Printable View
I think this Bundy trial will benefit from the times, considering the state of our nation, the economy, and the future of human civilization. I have a gut feeling the TPTB are going to throw us a bone on this one. It's the only halfway intelligent thing THEY can do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_FXtAsi9Ws
Andrea Olson-Parker Mid-Day Bundy Ranch update
http://youtu.be/6vChblG6YnY
It is obvious from this map Nevada is still a territory. The checkerboard strip along Interstate 80 is land granted to the railroad to completenthe trans-continental railway.
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...28&oe=59613049
So the feds called Dennis Michael Lynch . . .
https://scontent.flim5-1.fna.fbcdn.n...89&oe=5972EAE1
Cliven Bundy is correct, the govt. and environmentalists are wrong, it is not public land. Wayne Hage also said once man has established rights it is no longer public land "Braydon v Northen Pacific RR". Dr. Angis McIntosh goes much farther:
http://freerangereport.com/index.php...-public-lands/
Angus McIntosh responds to PLC: Its time to Drain the Swamp on the “Public Lands”
March 10, 2017 editor Leave a comment
By the time Trent was finished questioning Ethan Lane, he had backpedaled to the point where he said he agreed with 95% of what I have been teaching ranchers in my seminars for the past 16 years.by Angus McIntosh, PhD
Executive Director, Range Allotment Owners Association
Recently the Range Allotment Owners Association (RAO), an association of Western ranchers who own Grazing Allotments and Range Units on split-estate land in the 17 Western States, has been attacked in the press by the Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), and state affiliates of those organizations (such as the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association). In particular, the Executive Director of PLC (and Public Lands Coordinator for NCBA), Ethan Lane, led the attack and included with his stated disinformation, a letter signed by several attorneys who like to style themselves as champions of Western ranchers. There was so much mischaracterizing, deception and outright fabrication in these attacks that it was difficult to know how to immediately respond. Fortunately, many of the Western ranchers who know me and belong to the RAO themselves, began to respond to the attack through Facebook and letters of their own to the various livestock publications which had printed what can only be described as PLC’s “Fake News.” Chief among the respondents, I’m happy to say, was renowned Radio Host and farmer, Trent Loos. By the time Trent was finished questioning him, Ethan Lane had backpedaled to the point where he said he agreed with 95% of what I have been teaching ranchers in my seminars for the past 16 years.
Frankly, I am used to personal attacks by anti-ranching groups and the environmentalist left, so I usually just ignore their ranting, distortions and outright lies. However, since I have been involved in Western Allotment Owner’s property rights issues for 37 years, have been an Allotment Owner myself for 33 years, and, for at least 27 years have been widely known throughout the Western States as an outspoken public supporter of rancher’s property rights, I decided I could not let the falsehoods go unaddressed. Failing to address the issue would only further harm Western ranchers who, for the last 40 years, have been denigrated by a steady stream of misinformation spewed by career lobbyists and globalists inhabiting the Washington D.C. “swamp.” Many of these anti-ranching interests are entangled by Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. Exactly how have these globalist-controlled Washington insiders helped the Western split-estate ranchers? They have not. By all measures; number of Allotments, number of Allotment Owners, number of head of livestock, or number of AUMs used for stockraising, in the last 40 years the Western Livestock Industry has been cut by approximately 60%.
First, never at anytime has the Range Allotment Owners Association or myself stated that we represent the “public land” rancher. It is precisely this erroneous representation that has been the cause of many Western ranchers being forced off their Allotments during the past 40 years. The term “public land” has a well established and undeniable legal definition. Neither I nor the PLC get to pick what that definition is. Only Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court get to define that term. During the settlement period from 1776 to 1920, “public lands” were defined as “lands open to entry and disposal upon which there were no rights or claims” (see Words & Phrases and cases cited therein). “Most enduringly the public lands have been defined as those lands subject to sale and other disposal under the general land laws” (Utah Div. of State Lands v United States, 482 US 193 (1987)). By legal definition there are NO private rights on “public lands” and there never has been. However, once land was opened to settlement, occupied, improved and had a possessory right or claim established, it was no longer “public land” because it was no longer “unoccupied,” but now had private rights attached to it that prevented anyone else from settling on the land (see Frisbie v Witney, 76 US 187 (1869), Atherton v Fowler, 96 US 513 (1877), Hosmer v Wallace, 97 US 575 (1878), Rector v Gibbon, 11 US 276 (1884), Cameron v United States, 148 US 301 (1893)).
