Pardon the Bundy Family and their Supporters

Pardon the Bundy Family and their Supporters


The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. – James Madison (Federalist Paper No. 47)

UPDATE: The jury acquitted two men, Richard Lovelien and Steven Stewart, of all 10 charges against them, and two others, Eric Parker and O. Scott Drexler, on most counts. The jury deadlocked on the remaining charges against Parker and Drexler, and then Judge Gloria Navarro an appointee of President Obama hand- picked by Harry Reid, declared a mistrial.

This was the second trial for the four men, who had been accused of conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, among other charges. A jury in April deadlocked on all charges against them.

Now, incredibly the Government has announced its intention to try Parker and Drexler a third time! Thirty days after the third “re-trial” of Parker & Drexler the next set of Bundy Ranch Defendants will have their trial, including Cliven Bundy, his sons, and journalist Pete Santilli whose only crime seems to be his coverage of the dispute as a news story. Six other accused, which include two other sons of Clive Bundy, are awaiting trial sometime in 2018.

We stand commited to getting a pardon for all the Bundy Family & Supporters!

On January 20th, 2017, when President Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States, newly sworn-in President Trump gave a stirring and passionate speech about the new day that was coming to the USA now that power would be transferred from Washington, D.C. back to the American People. He said:

“For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished — but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered — but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”
-President Donald Trump Inauguration Speech 2017

No more well-defined example of the injustices wrought by the hands of an out-of-control Federal Government can be found than the case of the Bundy Family from the State of Nevada, whose multiple family members rot in a Federal Prison on this very day.

Our Founding Fathers said that Federal Government was to be limited in power regarding to land use within states, and that states themselves should have the say over how the land was used. This is made crystal clear in the Federalist Papers.

Over time, as if in slow motion, our enumerated Constitutional rights have been eroded, to the point of being unrecognizable today.

The result has become a bloated and power-mad Federal Government that is hell bent on achieving full spectrum control over every facet of American’s lives. Militarized Federal Agencies are destroying livelihoods and children’s futures. When the people gather to redress grievances, Federal mercenaries are called in and threaten to shoot-to-kill.

We have allowed our public servants to become Rule Protected Predators, willing to kill and destroy families to maintain their iron grip of power and profit.

Here we have the BLM, the EPA, and the FBI threatening death, stealing land by fiat, and slaughtering livestock while laughing about it. We have allowed our public servants to become modern-day robbers.

In the case of the Bundy Family, there were merely the last ones standing. All of the other ranchers that had developed the area around Bunkerville, NV over the past 150 years had been driven off by the same strong-arm tactics that the Bundy’s resisted.

The Center for Biological Diversity had the audacity to offer to buy the grazing rights of their family for next to nothing. This, after years of using the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency as a club to bludgeon not only the Bundy’s, but all the other families in the area as well.

Was it for some desert tortoise that these multi-generational rangers driven off their land, as the EPA and CBD claim? Perhaps it was the fact that a certain Nevada senator had almost one hundred acres of land adjacent to the Bundy family? Maybe that this same senator wanted to use that land as part of a 9,000-acre Federal Government subsidized solar farm, put together by his son, in concert with Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group?

The fact that the Bundy family would not leave their ancestral land helped cause the Reid-Chinese solar deal to fall apart, which incensed Senator “Pinky” Reid, who then determined to use the full might and force of Federal Law Enforcement to bring terror down upon the Bundy Family’s heads.

Power has run amok and the people are being abused. Their land has been stolen, they have been physically trampled, and in the case of Lavoy Finicum, we find that people are even that they are being murdered in what every appearance shows to be cold blood.

The Department of Justice has looked away at all this abuse of power. Their job, paid for by American Taxpayers, was to protect the people from exactly this, but they have allowed federalism to be destroyed in a multi decade effort to centralize power at all costs. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, rather than look more deeply into the causes that erupted into the standoff, instead congratulated the prosecution on their fine work. This dashed the hopes of patriots everywhere, hoping for real justice.

The wildlife refuge standoff could have been prevented if the FBI had not intervened in the republic form of government where the people petition their representatives with grievances to be addressed. The armed standoff, of which the first member was sentenced to 68 years in prison, was instigated by the State and Federal Governments refusal to listen to legitimate grievances brought to them but the Bundy Family and many others. The Feds resorted to threats of lethal force first, making the excuses for action by criminalizing activities that the family had engaged in for almost one hundred years. With the courts stacked full of cronies to the very same usurpers of State Power, the Bundy Family received no justice and have continually been prevented from making their case.

In the latest insult, just before sentencing Bundy supporter Gregory Burleson to 68 years in prison for his role in the armed confrontation what saw the Feds back down, in 2014. U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro, placed into power by then President Barack H. Obama at the insistence of Senator Harry Reid, refused to allow Burleson’s attorneys to argue that they were exercising their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and bear arms.

The defense was not allowed to highlight the actions of BLM agents in the days leading up to the incident or mention federal gaffes such as the ill-advised “First Amendment” zone created for protesters. Judge Navarro also ruled allowing the prosecutors to introduce testimony about the four accused men and their associations with so-called militia groups. Many legal analysts point out that Judge Navarro went to extraordinary lengths to prevent any possible jury nullification, which would have seen the defendants walk free because of the jury’s refusal to convict due unjust application of the law.

As JFK said those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

As we reflect on the immortal words of JFK, we should also pay heed to the Bundy’s, who call on us not to hate those who are persecuting them, but rather we to pray for them and strive by action to help them see the light and error of their ways.

You can be sure that this is not an isolated case. The EPA has been using the land forfeiture laws to harass and steal land, often to hand it over to an entrenched political crony. Bit by bit they are destroying the American Way of Life, by forcing dependence upon the Federal Government. In Oregon, where the wildlife refuge standoff occurred, the people supported the Hammond Family. They watched as the government destroyed Harney County.

While the men of the Bundy family languish in prison, Federal Agencies have not given up trying to take everything generations of Bundy members have scratched out of the earth for themselves. The women of the Bundy clan are pretty much on their own.

People need to live in liberty. Land and resources must not be centralized or nationalized. Our sustenance is at risk if the heads of the federal agencies achieve their objective of total control of the Earth so they alone decide the fate of men based on their personal desires for profit or power.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness IS about freedom from exactly the kind of oppression that the Bundy family has been subjected too, and President Trump should remember his Inaugural Address words:

“What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.” -President Donald Trump Inauguration Speech 2017

We have before us a case where the government power was abused, not controlled by the people, but by the few for their own gain. Lives have been destroyed and only President Trump has the authority to make things right. By signing this petition, we implore President Trump to show compassion and wisdom, and offer clemency to the Bundy men and their supporters.

Cliven and Ammon Bundy and their supporters stood up for their God given rights and the rights of their neighbors. They stood up for Dwight and Steven Hammond, and now we must stand up for all of them.

Federal judge refuses to get off Bundy case

AG Sessions: ‘I’m not taking sides’ in Bundy case

Reid Bunkerville LLC Exposed: Is This Why Bundy Ranch Was Targeted?

