Cliven Bundy, the Constitution Club's
"Man of the Year"
The Battle of Bunkerville
Saturday, April 12, 2014 The first major battle of the American Revolution took place and Bunker Hill while the first victory for the restoration of our liberty took place on Saturday, April 12 near the town of Bunkerville, Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management and over 200 hundred heavily armed agents invaded the land which the Bundy Family has possessed since 1877.< With the assistance of high paid cattle thieves hired by our government, they rounded up approximately half of the Bundy herd of 1000 cows. Many of the stolen livestock was loaded into cattle cars and shipped to California where the stolen beef was to be auction off to the highest bidder.
At 9:00 on Saturday morning the Cliven Bundy met with the Clark County Sheriff and demanded in from of a crowd of over 1,000 that sheriff take actions against Federal occupation. The Sheriff reluctantly announced that he would comply Mr. Bundy's demand. He also gave the sheriff one hour to round up the weapons possess by the over 200 Federal Agents to to bring them to a location of the rally. An army of 65 mounted cowboys hoisting American Flags could be seen overlooking the over 1000 spectators. When Sheriff Gillsipie failed to respond to Bundy's demands, he issued a request to the assemble patriots to join him and his family in an effort demand that the BLM release the cattle and allow them to return to their home on the banks of the Virgin River.
Within moments hundreds of American Patriots rallied behind the Bundy's and went to confront the foreign invaders. I was among the first to arrive at the scene of the confrontation. Across the fence I could see that those among us that were armed were in the cross hairs of snipers, An agent of the BLM informed us that we were participating in an illegal assembly and warned us that if we did not back off we would be subject to arrest and incarceration. We did not back down and we demand that they let the cattle go and that we were prepared to stand our ground the BLM and their 80 vehicles and their over 200 Gestapo agents release the cattle and vacate the land that is rightfully owned by the people of Nevada. The Federal Governments is not just. The seek to control the people through intimidation. They know that when the people fear the government, they can do whatever they want without being held accountable. Several hundred patriots took on the Federal Government, and the efforts of a courageous minority recorded what I hope will be the first victory in our effort to restore liberty to the land that once was free.
Replies
There is an important way that the federal government may have acquired title, although only as a proprietor, to the land in question: If retention of title was agreed as a term of admission of the state. That would provide the consent of Art. I sec. 8 Cl. 17. If that was not agreed to, and the state was admitted, then title would pass to the state.
So the key to resolving this dispute is to determine whether title retention was part of the act of state admission. That is what has to be determined.
I have examined the congressional act of March 21, 1864, which can be found at http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/013_statutes_at_large.pdf starting at page 30, and it does indeed provide for retention of title by the U.S. government of "unappropriated public lands", Sec. 4, Third:
The only question, then is whether the specific land in question in the Bundy case was "unappropriated public land" or appropriated private land in 1864. That is not clear without examination of evidence of prior appropriation. However, there does not seem to be an option of it being state land. Either the Bundy family or someone they acquired it from owned it prior to 1864, which it does not appear they claim, or the federal government owns it. A title search is in order.
Nevada was admitted October 31, 1864, on the basis of the above statute.
Here is the response of the State of Nevada http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596
Jon. I have found your responses to several articles very informative...I'm learning a lot from you. I have a burning question about the idea that the Constitution was dissolved in 1871, and thus, the united states became the UNITED STATES.....A corporation....What do you say to this? I'm suspicious of this information much like the so called suspension of the constitution in 1933..
Nonsense. What happened in 1871 is that Congress set up a municipal charter for the District of Columbia. Had nothing to to with the rest of the country or government.
All governments are corporations. Always have been, since a few villages elders gathered under a tree. Now they are supposed to be non-profit corporations, for the benefit of their member-citizens. We can argue that it has been subverted by for-profit corporations that have put their own people into key positions, and are now running the government for their benefit, but that is not turning the government into a for-profit corporation, at least not formally.
What happened in 1933 was only the suspension of two provisions of the Constitution, that required compensation for the taking of privately held gold, and that required gold and silver to be legal tender within the states. It didn't affect the rest of the Constitution.
Thank you for the information....I knew the 1871 issue was suspect. Everyone is running around saying the constitution was dissolved into a corporation in 1871.... It looks as if the State of Nevada is arguing that they have a legal claim for land based on the link you provided.....A title search in the Bundy case will be interesting....It seems that with the present Government, proof of ownership means nothing. Somehow they invent a law that blind sides your rights to ownership.
No Jon,
The village Elders as you put it, set up CO-OPERATIONS not corporations. Look at the agreement of Iroquois Indian Tribes for reference to this kind of co-operation I speak of.
Your legalese un-interpretation is askew. You fall back to the words written BY GOVERNMENT, FOR GOVERNMENT and the government CANNOT own land. Land can be CEDED to them and can be Seceded away just as fast. Read the new post for April 15th I just sent you. Then tell me your precious laws mean a thing to freedom loving Americans.
Wrong. You have an uneducated lay notion of what a "corporation" is in law, a concept that goes back more than 2000 years to ancient Roman law, and has a long legacy in Anglo-American common law.
In somewhat more modern terms, a corporation is just a kind of trust with replaceable beneficiaries and replaceable trustees, usually more than one, but that can be just one. If just one, it is called a corporation sole.
We have long had the Iroquois constitution on our website with some analysis. Every constitution of government sets up a public corporation. It corresponds to the bylaws of a private corporation.
And contrary to what some lawyers will say, a private corporation is generally not "created" by government, although it can be. It is created by its incorporators (which could be government officials or private persons, but usually the latter). What chartering a corporation with government does is establish a monopoly on the name (which would otherwise have to be identified by listing the incorporators and specifying the date and location of the act of incorporation), and the service of enforcing its bylaws if there is a dispute among its members.
Government can hold title to (not "own") land like any other legal person, including individuals, trustees, partnerships, or whatever. In the other thread I will explain what ownership of land is all about as a matter of law.
Jon is absolutely right.
It damages everything positive that people are doing when they are hypnotized (acceptance without critical analysis) by these myths.
See:
Snake Oil For Sale
Snake Oil For Sale, Part 2
A lie, repeated often enough, is still a lie -- except to those who are invested in the lie.
Richard,
I read the Snake Oil for Sale explanation of the original 13th Amendment. This is a quote I found interesting:
I've spoken with the TONA Committee earlier this year as a result of other research that I was doing. I have to admit, the TONA Committee's presentation of its findings and its arguments are quite compelling. In my opinion, it's on a par with the historical research and conclusions on which the The DaVinci Code was based.
I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be a subtle insult or did the author truly find the TONA committee's findings and arguments to be quite compelling by comparing it to the research and conclusions of The Davinci Code.
Excellent research, Jon.
Thanks.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next