The Bill of Rights and the ideals that gave rise to it were trashed as early as the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Dishonest Abe completed the destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
Printable View
The Bill of Rights and the ideals that gave rise to it were trashed as early as the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Dishonest Abe completed the destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
A Buckle, a Button, A Shell and 4 Suicides = Government Abuse
John B Wells ~ Abuse at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management with guest Chris Kortlander. Advance to 35 minutes to hear the BLM discussion
http://youtu.be/juz2IAH-Ny4
https://youtu.be/juz2IAH-Ny4F
^ That was an interesting video about the raid on the museum at GarryOwen, Mt. by the BLM. I seem to recall hearing about a raid there but didn't know any details. I've camped along the Little Big Horn river with the Crows when they were doing a battle reenactment. We camped along the river where Custer and his men tried to cross the river. Sure glad I didn't pick anything up.
On the reservations around here there's lots of whiskey bottles, beer cans, junked out and wrecked cars and trash of every kind laying around. Nobody picks it up and now I know why. Those are indian artifacts and the BLM might send a swat team. SOB's
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
A few years ago my brother and I were out in the hills close to the ranch where we grew up. There were some old rusty wood cookstove parts in the brush. I was going to pick some up and take home. My brother said hell no, those are artifacts, you'll be in jail. I didn't know that. I learned something that day too.
There is an interesting interview with Eric Parker, who the media refers to as the Bundy Sniper.
It is quite long and in 3 parts. Part 3 begins with:
Jason Arment concludes his fascinating, in-depth interview with “The Bundy Sniper,” Eric Parker. They continue discussing events in eastern Oregon and talk about other activist movements.
In this final part of our interview, when Eric and I talk, we are unaware that within twenty-four hours LaVoy Finicum would be shot dead and several of his compatriots arrested. [Read Part I and Part II.]
First Bundy Ranch Trial Presents Paradox
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...esents-paradox
Supporters and critics of six defendants on trial at the federal courthouse gather Monday, Feb. 6, 2017, in Las Posted February 25, 2017 - 11:35pmUpdated February 26, 2017 - 7:33pmFirst trial in Bunkerville standoff case presents paradox
. The defendants are accused of taking arms against federal agents herding cattle off public land near Cliven Bundy's ranch in April 2014. (AP Photo/John Locher)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...y2_7997619.jpgRancher Cliven Bundy, currently in federal custody, displays a bouquet of desert foliage, the type his cattle graze on, during a news conference near his Bunkerville ranch in April 2015. David Becker/Special to the Pahrump Valley Times
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...py_7997619.jpgAmmon Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy, stands outside Metropolitan Police Department headquarters in Las Vegas on May 2, 2014. (Chris Carlson/AP)
http://mm.reviewjournal.com/media/vi.../Bundy_thb.jpg
Previous coverage
See Full coverage of the feud between the Bundy family and the BLM
By JENNY WILSON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Cliven Bundy’s armed stand against the federal government has landed him in a prison cell, but some of the rancher’s positions on public lands could be enacted into federal law in the new political frontier of President Donald Trump’s Washington.
The first trial in the case against Bundy and his supporters coincides with a new political regime. The timing has presented a paradox: Federal prosecutors characterize the 70-year-old rancher as an anti-government extremist while federal policymakers prepare to act on some of his ideas.
“Disarm the National Park Service,” the recalcitrant cowboy cried in a video played in court recently, during the ongoing trial against six people charged as gunmen in the 2014 standoff in Bunkerville. A witness testified about the “unreasonable” nature of Bundy’s demand. But a Utah Congressman has introduced legislation that would remove the law enforcement function from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forestry Service — effectively honoring Bundy’s request.
Bundy declares Nevada a “sovereign state.” He asserts that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the hundreds of thousands of acres of land where he let his cattle roam freely. Prosecutors lambaste him for those claims. But the Republican National Committee last summer called on elected officials to immediately begin transferring federal land to the states.