BUSTED: Harry Reid Owns 93 Acres Next to Bundy Ranch


  1. The Bureau of Land Management violated 43 United States Code Section 1733(c) in usurping the role and authority of Peace Officer local enforcement of laws and regulations. After a sense, it was in some ways as if the Federal Government sent in a several companies of Army soldiers to do the job of the local Sheriff, and presumed that they, in this case the Bureau of Land Management(BLM), had the authority to violate the Law (43 U.S.C. Section 1733(c)) and militarily seize, redistribute for the personal gain of cost offsets of the operation, or destroy at random cattle and water pipes and water storage equipment as if lawless vandals under a verbal “never prosecute” ordinance issued under “color of authority” at the White House.

    The claim at first was to protect a desert turtle that the Bureau of Land Management frequently and intentionally were themselves “killing off” in the many hundreds. So the complaint that a Bundy steer might have killed a single desert turtle and been justification to seize the steer, vandalize his property, and act under “color of authority” had absolutely NO moral or legal justification to it, as INFOWARS showed in their news article.

    The gist of the 43 U.S. Code Section 1733 (c), is that the local Sheriff and perhaps even Highway Patrol support should have been contracted with as many as perhaps 40 cars and other vehicles to role in with a judge’s signed court order in hand (by the Sheriff who would be on site also) and arrest the first 50 to 80 people on site they believed in violation, whether the public carried firearms or not. It is not for the Bureau of Land Management to play illegal enforcement a**holes for the foreign Chinese Government in a power land grab of United States Citizens while violating the rights of such citizens of their First Amendment and other rights.

    Whowas (and still is) the one acting illegally? The guy acting under color of authority who while unprovoked used Level 4 use of force and beat down a 57 year old small and almost frail unarmed woman from behind as if it was something of stimulation for him like Viagra, was just one of MANY examples that could be brought forth. The officers (plural) who under color of authority and acting illegally who created a pig-pen miles from the Bundy Ranch and said that this is the only place for the next 20 miles that protesters in behalf of Cliven Bundy had any constitutional First Amendment Rights, and inferred that even this pig pen was tentative until such a time as these same Federal Officers acting under color of authority would come and take it away from you there also. And no, they weren’t just kidding … they actually believed and meant what they said.

    To which we should respond and lecture them this citation,
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
    there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    While Peace Officers regularly read Miranda Rights to those they arrest, how many even read the actual Supreme Court decision itself? They had damn better do it and be aware or their ass will be handed them in Court when a competent attorney and a fair judge go at it with such a case AGAINST the presumptive Federal Officer.

    Or how about the snipers who got off on training their scopes on anyone who pulled over to a road shoulder and took pictures of the open local landscape, and then tasered and arrested the son of Cliven Bundy because he potentially was capturing a Bureau of Land Management cattle-rustling operation of his father’s cattle? Clearly, those who confronted and tasered someone for pulling over to the shoulder of a road and taking pictures of a criminal act is the victim of those in criminal conspiracy with those committing felony theft, not being granted a Court Order to seize such assets, nor for another BLM officer to randomly (and with glee) kill 2 Bundy owned prize bulls by gunshot, among others
    and labeled it as their “euthanizing” the 2 bulls.

    Under the Law, each Bureau of Land Management Officer and each local official hired by them in exceeding their authority, were and still are subject to being sued and stripped of any protection they might claim that they “were acting under orders.”

    Meanwhile, Senator Harry Reid at the time used language that declares anyone who is a Constitutionalist and demands that HE (United States Senator Harold Reid) abide by both the Constitution and the same United States Code as we do, that we peon / peasant / common citizens are somehow a greater threat than Al Qaeda, “are Domestic Terrorists”,

    and insinuated that we were NOW subject to Congressionally sanctioned Predator Drone Strikes and Congressionally sanctioned U.S. Military Assassination on United States Soil?

    Let me ask this, was the former attack on January 4, 2010, in a Federal Building which houses the offices of Harry Reid related to his, Harry Reid’s, criminal corruption in doing harm to one of his own constituents related to this criminal conspiracy of Harry Reid with the Chinese Government over that U.S. Citizen? I do not advocate violence here…I am just asking the question “is the ENN Energy – BLM – Harry Reid Land Grab related to that January 4, 2010 incident”?

    One current narrative that we have about Harry Reid and his son Rory with ENN Energy, is that they allegedly recruited ENN in a Harry Reid trip to China in 2011.

    However, the Washington Free Beacon uncovered that Harry Reid and his son Rory were in secret negotiations with ENN for 2 years, beginning in 2009
    which precedes the attack on the Federal Building by the gunman on January 4, 2010, and suggests the incidents are indeed related. Land prices were negotiated to be sold to ENN at less than fair market value and allegedly agreed to with ENN Energy in December of 2011,
    ” According to [Janet] Barela [executive director of the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the Laughlin Town Advisory Board]
    ENN Group expressed an interest in Laughlin more than two years ago, beginning discussions with Clark County and NV Energy. Those discussions set the groundwork, and then a trip by a delegation of United States senators to ENN Solar’s headquarters in Langfang, China, in April accelerated the matter. Nevada Sen. Harry Reid was part of that delegation….

    The next step …
    The county can, under Nevada Revised Statute 244.2815, adopt a resolution deeming the project to be “in the best interest of the public,” which would allow the sale or lease of county land for the purpose of economic development without offering it for bid to the general public. It also could allow the county to make that sales agreement for less than fair-market value – which could be as high as $45 million based on a price of $10,000 per acre.

    Barela said there is at least one more hurdle for the proposal to clear – a covenant with the Bureau of Land Management over use of the land that was transferred from the BLM to Clark County.

    “There’s still a BLM covenant on the land,” Barela said, adding that the covenant was part of a “1966 land-use plan. At that time, solar (energy production) wasn’t on anybody’s chart.”

    She said Reid and his staff are involved in trying to secure a federal waiver for that land-use covenant.” (Unquote)

    Or how about
    “ENN and Clark County entered into a purchase agreement for the property in December 2011, contingent upon the Chinese-based solar cell manufacturing firm returning to the county within 18 months with commitments from three utility companies to purchase power generated at the facility.” (Unquote)

    So 2 years prior to December 2011 as cited above means December of 2009, which fits the timeline for the incident at the Federal Building where Harry Reid kept his offices. Then there is the complication of who owns what, especially the lands that are claimed by the Bureau of Land Management as transferred to Clark County, but they now want back so they can get their “cut” of the $45,000,000 land sale in Clark County for lands they gave up? What’s that all about?

    And get this, while the Law Firm of Lionel, Sawyer and Collins, (Nevada’s largest law firm), where Rory Reid works practicing “Gaming and Regulatory Law”,

    just “happens” to represent the Chinese Government’s ENN Energy, while Harry Reid’s own Senior Political Advisor,right out of the gate of his being appointed Head of the Bureau of Land Management in that magical month of April 2014!

