Kena Lytle Gloeckner
There have been a lot of people criticizing Cliven Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Cliven did not.
What people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following:
“You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.”
The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.
In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of the desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut by 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Cliven Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Cliven signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away.
(Cornell)
[NOTE: After grazing permits were cut, the BLM decided to euthanize tortoises that they were ‘protecting’ from the cattle. The following picture is from the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center in Las Vegas. Note the lack of forage in the ‘protected’ tortoise enclosures.]
(sfgate)
And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land.
Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned.
And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands (and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Cliven Bundy single-handedly took a stand against.
Thank you, Cliven, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Tags: BLM, cliven bundy, Farm Wars, farmwars, federal land grab, grazing, Nevada, permit, tortoise, tyranny
Jack
Please go home. While I respect everyone’s opinion, and right to express their opinion, you are wrong, no matter what court ruled on what, if it isn’t in alignment with the constitution it is null and void. It is uninformed uneducated sheeple like you that have allowed the take down of this country along with the rest of the “Obama/Hilary/Harry Reid loving type”. Please go home and read your CONSTITUTION.
The Federal Gov according to Constitution is Not supposed to own Any land except around the WH.. It is a limited amount.
The Feds have been over stepping their boundaries for decades.
We the People need to Read the Constitution, again. Teach the kids, as they are not being tought this in school anymore.
People get elected they don’t stand for the Entire Constitution, they pick and choose what parts they want. Disregard what they don’t like or want.
GREAT ARTICLES AS ALWAYS BARB ! YOUR VOICE IS ALWAYS ENCOURAGING AND STRENGTHENING ! Those two are obviously NOT SCREWED ON RIGHT and I will PRAY FOR THEM and ALWAYS THANK YOU FOR BEING STRONG AND PROUD. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK OF WAKING EVERYBODY UP FROM THIS OPPRESSION WE ARE ALL UNDER.
BLESS YOU !
@MBROWN I don’t believe Bundy understands fully the distinction between admiralty law and common law. That he has an attorney to represent him in court undermines his ability to contest the BLM from the start. Attorneys are unregistered foreign agents to the British Accreditation Registry. They represent the interest of the court and you are considered an incompetent or ward of the state in their service. Good luck fighting United States inc, with one of their agents.
According to the Titles of Nobility Amendment in the Constitution they are not permitted to serve in any public office, as a judge or juror. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/notice-all-members-british-accreditation-registry-barjudge-urban
I have heard so many people argue that the federal government should and is allowed to own as much land as it wants, in order to do anything it wants to with it. Well, I have a question for those people: When the feds come knocking at your door and say they are taking your land because they have a better use for it than you, what will your response be? Or does your line of reasoning only apply to others? Will you simply bow your heads, say amen, and quietly surrender your life to the government? When you are out on the street because your livelihood has been stripped from you and your belongings carted off to the nearest dump while you rest your head on a park bench, only to be rousted by the police and put in jail for the crime of being homeless, will your attitude still be the same?
Right back at you, dear. What the Constitution says and what you believe it says are two completely different things. It amazes me how many people beg for their own government enslavement and avidly defend their masters. I think that is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
Unless, of course, you work for the government as a paid infiltrator. Then you are a co-conspirator. In which case, have a nice life under your overlords as they have a nasty little habit of turning on their own.
The government can and does own land, which can and is used by the public. Because a very tiny minority of America does not understand the Constitution and government land ownership, does not make it so. In case you are not paying attention, Ammons own paid for by donations attorney is making it very clear that those that are followers are nuts. He is letting you all know the sovereign jabbering you all believe in is make believe. No citizen grand juries, fake judges you all follow, etc. Just a matter of time before you will see you are all wrong, like when this goes to court. Cliven already lost all his court battles and you all still cannot comprehend. But obviously Ammon feels his attorney is right, Bundy’s must too, because the attorney is making it clear. Comprehension people, comprehension, not just what you want to believe the Constitution says.