During the settlement period, bona-fide ranch settlers occupied, improved and possessed the Western rangelands with the intent of permanent settlement. Through their settlement and improvement, ranchers established “possessory property rights,” which gave them a valid claim or color of title to the land. These lands were thereafter called “entered unpatented lands” or “entries,” and the settlers in occupancy were called “entrymen” or “bona-fide settlers.” Under a series of post Civil War statutes, Congress sanctioned and confirmed the water rights, ditches, canals, roads, (1866, 14 Stat 253), reservoirs (1870, 16 Stat 218), improvements (1874, 18 Stat 50),
forage/grazing use (1875, 18 Stat 482), timber use (1878, 20 Stat 88), and State/Territorial possessory range rights (1885, 23 Stat 321) of these bona-fide stockraising settlers (or “entryman”) on the Western ranges. See Atherton v Fowler, supra, Griffith v Godey, 113 US 89 (1885), Brooks v Warren, 13 P. 175 (1886), Comm. Natnl. Bank of Ogden v Davidson, 22 P. 517 (1889), Wilson v Everett, 139 US 616 (1891), Cameron v United States, supra, Lonergan v Buford, 148 US 581 (1893), Swan Land & Cattle Co. v Frank, 148 US 603 (1893), Grayson v Lynch, 163 US 468 (1896), Ward v Sherman, 192 US 168 (1904), Bacon v Walker, 204 US 311 (1907), Bown v Walling, 204 US 320 (1907), Curtin v Benson, 222 US 78 (1911), Omaechevarria v Idaho, 246 US 343 (1918).
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=554%2C309
Ranchers’ property rights were so well established by 1909, that it was virtually impossible for the United States to grant a homestead or mining patent to any applicant that did not infringe on some valid existing claim. The West was covered with ranchers’ water rights, easements, improvements, and land-use rights that Congress had already statutorily recognized and granted. There was constant turmoil between Western ranchers and federal bureaucrats, particularly with the newly formed U.S. Forest Service. The fact was that under the traditional definition of “public lands” there were no more “public lands.” Nearly all the land in the West had some valid existing claim attached to it. In a speech to Congress in 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the only logical solution, which was to create a split estate. “Rights to the surface of the public land….be separated from rights to the forests upon it and to minerals beneath it, and these should be subject to separate disposal.” (Special Message to Congress, Jan. 22, 1909, 15 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 7266.) The United States would retain the mineral estate and the commercial timber while granting a surface fee title to the stockraisers for all agricultural and ranching purposes (Kinney Coastal Oil Co. v Kieffer, 277 US 488 (1928), Watt v Western Nuclear, 462 US 36 (1983).
https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=542%2C385
By 1910, the corruption, abuse and overreach by federal bureaucrats had become so bad that Congress enacted special legislation to have a full Congressional Investigation of the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and the Forest Service (36 Stat 871). The result of this investigation was the adoption of the split-estate policy and enactment of several key statutes: Pickett Act of 1910/1912 (36 Stat 847, 37 Stat 497), Act for the Relief of Settlers (which specifically incorporated the Enlarged Homestead Acts) (37 Stat 267), and the Agricultural Entry of Mineral Lands Act (38 Stat 509). By a special Act passed in 1912 (37 Stat 287) Congress “directed and required” the Secretary of Agriculture to classify all land within National Forests open to entry and settlement. These Acts taken together in para materia resulted in the perfection of ranchers surface titles to their Allotments. The split estate policy was fully implemented by the passage of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (41 Stat 437) (Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer, supra.). Western National Forests were explicitly included into the language of the Pickett Act and the Mineral Leasing Act.