    Good golly, who would have guessed that was such a coincidence? So in his first major act upon his April 8th of 2014 confirmation by the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid’s political chihuahua went right for the throat of the Bundy family on behalf of Rory and Rory’s father, and of course that slimy Senator Harry Reid by ordering over 200 armed agents with cocky provocateurs itching to shoot down U.S. Citizens as if in a living video game. So, from the standpoint of Senator Harry Reid, you successfully appoint YOUR guy as head of the BLM, and his first assignment is to deliver the head of Cliven Bundy to you on a platter like he was John the Baptist being offered up to Herod for viewing? And then Harry Reid dares publicly denounce legal and peaceful citizens as “domestic terrorists” who should be assassinated by drone strikes and what have you, while he politically embraced Al Qaeda and the real terrorists we are supposed to be at war with?

    The whole fight between the Bureau of Land Management and the Bundy Ranch appears to hinge on criminal racketeering on the part of Harry Reid in behalf of a CHINESE solar farm that wanted to gobble up lands they were NOT privy to.

    See: Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

    BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm
    by Kit Daniels April 11, 2014

    as well as:

    See also:

    as well as Alex Jones and David Knight on video at the time discussing at:

    Also check out the article: “BLM Action in Nevada is Unconstitutional, Here’s Why
    A direct violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution
    [by] Kurt Nimmo” @

    Thank you Roger Stone for keeping this national story alive, and may the Bundy Family be pardoned by President Trump specifically for their Nevada related issues.

    1. Right23d

      Google is paying 97$ dependably! Work for couple of hours and have longer with sidekicks and family! :!sq73d:
      On Tues I got an excellent new Land Rover vary Rover from having attained $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable however you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash363FinderReady/Pay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!sq73l..,.

    2. East47b

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! :!ad37d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash327GroupClassic/Pay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ad37..,.

    3. Personal69b

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! :!ag29d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash319SportSell/Pay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ag29l..,.

  2. In April of 2014 I followed the Bundy Ranch situation and posted 10 articles about it on

    I have spent time in the West and have talked to friends there regarding the BLM, an agency that is almost universally despised in the Western states, and justifiably so. It almost seems that they operate as a rogue agency–doing what they want when they want and to whom they want with no visible consequences. Their verbal threats to shoot ordinary citizens at the Bundy Ranch standoff are so typical of these out-of-control federal agencies. They really think they own all the land and that no one should have any private property–it should all be overseen by the federal government. And in Nevada it is almost that way already. The federal government controlls over 80% of the land in Nevada, which doesn’t leave much for the citizens of that state to use.

    Now we find that Harry Reid owns land next to the Bundy Ranch. You have to wonder if any of that 20% of our uranium that Hillary gave away to the Russians is possibly on Bundy land or close to it.

    There are two basic Americanist cultures left in this country, the culture of the Old South and the ranching and farming and mining culture of the Far West. Folks in both of these cultures tend to be more individualistic and less trusting of government in general and so the feds would love to dispose of both of these groups so the cultural Marxist abberation we see can completely take over. Folks in the South and West, and their Americanist cultures need to go and the BLM is more than happy to do its part in ridding the country of real patriotic Americans.

    1. Yet very few americans are standing in support at the court house in Las Vegas Nevada where there is the continued corruptions and injustices occurring under Judge Navarro. The state appears to be getting away with blatant destruction of US constitution and no one seems to care.

      1. The people ‘observing’ this trial are laymen and don’t understand courtroom procedures or American jurisprudence and think everything they’re observing is ‘tyranny’. Read the court transcripts to see what’s really going on.

      2. Yes these people have no idea of actual history or understanding the Constitution or of law. They have been spoon fed anti-government radical, Morman, posse commentatus, soverign citizen fantasy’s and have accepted them as fact. So when their gross misunderstandings run into real reality they are shocked and baffled when they get into trouble. It is a clear case of the Dunning-Krugar effect

    2. Just a correction – the BLM is NOT universally despised, it’s only despised by arrogant, rogue cowboys and the like. Having talked to numerous ranchers, they think the Bundys are dangerous wing nuts giving regular ranchers a bad name, the BLM is often praised by these ranchers for their professionalism. I’m sure having people like the Bundy’s manage (? steal?) my land would work out real well for most of us (not!).

    3. Yes both the western culture and the southern culture are pretty much the same in complaining about the government while collecting the greater share of welfare, disability, food stamps, and other government handouts. They only got electric , internet, roads, and other luxury items because of big government programs. But they suffer from a severe case of the Dunning-Krugar effect and do not realize it. Give them what they want cut off the government assistance

      1. Conspiracy theorist,. One who believes general alternative theories based on vague percieved connections of imagination and by calling internet searching of blogs as research. Rather than trying to understand the general, usually more complex than black and white explanations or understanding events and actions that are based in factual evidence and real accredited and professionally accepted research

  3. The whole dispute is over who owns the land that the Bundy cattle were grazing on. The Bundys do own 160 acres. No one disputes that. There was 20 some square miles their cattle graze on. The federal government, the state of Nevada, and Clark County Nevada all believe the land belongs to the federal government. The Bundys and their followers believe the land belongs to Clark County, Nevada. If you accept a pardon, you are implicitly admitting that you committed the crime. If they committed a crime, the land belongs to the federal government.

    1. Sorry but your logic is skipping a beat. Public land has always belonged to the people. The confusion may be with what was to be the government management of said lands. BLM was given that task, of managing the public lands, by the government. And even though many of you don’t understand what ranching entails, for years and years those public lands were used by ranchers to graze their herds, which, by the way, is a part of managing the land. Some states preferred not to tend to the management of those lands themselves but many people believed that good management comes from those who know the land, like the very ranchers who require the use of it to sustain their herds. It is not a crime, has never been a crime, to utilize the land in this manner. The public lands are not owned by the government, they have never been owned by the government – that’s just crazy! Public lands are owned by you and me. We all need to be clear on this in order to see how the abuse of power of the few are affecting our freedoms. Don’t let what others say cloud your thinking on this. You can check it out yourself. Public lands are exactly that. Ranchers have been utilizing those lands for too many years to count. And these men are being held in jail for breaking no (federal) laws. Be watchful as this is happening now everywhere in this country and not necessarily in regard to grazing rights. People are unjustly being arrested arrested and sentenced. And what I mean by “unjustly” is that is was no law that was broken.

      1. Read the case of Kleppe v. New Mexico. I live about 30 miles from a national forest. Can I go into it and start logging right now. Can I put cattle on that public land?

          1. The Bundys did not own any grazing rights. You are just mistaken. If they owned the rights, why did they pay grazing fees from 1954 to 1993?

          2. What about their water rights. Why did the BLM destroy their access to water without a court order?

          3. What about their water rights? If they both had water rights and those water rights entailed that they could have pipes to exercise those rights, then they should sue the federal government.

          4. Because that is what people did back then. Have you never heard of community grazing rights. It is for community to use as grazing lands as needed.

          5. If you want to live in a deluded world and make stuff up, that is fine. You might want to try living in reality. Either Cliven Bundy or his father paid grazing fees from 1954 to 1993. That would destroy any claim of adverse possession. I have never heard of community grazing rights because they don’t exist other than in your mind.

