“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-
98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the
United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when
Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”
"Finally, the Court finds that Bundy’s objections to the United States’ Motion, many of
which have been disposed of in prior proceedings, are without merit. The Court has stated 4
unequivocally on numerous occasions that it has jurisdiction to hear this case, and that the
Allotment is owned by the United States and managed by the DOI through the BLM and the NPS.
Bundy’s repeated suggestions to the contrary are entirely unavailing.
The cattle will be removed and the money owed will be attained one way or another. I suspect that the family ranch will be sold to satisfy the debt.
Speaking to conservative radio host Dana Loesch last week, he said he believes in a “sovereign state of Nevada” and abides by all state laws, but, “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” (As The Atlantic notes, the Nevada Constitution says a citizen’s first allegiance is to the federal government.)
Last edited by danarhea; 04-17-14 at 12:07 PM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
up till 1993. He even managed to get the payment to the right place, and it was accepted.
The question is what changed in 1993?
The BLM declared the public land would no longer be leased for grazing,
And bought back permits. Bundy refused to sell his back, and it was revoked.
I assume Bundy was a tenant in good standing up until the BLM changed the use of the land.
The question becomes, If the Government licenses usage of public resources for a fee,
How much notice do they need to give to change that agreement?
When changes, or renewal of grazing permits are necessary, allotment evaluations are completeted and a Proposed Decision is issued under 43 CFR 4160, starting a 15-day protest period. The Proposed Decision is sent to the permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests and interested publics. If disagreement exists on an allotment, permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests may protest the Proposed Decision. BLM considers all protests filed and then issues a Final Decision, starting a 30-day appeal period. If disagreement still exists with the Final Decision, the permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests may appeal under 43 CFR 4160.4 and 4.470 for the livestock portion and 43 CFR 4.21 for the wild horse and burro portion, and the wildlife portions of the decision. At the conclusion of the decision process the management actions are implemented and monitoring continues until the next evaluation.
43 CFR 4160.4 - Appeals. | LII / Legal Information Institute
It sure sound like he is out of appeals,
The only exception might be if BLM made a timing mistake when they revoked his permit.
Like if the the first fines were issued before the appeals process was completed.