Bundys charges dismissed

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Ghost1958, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards. Staff Member

    8,622
    1,196
    113
    Clause 17 was specifically to reserve a small section of land NOT under the control of any State where the Federal government could be placed. That's all. Doesn't say no other land or use is allowed.
     
    Dallas53, locutus and kfox75 like this.
  2. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    983
    871
    93
    It actually does cover all other lands the fed may own and why directly after the seat of gov portion of the clause . Quoted from clause 17.


    and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock–Yards, and other needful Buildings.

    Clause 17 placed limits on the use of any land bought from a state by the Fed. Otherwise it has no prescribed constitutional way to hold land inside of a, states boundaries.

    The constitutions intent was a:eek:nd is to limit the power of the fed as much as possible.

    But again we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    We are far from the only two that don't agree on it .:D
     
    bluez likes this.

  3. jigs-n-fixture

    jigs-n-fixture Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,688
    1,029
    113
    [QUOTE
    Ghost: Given a choice of your interpretation of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson’s, I’m going with his. His actions, as President don’t match your interpretation. So, yours is invalid.
     
    kfox75 and Dallas53 like this.
  4. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    983
    871
    93

    You may be interested to know Jefferson also knew he had no constitutional authority to make the Louisiana purchase, but because it suited his vision and was popular with the public he did what most politicians do when the COTUS doesn't allow an action. He did it anyway.

    From the Historian website but easily found in any history of Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase.

    "When news of the sale reached the United States, the West was elated. PresidentJefferson, however, was in a quandary. He had always advocated strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution, yet there was no provision empowering him to purchase territory. Given the public support for the purchase and the obvious value of Louisiana to the future growth of the United States, however, Jefferson decided to ignore the legalistic interpretation of the Constitution and forgo the passage of a Constitutional amendment to validate the purchase."

    His actions were known by him to be unconstitutional, as well as many who argued that point before hand.

    Just because a politician even a founding one violated the cotus, in Jefferson's case knowingly, doesn't invalidate the COTUS itself.
    Simply proves a politician will do whatever he wants, even if it is against the law if he wants to do it, and can get enough of mob support to get by with it..
     
    bluez likes this.
  5. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    983
    871
    93
    To get back a bit closer to the original topic.

    It's interesting to note that the Fed could not get a conviction of the Bundies, in multiple attempts in two separate states in multiple jury trials despite both judges involved banning defense witnesses and evidence or allowing them to even mount a defense.
    Right up until Navarro had no choice but to save BLM, FBI, and fed prosecutors from themselves by dismissing the falsified charges and sealing records of even worse fed corruption.

    IF there were any constitutional legal grounds for the fed to stand on they should have gotten easy convictions before the lies and illegal acts by BLM and fbi officers were revealed.


    JMO, but I think the days of BLM starting illegal thefts of land and property going unchallenged are pretty much over due to these cases coming to a just end.

    As another posted, no armed supporters showed at Ruby ridge. And Fed LE instigated a massacre.

    Waco. No militia showed up. Same result.

    Bundy ranch militia and armed civilians did come to defend against Fed snipers placed over looking the ranch long before a round up began.
    And stayed.
    No violent acts were committed except by Fed officers.
    And nobody died.
     
    bluez likes this.
  6. CouveShooter

    CouveShooter Active Member

    249
    90
    28
    Having not spent my entire life “only 6 years” drawing a Government paycheck, I have an interest in promoting economic activity... over protecting desert turtles.

    Attempts to sell off hunting and fishing access would draw HUGE pushback from sportsmen and sounds like a tin foil hat objection to me.
     
    bluez and Ghost1958 like this.
  7. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    17,275
    2,301
    113
    I've been politically active all of my life. I've seen dozens and dozens of instances of councilmen, commissioners, and legislators on their knees in front of, or behind, ranchers and developers regardless of push back from the people.

    Yeah, we gotta all pray at the holy altar of "economic development" for the developers, realtors, ranchers, etc. No matter how badly we screw over the people.

    That's the kind of crap that turns lifelong conservatives and moderates into liberals.

    Screw me on the mountain, and I will do my best to screw you in the voting booth.
     
    jigs-n-fixture and Dallas53 like this.
  8. CouveShooter

    CouveShooter Active Member

    249
    90
    28
    If ultimately getting my way “State Control” of western lands, costs me your 1 vote in Wyoming, I can live with that Sir.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  9. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    17,275
    2,301
    113
    You'll be fighting a lot more people than just me. I can guarantee you of that.
     
    Dallas53 likes this.
  10. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    983
    871
    93
    The desert tortoise being harmed by cattle was one of the BLM 's early falsifications for cutting ranchers off from that range.

    The actual truth is the tortoise benefits from cattle being present.


    PDF download of Arizona university on the subject.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw26zuHTYfqKOXPgu3_dOA1R
     
    bluez likes this.
  11. CouveShooter

    CouveShooter Active Member

    249
    90
    28
    Does not need to be a fight Loc, we disagree on land management sure, but if we compared notes across the board, I’d bet we agree on far more issues.
     
    locutus likes this.
  12. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    1,775
    250
    83
    It's not such a big step from the BLM SWAT Team Snipers surrounding the Bundy ranch.. to the late night gov't Death Squads of South Africa.

