn't know was that there were NO RULES! Everything is done
by necessity.
I filed my arguments with federal District Court, that proper
procedure was not followed, and that no regulations were prescribed
for collection actions for income tax. I also filed my 45 pg
Memorandum showing the difference between direct and indirect income
taxes. I claimed that; (1) the IRS was collecting income taxes by
liens and levies without following proper procedure, (2) no
regulations were prescribed for assessment or collection actions for
income tax, and (3) that they had no authority to collect direct taxes
on property income without apportionment. Three pretty good
arguments, huh? And I had all three arguments highly documented. It
was an air tight case. Or so I thought.
The Department of Justice filed an answer to my complaint. They said
that my arguments were frivolous and without merit, and asked for
dismissal of the action. They did NOT present any arguments to
counter my arguments. They just said 'frivolous' and 'without merit'.
How could they say that? It was easy. They said that MY supposed
arguments were, (1) that the IRS had no authority to collect taxes;
(2) that regulations were needed for ALL statutes; and (3) that the
income tax was an illegal unconstitutional tax; were frivolous and
without merit. They were 100% right about those arguments! Why?
Because they were NOT MY arguments! They were made up by the Dept.
of Just-us attorneys.
The judge ruled that my arguments, as stated by the Dept. of Just-us,
were frivolous and without merit. Were they? As phrased by the Dept.
of Just-us, they were! They did not address MY arguments. They
changed my arguments and then ruled against me. Outraged I appealed
to the federal Appellate Court.
I showed how they had twisted my arguments, and how they refused to
address my arguments. And I restated my arguments, and made clear
what my arguments were NOT! The appellate court rubber stamped the
district court decision as frivolous and without merit. To add insult
to injury, they also fined me $3000, called sanctions, for wasting the
court's and the government's time. Then they ruled that the case was
not to be published! It was not published, but it has been used
against me in subsequent cases, and someone HAS published it on the
internet!
Again outraged. I appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
denied my appeal and would not hear my case. Again, I did not know
that the Supreme Court has not heard a case since 1900, that was
presented without a lawyer. I had appealed pro per. You no longer
have the 'right' to appeal to the Supreme Court. And if you DO, it
can only be done through a lawyer!
This was just one of many cases that I filed. They all resulted in
the same decision. Dismissed as frivolous and without merit! They
were all against public policy I guess. To add insult to injury, in
the 6 cases I filed in federal court against the IRS, I not only lost,
I was fined (sanctioned) by the court for over $13,000, for filing
frivolous claims! And I have been forbidden to file any more claims,
until all the sanctions have been paid. And they never once addressed
my arguments! We now have only kangaroo courts, at all levels. And
their only interest is in collecting as much revenue and attorney fees
as possible.
Because the federal District courts are now under martial law, they
will only hear cases of a statutory nature. They will not hear
constitutional claims, because they are not operating under the
Constitution, and a U.S. citizen has no rights secured by the
constitution. The cases they DO hear, that involve supposed
constitutional rights, are really about the privileges and immunities
granted to 14th Amendment U.S. citizens. These privileges and
immunities are the same as the Bill of Rights, but are really the Bill
of Privileges. But rather than admit that, and cause a revolt, they
just look for any technicality they can find to dismiss your case, or
rule against you, without addressing the constitutional issues.
If you look at the statutes for your state, you will find that the
Constitution, state or federal, and the Bill of Rights, are not
included in the statutes. The statutes start AFTER these documents
with Title I.
The BUCK ACT
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
added to above too long...
In order for the federal government to tax your income directly,
without apportionment, and without an excise tax, they have to first
create a contract allowing them to do so. If you agreed to the
contract, then it was legal. This contract, as we learned earlier, is
called "Social Security". When the Social Security Act was passed in
1935, Congress also created 10 Social Security Districts. The
districts covered the continental United States and made them federal
territories, for the purposes of social security.