          6. I think they use them in some third world countries, like in sub-Saharan Africa. It’s worked out real well for them.

          7. Community grazing rights – sounds like a sure way to strip the land bare. And even if there were such a thing in a modern, non-tribal setting, I’m certain that if the “community” wanted the Bundy’s to reduce the number of bovines on the community parcel, the Bundys would have come at them with guns.

          8. They didn’t own the “rights”, they had grazing PRIVILEGES, repeat, PRIVILEGES, for which they were supposed to pay. They didn’t pay. Essentially deadbeats. They lost all claim to their PRIVILEGES. Really bad decision making on their part.

        1. Not unless you have a logging or grazing permit, or you have logging or grazing RIGHTS to the land that you purchased when you purchased the property adjacent to the lands you own, which is the case of the Bundy Ranch and many other cattlemen who were intimidated or threatened to sell off their lands.

          The Bundy ranch is the last one remaining in the Bunkerville area in dispute of rights. The murdered rancher and hero, Robert LaVoy Finicum knew this having been in dispute over the same issues on his land in Arizona. The grazing RIGHTS were purchased along with the ranch lands. There are and always were transferable by inheritance or sale.

          Research the issue by reading what land RIGHTS are.

          1. RIGHTS were granted by acts of Congress and they have always been transferable by inheritance or through sale. The Bureau of Land management cannot revoke a right.

            Grazing PERMITS are a different animal. They are issued to ranchers for a fee when they (the ranchers) do not own grazing rights to lands as the holders of RIGHTS possess. They are mutually exclusive matters.

            The Bundys hold grazing rights and have OWNED them since the mid-1800’s. The various congressional acts that have been passed since then all stipulate that RIGHTS are NOT affected by them. You cannot take away a right like you can take away a permit. Well, that is unless you come to the ranchers as a well-armed force and intimidate them off of their lands.


          2. Owned the rights since the mid-1800’s? That’s a good trick – they only bought that ranch in what, the 1950’s? Anyway, “Federal grazing permits and leases are revocable, amendable, non-assignable ten-year licenses to graze federal public lands that do not convey property rights to grazing permittees/lessees.” (Mark Salvo – Defenders of Wildlife)

          3. A grazing right, is not a preference nor a permit. Maybe you need to learn the difference between rights and permissions.

          4. It’s moot – the Bundy’s had neither rights nor privileges – they forfeited them when they went all deadbeat for like 20 years.

          5. Obviously you have already made up your mind, regardless of what I or anyone tells you. They did have rights, and still do. BLM policy changes cannot change the fact that they have GRAZING RIGHTS and not privileges by permit(s) or fees. Keep believing as you wish.

          6. Well, if they have these rights, why did the BLM try to get rid of their cows after 20 years of nonpayment?

          7. If you don’t understand what is going on, then you don’t know why the government assassinated Robert LaVoy Finicum, and make no mistake, it was a planned assassination and not a ‘routine’ traffic stop.

          8. Quit infantilizing Lavoy – he was a grown man who made his (bad) choices and whose last words, “You’re gonna hafta shoot me”. He refused to stop, tried to run a road block. If it had been a black guy instead of a lily white cowboy he probably would have been shot twenty times over. I have exactly zero sympathy for Lavoy.

          9. Having lived out west for 40 years, having used public lands extensively, having talked to a number of ranchers, I do in fact know what is going on. I don’t think the gov’t wants to set the precedent that it is OK to threaten law enforcement whenever you don’t get your way, that wouldn’t work out too well. As for Lavoy Finicum, you guys need to quit infantilizing him. He was a grown man who made his choices, his last words after trying to run a legal roadblock were, “You’re gonna hafta shoot me”, and so they obliged him. I have exactly zero sympathy for Lavoy Finicum.

          10. Let’s start with the ‘kill zone’ roadblock which is NOT a legal roadblock, and was setup weeks before. Then go back to where they were first stopped and SHOT at, when Ryan Payne exited LaVoy’s truck.

            Now ask yourself a simple question: Why didn’t the police approach LaVoy’s pickup when he was stopped? They approached the Cherokee that carried Ammon Bundy and the lying two-faced informant Mark McConnell who was the ONLY one armed.

            This was a planned assassination of a man who was teaching the law and was on his way to do just that.

            Robert LaVoy Finicum is a modern-day American hero.

            Maybe you can learn from him and others who do NOT subscribe to federal supremacy and abrogation of State and Individual Rights.

            Trespassing is not a crime that warrants killing an unarmed man with his hands up. Yelling ‘Just shoot me’ is not justification to oblige him.

            I don’t care if you spent you entire life on a ranch, you weren’t here in Oregon when the stand up and protests were happening. I was.

          11. Why do you keep saying the same BS over and over?

            “In the absence of specific Congressional enactments concerning
            management of the public lands, the lands were deemed to be available
            for grazing by domestic livestock owned by the general public. In 1890,
            the United States Supreme Court in Buford v. Houtz4 recognized a public
            license to use the public lands and stated:
            We are of the opinion that there is an implied license, growing
            out of the custom of nearly one hundred years, that the public
            lands of the United States, especially those in which the native
            grasses are adapted to the growth and fattening of domestic
            animals, shall be free to the people who seek to use them
            where they are left open and unenclosed, and no act of government
            forbids this use.
            The Court further commented on the development of a practice of
            fattening private herds by allowing them to graze on the public lands:
            [I]t became a custom for persons to make a business or pursuit
            of gathering herds of cattle or sheep, and raising them and
            fattening them for market upon these unenclosed lands of the
            government of the United States …. Everybody used the
            open unenclosed country, which produced nutritious grasses,
            as a public common on which their horses, cattle, hogs and
            sheep could run and graze.
            With passage of the Forest Service Organic Act in 1897 and the
            Taylor Grazing Act8 in 1934, Congress belatedly took the necessary
            action to provide authority to close the public lands of the United
            States to grazing without permit. Needless to say, the change in the law
            and resultant closure of lands to “open” grazing caused great consternation
            among the nation’s stock growers. ”

            But wait! There’s more!
            “Bundy claims that he inherited “pre-emptive grazing rights” on federal land because his ancestors kept cattle in the Virgin Valley since 1877, before the Department of the Interior was created. “My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed,” Bundy told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. Bundy has also argued that Nevada’s open range statute excuses his trespass.

            So far, the federal courts have sided with BLM against him on both of these legal arguments, very likely due to a cozy relationship between the two branches of government under the liberal Obama administration.

            However, by continuing to graze his livestock on federal land for over 20 years after he stopped paying fees in 1993, Bundy may have acquired “prescriptive rights;” the right to an easement over property after trespassing on it for several years. Columnist Ben Swann interviewed Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin about the possibility. Devlin asked the BLM if Bundy had acquired prescriptive rights, and was told that the agency is concerned he may have.”

            Hmm… seems like the BLM/Harry Reid/FBI/DOJ all have a collective part in silencing this issue in the media and spinning the story to be about ‘armed anti-government extremists’ instead of the real issue about government overreach, threats, arrests on charges that defy logic, held without bail under terrorist revocation of bail, and even assassination on the one man who spoke out on these issues and demonstrated how the ranchers are losing their lands by criminals acts of government.

            Please do a bit of homework before offering an opinion that is baseless.