    They are not the same yes.. but its a movement in the same direction..
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018
    Ghost1958 and JimRau like this.
  13. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    9,163
    4,452
    113
    IMO, that is a pretty twisted and unrealistic comparison.

    the BLM decided to, in essence evict some tenants of their land, and used armed officials to carry out that cause. think about what if you were the landlord of house or property that you were leasing, or renting, and you tried to evict the tenant for non-payment. what if those tenants decided to use an armed presence, or by force to stop you from evicting them?

    now some may argue that the land isn't the BLM's, or whatever. well all fine and dandy, but under the current law, they are the recognized steward or caretaker of the land. anyone that wishes to challenge their legitimacy to regulate, or control that land should seek such a course of action in a court of law. because until such time that it does change, the BLM was in their legal right to evict the Bundy's from that land.

    i also read that the Bundy's made some veiled threats towards any of the BLM that showed up to evict them from the property. now, i don't know that to be a fact, but if, huge IF, it's true, then it seems the BLM was justified and being prudent in showing up armed as well.

    maybe before criticizing and condemning the BLM first and foremost, maybe step into their shoes for moment and try to see it from their perspective.
     
    locutus and kfox75 like this.
  14. Navigator

    Navigator Member

    275
    15
    18
    Hey Ghost1958, I've enjoyed your articulate arguments and educated perspectives based on Constitutional principal and law. I also agree with you that the BLM, along with the Forrest Service and so many other omnipotent and authoritarian fedural bureaucracies, is running amok and unchecked. Some of the forum members who are enamored with the BLM fail to realize that these guys pretty much do what they want and make their own law through regulation. Think you can fight them? Do you have a million dollar legal war chest?

    I didn't have a full realization of the issues until I started touring via motorcycle throughout Oregon during the summers, to include the beautiful John Day Basin and on south into Burns, when I retired from the Navy in '03. I got to meet many wonderful folks down there and got an earful from many of the ranchers about what the Feds were doing in the area and to the people. While fueling up in a small gas station I took some time to chat with a young couple and two children who were in an old pickup. The wife teared up as she told me how the BLM had forced them off their ranch that had been in the family for generations.

    It was then that I began to become familiar with and understand the Sagebrush Rebellion, and of course the constitutional issues involved. The problem with the Government Can Do No Wrong crowd is that they fail to see the human cost up close and personal. I read somewhere back in this thread that one of the GCDNW bunch said if you agree with the Bundys then you belong in a federal prison with them. Really?

    While I thought the actions of the Bundy family were foolish as was the occupation because it could only end one way, with someone involved either dead or in prison. Well LaVoy Finicum was gunned down on the way to a meeting that would hopefully diffuse the situation but the Feds lost their case against the Bundys in the courts for misconduct.

    And then there are the Hammonds, still rotting in federal prison.

    On Ruby Ridge, if you are interested, I came across a pretty good documentary of it on Netflix. It is a PBS production I believe and very well balanced. The tragedy of the standoff, the killing of Randy's 12 year old son and then his wife (while in the house holding her baby) by FBI snipers is shown to be how horrific it was. Even the LEO guys were aghast. The FBI agent in charge clearly didn't want any of that to happen and was extremely anguished over how it developed. It was an American tragedy instigated by federal law enforcement when they entrapped Randy Weaver with the spurious sawed off shotgun charges in an attempt to get him to spy on his white separatist neighbors. The only thing the former Green Beret and his family wanted was to be left alone to live his life with his family on top of his mountain. I believe the wrongful death settlement with the feds was over three million dollars.
     
    Dallas53 and Ghost1958 like this.
  15. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    983
    871
    93



    The BLM doesn't have a perspective. It's made up of fed employees who act as the fed attack dogs when it wants to push people off of their privately owned land that joins land they already claim.

    It's a long pattern with BLM. Only this time citizens resisted in force.
    And they left because instead of 20 to 1 advantage they are used to the odds were not all in their favor.

    Then cry like children in court over being scared.

    Real fear for life is when fed snipers are placed overlooking ones ranch house long before any roundup is attempted.


    Taking them to court is useless.
    They have ignored court order after court order for decades.

    There are states planning to sue the Fed for return of their land.
    But that will be futile also.
    A fed case being heard in a fed court about the legality of fed land grabs, where no jury is involved is a slam dunk for the fed regardless.
     
  16. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    9,163
    4,452
    113
    Ghost, please do me a favor and don't drag me back into this drama fest, by quoting my last post, since it's been almost a month since my last post on the subject.

    my thoughts and opinions on these people, the subject matter are well stated in previous posts on this thread and several others. nothing i have to say is going to sway your opinions, and i can guarantee you, nothing you have to say is going to sway mine in regards to this subject. and since all it would be would be getting on merry go round of back and forth, and i have no intentions of doing that.

    i have said my piece and spoken my viewpoints and if anyone, yourself included want to know what those opinions and viewpoints are, then read my previous posts on this thread, and others on the subject.

    it's dead horse issue and nothing has changed that warrants me adding to this thread. so so if others want to stand around beating a dead horse, then knock yourselves out, but just leave me out of it.
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  17. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    983
    871
    93
    You posted your opinion I posted mine in response.
    No drama.

    Suprizingly if you notice found myself agreeing with several if you opinion. And giving them likes.

    I don't think we are far apart on most things .

    Only a couple I can think of. I disagree with my wife more than that LOL
     
  18. jackrich3

    jackrich3 Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,048
    64
    48
    They were ripping off the taxpayers, by claiming public lands as their own. You want to graze your cattle, or set fire to the grass without paying for it? You will be dragged before a judge.
     
    locutus, alsaqr and Dallas53 like this.
  19. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    983
    871
    93
    And aquitted.

    Even the Hammonds judge stated the sentencing of them was a travesty of justice.
     
  20. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    17,275
    2,301
    113
    I've camped, hiked, hunted and fished on the public trust lands for over 60 years. no interference of any kind from government, but I've had ranchers and outfitters try to keep me out with chains across public roads. (My winch has come in handy pulling these chains out:D)

    I want to make sure my son's generation and the generations of Americans that follow will have the same access and not be fenced out by greedy ranchers and outfitters.
     
    alsaqr and Dallas53 like this.