Skip to comments.Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is assembling ‘team of legal advisers’ to take on feds
Posted on 05/18/2014 2:51:22 AM PDT by blueplum
Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy said in a lengthy written statement that hes not going to sue the federal government after all, despite the number of lawyers he says have lined up to state his case against the Bureau of Land Management for free.
At the same time, he wrapped his statement by saying that hes assembling a team of legal advisers to help decide his familys best course of action. The Bundy family has been at the center of a nationally watched armed standoff with the BLM over grazing fees.
And some have said Mr. Bundy has a valid legal case against the federal government, over alleged excessive force that has reportedly left his prized cattle killed and his son needlessly injured with bloody wounds from a taser attack.
In his conclusion, Mr. Bundy reminded that the governor and sheriff work for us, not the federal government. He wrapped: With a sense of sadness and duty we announce that we are assembling a team of legal advisers and will be seeking the wisest action in assisting the PEOPLE in re-establishing individual protection through government.
Mr. Bundy has also stated that lawyers have told him his case has the makings of greatness, and many have offered their pro-bono services, Mediaite reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Maybe now Beck will stop slamming this hero.
Another successful branding campaign.
What class action could possibly be in the works?
Screw Beck. He’s shown his colors...or rather “color” (yellow).
Police expected shooting. Both overpasses were emptied on either side.
I wish them the best.
The only thing I would count on Beck to do is drown him in his [Beck’s] tears.
True, they did, but they expected to be the only ones doing the shooting. Unarmed working cowboys, unarmed women, and unarmed children can’t shoot back. When faced with people who could shoot back, they pulled in their horns like the murderers they are. They went expecting it to be another Ruby Ridge or Mt. Carmel and learned different.
Beck has lost all credibility. I can’t stand the sight or sound of him.
Bundy’s unwillingness to pursue potential legal claims is foolish but all too typical of some protest types. For all the defects of the legal process, it does offer a way to put factual and legal claims to the test — a prospect that many recoil from lest they lose.
The article contains inaccuracies and misleading information.
For instance it purposely conflates information about Bundy’s Ranch and the Bunkerville allotment.
Beck and his Blaze really is the issue its become a Progressive Libertarian media propaganda organ.
When Beck did his hard flip for pro Gay Marriage it was the dividing line..Bundy came soon after and when I saw Blaze story's here on FR that were shilling for Harry Reid..that was the end for me
*Early census records show Cliven’s maternal grandmother, Christena Jensen, was born in Nevada in 1901*
So from this we know that Bundy’s great-grandparents were settled in Nevada at least by 1901 and likely well before, whether that area was called Nevada or Arizona (see comment below).
*John was a Mesquite farmer.... the farm was near Main Street and a bridge over the Virgin River.*
Mesquite Flats was settled in 1880 by Mormons and flooded out three times by the Virgin River between 1880 and 1884. One of the few roads leading to Littlefield Village, AZ (Mt. Trumbull) orginates in Mesquite.
*Census records show that Cliven Bundys paternal great-grandfather, Illinois native Abraham Bundy, lived in Littlefield Village in Mohave County, Ariz., as early as 1900.*
from history of the Arizona strip: “In the extreme west on the Virgin River is the small settlement of Littlefield just off Interstate 15”
(as an aside, much of Clark county, NV was once part of the territory of Arizona but was sliced off by the gubment and given to Nevada, while the Arizona strip remained with Arizona)
So, from the two references given in the I-team geneological report, it’s a simple matter to independently substantiate that the Bundy ancestors were indeed, “up and down the Virgin River” for over a hundred years, just as Bundy claims his family was.
The US land management policy prior to 1946 was not on managing range, but on rapid disposal of public lands to private citizens. Section 5 of the Grazing Act of 1934 provided for free grazing on over 65 million acres of grazing districts, one of which appears to be the area claimed by Bundy.
(map of Taylor grazing districts is right on the BLM site, here: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html )
When the Land Office merged with the BLM, it was several years before the BLM mission changed from disposal to active long-term management, and so several more years before the BLM got around to instituting grazing fees on lands that were outside Section 15 of the 1934 Grazing Act, that is, lands NOT originally designated at free grazing districts. Bundy’s claimed range does not appear to be outside the 1934 designated free grazing district.
This is merely the facts catching up with the news. Many people were under the impression that Bundy's family had homesteaded the 160 acres way back then and also had been grazing the allotment since way back then. And that these had passed down to Bundy thru succession. We know better now.
Not just this but other things.
We knew he was trespassing on the allotment but only after the BLM documents and court documents became available we see that there was a second trespass when he moved his stock onto the Lake Mead Recreation Area. It would appear that it was the second trespass that set the wheels in motion that led to this incident.