          1. Did you lose consciousness when you suffered your head trauma. I did not say that I was going to put cattle in the national forest. The question was that if it is public land can I start logging in it. Cattle in fact can eat what is in the forest. Duh?

      2. They’re owned by you and me, and we put the BLM in charge of managing them. I am glad they manage them for people like me, among others, and not just bovines.

    2. The fed cannot own land except for the ten acres in D C and a few military bases all other unclaimed land belongs to the people of the state in which the land lies. The fed hired Forest service, the BLM to regulate the peoples land, public land that we are unable to set foot on. Can you see how wrong the fed is? The sheriff is supposed to protect the people from the fed, A few Sheriffs didn’t understand that they are the most powerful law enforcement agency and that power is given to protect the people.

      1. Thank you for your ‘posse comitatus’ nonsense about the sheriff being the highest authority. That’s not the case.

        And your argument that the federal government can’t own land “except for the ten acres in D C and a few military bases” is utter bullsh*t. The constitutional basis for federal land ownership is the PROPERTY CLAUSE, not the Enclave Clause.

        As per the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the government CAN retain lands in federal ownership in perpetuity, and allows the government a great deal of discretion in the management of those lands. This has been determined through legislation, which has been challenged and subsequently UPHELD by the Supreme Court AND the Property Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands REPEATEDLY, FOR OVER A CENTURY. Here are the court cases: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).

        1. Curtin v. Benson
          222 U.S. 78 (1911)
          “… that the United States may exercise over the park not only rights of a proprietor, but the powers of a sovereign. There are limitations, however, upon both. Neither can be exercised to destroy essential uses of private property. The right of appellant to pasture his cattle upon his land, and the right of access to it, are of the very essence of his proprietorship. May conditions be put upon their exercise such as appellees put upon them? In answering the question, we shall assume, for the time being, that Benson has interpreted correctly the regulations of the Secretary of the Interior. His (Benson’s) order is not, it will be observed, a regulation of the use of the land, as an order to fence the lands might be, but is an absolute prohibition of use. It is not a prevention of a misuse or illegal use, but the prevention of a legal and essential use — an attribute of its ownership — one which goes to make up its essence and value. To take it away is practically to take his property away, and to do that is beyond the power even of sovereignty, except by proper proceedings to that end.”

          1. If they simply would have paid their fees and not been complete deadbeats then the fed would not have had to “practically to take his property away”. So simple, yet so hard for you guys to understand. Here are some more words of wisdom for you Bundy supporters – there is no free lunch – even for the Bundy Gang.

      2. So-called patriots (actually traitors) keep saying the fed can’t own land, and yet the fed keeps right on owning it. Maybe if you click your heels together three times and say “There is no place like home” the fed will magically stop owning the land.

      3. Where in the constitution is sheriff even mentioned? You have bought into the mythology which developed. It started with the sheriff being the highest elected official with arrest powers to being the most powerful police agency in the country. Also the land in question was acquired by a treaty. Article VI makes treaties the supreme law of the land. Note you have misstated article I sec. 8 clause 17. You have changed 10 miles square to 10 acres. A sure sign that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. You are just regurgitating what others who have no clue as to what they are talking about have told you.

  4. There is nothing in the Constitution giving them the power to own public lands therefore Amendment X state that those such powers should be given to the States respectively or to the people. The federalist No. 45 and 46 give an example of the intent the founders had when writing the Constitution where they stated many example supporting this. In No. 46 Madison states that the natural attachment is to the State. Since no power is given in the Constitution to the Federal Government to own the land, That power is given to the State, provided the people of that State consent, because it is their most natural attachment, and if they do not, then that power resides in the people. With the exception of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 in which the Federal Government must purchase the land from the State for the specific purposes listed in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17. Not only does this prove inside but, outside of the Constitution as well that these powers reside within the State. Since every man is whom makes laws is bound to the Constitution through oath of affirmation, thus are the law which they create, therefore there cannot exist outside of the Constitution that these powers reside in the Federal Government.

    1. Your argument that the federal government can’t own land is false. The constitutional basis for federal land ownership is the PROPERTY CLAUSE, not the Enclave Clause.

      As per the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the government CAN retain lands in federal ownership in perpetuity, and allows the government a great deal of discretion in the management of those lands. This has been determined through legislation, which has been challenged and subsequently UPHELD by the Supreme Court AND the Property Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands REPEATEDLY, FOR OVER A CENTURY. Here are the court cases: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).

      1. That would be a great argument….but it is false. First you need to understand that in Article IV it also says a few things that are important about States. Specifically the way new states are admitted. You must also understand what the intent of the founding fathers would have been. This intent can be found in the Federalist papers and in letters and other documents. First Article IV says that NO new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State. Therefore, you need State Boundary Lines to define the Land of each State. Or you would run the risk of one state owning land in another, thus violating Article IV. Now in the Federalist papers 46 Madison discusses how the peoples natural attachment is to their local governments. Just like you would not expect to pay the Federal Government to kick in your door because you are late on rent, you would expect the land lord to do that and if that did not get you to pay then the city or town officers may be involved after a court proceeding. Because your Land lord is your natural and local government/law enforcement is the most natural attachment to you. But what if the FBI or some federal agency comes and kicks in your door shoots your dog maybe you or your family as well. This is what happened to Cliven. He tried to pay it to his most natural attachment…his local State Government and they refused to take the payment and then a Federal Government Agency came Stole his property, killed his cattle, arrested and abused his family, tried to cover it up, and did many other terrible things to him. Back to the point, I was made very clear that there was nothing put in the Constitution that would allow the Federal Government to own anything without the consent of the people. You can find evidence of this in all kinds of places if you need the proof I will put it in my next comment. So if it is not in the Constitution the Federal Government can own land other then what is allowed for in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, then that power according to Amendment X gives that power to the State respectively or to the people. Or to the peoples most natural attachment the State/City/Town. But more Specifically in the Northwest Ordinance Art. 4 “The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made.” Therefore there can not be anything Contrary to the Constitution. Bottom line if the power is not in the Constitution then no law can give that power because the men who right the laws are bound by oath of affirmation. We know it was not in the Constitution biggest example of this was In 1803, Governor Morris, the principal proofreader and editor of the finished Constitution, confessed that he would have liked to have written the Property Clause so that Canada and Louisiana, once acquired, could be governed perpetually as federal provinces. He acknowledged, however, that there was little he could do to further that vision, because his fellow delegates did not agree with him. Those delegates adopted the Property Clause amid an almost universal assumption that its most important function was to promote land disposition and the creation of new states! [Letter from Morris to Henry W. Livingston (Dec 4, 1803)]. Also in Federalist No. 45 “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” As I said Amendment X if the power is not in the Constitution the power belongs to the People thus, they are called Public Lands or to the peoples most natural attachment. I would also like to point out that Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Court stated: “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.”Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.”[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.” As far as who grazing fees should be payed to the Northwest Ordinance Art. 4 “The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or districts, or new States, as in the original States, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.” It makes it very clear that they should be paid to “taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or districts, or new States, as in the original States”. I have not even gotten into grazing rights, property rights, or the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is very clear if you read and understood this my above mentioned point.