In 1939, the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 was passed. This allowed
the taxing of all federal and state employee's incomes, and the income
of anyone who resided or worked in any 'federal area'. But what was a
federal area? To solve that problem Congress passed the "Buck Act" in
1940. This act allowed any department of the federal government to
create a "federal area" for the imposition of the Public Salary Tax
Act. So they then created federal states, which occupy the same area
as the state republics.
To tell the two apart abbreviations were created to designate the
difference. So the republic of Arizona became the federal STATE OF
ARIZONA, and was abbreviated AZ, instead of Ariz. So, anytime you use
the two letter abbreviation AZ, you are designating a federal area and
not a sovereign state. What address do you use? Are you declaring
yourself to be in a federal area? If you are then you are liable for
income tax. This federal area would also extend to any contract you
signed in which you used your social security number for
identification.
The federal legal system has done the same thing. When you file a
federal court case, it is not filed in any state, it is filed in a
federal district. The heading on the court documents do not say IN
THE STATE OF COLORADO. It says IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. The
states are not sovereign states, for court jurisdiction, they are
federal districts.
District courts. Each state is comprised of one or more federal
judicial districts, and in each district there is a district court.
28 U.S.C.A. 81. The United States district courts are the trial
courts with general Federal jurisdiction over cases involving federal
laws of offenses and actions between citizens of different states.
Each state has at least one district court, though many have several
judicial districts (e.g. northern, southern, middle districts) or
divisions. There is also a United States district court in the
District of Columbia. And all these federal court districts are all
under the national emergency declared in 1933 and are now military
courts.
The Post Office has also jumped on the band wagon. As we know, the
federal government, United States, is considered a foreign country, in
relation to the several states of the union. So any mail sent within
the jurisdiction of the United States proper, 10 miles square, would
be domestic. Any mail sent to another jurisdiction, the 50 states or
foreign countries, would be non-domestic. To show the difference, all
domestic mail was given a zip code. There are no zip codes for
non-domestic mail. So if you use a zip code in your address, you are
identifying your location as a federal domestic area.
And the IRS. The federal tax statutes only apply within federal
jurisdiction. They do not apply within the boundaries of a state
republic, as we have learned. That's why the tax department of the
corporate U.S. is called the Department of Internal Revenue. It only
applies within corporate U.S. jurisdiction. That jurisdiction does
not extend to the 50 republic states, UNLESS you claim to be a U.S.
citizen. Then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the corporate
U.S. (14th amendment) and the taxes are for internal revenue
purposes.
THE AMERICAN FLAG
Before we leave this chapter, I would like to present one more proof
of the martial rule in existence today. Whenever there is a military
occupation, what is the first thing the occupying forces do? They put
up their flag to show everyone who is in command of that territory!
Who controls all the commercial disputes today? If you have a legal
conflict with someone over some property, where do you go? To the
courts! So if you want to know the real status of our political
situation all you have to do is go into the nearest courtroom and look
at the flag. But for that to mean anything to you, you must know a
little about flags.
The true American flag is red white and blue. There is no gold fringe
around the edge. What does this gold fringe indicate?
The opinion of U.S. Attorney General John G. Sargent: 34 Opinion
Attorney General 483, 484, 485, 486 (1925). From the correspondence
attached to the letter of President Harding, above mentioned, it would
seem that doubts have been expressed in some quarters as to the
propriety of attaching a fringe of yellow silk to the colors and
standards used by troops in the field. The use of such a fringe is
prescribed in Army Regulations No. 260-10. In a circular dated March
28, 1924, The Adjutant General of the Army thus refers to the matter
of the fringe:
"For a number of years there has been prescribed in Army Regulations a
knotted fringe of yellow silk on the national standards of mounted
regiments and on the national colors of unmounted regiments. The War
Department, however, knows of no law which either requires or
prohibits the placing of fringe on the flag of the United States. No
Act of Congress or Executive order has been found bearing on the
question. In flag manufacturing a fringe is not considered to be a
part of the flag, and it is without heraldic significance . In common
use of the word it is a fringe and not a border. Ancient custom
sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors and standards,
but here seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other
flags." The presence, therefore, of a fringe on military colors and
standards does not violate any existing Act of Congress. It's use or
disuse is a matter of practical policy, to be determined, in the
absence of statute, by the Commander in Chief. If the fringe is used,
its color and size are matters of detail which may be determined by
the same authority.
