I notice you did not address WATER RIGHTS... or GRAZING RIGHTS... as a matter of common law, or any other law, other than by simply, and wrongly, claiming that the law defining those rights... DOESN'T EXIST ?
Well, if that law doesn't exist... then Bundy wins by default... but, that's a too obvious lie, of course. Anyone out west knows water is a REALLY BIG DEAL... not something that has been ignored by the law. Errors like that one not likely to win you many real estate clients ? You are wrong on the law. Bundy DOES own the water rights. That's one reason why they want his property ? They need to gain control of those water rights to be able to transfer them... and without that control they can't transfer them. Bundy wouldn't surrender them... so they're trying to steal them. But... that effort is not going all that well today...
Water in Nevada is under the control of the state, not the Feds. The Federal government does not have any intrinsic rights to water in Nevada... without gaining rights from the state, the same as anyone else.
Here's the Nevada page: dcnr.nv.gov
Here's the BLM page: blm.gov
Nor does the federal government have any inherent right to unilaterally alter the terms of a "deal" they've made... to convert an intended benefit under that agreement they made, into a purposeful liability... any more than anyone else does have that ability as a right ? Good faith matters ? No landlord has a right to convert any tenant's occupancy into a tool to harm his interests, while not enabling him in that agreed use as a benefit. To the extent they claim that right... the claim is illegitimate. But, in this case, what is clear is that the BLM is FRAUDULENTLY working to remove Bundy's rights... which are his real property.
And, beyond the water itself, that's what we're really talking about... is legitimacy... including that rights don't come to us as grants from the government... rather than the other way around... as the government gets the only rights it has from us. The government is in the wrong... claiming it has more rights than it does... claiming it has rights it has not been given. That is the WHOLE POINT of having a limited government ? That's why we fought the Revolutionary War... and, we did not lose the things we won in the Revolutionary War... in a victory in a war with Mexico ?
The law is not inherently legitimate... because "the lawyers say so" ? That's what you see happening in New York and Connecticut... is a proof that illegitimate acts of the legislatures are not "law"... when they lack fundamental legitimacy sufficient to engender basic respect or compliance. One of Obama's new appointees to the bench is being held up just now... because she wrongly believes no law passed by Congress is a law until a judge says that it is ? She believes that not as a "technical matter" of rulings striking down excesses in laws that violate higher laws, but intends it to be a complete literal usurpation of the legislative authority by the courts... that allows courts alone to define legitimacy in law... that establishes courts AS higher law ? One part of that she got right... is that no law is intrinsically legitimate. The part she got wrong... is that no law is made more legitimate because a judge claims to BE the law in saying so. Neither the executive nor any judges... get to say what the law is ? Judges don't get to define what the law is... any more than those counting the votes get to say what the result of an election is... without honest dependence on the fact of it ?
The law is ultimately, always... what the people say it is... whether they say that by tolerating others claims without comment or by addressing the errors of others by imposing corrections in response to excesses... through the results of voting or through force of arms.
If you ignore the issues of fundamental legitimacy being addressed in current events... you ARE going to be misinterpreting both the events themselves and the meaning and relevance (or not) of the law.
The left has been lying about and purposefully misrepresenting many aspects of legitimacy for a long time ?
Lawyers think nothing of lying, cheating and stealing to win their cases... if they can get away with it... which doesn't make lying, cheating and stealing "legal" ? Likewise, the Supreme Court has ruled that politicians are empowered by a right to free speech that permits them to lie at will... accountable for that deception they do practice IN POLITICS only as a function of voters discernment. However, the Constitution does not authorize the government itself to lie, or cheat, or steal... even if their lawyers are telling them that "as matter of law" they can get away with doing exactly that ? But, actually doing it would not be legitimate ? So, there is an inherent systemic conflict that results... but, the government itself doesn't have first amendment rights, or fifth amendment rights... or any rights... other than those granted them BY the people ?
Only an insane court would ignore the fundamental law and the popular expression and culture enabling it... to rule outside the limits of legitimacy... that government has more power than it CAN have legitimately ?