This change in land disposal policy resulted in the need to redefine the term “public land,” which Congress did in the Federal Power Act of 1920 (41 Stat 1063). “’Public lands’ means such lands and interests in lands owned by the United States as are subject to private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws.” Since the allotment owner was referred to as the “surface owner,” (Agricultural Entry Act 1914 and StockRaising Homestead Act 1916) the mineral estate and commercial timber is what constituted “public lands” (ie “interest in land”). The only requirement to “prove up” on their allotments was that the ranchers construct improvements worth $1.25 per acre. Similar to the Reclamation Fund established for Irrigation Districts, Congress established the Cooperative Improvement Fund Act in 1914 (38 Stat 43), to provide a cooperative program for constructing the requisite range improvements under the Agricultural Entry of Mineral Lands Act of 1914, (38 Stat 509) and the StockRaising Homestead Act of 1916 (39 Stat 862). A cursory reading of the “permit” provisions of the Forest Service Organic Act (30 Stat 32), the Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat 1269) and the Granger Thye Act (64 Stat 82), reveals that the intent of Congress was to regulate Allotment Owners grazing only to the extent of protecting the “young growth of trees” and to prevent “soil erosion” (ie the government’s reserved mineral and timber interests).
https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=608%2C481
The definition of “public lands” continued to be “lands and interest in land open to sale and disposal,” and after Allotments were adjudicated, the only kind of entry or disposal that could be made was a mining claim or lease, and a timber sale. This remained the law up until October 23, 1976, when Congress adopted Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA) (90 Stat 2743) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (90 Stat 2949). On that date, the definition of “public land” changed to the current definition and has been in place since. The current definition is found on page 3 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (90 Stat 2746): “The term ‘public lands’ means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within any of the several States and administered by the Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of land Management…”
The definition still embraces the split estate nature of the lands. Missing, however, is language expressing that those retained federal interests are open for sale or disposal. Significantly, after passage of FLPMA and NFMA the US Supreme Court ruled that ranchers still owned their water rights within National Forests, and these prior existing rights were not affected by either FLPMA or the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (74 Stat 215). See United States v New Mexico, 438 US 696 (1978).
For the benefit of the globalist Washington “swamp” insiders who want ranchers to believe that they have no rights and are merely “permittees” on the “public lands,” we want you to know we have a “deep bench” of legal minds on the side of the Allotment owners. The Range Allotment Owners Association believes that Allotments owned by ranchers in National Forests and Grazing Districts withdrawn by authority of the Pickett Act, are “split-estate” lands, NOT part of the government’s “interest in lands” as defined by FLPMA and the Federal Power Act. I’ve been asked by the following attorneys to publish their names to ranchers as an alternative to the government insiders and the anti-property rights groups who have been colluding with the BLM and Forest Service for decades to undermine Western ranchers property rights. Its time to DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Mark Pollot, (208) 867-8389 Former Spec. Asst. to the US Att. Gen. for Nat.Res. & Environment
Margaret Hageman, (307) 635-4888 Hageman Law P.C.
Korry Lewis, (307) 635-4888 Hageman Law P.C.
Morgan Philpot, (801) 891-4499
Bret Whipple, (702) 493-6075
Blair Dunn, (505) 750-3060
Roger Roots, (406) 224-3105
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=711%2C524
Free Range Report
Lisa Bundy ~ Abuse of Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne during transfer to Portland
http://youtu.be/RkeKit6V6so
https://youtu.be/RkeKit6V6so
Greg Burleson suffered a seizure the interrupted the trial for about two hours Thursday March 9
https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com...tandoff-trial/
Defendant’s medical complaint interrupts standoff trial
Posted on March 9, 2017 by Doug Knowles
By KEN RITTER Associated Press Mar 9, 2017
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A medical complaint by a defendant with a history of health problems briefly interrupted a trial Thursday in Las Vegas for six men accused of wielding guns during a 2014 armed standoff between followers of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and federal agents.