Well let's look at the regulations for flags that HAVE been issued.
The only direct authority for the use of fringe on the American flag
is in the Army regulations.
Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states: b. National flags
listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and
parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon
banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2
inches wide.
Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states: c. Authorization for indoor
display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor
display for: (1) each office, headquarters, and organization
authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational
color; (2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or
permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States; (3)
each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of
the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
(4) each military courtroom; (5) each US Army element of joint
commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for
any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity; (6) each
subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command; (7) each ROTC
unit, including those at satellited schools; (8) each reception
station.
Did you see anything there about use in a non-military court of law?
So if there is a gold fringe around the flag in your courtroom, you
are in a military courtroom! We are under martial law!
This is confirmed by 4 U.S.C. (United States Code) Chap.1, Secs. 1,
2 & 3. ". . . a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular
flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border
on 3 sides."
SUMMARY
STAY OUT OF COURT, if at all possible! You are either a sovereign or
a slave. Act the part you choose.
We are operating under Public Policy, not Public Law. There are no
laws to uphold! And no Constitutional courts to hear them in!
We are operating under stare decisis. The latest court case is the
new law, if they want to use it to their advantage. They will ignore
it, if it is to your advantage!
We are operating under necessity. The needs of the government and
public opinion take priority over your rights.
Any argument you present in court, that would embarrasses the
government, or expose their fraud, will be dismissed as frivolous and
without merit. You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Which means they will refuse to give you relief, even if
you are right! So, you lose, because relief will not be granted!
Federal areas were created to cover the same areas that the states
occupy. Claiming to be in one of these federal areas brings you under
the jurisdiction of the federal government as U.S. citizens.
All courts today are military courts, set up under martial law, under
national emergency. Just look at the flag of the occupying force. We
are sovereign American Indians on the reservation, claiming that our
treaties are not being honored. And again, we are being told, SHUT
UP!
When it gets right down to the bottom line, the law of the old west
still prevails. The ones with the biggest and fastest guns wins!
Period.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
When it gets right down to the bottom line, the law of the old west
still prevails. The ones with the biggest and fastest guns wins!
Period.
That is the conclusion that I've come too and the government has the biggest and fastest guns. They're willing to use them too and for the most part they're able to walk away with no negative consequences.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tumbleweed
That is the conclusion that I've come too and the government has the biggest and fastest guns. They're willing to use them too and for the most part they're able to walk away with no negative consequences.
Agreed, they will execute you without question or consequence.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Magistrate Judge Foley has order Ryan Bundy's detention hearing reopened. Hearing is scheduled for Jan 2, 2017
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...ered-reopened/
Ryan Bundy’s Detention Hearing ordered Reopened!
Posted on January 10, 2017 by Doug Knowles
US Magistrate George Foley, Jr. has Ordered that a Detention Hearing be reopened on January 24, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Courtroom 3A. We are asking your support by joining us for a Rally in front of the Las Vegas Federal District Court House on the same day between 11:00am to 5:00pm.
You can RSVP and find additional Information on The event page below on Facebook:
Share this:
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Bundy Ranch Standoff - A Refresher. Rangefire
A Refresher — The Bunkerville Protest Revisited — Connecting the Dots on the Bundy Standoff
January 11, 2017 - Government/Politics, Land Use News, Property Rights, Public Lands, Ranching - Tagged: BLM, Bundy, Bunkerville, Cows, Federal Governent, First Amendment, impound, militia, Protest, Ranching, Range, RANGEfire, speech, Standoff - no comments
As the “Bundy” trials in Las Vegas are quickly approaching, we’re re-posting this article as a refresher about the original Bundy Standoff.