        1. So by your logic if I make my mortgage payments to the wrong bank (because I have a “natural attachment” to the wrong bank) and the actual lien holder repossess my house, I’m in the right and my bank is wrong? Yeah, I don’t think so.

          1. By the logic in your statement it would be like Cliven tried to pay money to a different State then the one he resides in that is not what happened. That is not what I am talking about. You are missing my point.

          2. He claims he tried to pay his federal fees to the county (if he ever really tried – I’m skeptical), not a very bright move. In any case the landowner got stiffed for 20 years by ‘ole Cliven; I’m amazed the gov’t displayed as much patience as they did. Every additional day the Bundys and their “patriot” friends are in jail is a good day.

          3. I agree. Regardless of the outcome of the trials, the Bundys will have spend almost 3 years in jail awaiting trial. And we’re all safer with these domestic terrorists behind bars.

          4. You break my heart…these men have threatened no one,have always been kind, helpful ,polite, God fearing people …They follow the law and the constitution…all of us should behave as well as they do…even after all this time in prison for something that was never a crime…they are still just trying to help others…they have made this earth a better place just for being here.

          5. He has entitlement under his wifes family that was guaranteed since the inception before it was even called a state. This land has been in his family without exception therefore the original land title holds.

          6. Sigh… He owns his little melon farm, but not the surrounding BLM land.The BLM land has never been “in his family”. It’s my land (and 330,000,000 other Americans).

        2. Please take your constitutional theories and run them by an actual constitutional lawyer (not KrisAnn Hall, because she’s really just about flogging her books) or a university-level constitutional professor and see what they tell you.

      2. You are mistaken. The only land that the government can “own” is in the constitution. That would include land for em battlements, I forget the rest but you can see for yourself it is extremely limited.

        1. YOU are mistaken. Read the Property Clause of the constitution. The constitutional basis for federal land ownership is the PROPERTY CLAUSE, not the Enclave Clause.

          As per the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the government CAN retain lands in federal ownership in perpetuity, and allows the government a great deal of discretion in the management of those lands. This has been determined through legislation, which has been challenged and subsequently UPHELD by the Supreme Court AND the Property Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands REPEATEDLY, FOR OVER A CENTURY. Here are the court cases: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).

    2. Maybe if you repeat that lie a thousand more times it will become true. But then again you guys have been saying it for years, and the federal gov’t is still in possession of all that land, so maybe not.

      1. Your natural attachment would be you local bank. But what if your bank request you mail your payment to a branch of your bank not only outside of you State but even outside of your country. This is my point. And encase you have not been paying attention to what the best President this Country has ever had has been doing, let me lay down some facts for you. Signed: April 26, 2017

        The order directs the Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke to review federal monument designations — including national parks — made since 1996 that cover more than 100,000 acres of land. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, presidents have the power to protect land.

        Trump’s order names one national monument designation in particular: Obama’s 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. Zinke must submit a report to Trump within 45 days.
        So your statement about the fed still being in possession of all the land is again false. Your just packed full of false statements. Maybe go try to troll Minecraft chat rooms this is big boy shit and you are way out of your league.

        1. Um, if he changes the boundaries of the monuments (he’ll have a hell of a legal fight) they revert back to plain old BLM or National Forest land, still very much federal property, duh. Anyway Zinke just said he’s gonna let a bunch of the monuments stand as they are, unchallenged, so I think there will be little practical effect.

  5. End the charade…free all of them. This is nothing but a retaliation for standing up to illegal government. The men who are under control of the prisons are true political prisoners….they are not receiving justice, why aren’t they given at the very minimum bond? Where is our Constitution?

    1. No. Let them have their day in court. No special privileges for Dear Leader Ammon and the rest of the Bundy cult.

        1. The Bundys and their supporters ARE a cult. They grift like a cult. They disseminate false beliefs and false narratives like a cult. They beg for money (for Dear Leader Ammon and others) like a cult. And they threaten anyone who criticizes or questions their beliefs, like a cult. They attract damaged and dangerous people (often with criminal backgrounds) like a cult. If it looks, walks and sounds like a cult, it’s a C-U-L-T, and the Bundy cult is exhibit A.

          1. Good use of the Rules for Radicals training Rory. 1. Identify the enemy.
            2. Label the enemy as dangerous or bad.
            3. Target the enemy as with conjecture and hearsay.

            Good jod counselor.

          2. None of what I posted is conjecture or hearsay. Do you know how many people in the Bundy cult have criminal histories? Google Neil Wampler for a start. He’s a convicted murderer who killed his own father. He’s a Bundy cult member. That’s just one example. But by all means, send them your money.

          3. Well the jury disagreed with you. As do I. Funny how people like you can support groups like AntiFa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street but not the common man. Maybe you need to take the log out of your own eye before you try and remove the twig in my eye.

          4. Again black or white thinking,. Why do you assume that if you are against the Bundy cult you are for antifa? That is just your brain unable to accept or understand people can have more complex shade of gray beliefs and do not like neither groups

          5. Harry Reid and his son Roy are supporters of Barack Hussein Obama, whom supported OWS, and Black Lives Matter, and Hillary Clinton. Infect the Uranium One debockel occurred on Dirty Harry Reid’s watch.

          6. Yes in watching them I was shocked at how many are felons and generally misfits malcontents with criminal records

      1. Do they pay you well for being a troll? Or are you just a “useful ediot” for Harry Reid or his son, Rory Reid? Being ignorant is one thing. But supporting a gangster is another. Using government power to increase your personal bank account is what dictators like Sodom Husain and Vladimir Piton do. Harry Reid is just as much a gangster dictator as Sodom Husain or Piton. Only a power hungry insane person would try to shot down a businessman like Rush Limbaugh or Calvin Bundy for personnel gain.

        1. The ‘gangsters’ here are the Bundys. Welfare ranchers like the Bundys pay absurdly low rates to graze cattle on federal (i.e. public) land, in comparison to private land. But they want to pay nothing, to graze their cattle on land that belongs to all Americans. It was only after Cliven sued the government and LOST did he decide he no longer recognized the federal government so he could exercise his right to steal from all Americans by grazing his cattle on public land free of charge. A thief wrapped in an American flag, waving a pocket constitution is still a thief.

          1. Are you a rancher? Do you rely on the ranching or farming trade or the industry that support that group of people that grow our food and rase the cattle we all eat? If not, Mr Lawyer,
            than you have no idea what it takes to rase the beef and chickens and pork we eat. And no idea of the hours and money it takes to put in a crop, or rase a cow.
            And the public land you talk about seems to not belong to all of us. It seems that only a few people get t use it, to include areas the land the Federal Government claims to own. It should be controlled by the lowest and closed government entity closest to the property. That would be the county governments. Than it should be leased to the highest bidder. But no new construction that cannot be moved off the property be allowed except a water gathering or production system. That would insure the land remain as pristine as possible while allowing the addition of a resource every living thing or creature needs, which is water.
            Then the local schools could use the money for the education of our children like it was set up some 200 years ago. The counties could use that money more than the federal government.
            Zardos1973 , I read all your comments in this thread. You sound like you are Rory Reid.
            The lawyer.
            And as a lawyer you are aware that the U.S.Constitution was written to limit the government in it’s authority and size. It was designed to allow the smallist and most local government run by the people for the people.
            It also spells out the things it is to fund like mutual defence, and Postal roads, and minting coins or curentcy. It was designed to protect individual liberty. So defending people from the Goliath of the Federal Government and it’s vast power is not only the rightthing to do, but required when that government uses it’s massive power to squash the workingmen and women. Like the USSR and Communist China did. People like ranchers and farmers.

