Topic: Cliven Bundy’s Battle Not Yet Finished, Feds Prepare To Out-Lawyer Him… (Read 937 times)

Federal judge to release Cliven Bundy, son and co-defendant, but Cliven said to refuse release







Read more and watch the video at http://fox13now.com/2017/11/29/report-federal-judge-to-release-cliven-bundy-sons-ammon-and-ryan-and-co-defendant-ryan-payne/.

The Government case fails for many reasons. Even if the Bundy's had contract with Government, the Government's case fails in court for many reasons. One of the reasons is the jury, as was the Government failure in the Oregon Bundy trials. The second reason is harm or damage. What harm or damage to man or woman was evidenced - none. In addition, the Government must get on the stand and speak the damage into the record. Government can't do this, because Government is simply paperwork... if the Bundy's invoke their own common law court of record right inside the Government's case.

The Bundy's simply didn't use their rights and the law.

To see how strong the Bundy's could have been, and still can be, see:

http://voidjudgments.com/

http://voidjudgments.com/detailsvoid.htm

http://voidjudgments.com/suedc/MoreOnSMJ2.pdf

http://voidjudgments.com/22reasons.htm

http://voidjudgments.com/details4.htm

But they can't use this stuff if they don't know it exists. And it is extremely difficult to use if they are represented by an attorney or even if they represent themselves. They must stand present, not represented, to use it. If they represent themselves, they need to know about their "persons" from the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

An intriguing point about all this stuff is, if a man or woman staked off a piece of completely unused public land, and recorded the staked-off claim as his/her own land, nobody in Government could win in a case against this man or woman... if the man or woman knew the law listed in the the links, above, and used it.

Actually it is fairly clear what is going on with Bundy.  And with Hammond for that matter.

Bundy leased grazing rights from the Federal Govt who, constitutionally or otherwise, holds title to the land.  Bundy considers himself the owner on constitutional grounds and because his great grandmother was one of the wives of his great-grandfather who were Mormons.  Bundy didn't even start running cattle until the 1950's or some such, but he did so with full cooperation of the owners and under a lease.  There are ecological arguments that ruminants are not suitable for this type of land.  Some of them are bullshit because of corrupt politicians, multi-national resource acquisitions, eco-fundamentalists, etc, and some are probably not.  In any case, the owner gets to make the call when the lease is up.

Bundy did develop water resources under a well prescribed set of laws.  Water is valuable in this area, and the rights are more-so.  If the leases are not to be renewed or are changed to make ranching non-economical, Bundy should be generously compensated for his water rights whether or not people now feel that the rights should never have been granted.  They were.

Hammond, not the government, owned the Hammond ranch-land.  He's problems seem to stem from the same basic snake-pit that Bundy's did: corrupt politicians, multi-national resource acquisitions, eco-fundamentalists, etc.  And, importantly, the tangled relationships between these groups.

The truth is that we don't know what is really going on.

If the Government made a deal with the Bundys to let them graze their cattle, and if the Government changed the deal after they made it, the Government may be in the wrong, no matter whose land it is. We don't know the nitty-gritty... or do we?

However... The Government is not suppose to hold lands, and if the Bundys knew what they were doing, they could make the Government pay.

There is a very significant differences.

 - Bundy want to use land which is owned by the Fed to run his cattle on.  Hammond owned his land.

Ownership cuts both ways.  I personally feel that the Federal govt should own little or no property in the U.S. (and nor should any multi-national corporation) but the Bundy charade(s) are exactly the wrong way to go about achieving this.  All the 'operations' achieved was to gain datapoints on individuals,  and add weight to the strongly conditioned idea that gun owners and patriots in the U.S. are crazy and dangerous.  I've little doubt that the operation was designed to do exactly this and carefully so.

Bundy Ranch Political Prisoner Speaks Out:







Read more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/05/23/bundy-ranch-political-prisoner-speaks-out-if-americans-knew-what-was-happening-in-nevada-they-would-be-outraged/.