The primary substantive content of this article was originally posted on The Pahvant Post in April, 2014.
Background
The Cliven Bundy family actively ranches in the harsh conditions of the deserts of Southeast Nevada where their family has operated for at least six generations. The Bundy family lives on approximately 150 acres of private property that their Mormon pioneer ancestors settled along the Virgin River in the 1880s. For well over
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-2-300x225.jpg
100 years, the Bundy family’s cattle have been grazing hundreds of thousands of acres of “public” land surrounding their property.
Regardless of any and all other theories, claims or documentation, Bundys claim that their grazing rights are based on the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, which are encapsulated in universal naltural law principles, such as “first come first served, “possession is 9/10ths of the law,” “we reap what we sow,” otherwise known as the law of the harvest, and “he that takes the risk should receive the reward.” State and federal laws recognize these principles and concepts as “prior appropriation,” and “beneficial use.” — i.e., “first in time, first in right,” and “use it or lose it.” These natural law principles are based on the concept that those who take the risk and pay the price to appropriate something that is otherwise unappropriated, and put it to productive, beneficial use, deserve continued use, possession, benefit and enjoyment of that thing, and as long as they continue and maintain such use (use it or lose it), that right should remain their’s.
According to this theory, such principles apply to all forms of real estate-based property rights, including water rights, mineral rights, timber rights and grazing rights. Although a person may not actually hold title to the land itself, through application of these principles, through prior appropriation and beneficial use they acquire the right to use and put to beneficial use certain aspects of that land, or resources that the land produces. This is the basis for the concept of prescriptive rights, adverse possession and pre-emptive rights, and these natural law principles serve as the basis for many of our written laws, including a whole host of federal laws, including all the Homestead Acts that governed settlement of the West.
Basis for the Dispute
For the past 20+ years, the BLM has claimed that the Bundy cattle are trespassing. Most recently, the BLM has claimed that Bundy cattle grazing these ranges total in the neighborhood of 1000 head, and that the Bundy family owes the BLM over $1 million dollars in unpaid grazing fees and penalties.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-2-300x197.jpg
Cliven Bundy and his family of 14 children maintain that they have a pre-emptive right to graze the land, based on their prior beneficial use. They also claim that there has not been any contract between them and the federal government since the BLM cancelled their “grazing permits” over 20 years ago, after it moved all other ranchers off the land and declared the range to be habitat for desert tortoises, that the federal government maintains are threatened or endangered.
Despite the BLM’s cancellation of his grazing permits, however, Cliven Bundy refused to leave, and has continued to graze, manage and improve the land and put it to beneficial use ever since, maintaining that there is no basis for any financial obligation to the BLM. Bundy does not claim to own the land, or claim any exclusive right to its possession or use, but he does claim to have perfected a legitimate private property right and interest to the forage that it produces, which his family’s cattle have been harvesting and utilizing for well over 100 years.
The Impoundment Effort
In early April, after years of threats and several prior attempts, the BLM hired a private company owned by
http://www.pahvantpost.org/wp-conten...-1-300x228.jpg
Shane and Jessica Sampson of Meadow, Utah, and agreed to pay them almost $1 million dollars to gather and impound the Bundy cattle. At first the BLM claimed that the total budget for the impoundment effort was approximately $3 Million dollars. Since then, however, the BLM has admitted that the budget is closer to $5 Million.