          2. I disagree with you, therefore I must be Rory Reid. I guess that argument makes perfect sense in the minds of Bundy cult members. By the way, I don’t eat cattle, or pork or chickens. And beef consumption in this country is on the decline. Other welfare ranchers seem to have no problem abiding by the rules, since they’re getting a great deal. Why can’t the Bundys play by the rules? What entitles them to skip out on paying grazing fees for over 20 years?

          3. I suspect the Bundy’s have been having trouble playing by the rules since about kindergarten.

          4. “It seems that only a few people get to use (the land)”. Um, Bundy did get to use the land, for years and years, until he went all deadbeat for twenty years. There is no free lunch, not even for Cliven. When he stiffed the BLM, he was stiffing me, a member of the public. Frickin’ deadbeat.

          5. There are thousands more cattle raised on small rich grassland acreage farms in the East than in the west on hundreds of thousands of sparce , poor nutrition desert acreage. The western states are not a viable nor efficient nor cost effective ranches, especially without government subsidy. In the East beef is cheaper

        1. Yes, of course, in that paranoid little world of yours anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a BLM or gov’t troll.

      1. I was sickened when I saw Lavoy Finicum shot and killed. I was and still am so completely disgusted with our government.

          1. there were 4 defendants, 40 charges and this is the second go round. 34 charges were aquitted, 2Men walked out of prison completely aquitted of all charges, even with the corruption of the judge and prosecution, 2 men , one had 4 charges left and the other had 2 charges to go through again. This will the third trial for them because all the verdicts were hung juries. This one all of the jurists voted not guilty but 1 and we were informed that on jurist was on the jury because she had a gun held to her head as a child and wanted to sit on this jury , but she could be neutral. However, when she brought it up she was already emotional about it. This is a farce and a waste of our dollars and a witch hunt….there is no justice at all coming from this judge or the prosecution.

          2. Thank you. Well I will thank God for the good part and ask for his hand of truth and righteousness to come to the judge on this matter. Thank you again.

          3. Whow! !!!!!!! Just finished the video you posted.
            Oh my God. I did not know it is so messed up. My grandpa went through something simuler in the New Mexico rang wars back in the 1930s. But our own government doing this makes my blood boil. Will you share here of the You Tube link and any website so I can copy and paste. Project Varatous should see this.
            Thank you and may God bless and keep you in his Mighty hands.
            In the name above all names Jesus the Christ I pray. Amen.

        1. Pete was supposed to be having his trial now but due to the trial we just left and the next one for the same purpose…they may be if they are lucky seeing a trial in november. If for no other reason, this trail did not give anyone a speedy trial but the prosecutor decided 5 years is a speedy trial so they won’t look at this Constitutional law.

      2. Shawna Cox is a nut job who bears some responsibility for Lavoy Finicum’s death, when she told him to ‘gun it’ at the road block (evading arrest will get you shot just about anywhere). In her most recent video, she babbles incoherently about Agenda 21 or some other nonsense unrelated to the Bundy case. She’s also responsible for some of the incoherent, gibberish SovCit motions Ryan Bundy has filed.

        1. It would be most helpful for you if you would go and read up on agenda 21 now called agenda 30. It is solely agenda 21 that is stealing the land, poisoning the air, food medicines and etc to kill as many people as is on the Georgia guidestones. Agenda 21 is the new world orders plans for the future of the world and mankind…

  6. Funny Jeff Sessions says not taking sides. we are not asking for that we are asking for a fair trial. from what I can determine this case is one sided in testimony. That is because the Judge will not let people testify for the defense. And that is the message Sessions needs by not watching this trial he is taking sides.

    1. Jeff Sessions is recusing himself all over the place. First he recused himself from the Russia scandal, and now he is refusing to take sides on the Bundy case. Instead he’s going after marajuana users and the “War on Drugs” democratic agenda.


  7. “We the People” do NOT answer to the Bundy cult!

    The Bundys are grifters and con artists. No one has a constitutional right to point guns at federal agents carrying out a LAWFUL court order to impound trespass cattle after CLIVEN REFUSED TO PAY HIS GRAZING FEES ON FEDERAL LAND FOR 20 YEARS.

    And for anyone touting the debunked argument that the government can’t own land, the constitutional basis for federal land ownership is the PROPERTY CLAUSE, not the Enclave Clause.

    As per the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the government can retain lands in federal ownership in perpetuity, and allows the government a great deal of discretion in the management of those lands. This has been determined through legislation, which has been challenged and subsequently UPHELD by the Supreme Court AND the Property Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands REPEATEDLY, FOR OVER A CENTURY. Here are the court cases: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).

    1. Typical federal government Supremacist control freak. The Federal government should not retain ownership of 1 acre of that land.

    2. What about personal property of grazing and water rights? where was the BLM court order to destroy the water infrastructure or to kill cattle?
      The only people to point guns at people was the BLM. Do you honestly think a law enforcement agent would allow anyone to point a gun at them and let them be on their marry way?

      If you want to see the direction of the court or how the feds handle loosing a court case look at the Hage family. The story repeats itself over and over.
      The BLM just waited till they could get a judge to side with them.
      Google them.

      This is about private property rights on public lands. Something most people do not have a clue about and which the courts and those who wish to take what is not theirs have obfuscated until what was wrong is now right, and right is now wrong.

    3. I was there. Not one Patriot pointed a gun at anyone. Say what you will, when you are sitting inside an internment camp with no rights at all, because you sat on your ass and did nothing. These people are fighting for all of us.

        1. Holding a weapon is not pointing it at any one person. Waco and a few other events come to mind. This government is capable of anything and these men were there to make sure it didn’t happen. That’s all I have to say

          1. OK, I see you are completely delusional. He has someone in his scope, the exact, very definition of pointing a gun at someone, pointing it “at any one person” as you put it. He is waiting to bushwhack that person like the coward he is. What is wrong with you people?

  8. Here’s why Roger’s an urban neophyte twit.

    A little ‘deep dive’ for ya, buster.

    The Federal Civil Servant Protection Act of 2018.

    “Today we also have loudmouth Alex Jones and his InfoWars calling for a civil war as ‘Pardon the Bundys’ Roger Stone appears on his show hawking friend Donald Trump who needs a diversion, more gun toting’ supporters beyond the usual white alt-right, as the Special Council and Grand Juries threaten both his Presidency and child-like ego.
    Finally we have militiaman B.J. Soper, a III% leader in Redmond, Oregon who was at Malheur, who buys Smith, Jones and Haun’s propaganda, in a “come to Jesus talk” posted on YouTube in early August in response to modern militias being tied to Oklahoma City….”