An attorney for Gregory Burleson rose suddenly during testimony and told Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro that Burleson needed immediate attention.
Attorneys and spectators in the courtroom said Burleson became pale and his hands were shaking when the judge called a two-hour break.
Burleson, 53, of Arizona is blind, diabetic and uses a wheelchair. His attorney, Terrence Jackson, has argued several times for Burleson’s release from jail, saying he wasn’t getting proper medical treatment.
Burleson once told the judge he feared dying in federal custody.
During the break, Jackson told The Associated Press that Burleson has a history of seizures and felt that he was having another one.
When court reconvened, Burleson was back in the courtroom in his wheelchair, and Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo was back in the witness box.
The judge said medics checked Burleson and reported that his vital signs were normal but he might have been dehydrated.
Jackson said Burleson told him he was willing to go forward.
“He wants to resolve this matter in a timely way,” the attorney said.
Burleson and co-defendants Eric Parker, Orville Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart, Todd Engel and Richard Lovelien are the first of 17 defendants to stand trial in the standoff near the Bundy ranch, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
Each is accused of 10 charges including conspiracy, firearm offenses and assault on a federal officer. Each could face up to 101 years in prison if convicted of all charges.
source
Deborah Jordan says Judge Navarro may not allow defense to call Dan Love to testify. March 10, Bundy Ranch Trial update from The Pete Santilli Show
http://youtu.be/7wYaw_o9QKg
https://youtu.be/7wYaw_o9QKg
Bundy Trial Update: Judge May Not Allow Defendants Biggest Accuser To Be Questioned In Front Of Jury
Pete Santilli Show 1,099 views
76,033
188
5
Published on Mar 10, 2017
Judge Gloria Navarro presiding over USA vs Cliven Bundy says, if the Prosecution does not call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either. In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury .. Also this week Dennis Michael Lynch took the stand ..
Please help support us in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal acoount: peter@petersantilli.com . Please also LIKE our Facebook page to receive important updates and information from Burns, Oregon http://facebook.com/guerillamedia **** TigerStream $50 OFF promo: http://pnn3.com/tiger CODE tiger5 Ranger Gear & Nutritional Products: http://pnn3.com/store Life Change Tea: http://GetTheTea.com Please visit & bookmark our website: http://ThePeteSantilliShow.com You can also listen to the audio stream 24/7: (712) 432-7848 *** Help keep The Pete Santilli Show raw; real & independent....If you like our channel; please support us: http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate Direct to PayPal: peter@petersantilli.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/PTSantilli
- Category
- News & Politics
- License
- Standard YouTube License
I remember way back in 9-11 research days how I learned about who Santilli was and how he was conducting his radio broadcasts and who he connected with in the "9-11 truth movement." He was suspected of being on the payroll of the FBI to serve as controlled opposition in the "patriot" alternative Internet radio arena, and there was even substantial proof for that. For that reason, I do not trust or respect him. He even had someone "coaching" from behind the scenes his on-air show hosts including Santilli and a female host so they would be sure to promote the 9-11 truth party line of the time, that is, the government covert line. Santillii may be playing the role of one of the defendants and doing this for his former employer, the FBI. (Search Susan Posel and Vinny Eastwood with Pete Santili. Try this link too
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/exp...fbi-informant/
The nicest thing I could say about Santilli is that it seems like the Bundy trial is just something he latched on to to revive his radio / "truther" career prospects.
Hope I am wrong and that Santilli has turned good guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachsie
I have heard the same. I have some doubts as well. He could have been an informant, but without his video exposure of the Malheur Protest we would only have the mainstream media lies. None of us would know the truth. It may have been another Waco. I didn't know anything of Santilli prior to the Bundy Ranch affair.