Let’s also keep in mind that the United States of America, inc is foreign, chartered for profit corporation — not our constitutional government. The Judiciary, Congress and president are officers of his corporation in the same way CEOs are officers of Burger King. Their Statues, Acts, executive orders and Public laws apply only to themselves and citizens consenting to contract with them. The BLM isn’t a government organization but a group of private mercenaries.
The problem is that Americans have been tricked into contracting with this corporation. This has been done in many ways, but the most universal, besides the birth certificate, is accepting a concealed benefit. This “hidden” and “coerced” benefit is the use of Federal Reserve notes. Since 1933, when our nation went into receivership, FDR confiscated all the nation’s gold and paid it to private bankers, leaving Americans without a lawful means of paying their debts. FRN merely discharge (postpone) debts as receivership still in place to date has put a lien on all our property and labor. We can own nothing and possess things only by permission of the banks so that we can continue to service this debt — in perpetuity.
Barbara,
Perhaps Jack is a government troll. I wouldn’t waste your breath trying to convince him that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that restrains GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE! That statutory law is at best under the Constitution and void if unconstitutional on its face. It is sad to think that after decades of trying to wake up and teach our fellow Americans we still have so damn far to go.
I read the article.. but I read only a couple of the comments. One that I read said that.. Bundy is Wrong because he entered into a contract as what is done when one is using another’s land.. and he must abide by any rules while under that contract.. LETS STOP RIGHT THERE..
THOSE CONTRACTS ARE NULL & VOID BECAUSE THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO OWN ANY LAND OUTSIDE OF 10 square miles of which is Washington DC.. and land for ports & forts. If the government wants any other land they must purchase it from the States.So the BLM has no constitutional rights to that land and actually the BLM should not even exist.
Also, the contract that is being Broken is being broken by the government! Yep, you read that correct.. Let me repeat myself.. The contract that is being broken is being broken by the government. The Constitution is the contract which breathed Life to the Central Government and they have no rights except for those that were delegated to them by that contract.. PERIOD! READ YOUR CONSTITUTION!
it’s a pity how few americans understand principles, and disgusting how willing they are to allow the rights of others to be trampled
Debunked by whom? The very same entity that interprets the Constitution to suit their own agenda and grab the land? If you had actually read the entire article, you would have read the part that states that he refused to sign the contract. You can call people names all you want, but that does not alter the facts. If you believe that the government can simply do what it wants when it wants, and those who take a stand and disagree belong in prison, then good luck to you.
The Bundy preemptive rights were already debunked, as have his Constitutional arguments. Bundy entered into a contract as is done when one is using another’s land. One must abide by any rules while under that contract. More cattle allowed to graze or less, it must be abided by per contract. Bundy is wrong, Bundy is a scofflaw. Not every rancher agrees with him, many many honest ranchers disagree. His remaining family needs to remove their trespass cattle as he should have with the first court order. He is where he belongs.
From your first link: “The very words of the Property Clause give Congress power to control all federal property, whether it is a Territory, an Enclave, or other property. They also give Congress power to “dispose of” all federal property, which implies complete federal ownership of the property because only owners of property have the right to dispose of it.” The author then goes on to justify why the federal government is allowed to own land. A very deceptive message. Yes, it controls the land it is allowed to own. That land is limited by the Constitution and the time period of ownership cannot be construed to mean “indefinitely.” When the enumerated use is over, land ownership is over. Period. It must dispose of that land.
Dear Barbara, there is plenty to back up my opinions, in fact way more on my side than yours. That would be why the Supreme Court, 230 years of case law, and the majority of public opinion is on my side. Here is a link to match yours… a little more recent and better supported.
http://www.co.harney.or.us/PDF.....0Lands.pdf
Public Opinion poll about public ownership of land http://www.co.harney.or.us/PDF.....0Lands.pdf
PS – I am happy to report I am an American citizen residing in the great NW.
Cheers!