“It is absurd to think that all acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington,” the 2016 Party Platform stated. “Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states.”
When former President Barack Obama awarded national monument designation to the Gold Butte area near Bundy’s ranch last month, Bundy’s supporters responded with protests. Their reaction was consistent with Republicans who hold public office throughout the West. Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt blasted Obama’s move as a “federal land grab.” In neighboring Utah, elected leaders are pushing Trump to reverse the recent national monument designation of the Bears Ears canyon area.
SHIFTING ATTITUDES
Trump’s nominee to oversee the nation’s massive national parks and public land system has said that he wants to keep public lands controlled by the federal government. Still, he has hinted that the federal government could cede control of some of that land back to the states.
U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., the pick for secretary of Interior, said in his recent confirmation hearing that it will be “interesting to see if the president has the power to nullify a national monument.” If approved, Zinke would become the top-ranking official in charge of managing more than 600 million acres of federal land throughout the United States. That land accounts for nearly 90 percent of Nevada.
The shifting attitudes toward public land management hang over the first trial in Las Vegas. The 2014 armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement occurred when BLM agents tried to carry out a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle from federal land. Will a new political climate affect how the jury weighs the evidence in the case?
“It can leach into things,” criminal defense attorney Tom Pitaro said.
Pitaro, who is not involved in the case, said that as the national political dialogue becomes “less mainstream,” jurors are more likely to “normalize” an anti-mainstream position like Bundy’s.
Three years ago, he said, “you didn’t have national conversations out there concerning some of those issues. … They were relegated to the political trenches.”
The trial hinges on an ideological argument, as defense attorneys are trying to convince the jury that the armed confrontation with law enforcement resulted from their clients’ dramatic exercise of constitutional freedoms to assemble and to bear arms.
AN IDEOLOGICAL RIFT
The jury was selected from a diverse pool with views that span the ideological and political spectrum. The public lands issue in particular tends to rile an array of interest groups, and the transfer of executive power has ranchers optimistic and conservationists worried.
“The minute you start hearing about cutting regulations, that’s huge. Those are the kind of things that you need to hear,” said David Stix Jr., president of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association.
In the past eight years, Stix said,“the people out on the ground have not had the ability to make the proper calls on how grazing should be done on the federal allotments. The calls have been made from back in D.C.”
But Ken Cole, a coordinator for the nonprofit environmental conservation group Western Watersheds — which has fought both the ranchers and the BLM in court over grazing regulations — said: “Donald Trump appoints people who want to get rid of the agencies rather than actually run them in an effective manner.”
“We’re very concerned about the transfer of either public lands outright or management of public lands to the state,” Cole said.
U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat who sits on the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee, said in an emailed statement:
“While the new Administration’s exact approach to these issues is still unknown, I will be keeping a close watch on any and all actions that could affect our state’s vast and beautiful lands and natural resources. I grew up enjoying Nevada’s natural lands and national parks, and continue to do so to this day. I am committed to ensuring the same is possible for generations to come.” (Harry Reid's puppet)
But to do so she’ll have to satisfy a wide range of constituents who are deeply divided on issues of public land management. Bundy’s legal battle with the federal government started more than two decades ago. The ideological rift that sparked it is only expected to deepen over the next four years.
Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.
Andrea Olson-Parker lunchtime report on the mornings court testimony. She is hard to hear.
