Bundy Ranch Update 4/24/2014 Blaine Cooper – Federal Judge Indicts the BLM

Before It’s News

This report has not been confirmed yet, but this is breaking news. It has been reported by videographer Blaine Cooper that a federal judge has indicted on BLM for their recent abuse of power in the Cliven Bundy Ranch episode.

This report was supposedly reported on TV in Arizona. I will update this post as more news becomes available.  

You can follow the latest breaking Bundy news on their Facebook page here:  https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch

I just found this over at mad world news

In fact it has the federal judge’s opinion from a recent court case that throws this logic of back taxes to the BLM out the window. It reveals a 20 year old conspiracy by the BLM, that the judge calls “literal and intentional”, against Nevada ranchers to force them to sell their land at a loss and kill their business. The judge doesn’t mix words and uses an actual case to expose this vast land grab and undermining of the Constitution.

It is actually an insightful and wise case that everyone in America should pay attention. There is an old saying, “follow the money and you will find the truth.” In fact, this “battle” at the Bundy ranch was settled 20 years ago, While it seems that the liberal outlets are touting a court decision against Bundy for failure to pay fees, they are using the local courts. If they would have paid attention to the appeals courts, the Supreme Court, and U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones, they would have found that it wasn’t a valid case against Bundy. They are using the normal smoke and mirrors to distract, while the real reason for the fight is completely illegal and immoral.

In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.

“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”

And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.

“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.

Judge Jones continued:

In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.

By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.

It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.

So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.

And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”

“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.

And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.

“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”

“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.” ~Kit Daniels


6 thoughts on “Bundy Ranch Update 4/24/2014 Blaine Cooper – Federal Judge Indicts the BLM

  1. Sorry, but when this Blaine Cooper went into an anti-Muslim tirade and wrapped a Koran in bacon and burned it – that told me all I needed to know about the man. I remember thinking that he had guts when he stood up to McCain at a Town Hall meeting, and called his actions traitorous. But now I wonder why he was allowed to get away with that, without being escorted from the building. And why he was given airtime on RT news shortly after. Don’t trust him & don’t like that he is involved in the Bundy Ranch situation.

  2. There is already a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the feds for the wrongful acquisition by the BLM of this very land. It has been bought to the courts by the native American tribal decedents who stake its claim. This claim goes way back long before the Bundy’s bought there ranch in the late 1940’s when native lands were seized and affirmative action was used to give it to white folks. The extraordinary hypocrisy from the talking heads on the right is that not one militia man or one Fox News guy came to the defense of the native peoples in this case, to fight against overreach by the Feds and help get their land back. Tells you all you need to know.

    1. So what else is new about Fox News and Cooper and others on the so-called right not defending the rights of Native Americans? These are the same folks that have no problem with Israel genociding Palestinians!

    2. It is my understanding that the Bundys have run cattle on this land since 1870. I guess what we should do here is all of us American nationals not on tribal roles should hand all the land back to the Indians and walk into the f#@king ocean and drown.
      Here where I’m at, it is the tribe joining with the United Nations and embracing the BLM, an open act of treason against our Republic.
      So make it clear, which side of the fence are you on?

      1. Henry, I think Tom may be confusing the “Dann” case (Eureka County, NV 1992-2007) with the Bundy case – In the Dann case; it WAS “treatied” Indian land from the 1849-1851 Ruby Valley treaty – BLM took their cows “over grazing claim?”, gave the land to Canadian miners who contaminated it with mercury and cyanide – although the same BLM tactics were used; there exists different legal theories and claims.

Join the Conversation

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