In preparation to sell the cattle, the BLM also approached Scott Robins, owner of “R” Livestock Connection, doing business as the Richfield Auction near Monroe, Utah, and offered him extra money to handle disposal of the impounded cattle through his auction. Unlike other ranchers and cattle operators, however, who typically just take their cattle to the auction and pay a pre-determined commission fee based on the prices the cattle bring, the BLM allegedly offered Robins extra money in advance to take the impounded cattle and sell them. According to sources who have spoken on conditions of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak, Robins justified taking the up-front money by using it to help improve his facilities to better handle the cattle.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x237.jpg
One unusual aspect of the impoundment effort has been the military-like security measures the BLM has taken, including the deployment of snipers, SWAT teams and an army of hundreds of armed federal agents, and dozens of escort vehicles. With helicopters, air support, and a heavily armed security detail, along with Shane Sampson and his cowboys on the ground, the whole operation has attempted to operate with the precision of a military operation in Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.pahvantpost.org/wp-conten...-B-300x187.jpg
The Protest
Unlike somewhat similar BLM cattle impoundments in the past, where most people seemed to be content to just stand idly by and have had little to say about the BLM’s heavy-handed tactics, in this case people started coming out of the woodwork to protest the federal government’s actions. Slowly but surely the protest gained traction.
At first, most elected leaders stood back and had little to say. From start to finish state cattlemens’ associations in Nevada and Utah, as well as the vast majority of cattle ranchers have stood back, had little to say, and seemed to be content to let the Bundy family attempt to fend for itself.
The first political leader who stepped up to the plate to do anything to support the Bundys was Iron County Commissioner, David Miller, who quickly and clearly identified the injustice and hypocrisy the BLM’s actions as it sought to spend $ 5 Million dollars to remove the Bundy cattle, while claiming that it had inadequate resources to manage its own wild horses that vastly exceed the numbers that are supposed to be on the range, competing for forage, especially under the drought conditions that exist this year. In Iron County, alone, it is estimated that there are well over 2000 wild horses in areas where there are not supposed to be more than about 300. But despite repeated requests, which began long before the Bundy situation was even on the radar screen, the BLM has failed and refused to do anything to address the wild horse issue, claiming lack of resources.
Slowly but surely, and reluctantly at first, other political leaders got on board. In addition to starting to address the wild horse situation in Southwest Utah (including Millard County), the county commissioners in Washington, Iron and Beaver Counties sent a message that they did not want the impounded cattle coming into their counties. The state of Utah also finally got on board and told the BLM that it did not want the impounded cattle to come to Utah, and the BLM would be required to comply with any and all applicable state laws regarding livestock brand inspections, transportation, and transfer of ownership.
In the meantime, the protest movement slowly gained ground. The Internet and Blogosphere started buzzing with the story. Eventually the mainstream media even started to pick it up, on a nationwide basis. More and more people started showing up in Bunkerville to support the Bundys. People started coming from all over the country. While we were in Bunkerville covering the story, we talked to people from all the surrounding states, as well as people who have flown in from Texas to show support. Every day the numbers grew, and more people got on board.
Important Developments
A week ago, as Dave Bundy was standing on or near a public road, taking pictures with his I-pad, he was forcefully arrested, taken into custody and held over night. Later in the week, in a heavy-handed clash with protestors, when Ammon Bundy attempted to see what was in the back of dump truck guarded by a large heavily-armed security detail, he was threatened with police dogs, and Tazored on multiple occasions. Ammon’s aunt was also thrown to the ground by BLM agents. The next day, other protestors where man-handled, roughed-up and issued citations by armed BLM agents as they simply sought to see what the BLM was doing.
Eventually, the governor of Nevada started expressing concerns about a number of things, including closure of public lands, heavy-handed armed altercations with and arrests of protestors, as well as unquestionable infringement of First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of expression. Slowly, other political leaders started to voice concerns and support.
On Thursday, April 10th, several elected leaders came to speak to the protestors at the rally point near Bunkerville. Based on the comments of Nevada State Representative Crescent Hardy, he was challenged to lead an effort to relocate the protest and peacefully assemble in an area south of Overton where cattle were being transported, and several protestors had been detained, roughed-up and issued citations, to protest the BLM’s actions there.