http://youtu.be/EvKVUswZ3Jw
https://youtu.be/EvKVUswZ3Jw
Andrea Olson-Parker with the afternnoon testimony update
http://youtu.be/bqnsehXrxXQ
https://youtu.be/bqnsehXrxXQ
This RangeFire article isn't really about the Bundy Ranch standoff and trials, but is more about the ongoing public lands dispute between the ranchers and the federal government which initiated the Bundy standoff. I don't want to start a new thread for just this one article. I will post it here
Response to PLC’s & Its Lawyers’ Attack on the Range Allotment Owners Association — by Tim K. Smith
February 26, 2017 - Government/Politics, Land Use News - Tagged: Alllotment, Association, grazing, McIntosh, PLC, public lands, Public Lands Council, Ranching, Range, Range Allotment Owners, RANGEfire, RAO - 2 comments
PLC and Legal Community Comment on the Range Allotment Owners Association
[Please refer to the added, numbered and underlined phrases addressed in the comments listed below]
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...han-Lane-1.jpg
WASHINGTON (Feb. 20, 2017) — Ethan Lane, executive director of the Public Lands Council, today released the following statement and open letter regarding the Range Allotment Owners Association:
“The Public Lands Council is the only organization in Washington, DC,
(1) who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands.Since 1968,
(2) PLC has had boots on the ground in the halls of Congress and the federal land management agencies,working to ensure that rancher’s voices are heard.
(3) “Recently, a group has materialized, claiming to be the only organization that represents the public lands rancher. This group, called the Range Allotment Owners [RAO] Association, is advancing a compelling
(4) but dangerous theory, that ranchers who hold grazing permits on public lands are not merely permittees, but allotment owners. While we at PLC fight every day for the preference and property rights of ranchers,
(5) we feel that this particular theory goes beyond our legal rights and could ultimately result in the loss of permits and subsequent destruction of family ranches.
(6) “We are lucky in this industry to have a deep bench of legal talent that is focused on our issues and represent our interests in the courts. These assembled legal minds have released the following open letter on this general topic, which we present to you independent of our opinions and analysis.
(7) That so many of the names on the attached letter will be familiar to you is a testament to their commitment to our industry and their years of work on behalf of ranchers.”
Comments on numbered items above; by Tim K Smith, Harney Co,, Oregon
- “who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands”. When I first read this statement my thought was “who is PLC trying to sell this to”? Efforts to offer alternative detail, thought and discussion on resource rights has clearly touched a raw nerve with the PLC/Cattlemen’s Associations. There are groups in essentially every rural community who are working to improve the lot of grazers and resource users on currently Federally managed lands. This verbiage smacks of a defensive position for the organization rather than a recognition and welcoming of other efforts to benefit the ranchers and resource users. The decline in the associations’ numbers and the significant loss of grazing numbers across the West give a hint as to the effectiveness of their work and reasoning behind their fear of new rancher support groups.
- “PLC has had boots on the ground in the halls of Congress and the federal land management agencies,” Boots on the ground in DC does nothing to help educate individual ranchers and resource users about their existing rights or unify them to the point where they can stand up for their individual rights and economic security. When did we give away our individual voice and responsibility for our own welfare to any group? We all need to regain our sense of independence from absentee government and politically motivated administrators and attorneys. To be educated and independent is our civic duty and our duty to our families and neighbors, which is not to be farmed out to anyone who may or may not have lost sight of their original purpose and our inherent freedoms. Education will allow ranchers and resource users to better know how and when to reach out to groups like PLC and Cattlemen’s Associations and their assets.
- “Recently, a group has materialized, claiming to be the only organization that represents the public lands rancher. I have been watching, and been supportive of, the RAO’s goals and claims since its inception. Not one time have I ever heard or seen it claim “to be the only organization that represents the public lands rancher”. In contrast, RAO and its associates have reached out to various land rights groups, cattlemen’s associations, agencies and legislative bodies and invited them to the discussion regarding the need for education and information about the status of “public lands” and land rights. This past year it became clear that ranchers were uncomfortable about their rights to the point of being intimidated away from getting into conflict with the Federal agencies. In my observation this is what led to the formation of RAO. Unification and cooperation of existing resource advocacy groups has always been a desire of the founders and supporters of RAO. In addition, PLC’s blithe use of the term “public lands” here shows the need for education as to what the term “public land” means and how often the term is misused and overused.