Aha.. It turns Out That The Hammond Ranch Is Sitting On Natural Gas And Uranium that China Wants..







From http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=36534:

Read more at http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=36534


Note: The Hammonds are ranchers like the Bundys, but in a different location. Ammon Bundy is trying to help the Hammonds in their government induced plight.

The black lady in the picture may still be alive

Are you blind? Can't you see the black woman right in the fucking centre of the photograph holding up a sign?

Îf they were black they'll be dead by now...

I hope they don't stir up more shit with the militias to execute some sort of false flag operation to promote there anti-gun agenda..

No, they continue to use him (by the proxy of his family) for more and more ridiculous psy-ops than was the original ranch one.  Well worth the piddly little million dollar debt they forgave of the deadbeat rancher especially with the gun control operation in overdrive.

I was one of the only people I know who called out the Bundy Ranch thing as a psy-op, although some forgotten blogger somewhere did put the bug in my ear.  This time, not so much.  Many many people seem to be displaying a healthy skepticism.  On top of that, I do see a few people who don't seem to be blatant yahoos getting involved.  People who understand the under-the-surface forces, the weaknesses of the adversary, and generally seem to have a clue about how the game can be played.  And hopefully won.  Maybe during Hammond the elder's natural life, and unfortunately for him, maybe not.

He will hold on... Until the cows come home...


 

The government is waiting for the fines to accumulate. They are also hoping that the legal fee would make Cliven Bundy bankrupt. Don't know for how long he will hold on. 

One year after the biggest Western standoff in recent history, the Battle of Bunkerville still is smoldering.

The citizen militiamen with guns and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags are long gone from Cliven Bundy’s ranch, where a federal attempt to round up the rancher’s illegally-grazing cattle went terribly wrong, but major questions remain.

Bundy continues to graze his cattle on federal land with impunity. He claims the desert scrub 70 miles northeast of Las Vegas is rightfully his. He still hasn’t paid the government the estimated $1.1 million he owes in grazing fees and interest. And the federal government, so far, has done nothing about it.

“We’re probably living in the freest place in the whole world,” Bundy recently told The Sunday. “We have not had any type of government interference.”

That could change. When the Bureau of Land Management decided last April to abort its roundup before someone pulled a trigger, officials in Washington promised to find a way to uphold the law. They handed the case over to the Department of Justice and FBI — what some insiders say should have happened in the first place.

The Department of Justice now is investigating Bundy and the dozens of militiamen who traveled from across the country to defend him. But it’s not clear what prosecutors will decide to do with the case, or when they will make a decision.

In the meantime, some say the government’s inaction has only emboldened Bundy and his supporters.

“It makes the BLM’s overall job more difficult when it appears they are unable to take effective measures against a scofflaw like Cliven Bundy,” said David Alberswerth, a historian and former BLM aide.

Last week, Bundy and a group of fans traveled to Carson City to support a Republican-backed bill that declares a swath of federal land in Nevada the “common property of the citizens of the state.” It prohibits the federal government from claiming water rights and owning any land in the state unless it’s for a military operation or approved by the Legislature.[…]

BLM officials won’t speak publicly about what went wrong last April. Agency officials were caught off guard by the underground infrastructure that compelled dozens of people to load their rifles, pack their pickup trucks and drive — some from as far away as Massachusetts — to face off against the government threatening Bundy’s ranch.

“It’s not about the cows,” said Cliven Bundy’s cousin, Jake Fraught. “It’s about the freedom to make our own choices close to home.”[…]

Bruce Babbitt, former secretary of the Department of the Interior, said asking for the court order was the BLM’s first mistake. The agency should have asked for judicial cover to punish Bundy another way.

“A better way would have been to go to court and put a lien that would prevent the sale of the cattle,” Babbitt said.

The BLM also underwent a change in leadership right before the melee. The cattle roundup took place shortly after Elko native Neil Kornze took charge of the agency.

Kornze wouldn’t comment on the incident but recently told a House panel, “I think it’s important to clarify that grazing is not a right.”


http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/apr/06/bundys-battle-not-yet-finished/