Sounds like you need to actually read the Constitution yourself. But since it does not apply to those not living in America, why bother? Just hop on websites to voice your opinion without any real facts to back it up. Good luck with that, Jack. The people are beginning to wake up.
Barbara – You are right about one thing. The Supreme Court cannot overrule the Constitution. The good news is that they are not. You and a small minority of folks choose to believe otherwise. Good luck with that. There are several militias that are not yet in jail that wish to overthrow the government. Sounds like that’s where you belong.
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to overrule the Constitution. http://tenthamendmentcenter.co.....ownership/
“As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes. Massive, permanent federal land ownership would have been seen as subversive of the constitutional scheme. The federal government’s authority to dispose was unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not: all the latter functions could be exercised only to serve enumerated powers. To be sure, Congress would have considerable discretion as to how to effectuate enumerated powers, and reasonable exercises of discretion were not to be questioned. At the end of the day, however, all federal land not “necessary and proper” to execute an enumerated power was to be disposed of impartially and for the public good.” http://scholarship.law.umt.edu.....lawreviews
Barbara – The Supreme Court is a pretty good source and they have ruled on this several times already. More info for you here too… http://www.americanpubliclands.com/legal-facts/
Please cite your sources. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they are invalid.
Sorry. The Federal government can own land and there are 230 years of law and Supreme Court ruling to back it up. The Bundy’s have no actual “rights” to graze and the terms of their permit allows for exactly what happened. Being dependent on very subsidized grazing on public land has it’s risks. All the sovereign citizen malarkey mentioned in these comments are exactly that…malarkey.
Mike R. You missed the point. Any time something is incorporated it is removed from the jurisdiction of the land, and is put in the jurisdiction of the sea, or admiralty law.
The Bundy family has “perscriptive” rights accumulated over many years since 1877. They were NOT behind in their payments to Nevada. They HAD NO CONTRACT with the corporation called BLM. They are in the jurisdiction of the land, and no corporation can even SPEAK to living human beings. If you don’t understand this you need to do a lot more reading. Start here. http://www.annavonreitz.com
Reid didn’t give a rats ass about that turtle! I do think Harry would make an excellent “Post Turtle”! That’s where he could be of most use! Sitting on a fence post where he can’t do any harm!
It was all about setting up his rug rat into a business with the Chinese! Yet them Cerebral Leprechauns in NV keep voting him in, or is it election fraud?
BREAKING: SEN. HARRY REID BEHIND BLM LAND GRAB OF BUNDY RANCH
http://www.infowars.com/breaki.....ndy-ranch/
Constitutional attorney Kris Anne Hall explains why he Federal Government cannot own territories. http://farmwars.info/?p=14358
Territories of the United States: Portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states. The United States holds three territories: American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific Ocean and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean Sea. Although they are governed by the United States, the territories do not have statehood status, and this lesser legal and political status sets them apart from the rest of the United States. http://legal-dictionary.thefre.....erritories
Makes the post about if the federal government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert there would be a shortage of sand within 5 years.
So pm what your saying is that all the land from the treaty of hidalgo was an unconstitutional transfer of land to the United States Government? After all it wasn’t a dock, wasn’t a fort, and the section of the constitution you are talking about says NOTHING of territories.
Oh wait, your including the — congress can make needful rules and regulation for OTHER PROPERTY and territories, and can dispose of that property if they wish.
So either the United States CAN own other property and territories or they can’t. Which is it?
Now if the United Stated Government CAN own territory, that means it can own OTHER PROPERTY.
According to common law, the BLM is a corporate entity and only has jurisdiction over you if you consent to contract with them by signing a permit. The government cannot own land, only docks, forts and territories, per the constitution. Hence the BLM has no lawful claims on Bundy’s ranch and property which exists under the jurisdiction of the land.
Since Bundy did not sign the new contract, the BLM had no right to enforce this corporate policy. This is why in my opinion the BLM chose to assault the Bundy ranch with armed agents instead of simply putting a lien on all of his property.