This event in Nevada has now been REVEALED as a government operated criminal conspiracy... being conducted under the RUBRIC of law... but incorrect in presentation of both the FACT and the law. That conspiracy is fully dependent on and intent on trying to reverse that equation..."rights don't come to us as grants from the government... rather than the other way around... as the government gets its rights from us"... which fraud is not limited to the obvious corruption in the wrongful takings in rights and real estate, but including even in this instance, the OBVIOUS PROOF... that they have the same intent in relation to the First Amendment.
They intended to succeed in their corrupt takings... by forcefully suppressing Bundy's first amendment rights.
The "legal battle" over this event is not finished... and, as it proceeds... what you are likely to see emerge are proofs that the lawyers and judges in the case have been lying about the facts, and lying about the law, in order to facilitate the government theft of Bundy's property. Even as a matter of interpretation... in which you give the government or the judges the benefit of the doubt based on "technicalities" and ignoring justice... which you should not ? I think they've not come close to dotting the i's and crossing the t's properly... as the arrogance of power displayed here is wont to err in that way... with their deceptions operating to deceive themselves, too well, and not others... and we'll see plenty of proofs emerge that fundamental "competence" is not what is driving this.
Ultimately, it will be shown as a practice of a fraud on the court.
And, since you are a lawyer... can you tell us what it means should and must happen IF it is shown to be a fraud on the court ? The government will do back flips trying to make this case go away... trying to avoid even a RISK of that happening ?
But, I think it is too late for that... the dirt under the "fraud on the court" carpet is being exposed.
And, the entire criminal enterprise... not just this instance of it... depends on preventing that from occurring.
The bottom line on the Bundy Ranch... is that the corrupt Senator didn't want to pay Bundy the price that he would require to surrender his rights and property to them legitimately... so the corrupt Senator used the corrupt government to try to harass him out of his property... but they mis-judged his capacity to resist in their negotiation over price, thinking they could run him off with a threat, a show, and an application of force.
They misjudged. Their scam failed. The Senator belongs in jail. Those who have enabled him, belong in jail... including the judges and the lawyers.
However... also wrong on two other fronts.
First, in Nevada, the guys with the guns just showed you from first principles what the law really is. Including that they just showed you that the law as it was being exercised by the Federal government... was and is ILLEGITIMATE... by definition. You can wrap your head around all the technicalities in the law you want by reading it the way you want while trying to claim that is not true... but law does not exist without or trump fundamental legitimacy. The law does not exist to enable technicalities that allow corrupt Senators to take whatever they want... whenever they want... however they want... for any purpose they want. The government has already lost the politics... the court of public opinion has ruled... and the court of public opinion has already enforced its ruling... at the Bundy Ranch. To the degree that an effort is made to ignore that... it appears that the enforcement effort is likely to expand.
I guarantee you... 10% of the population with guns... out-rule the Supreme Court in saying what the law is.
Second, it is WRONG as a matter of the law of war... that a change occurring with a change of government obviates all pre-existing private property rights. The product of war... does not obviate WHO the beneficiary of a victory in war actually is... or what they CAN legitimately win, or take when they win ? So, the Constitution isn't re-wired to change its meaning when we win a war, to make the new land and the new people into the property of the government... just because the Army won a war with Mexico. That Mexico cedes its sovereignty over a bit of ground... whatever law applied there under Mexico's exercise of its own sovereignty... that doesn't alter the terms under which the sovereignty of the U.S. (and not the Federal government... which is NOT a sovereign entity) applies under the Constitution ? It matters which corporate entity you are talking about ? I don't recall a single instance in the Constitution... in which any power was ever devolved from the sovereignty of the people to "the Federal government" ? We need to distinguish between what is the government... and what is merely an agent in carrying out policy ? The Federal government has not and cannot gain any power or right that the people have not ceded to the united States ? They are merely "managers" of our interest that we have appointed... and, we can take them out when we've grown tired of their management.
I think we're there.
That shouldn't be at issue in the Nevada case... and the only reason it is... is that the government has made it relevant by grossly exceeding its legitimate authority... doing so in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.
That appears to be the almost universally shared opinion of the guys with the guns.
Harry Reid has been operating a scam, and that scam was exposed... but, do not expect that the growing awareness that results from revealing the structure of that scam will be contained to the specific instance.
"It's public land owned by the federal government and has been since 1848 when Mexico ceded it to the United States."