That same day, for the first time, protesters got the first view of the operation from the air, as a private pilot was hired to fly the range, monitor what the BLM was doing, and count cattle, including in the impound corrals, as well as still remaining on the range. In an effort to help verify and corroborate such information, reporters from the Beaver County Journal in a joint operation with the upstart Pahvant Post, also took to the sky in an effort to verify the truth of many of the BLM’s representations and assertions, including the number of cattle the BLM had claimed were on the range.
http://www.pahvantpost.org/wp-conten...-1-300x209.jpg
Based on the corroborated efforts of both of those surveillance flights, it was quickly concluded that the BLM’s numbers had been grossly exaggerated, and that instead of 1000 cattle, between the cattle counted in the impound corrals and those still out on the range, there were closer to 400-500. It was also verified that many baby calves had been separated from their mothers and orphaned as a result of the gather, and that there were also other casualties of the BLM’s efforts.
After the Beaver County Journal broke this story, the BLM quickly adjusted its numbers and said that instead of the gather taking a month, it looked like after only a week, most of the cattle had already been gathered.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x179.jpg
The BLM also quickly sought to intimidate the pilots and media, including reporters for the Beaver County Journal, by claiming that the private surveillance flights had interfered with the BLM’s gathering efforts, and had forced their helicopters to ground. An investigation ensued, in which the BLM sought to interrogate, threaten and intimidate the pilots and reporters, and BCJ was forced to have legal counsel intervene. Although there was no truth whatsoever to such accusations, the BLM then requested the FAA to put a No-Fly-Zone in place to prevent any further private surveillance of the BLM’s operations.
On Friday, April 11th, after much investigation, stories broke that Nevada Senator Harry Reid was alleged to be playing an important role in attempting to move the cattle off the land, in order to pave the way for a Chinese solar farm, and to make additional water available for Las Vegas.
Based on reports that the Bundy Ranch had been fully surrounded by SWAT teams and snipers, starting on Thursday, armed militia members began arriving at the ranch from around the country to provide private security, lend support, and engage in armed conflict with the BLM para-military force, if necessary.
Other prominent figures and organizations, including Richard Mack, and Oath Keepers, promised their support, and made arrangements to mobilize to Bunkerville. Clearly acknowledging full Second Amendment rights, and recognizing the distinction between defensive and offensive weapons, Oath Keepers encouraged their members to dress in Western attire more in keeping with a rural, agricultural atmosphere, and to only carry sidearms (handguns), which are considered to be defensive weapons, rather than rifles, which are generally associated with the ability to take offensive, rather than defensive, measures.
http://www.pahvantpost.org/wp-conten...-1-300x225.jpg
By Friday, the militia presence was clearly felt, with dozens of men in camouflage fatigues, sporting M-16 rifles and combat gear. The security detail also included some very burly private bodyguards for Cliven Bundy, all fully prepared to do battle with federal government agents, if necessary.
The most significant, behind-the-scenes development, however, was the position taken by the Nevada State Brand Inspection office. In previous impoundments almost a decade ago, the Nevada State Department of Agriculture had come under serious fire, when, under pressure from the federal government, its lawyers had counseled state officials to bend their long-established policies and provide brand inspections on the BLM impounded cattle. Those actions resulted in some effort to hold those officials accountable for what they had done.
After the State of Utah had insisted that the impounded cattle not enter the State of Utah to be sold, the BLM began frantically searching for another place and a plan to dispose of the cattle, including going to California, if necessary. Ultimately, however, according to our inside sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because they have not been authorized to speak, the Nevada State Brand Department advised the BLM that it would not provide the BLM with brand inspections, in accordance with applicable state law, transferring ownership of the cattle to the BLM, or authorizing the BLM to transport the cattle anywhere. Consequently, although the BLM was spending close to $ 5 Million dollars to gather the cattle, and was holding them on BLM land, it could not legally move or do anything else with the cattle.