And it was only after the fact that it came to light that there were 3 separate incidents and it appeared that all 3 involved militia vs BLM. Now we know that the sheriffs dept was heavily involved in the main incident. And as the sergeant said, it didn't make any difference to Bundy and the militia whether it was the BLM or the sheriffs dept, the militia was looking for a fight.
I don’t see where I’m ‘spinning’ anything.
the article you posted, http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny
pointed to Bundy’s claim:
“I’ve lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements,” Bundy said.”
I used two of the geneological data points contained in the article to demonstrate that, indeed, his family did live ‘up and down the Virgin Valley.’ Littlefield was settled in 1865 and is 10 miles from Mesquite, down the Virgin river. Bundy can claim relatives in both. In 1869, Powell’s expedition of the Virgin River was in danger from the Northern Paiute, so it was definitely ‘pioneer times’ Did his ancestors run cows? I don’t know, haven’t had a reason to dig that deep, but my first guess would be, yes. Settlers needed meat.
“ The doctrine of prior appropriation, commonly referred to as first in time, first in right, was developed in California during the 1850s.
The miners, just as they did with the mining laws, developed their own water laws before any state or federal court or legislature spoke, writes University of Colorado professor Charles Wilkinson in Crossing The Next Meridian. If two men, or companies, came in and diverted a whole stream, so be it. If just one took the whole stream, so be it. They needed it; they depended on it; they had rights to it.
In 1882, the Colorado Supreme Court made the definitive ruling that established prior appropriation. It remains the most important decision ever handed down in any Western court.
In Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co. the court ruled that the upstream water user who held senior water rights could legally divert an entire river out of basin, despite the burden that was placed on Coffin, a farmer who was the downstream user.
The decision meant that a rivers water, like gold in a mining claim, is a resource. It belongs to those who are smart enough, tough enough, rich enough and lucky enough to seize it.”
now, I’m sticking with the article you posted, but if you want to address a few stray cows in Lake Mead (photo evidence please), we can go there, too. By the way, the Lake Mead aspect is an issue because a conservation group threatened to withhold a large grant to the BLM for protection of the ‘willow flycatcher’ until all cattle were removed from Lake Mead (or was it just Bundy cattle?). As for who Bundy bought his ranch from, who are we to know it wasn’t a relative or family friend?
California uses a dual doctrine, both prior appropriation and riparian. As does Oregon and Washington. Because these states straddle the Cascades/Sierra Nevada, which is the western wet/dry line.
The eastern wet/dry line is the 98th meridian so those states that straddle that line use the dual doctrine(prior appropriation and riparian). TX, OK, KS, etc.
So NM, AZ, NV, UT, CO, etc use the single doctrine prior appropriation.
Those states to the east use the single riparian doctrine, which is descended from English Common law.
On top of all this, in 1908, SCOTUS established the Winters Doctrine, aka Federal and Indian Lands Reserved Water Rights, commonly called Reserved Water Rights. This established that tribes with a treaty right to farm also had a right to water for irrigation, and Reserved water rights trump prior appropriation water rights. To put it another way, First in Time, first in right becomes second in line second in right behind reserved water rights.
Then, towards the end of the 20th century, in a series of decisions, the courts re-interpreted Reserved Water Rights to include a tribes' treaty right to fish as well as flora and fauna. These new Reserved Rights manifest as a minimum flow.
And as a practical example of this, the delta smelt had a reserved water right in the form of a minimum flow, and the delta smelts' reserved water right trumped those farmers' prior appropriation water right.
Anyway, back to Bundy, the court ruled against Bundy's claim of vested rights. And when Bundy himself paid the grazing fees to Clark County rather than BLM, he acknowledged that he had no vested rights. And Bundy and his father paid grazing fees from 1954 to 1992 acknowledging that Bundy had no vested rights.
Indian Water Rights - The Winters Act of 1908 was a judicial decision pertaining only to federal reservations and only assigning superior rights as of the date of the establishment of such reservation on federal land.
Arizona (and Nevada) Indian Wars lasted well into 1890. Dates of establishment of Federal Reservations are after the first-in’s were in, so the first-in’s aren’t second-in’s at all.
Water rights of the signatory states to the Colorado River Compact (and the one 40-year hold-out, Arizona) were upheld and codified in 1922, again in 1928 with the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and finally in 1963 with the Supreme Court decision in Arizona vs California.
English common law - as practiced in Australia and Canada, and later copied in the US in the 19th century, held that “government grants of title override native title where there are inconsistencies between the two.”
I don’t think “new Spain” had much influence in the Nevada/Arizona border area. The Spanish Trail wasn’t a safe route by any means and neither Beale nor Powell documented any rancheros in the area.
The Delta river smelt - What would Darwin do? It’s a transpacific dinosaur that magically reduced in numbers in 1993. Dinosaurs go extinct. Let it die. Raise them in aquariums if you will, and charge a quarter to see them, but call it a day and give the food farmers and ranchers back their water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.