- “but dangerous theory, that ranchers who hold grazing permits on public lands are not merely permittees, but allotment owners”. What is the danger here? Is the danger that ranchers will become educated enough to understand when they can stand up for themselves vs when they need to submit? Is the danger that if better educated, the ranchers will still not be smart enough or judicious enough to know what information can or will fit their operation and whether or not to use it to their benefit? Or…Is the danger that if ranchers become informed and more unified they will be able to stand up for themselves as individuals or as unified force and not need a fleet of lawyers? My background is in in mining so I will use this common sense example. A mining claim is to mining as a grazing allotment is to livestock grazing. Without question a mining claim is real property and can be bought or sold or inherited as a real property asset. It obviously travel with the land as well. Why is it then that a grazing allotment is purported by the government and the PLC as not a real property asset? It travels with the land as well. It seems that it is because that’s what the government has said and what the lawyers have accepted and not what the intent of the various Congressional Acts have intended. This discussion must be rejoined and settled, not simply disregarded.
- “we feel that this particular theory goes beyond our legal rights”. I am glad they used this term “feel”. This is a classic term used by the left or a person or group in a problematic intellectual position when they do not “know”. Again I will say here, educate and unify significant numbers of our resource users and then let them make the decision as to whether or not their rights are being upheld or abused by the managing agency. They then can determine their best course of action and not just suck it up and continue to be “managed at will”.
- http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...dd-Falen-1.jpg
- “We are lucky in this industry to have a deep bench of legal talent”. When I read this I had to think, this is like saying; I know I have symptoms of a disease that may be curable but thank goodness there are lots of good doctors out there so I will just treat the symptoms and go after the disease later. How about we define the disease, define the treatment and complete the cure??
- “That so many of the names on the attached letter will be familiar to you is a testament to their commitment”. This statement makes it clear that the approach by PLC and the fleets of attorneys out there is to treat the symptom and not really go after the disease. In my opinion the disease here is twofold. (a) The short term lack of understanding of the rights inherent on split estate lands currently under Federal management, and; (b) the long term poorly managed Federally controlled lands which could be better managed ecologically, economically, and flexibly under more local jurisdiction. While there may be some young attorneys out there who are dedicated to the cause of a better and more productive use of our resources, in the long term attorneys get promoted to make money for their firms. There is no long term incentive for them to permanently cure the disease.
2 thoughts on “Response to PLC’s & Its Lawyers’ Attack on the Range Allotment Owners Association — by Tim K. Smith”
- http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/900e5a2...?s=78&d=mm&r=gChris ZindaFebruary 27, 2017 at 9:12 am
Mr. Smith: the dangers are tested legal claims of the RAO and what it means for permittees.
What you and the Storm crew want is ‘critical mass’ as a popular uprising to force your position of permits as ‘property right’. It is clear you/Mac/Mc reject case law as hamburger, have been called in it by lawyers in your industry, and that the efforts of Finicum, Bert Smith, MacFarlane, Sylvesters and McIntosh have utterly failed.-
Curious: Is the UT AG still placating the 8 Storm Cedar City permit renouncers (like Stanton Gleave, Matt Wood)? I hope Gleave follows through with the pact he made with Cliven and LaVoy. Seems to me, besides testing the legal wayers THAT is your best bet. But, he won’t, as he, they, too, all saw the writing on the wall the PLC did, never ‘really’ following through.
Reply
- http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d713400...?s=78&d=mm&r=gJamesFebruary 27, 2017 at 9:18 am
All I can say is when it comes to Chris Zinda, PLC and its lawyers, consider the sources. They all have their own separate, government-controlled, environmental agenda. They are all tainted sources. Take everything they all say with a grain of salt.
Reply
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Today's Feb. 28 Bundy Ranch Trial # 1 videos
http://youtu.be/4PdFzerfzQA
https://youtu.be/4PdFzerfzQA
http://youtu.be/BxLhuBmIxrY
https://youtu.be/BxLhuBmIxrY