This was a major, unprecedented victory for states’ rights in the ongoing battle with the federal government, as the federal government increasingly seeks to flex its muscles.
Eventual Resolution
By Saturday, April 12th, the protest had grown exponentially, with upwards of 1000 people on the ground, including close to 100 mounted cowboys and riders who had travelled to Bunkerville from at least three states, and saddled-up and come out to show support for the Bundys, and to help take their cattle back. By then, although the protests had always been peaceful, with the mass arrival of militia members, there was also a heavily armed private security force, including snipers in place, and many average participants in the protest were also wearing sidearms for their own protection.
The critical elected official who had been conspicuously absent during the entire week was Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, who had insisted on taking a neutral stand, and refusing to become involved. Sheriff Gillespie’s only statement had been that no cow was worth shedding any human blood for, on either side. By Saturday morning, however, a rumor was circulating that Sheriff Gillespie was going to make an appearance and talk to both the Bundy Family, and the protestors.
http://www.pahvantpost.org/wp-conten...-1-300x225.jpg
When Sheriff Gillespie and his undersheriffs arrived, however, Cliven Bundy refused to meet with them in private. He said that any discussions they would have would have to occur in broad daylight, under the big flags that had been raised, with all the protestors as witnesses. At that point Sheriff Gillespie announced that based on all the conditions, the BLM had made the decision to shut-down the cattle impoundment operation, re-open the area to the public, and to withdraw from its operation. He did not say what the plan was regarding the impounded cattle or the future use of the disputed range for grazing, but he said he would like to have a private conversation with the Bundy Family about that. Again, Cliven Bundy declined a private meeting, and said that any discussions they would have would be on the stage, before the people.
At that point, Cliven Bundy issued a list of demands to Sheriff Gillespie. Bundy demanded first and foremost that as elected sheriff and head law enforcement officer in Clark County, that Sheriff Gillespie and his Metro Police forces disarm the BLM and the NPS (National Park Service), and bring their weapons back to the protest spot within one (1) hour. He also demanded that Clark County immediately take county equipment and start dismantling the NPS entrances and pay-gates at Red Rock Marina and other entrances to Lake Meade, and that such actions likewise commence within the next hour. At that point, Sheriff Gillespie was left with little choice but to leave the protest to see what could be done to comply with such demands, and he left the area.
Although it is unknown exactly what efforts Sheriff Gillespie undertook, during his entire appearance there had been several LV Metro SWAT team vehicles standing by, several miles away. After Sheriff Gillespie and his men left, upwards of 100 LV Metro patrol units, most of which carried four officers each were dispatched to the BLM compound near Bunkerville, almost 80 miles away. From that point on, a steady stream of LV Metro Police cars could be seen speeding up i-15 toward the BLM compound near Bunkerville. When they reached the area, they joined the SWAT vehicles in approaching the BLM Compound.
Continued . . . .
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Continued from previous,
http://rangefire.us/2017/01/11/a-ref...undy-standoff/
Because Cliven Bundy’s demands were not met within 1 hour, as requested, however, the protestors started moving toward the BLM compound in an attempt to take action to take back the impounded cattle. Because of the distance and rough terrain, and very challenging access (all of which were obviously planned by the BLM), it took some time to mobilize everyone, including protestors, security force, and mounted cowboys to an access in large wash, under an I-15 freeway bridge, that had been barricaded and blocked-off by the BLM.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x194.jpg
By the time the protestors arrived, the area in the wash under the bridge was heavily guarded by BLM SWAT teams in full combat gear, with multiple snipers in place. Before the protestors approached the barricade, however, Ammon Bundy requested that they all kneel in prayer, and under those tense circumstances asked God for a divine intervention in a peaceful and satisfactory outcome.