  9. We need more Patriots at the Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas this coming week. I will be going out there on Monday.

    1. Yes follow the lead and go state your voice for “Freedom of Speech” in the courtroom in Las Vegas.

      1. As you know, that is just one of the Constitutional Rights being violated. The defense is not allowed to defend themselves. This judge needs to be impeached. Thanks Lucille

        1. ” The defense is not allowed to defend themselves.” No, they’re just not allowed to introduce a lot of irrelevant s**t.

          1. You mean irrelevant s*** like why they were there in the first place? They weren’t allowed any defense at all. They will be acquitted.

          2. Yeah, like that. For the same reason they don’t usually let the bank robber tell a sob story about why he had to rob the bank.

  10. Unbelievable. You know This is true Harry Reid is such a skunk. I’m sic of watching my our govnmnt abusing us. All the agency’s are rotten to the core we need to strip them bare and rebuild or we will will be abused even worse some day soon. If people just get involved we can set up proper over site. Right now they operate w total autonomy and that is stupid as hell and asking to get fk’d

  11. After threated by violence after they first tried to enforce court order in 2012,. They were still threatened in 2014 the second attempt. So the BLM were there to protect the contract cowboys who were doing the round up,. Bundy friends threatened the auction and others hired to handle the cattle.. the Bundy’s assulted the contract cowboys driving on public lands and the BLM stepped in to protect the contract cowboys in the trucks, and it resulted in a scuffle which Bundy friends filmed to use to recruit more armed men. Then at Bundy’s 160 acre ranch, he riles up the crowds and ordered them to March, drive, ride horses miles away from the Bundy ranch way into the public lands where the 40 BLM were working and surrounded them and started to move in on them with weapons. The BLM called for assistance and the state police and metro police came to their aid. They obstructed the BLM from enforcing the court order by violence. In all cases Bundy’s left his 160 acre ranch and assulted the BLM who were just trying to work fulfilling the court order. If they were left alone they would have removed the cattle and left . How can you claim defense when you are the aggressor and doing the assulting? The judge is right,

  12. I have been with the Bundy family and friends since the beginning.
    Now the law of this land is ignored, not just for the Bundy family, but even for our freely and legally elected President , Donald Trump. How can simple people fight such powerful people who even control Law ?

    1. You know the founding fathers in what was the 13 Collonies had the same problem. But more so. In their time the Brittish military was the upholders of the King’s laws. And could take homes and land at a whim for King Georges military use to support the Crown.
      Until the masses of this nation wake up and see the soft terriny we have been deceived into, and understand the government is to big and to intrusive, to the point of making the people of this nation into subjects. We will have to:
      1. Keep praying God and for His Kingdom to come.
      2. Help educate the uneducated on the wrongs and abusive acts of the people in power.
      3. Identify the faults, misleading, misinformed, diss information campaigns, personnel destruction campaigns of personnel distruction to silence those that disagree with them, and the distruction of the freedoms we still have for personnel gain or privilege.

      But like the people of Collonies in the North American continent at the time of King George, we need to band together and use every peaceful means possible to change the government back to the people. And never lit the 2nd Amendment be taken away or changed to the point of rendering it useless.
      So that when “In the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that thay should declair the causes which impel them to a separation “.
      We will have to stand strong, and help and relie on each other.

    2. No one is “controlling the law”. The laws were already on the books when the Bundy’s decided to break them. And the BLM humored them for what, twenty years, before they finally, and rightfully, clamped down. What I don’t get about the Bundy’s and their supporters – they had twenty years to do the right thing, the gov’t bent over backwards to accommodate them, the Bundy’s insist on being tough guys, then when it finally goes bad the Bundy’s are suddenly the victims!

      Bulls**t! Take some responsibility for own actions and quit whining! I’ve met twelve year old boys who take more responsibility for themselves!

      1. Do you not understand basic law? It is there in the open….listen to Ammon and others and you will begin to understand they are only standing up for what is theirs along with what is right. I have never seen any one of them behave like tough guys, they were beaten, tased, intimidated, murdered and still you see peace from this family…that is righteous what you see.

        1. Honestly, if I tried to listen to one of Ammon’s “lectures”, I’d be asleep in about two minutes. Repetitive, redundant, boring, not to mention nonsense. Just a way for him to try, unsuccessfully, to rationalize his breathtaking selfishness and lawlessness.

  13. My guess is that Cliven will die in prison, and the other Bundy Gang members will be old men when they get out.

    1. Sad. but possibly true. The American Government has a lot of money to keep this trial in court forever, if need be. RATS and THIEVES.

      And PLEASE DO NOT BE BLAMING this on President Trump as this was on Obama’s watch. If he even watched anything that was not of interest to trans-nationals.

  14. Thank you for covering this story. It continues to bring to light the most important national issue facing us together as a people, which is whether people can and will use their reserved power to bring a lawless government into compliance to the unalienable rights of the people and Constitution.

  15. While you are at it, help out Sheriff Joe Arpiao. Every Good Law Enforcement officer and Patriot should be protected from the deep state hordes trying to destroy both of these groups, and the people that support them!!!!

    1. Yes another case that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is dragging his heels on. He is a rather pathetic Attorney General.
      President Trump should FIRE HIM.

  16. FREE the BUNDYS President Trump and Pardon Joe Arpaio!!
    Communists have illustrated over many years why they, Nazis and other anti-American groups were banned from obtaining a security clearance or occupying any government position for nearly the entire 20th century, until that sound policy was reversed by a President named Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The policy was legal and is still legal. It was reversed by a President, so it can be legally reinstated by the current President Trump. It is time to reinstate the ban on communists in the US government. Go on OFFENSE Mr. President! Stop playing defense and instead let the communist trash play defense!

  17. Mr. Zardoz, really! Surely you are infiltrating this discussion from your paid position in some federal office.
    No one can be so ignorant of the rights of the people. Right to a fair trial. Right to stand against big government. The right to keep and bear arms and a peaceful demonstration (the standoff).
    So your saying Senator Reid had the right to the property so his son could make a deal with China
    *on our soil* ??
    And the government protected his lying, scheming —. And you what?–think to defend him? Fortunately there are some very intelligent, persistent, thinking and persevering people on this site. This case has grown cold in the publics eyes while men are unjustly in jail. Please resurrect this and I believe people will again rally to this great cause, as well as, great injustice. Put this all over Utube add it to every controversial forum. Thank Roger Stone for keeping it somewhat alive!
    DO MORE!!!!

  18. I read the two on trial won.
    Is that true? 25 August 2017.
    Please lit me know so I can give thanks and praise as needed.

  19. Kevin Trudeau has written a letter to the President, which obviously has not reached the President. Here is a link to that letter. Kevin Trudeau writes: ” I did not commit a ‘crime’. I am virtually a ‘political prisoner’ because of my outspoken views against the political establishment, the corrupt main stream media, and certain special interests such as the powerful drug companies.” Roger Stone, please get Kevin Trudeau’s letter to the President, in the President’s hands. He will probably want to pardon Kevin Trudeau.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *