Category Archives: Bundy ranch

The Day the Feds Stood Down-Micro Documentary

The Battle of Bunkerville: One Year Later

The relative calm of Southern Nevada’s Clark County was shattered in April of 2014 when agents of the private, government contracted Bureau of Land Management moved in-force against 67 year-old Nevada Rancher, Cliven Bundy.

The reasons given for why a private company would violate a law-abiding American’s constitutional rights were weak, at best. The claim by the BLM was that they were working to protect the desert tortoise, the same desert tortoise that fell victim to mass genocide by another federally funded agency, The Desert Tortoise Conservation Center, some 8 months previous. In that budget cutting measure, it is estimated that ½ of the 1400 turtles housed at the conservation center would be euthanized. An act that calls into serious question the real motives of the BLM.
In addition to their role as protectors of the desert turtle, the BLM contended that Cliven Bundy was behind on his grazing fees. Fees that Mr. Bundy paid to the State of Nevada, as per an agreement that was cemented before the BLM’s un-lawful arrival. The question is this: Does protecting a turtle, or collecting late-fees, rise to the level of sending snipers, armored vehicles and weapons-ready helicopters to southern Nevada? Was it necessary to Taser unarmed men and pregnant women in an attempt to get a point across? Does the BLM, or any government agency, have the right to sequester the public and herd them into an Orwellian named, “1st Amendment Zone?”

Many Americans from all across this nation didn’t think so, and they acted on a massive scale. What happened next was perhaps the greatest display of American grit and patriotism that I, or many others, have witnessed in their lifetimes. The following micro-documentary is look back to those tense filled days in the warm Nevada sun. It’s the day we won a little of our liberties back…it’s the day that the Feds stood down.
Thanks to Jim White for doing this documentary and for being at the Bundy Ranch with us.

Cliven Bundy Case Facts – Cliven Bundy is right exactly right

In short, Cliven, by refusing to sign any grazing agreement, RETAINED his families rights accumulated over decades, while all the other ranchers gave away those accumulated rights in trade for a grazing permit.

For those still confused by the media —–    

Cliven Bundy is right exactly right:

Mr. Cliven Bundy’s  ranch contains split-estate property rights.  Which include 1.) water rights  2.) rights of way, 3) range improvements, 4) grazing value/forage crops 5.)  patented homestead or mining claims used as headquarters or shipping points.  Each one of these rights is a real property right; that cannot be taken without due process and just compensation.  These rights were developed from prior Spanish/Mexican agricultural water law. (Hutichins 1971, Hage 1989)
To properly phrase
Mr. Bundy’s  Range Rights and vested water rights are protected by local law, custom, and decisions of the court as recognized, sanctioned and confirmed by Congress in Revised Statute 2339, commonly known as the Act of 1866.  These range rights/ vested water rights are protected by 18 federal statutes starting with the Act of 1866 and ending with the National Forest Management Act NFMA of October 22, 1976.
As time went by the State began to appropriate the vested water rights and protect these range rights. “At the time that the Forest Service began to adjudicate allotments, issue grazing permits, and charge grazing fees in National Forests it was held by the U.S. Supreme Court that state laws for the general appropriation of water could not be over ridden by Congress in exercising its power to make rules and regulations respecting disposal of the public lands (Kansas v. Colorado 1907, California v. United States 1978 and cases cited therein).  (McIntosh and Fowler, pg 21)
It is common knowledge throughout the West that ranches on federal rangelands have been treated as private property interests in the open real estate market for more than a hundred years (Griffith v. Godey 1885, Wilson v. Everett 1891, Grayson v. Lynch 1896,  Ward v. Sherman 1904).  (McIntosh and Fowler, pg8)
Even the Internal Revenue Service recognizes that federal land grazing allotments used as part of a split-estate ranch are inheritable, taxable property estates ( Shufflebarger v. Commissioner 1955, Vaugham v. Commissioner 1961, Rudolph Inv. v. Commissioner 1972, Estate of O’ Connell v. Commissioner 1978, Ueker v. Commissioner 1983.)  (McIntosh and Fowler pg 8)
According to the Forest Service Organic Act 1897 and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 “the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit… shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.”  (McIntosh and Fowler, pg 29)
In reference to Section 4 Taylor Grazing Act
“Likewise, the federal statutes pertaining to grazing permits or cooperative agreements, state that those instruments are optional, and discretionary programs.  Numerous court decisions have held that permits are revocable and can be canceled at any time (apparently by either party, prior to development of the authorized improvement).  Practically, all statutes specifically referring to grazing permits state that the issuance of such agreements grants no right, title, or interest in or to the underlying lands.”   ( McIntosh and Fowler pg 31)
Recent decisions by the United States Court of Federal claims ( Hage v. United States, 1996 and 2002), determined that if the requirement to obtain a grazing permit is so burdensome as to deprive a rancher of his property, then he could not be required to obtain the permit.  This reasoning is in complete harmony with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Curtin v. Benson, (1911) ( McIntosh and Fowler pg 29)
I would like to credit DRAFT RITF REPORT no. 56  Property Rights on Western Ranches: Federal Range land Policy and a Model for Valuation by Dr. McIntosh and Dr. Fowler.  
The Nevada engineer issued this report regarding the estate of Wayne E. Hage vs the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management  pg 24 and pg 25 “However, he further recognized that existing water rights that pre-date any water rights that may be claimed pursuant to the implied reservation of rights doctrine are superior to any reserved rights of the federal government.”
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 

Answering the confusion about the Bundy ranch militia infighting garbage.

From Paul Stramer in Montana,

I have worked closely with Stewart Rhodes for a long time now. I can’t even Imagine him as anything but what his actions toward the Bundy family have indicated he is. He is CERTAINLY NOT a provocateur as the so called Ryan Payne says. I know his family, and the people around his family and I would trust them with my life any time..
He donated $12,500 in a check directly to the Bundy family to help with the expenses and logistics associated with the camp and guard details. He donated a full case of Baofeng radios for the camp and guards. He bought very specialized FLIR (forward looking Infrared radar) vision worth almost $10,000 for 3 units, and donated one to the camp militia (Jerry) and another was stolen along with the chargers for all three. We patrolled the AO for a 30 mile radius all night for 5 nights in a row after the drone threat. He set up a WiFi at the ranch for everyone to use. These were all made possible by members of Oathkeepers donating many thousands of dollars for this travesty the BLM caused in Nevada. 
I was there. We set up a system of radio communications and kept it running for almost a week, and would do it again if the Bundy family would just wake up to who their real friends are, The Oathkeepers, and tell this “Ryan Payne”? or “Jim Messina” or whoever he is to hit the road and not come back. Just the communications part of this mission was worth a bunch to the Bundy family not only as a deterrent, but for their actual safety day and night, and cost the Oathkeepers thousands of dollars.
I hate the infighting as much as anyone, but I will not tolerate being called a traitor or coward or deserter for not spending every minute of the day sitting around a camp in a tent and trying to sort out who is lying.  I KNOW what I saw, and what I saw was Oathkeepers members staying up all night on patrol to make sure that the Bundy ranch was a safe place, and to get them early warning if things went south. I personally spent a week of my life getting ready and performing this mission and I can tell you if it wasn’t for the national Oathkeepers organization making it possible for me to be there I would not have been able to come to Nevada at all. I am really glad that I was able to bring Sheriff Peyman to the Bundy ranch, and for being able to meet and spend a couple of hours with Cliven and his family, and I am grateful for having met this great Sheriff with a backbone made of stainless steel, and for being able to spend almost the whole day with him. Some of the people I met at the ranch were very loving and kind, and some (not the Bundys) were as cold as ice when they found out I was the communications person for Oathkeepers.
That’s just tough, because I don’t get intimidated. I treat everyone kindly and at face value. If they were there for the same reasons I was, that’s great, but if they were there for their own ego, or to blow their own horn like this Ryan Payne, if that is his real name, then God bless them, because He is the only one who can.
I hope and pray every day that the people who started this backbiting crap get exposed and have a change of heart. Mr. Pain should get a strong dose of humility, and realize he is NOTHING along side of our creator.  He said and did everything that an agent provocateur would do to drive a wedge between the people at the ranch and the Oathkeepers. That didn’t do anybody any good at all except perhaps the government.  Regardless of what anybody thinks about their high and mighty military career, and military discipline, the ranch camp was NOT a military operation. It was NOT conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, period. Those were private citizens and residents who were free to come and go as they darn well pleased. There was NO authority present to “command” anybody to do anything at all. Everything was completely voluntary, and even if they volunteered to abide by some kind of temporary order, what was Ryan Payne going to do as punishment if they decided to leave, walk up and execute them for desertion???   What a blow hard, egotistical maniac. What a self centered idiot. What a foul mouthed provocateur.
The best thing he could do for his country now is just cease and desist and disappear from the scene, or any other scene, but that won’t happen, will it? He will keep on making himself the supreme “commander” of every incident he can find.
If you want to go to a real patriotic website don’t visit this stupid Operation Mutual Aid website. In the first place the Mutual Aid terminology is a police term for frequencies used for inter agency communications at any incident. It’s a mainstream police term. Where did they get this name? I surmise that someone who is still in such an organization suggested it, or someone who is under cover in one of the militias.   This is why we should be following Dr. Edwin Vieira’s outline for the lawful unorganized militia of the several states, as outlined in his long book on CD rom entitled “The Sword and Sovereignty” instead of having every Tom, Dick and Ryan forming up some kind of ad hoc group and calling it a militia. IT’S NOT a lawful militia unless it’s done right. Where does the lawful militia get it’s power? From the popular elections of both the Sheriff and the Governor of a State.  Read the book. I bet you can’t refute it.
The real patriotic website that scares the hell out of the leftists is, and that is why the left will try to infiltrate these militias and try to use them against the Oathkeepers.  Between the Oathkeepers and the CSPOA there is a real threat to the criminal enterprise that has hijacked the federal government, and they know it full well. They will stop at NOTHING to destroy those organizations, and they will spare no expense. I wonder how many of the so called militia at the camp in Nevada were actually on the payroll of the feds? Think about it.

Paul Stramer  KC7MEZ   Lawfully exercising my right to communicate.

Donations will be used strictly for the communications project and are not tax deductible.
My time is voluntary and the funds go to purchase radio gear or power products and related equipment only.


At your service,

Paul Stramer KC7MEZ   800 889 2839     Look up my ham station on

Pushback starting from the Bureau of LandGrabs’ Bundy Family Ranch episode!

This is so much bigger than just the Bundy family and their cattle. This is about Freedom from Tyranny by an out of control Federal monster that will gorge itself on land and power every chance it gets until We the People stop it.

Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 9:12 AM
Subject: Plan to Liberate Western Lands and Evict Fed + Legislator Mtg. Utah to debate Fed. Lands Take-over   (Photo: Western Lawmakers meeting for Debate on Public Lands Take-over) 
Lawmakers Unveil Plan to Liberate Western Lands and Evict Feds
Written by  Alex Newman         
With the now-infamous federal abuses against the Bundy ranching family and its supporters in Nevada helping to awaken a sleeping giant, liberty-minded elected officials from Western states are coming together with citizens to take action in defense of the Constitution and the West. Their mission: to wrest control over the vast expanses of land and wealth in the region that are unconstitutionally claimed by the Washington, D.C.-based political and bureaucratic classes. Now, a new alliance of lawmakers and citizens has a concrete plan to make those goals a reality.   
As The New American reported this week, more than 50 elected officials from nine Western states met on April 18 at the Utah Capitol for the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands. Among them were state House speakers, state senators, a U.S. senator, county commissioners, and more. The goal, multiple organizers and attendees explained, is to strip the federal government of the almost 50 percent of land in Western states that it claims to “own” in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and various agreements.      
One of the lawmakers who participated, Washington State Rep. Matt Shea, a liberty-minded Republican who also stood with the Bundy family, says that lawmakers from Western states are determined to protect the Constitution and their constituents. “Legislators from across the West are saying enough is enough,” Rep. Shea told The New American after the summit in Salt Lake City. “We are banding together to fight federal overreach wherever it rears its ugly head, not just talk about it.”
To do that, last week, another alliance of lawmakers, citizens, businessman, ranchers, sheriffs, officials, and more came together and created the Coalition of Western States United Against Tyranny, or COWS for short. Already, the network has seen phenomenal growth, with more than 25 lawmakers joining up by April 22, Rep. Shea explained. “COWS has grown massively in just one week and legislators from all over the West are jumping on board,” he said, adding that he was “absolutely” optimistic about their prospects for success.
COWS advocates a five-step process to evict the self-styled federal landlords from the Western United States, Rep. Shea explained. In the short term, county governments should draw up management plans for the land in coordination with state and federal agencies. Already, federal law requires that U.S. bureaucracies work with local officials, though in practice, that rarely happens. At the same time, states should also introduce and pass legislation to prohibit any net loss of private land to government.
In the longer term, federally (mis)managed lands should be transferred over to state authorities, “because government closest to the people is best,” Rep. Shea continued. “The federal government cannot possibly know how best to manage land in the thousands of different locales like the people of those areas could,” the popular Republican lawmaker explained, echoing the sentiments of countless other policymakers and activists who say the federal government needs to be stripped of its vast, unconstitutional land holdings.
“Clearly,” Shea says, “the people of Western states would do a better job managing those lands.” In fact, among the most common complaints on the issue in the West is the fact that the feds have done a terrible job maintaining the land they purport to own — especially when compared with the areas managed by state and local governments, or even private citizens. The COWS lawmakers said an excellent, proven process for transferring federally managed lands into state control has been laid out by the American Lands Council and others.
Then there is the issue of keeping promises. As the Western territories were officially becoming states, like in the East, the federal government agreed to eventually transfer those lands. However, as with so many other promises made by the D.C.-based political class, so far, it has not been fulfilled. “The enabling acts of the Western States make it clear the federal government was meant to be a steward only until such time that the states could manage,” Rep. Shea explained.
The state of Utah has taken the strongest action thus far toward ensuring that the feds comply. In 2012, lawmakers passed and the governor signed a law demanding that the federal government relinquish control over much of the estimated two-thirds of territory inside Utah’s borders it claims to control. The law specifically cited those agreements from when Utah joined the Union, threatening a lawsuit if Washington, D.C. refuses to comply. 
Perhaps the most important issue at play in the whole land issue, though, is the U.S. Constitution. “Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution spells out what types of property the federal government can ‘own’,” Rep. Shea continued, pointing out that, outside of a few limited exceptions, it is not constitutional for Washington, D.C., to own or control land — much less half of the Western United States, and as much as 85 percent of some states such as Nevada.    
Rep. Shea also pointed to The Federalist, No. 45, which (he notes) “makes clear the intent” of America’s Founding Fathers. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined,” the document states. “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.”
Eventually, also in the long term, some of the land wrested from the federal government should be sold off to private parties “as required in the enabling acts of most of the states,” Rep. Shea continued. Indeed, numerous lawmakers and analysts say at least some of that land should be privatized, allowing the Western states to boost their economy and tax base while extending private-property rights to a broader area and a potentially greater number of individuals. Exactly how much land should be kept in the hands of state and local authorities could be decided going forward. 
The economic and environmental benefits, though, would be significant. “It would have a massive positive impact putting that land back into productive use for both the economy and the tax base,” Rep. Shea explained, again echoing the recently expressed concerns of dozens of powerful lawmakers and countless Western-state citizens, with some estimates suggesting that there is around $150 trillion in mineral wealth alone. “In fact, in the enabling act that brought Washington State into the Union, the proceeds from a portion of the sale of that land must go to specifically funding education.” 
Finally, the fifth step in the process would be to disarm federal bureaucrats — a demand that is growing increasingly urgent after the federal terror unleashed by heavily armed Bureau of Land Management officials against the Bundy family and friends in Nevada. “This is not an isolated incident and is part of a broader war on rural America,” Rep. Shea explained. “Bureaucratic rules and regulations are functionally disallowing the viable economic use of large swaths of land in the West. Regardless, a sniper rifle and killing instead of seizing cattle is not due process.”
With the public increasingly galvanized against federal abuses and lawlessness after the Bundy ranch fiasco, now is a perfect time for state governments and the American people to put the U.S. government back in its constitutional cage where it belongs — and where it cannot send in heavily armed storm troopers to terrorize ranchers and protesters over alleged unpaid “fees” or tortoises. The alternative is more and more Bundy ranch-style paramilitary disasters, along with eventual tyranny. With optimistic Western lawmakers making strong and popular moves to protect liberty and evict the feds, though, liberty-minded Americans have good reason to be optimistic as well.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, environment, politics, and more. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
Related articles:

Bundy Ranch after action report by Stewart Rhodes and others who were there!

The following Advisory is also online at Oath Keepers’ national website. Please comment there:

Here is more info from Stewart Rhodes and company on the rift between the alleged “leaders” of the militia down at the Bundy Ranch. This debriefing focuses on just a few men who would sabotage Oath Keepers’ mission at the Bundy Ranch. It explains some sequences and some activities which you’ve not heard about before.
Please understand that Oath Keepers has great faith in the majority of good men and women in the militias represented at the Ranch. We just have problems with people who want to stir up trouble, for such people are most often what we call “Agents Provocateur”.  
We are not accusing anyone of being an agent provocateur, but we are definitely identifying certain actions and statements by questionable men as being exactly the sort of activity an agent provocateur would display.  It is just a few, and we think that the greater majority of militiamen and militiawomen serving there are tops. To you we say: You have our support and our gratitude for your sacrifice for the Bundy Ranch mission. Well done.  However, Oath Keepers suggests that you do question your leadership to be sure they are who and what they claim to be. We would especially encourage people to look into any claims about any specialty service in the military that any of the current leaders might claim.
Mike Vanderboegh posted this video at his Sipsey Street Irregulars website. Mike accompanied the posting of this video with a well-informed and therefore informative article of his own. Mike was there and gave a great speech. He also kept a close eye on unseen trends in behavior patterns and cultural earmarks. This is not his first rodeo. He sums up with an excellent and generously written article of his own. We would like to invite you to also read Mike’s take on the Bundy Ranch excitement.    
Oath Keepers Bundy Ranch Debrief
Oath Keepers Bundy Ranch Debrief
But note please – this debriefing session with five Oath Keepers is important, but this only covers one aspect of our work at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada.  
Oath Keepers marches on, and our reports will continue to dispel the psy-op rumors about our work at the ranch.   
View this video to find many answers to questions currently flying about the Internet. Try to help people learn the truth by sending this to your lists. Thanks!
Elias Alias, editor
 The share-link for the Debriefing video above on Oath Keepers YouTube channel:   

Bundy Ranch and the new rules of engagement

Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of round one of the Bundy Ranch armed siege by the U.S. government, I have decided to offer the federal government an intelligent analysis of the new rules of engagement. People like Daniel P. Love, Special Agent in Charge of BLM Region 3, desperately need to review and learn these rules. Other federal agents also need to understand the tectonic shift of power that has just taken place and how it will impact their operations from here forward.  ……