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x183.jpg
As the protesters approached, BLM forces used a loudspeaker to repeatedly threaten them and warn them to stay back. But unarmed protestors continued to advance forward, with armed protestors and militia members staying to the sides and rear, waiting to see if BLM agents would actually open fire on unarmed civilians, and wee prepared to provide return fire, if necessary.
As the protestors advanced closer and closer to the barricade and the situation got tenser and tenser, LV Metro Police personnel ultimately came on the loudspeaker and requested an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. At that point, LV Metro negotiators, acting under the direction of Sheriff Gillespie, advanced to the barricade where they were met by Ammon Bundy, and helped negotiate a satisfactory resolution between the protestors and the BLM, whereby the cattle would be released and returned to the Bundys.
After waiting a short period of time to allow BLM personnel to completely withdraw from the area, the mounted cowboys proceeded to the corrals, where they released the cattle, and brought them back down the wash, to an uproar of cheers from the large crowd of protestors.
After the cattle had passed, Ammon Bundy once again requested that they kneel in prayer to offer thanks for the peaceful, and satisfactory outcome.
Very fortunately, despite the tension, everyone kept their cool, and not shots were fired. Contrary to the image that is often portrayed, the patriots who arrived and were willing to give their lives if necessary, where not determined to get into a fight at all cost, and were thrilled that the encounter ended peacefully.
Conclusion
This may not be the end of the story, but it’s a good place to pause and think about what happened.
Some have called this incident – the Bunkerville Protest – the Boston Tea Party of our modern era. Many are concerned that the Bundy Family and its supporters may have won the battle, but not the war. Whether it is the end, or just the beginning, as the original Boston Tea Party was over 200 years ago, only time will tell.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
MrsB Stacy posted this video a couple of days ago Magistrate Judge George FoleyOrders Ryan Bundy release hearing reopened "Finally! An opportunity for one man to be released in Nevada"
http://youtu.be/182kVft_9ug
https://youtu.be/182kVft_9ug
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Breaking ice in water troughs before daylight, feeding livestock
Most people probably don't give it a thought . . .
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...23&oe=59142426
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Judge Gloria Navarro sets calendar call for tier 3 defendants
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/nava...calendar-call/
Bundy Ranch Standoff
What Happened on April 12th, 2014
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...nch-header.jpg
Navarro Sets Calendar Call for Tier 3 Defendants
Trial date will be solidified on Friday, 20 January 2017
Chief Judge Gloria Navarro set the Calendar Call hearing for Friday, 20 January 2017. Tier 3 Defendants will inform that court as to their readiness for trial. Additionally, any outstanding motions will receive rulings.
Defendants have already asserted readiness prior to calendar call…
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...l-150x150.jpeg
It seems unlikely that the trial date might change as each defendant already stated readiness for trial. During the 09 December 2016 hearing, attorneys for each defendant stated that they would be ready by 06 February 2017. Typically a mundane formality, the hearing will also serve for the court to resolve any outstanding motions.
Outstanding motions are substantial…
The court has yet to rule on several critical motions. Most important are the motions to dismiss the four stacked 924(c) charges. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen issued recommendations that the motions to dismiss those charges should be denied. All over the 9th Circuit 924(c) charges are falling due to recent Supreme Court and 9th Circuit rulings.
Other motions include:
Unless rulings on these motions complete prior to the calendar call, they will be decided then.
From the docket (ECF No. 1276):MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro, as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart, Todd C. Engel, Gregory P. Burleson on 1/11/2017. By Deputy Clerk: Aaron Blazevich.
Due to a conflict in the Court’s schedule, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Calendar Call currently set for set for Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:00 AM is ADVANCED to Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM in LV Courtroom 7C before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro. The parties are advised that the Court will rule on any outstanding motions at the time of Calendar Call.
https://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...4/facebook.pnghttps://bundyranchstandoff.info/wp-c...64/twitter.png
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b...?s=49&d=mm&r=gAuthor anthony-dephuePosted on January 12, 2017Categories Trial UpdatesLeave a Reply
