By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but…… Last week I stated that federal courts ignored state law when they ruled against rancher Cliven Bundy and found in favor of the federal government. What I think in this matter really doesn’t mean much. The facts are the courts have ordered Mr. Bundy, on more than one occasion, to remove his cattle and he has refused to do so.
When the BLM threatened a Nye County rancher with the same fate as Mr. Bundy, he also took them to court. The difference in the two cases is that the courts found in favor of that rancher. Based on these court decisions, the local sheriff stood by his side.
The courts awarded the Nye County rancher 14 million dollars in damages. The BLM, the same agency that has attacked Mr. Bundy for not abiding by the court’s decisions, refused to honor the judgment. They have appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court. One federal official has been quoted as saying, “we will win there; that is our court.”
The court ruling against Mr. Bundy allows the federal government to recover an estimated one million dollars for trespass damages and the cost of the removal, which will bring Mr. Bundy’s bill into the five million dollar range. If Mr. Bundy cannot come up with that money, the loss of a 600 head of cattle will only be the beginning. The government will undoubtedly go after the ranch to recover the costs it has incurred in this adventure.
No one asked me but…. The First Amendment is really quite clear when it states “Congress shall make no laws …abridging the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble …” The BLM has violated all of these First Amendment rights.
The most egregious violation is the establishment of a free speech zone. Some people have stated that it is unconstitutional to establish a free speech zone. They are wrong. There is a free speech zone established by the Constitution of the United States. Its boundaries are Canada on the North, Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico, on the South, the Atlantic Ocean on the East, and the Pacific Ocean on the West.
I am aware that cities, states, and the federal government have passed laws requiring a permit to peaceably assemble and that limit assembly to a specific area. This is a direct violation of the Constitution. The power to grant and restrict is the power to deny. Which indeed apparently the BLM has done as they arrested a member of a group that had peaceably assembled, outside their designated area, to video the round up of the cattle. There has been no indication that the group was doing anything that was not peaceable; they had merely assembled outside the BLM designated area.
The BLM had indicated that the press could only do their job with permission from the BLM. The Press had to be escorted at all times and only those reporters approved by BLM would be allowed to observe the roundup. They had indicated that this was for the protection of the reporters. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan; reporters should be allowed into the area to freely report. If you limit which reporters are allowed in and which areas they can report on, is this not an abridgement of free press?
No one asked me but… Are you aware that the BLM closed the Logandale Trails for a time as part of the cattle round up? The fact that there are no cattle anywhere near the Trails which are miles from the round up area, and are not located in the area designated as off limits by the BLM, did not deter overzealous agents from posting the area as closed.
After the agents had already posted the area on April 6, the BLM released a press statement, “On BLM lands, the Logandale Trails remain open and assessable.”
On April 7, a press release stated, “While there are temporary closures in place that will be lifted at the end of this of operation, some popular areas remain open. On BLM lands, the Logandale Trails remain open and accessable.” This statement was made while a sign on the road to the Trails stated “CLOSED AREA- ROAD CLOSED- AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY -SUBJECT TO CITATION.”
That sign remained in effect well into the afternoon of April 9. Sometime between three in the afternoon of the 9th and the morning of April 10, this sign was removed. However, the road to and the area of the Narrows, which is also outside the restricted area as indicated by the BLM closure map, remained posted as closed.
The point is that the Trails and the Narrows were never designated as a closure area on the maps issued by these federal agencies nevertheless, they were posted.
No one asked me but… If the federal government is not subject to state law within BLM land does that means over 80 percent of the state is not really the state of Nevada? If the federal government is not subject to state law, within BLM land, why is the local citizen? If state highways through federal lands are subjected to federal closures they must own those highways. How can the State Highway Patrol have jurisdiction in an area owned by the federal government?
Senator Reid has stated BLM land belongs to all the people of the United States not to the State of Nevada. Does that mean Senator Reid is only the Senator of pockets of civilization and we need to redraw the map of the state to reflect that over 80 percent of the state is really just federal territory?
Thought of the week…It is remarkable how easily children and grown-ups adapt to living in a dictatorship organized by lunatics.
– A. N. Wilson