It is a combination of private, state, and PUBLIC land that is owned under the sovereignty of the united STATES. It is not owned as full sovereigns by the Federal Government, and cannot be, as our government does not have and CANNOT be granted all those powers of a sovereign entity. Land was only ABLE to be ceded to the United States as territory within the limits of the Constitution, and NOT to the Federal Government, outside of the limits of the Constitution ?
That misconception... a simple bait and switch... is intended to operate to remove individuals Constitutional rights... and to grant the government powers it does not have... and cannot exercise LEGITIMATELY ?
Legitimacy is the question. We have a limited government. As "the Federal government" are NOT the sovereigns... they have no legitimate claim to any exercise of sovereign powers that other governments might properly claim a right to exercise ? There's that AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALSIM issue again... conflicting with the fraud in the claims of our President that it doesn't exist ? Our system, in its extension of derivatives from the British... exists because the British system failed to properly constrain the sovereign powers of the British King and the Aristocracy. But, our system also inherits those limits that did exist in Britain ? So, when you see the Federal government actually EXERCISING powers that are DENIED as proper EVEN under the British Constitution... there's a pretty clear indication something went wrong ?
They've exceeded their legitimacy. You can probably find the details that matter about that right here:
en.wikipedia.org
The Bundy case... appears it will expose that essential practice of fraud... that is also the foundation of the Federal Reserve as well as other excesses that depend on the government claiming a larger right and power than it CAN have... while remaining legitimate ? And, of course... lacking the legitimacy in fact... sustaining its claims also will engender if not require a lack of legitimacy in the effort ? That's what we are seeing that DID just occur in Nevada... in relation to the First Amendment.
Lawyers, of course... notorious for unwarranted fealty to the Feds... with that purposeful ignorance being made a part of their schooling, and a part of the job... to lie to the people, including their clients, about the FACT of the lines that do exist in the origin of the law and the relevance (or not) of the various corporate divisions within government.
The corporate Federal government... is not the sovereign. The people are the sovereign.
Lawyers don't own the law. But, their practice of it is often founded in fraud.
However, final point... if you are proven right "as a matter of law" in interpretation... that will require that I will join the revolution to help change that... and we'll see it be settled with guns. I'm not equivocating about what side I'll be on.
It is clear enough now that the people WILL defend the First Amendment... with guns, if necessary. I support that as necessary to remain free. The people appear willing to insist the Constitution WILL BE RESPECTED AND COMPLIED WITH... and appear ready to require that... by force if necessary. And, that seems a bit of the news from the Bundy Ranch that CNN missed ?
It appears the people also insist that the criminals who are now operating this government, ignoring the law and the Constitution, should be addressed as the criminals they are. Contempt of Congress is not acceptable... and Congress has and controls the right to address that problem. Contempt of the Constitution... is not acceptable.... and the people ultimately have and control the right to address that problem.
If John Boehner can't figure out how to solve the problems we can see creating oppression... perhaps others can ? Boehner's failures... require that others are going to try. Apparently, they've already got 1.8 million people planning to attend the event in May. And it looks like we'll see then if a government armed with lawyers is more capable of preventing Obama's removal from office, by impeachment, or otherwise... than they are capable of enforcing a takeover of the Bundy ranch to benefit a corrupt U.S. Senator, with Obama and Holder enabling him ?
With luck... the criminal excesses of this government will be brought to heel by Congress... in time to stop "more". If that doesn't happen... I believe the evidence requires that we will be seeing the events at the Bundy Ranch as the opening salvo in the second American Revolution. I don't want that to happen. I don't wish for it to happen. I'm not going to try to make it happen.
But, if this government does not agree to submit to the limits imposed on it by the Constitution... if the government continues to deny that America is not different than other countries in REQUIRING that the government will submit to Constitutional limits... and DOES SO IN GOOD FAITH, not merely mouthing the words... then it has ceased to be legitimate, by definition... and I will support the restoration of legitimacy in proper limits... by force... by whatever means are necessary.
I've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic... more than once.
I took it seriously when I swore the oath... and I take it seriously now.
Right now, the away games may be going well enough, or not... but, here at home, the risk tied to the home team is beating out the risk tied to the foreigners... while the home team is also failing in not keeping out the foreigners ? |
