Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option

Is it something much more sinister that drives the federal team to double down, triple down and do “whatever it takes” to win this case?

For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option
(photo: reviewjournal.com)

For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option

Estimates suggest that the 1.89 billion acres of land (that make up the continguous 48 states) are collectively worth approximately $23 trillion in 2009, with 24% of the land area and $1.8 trillion of the value held by the federal government.”

by Loren Edward Pearce

Krisanne Hall, former prosecutor and well known expert on the US Constitution, spoke for all of us when she said in a recent post,

Federal prosecutors are seeking a new trial against #BundyRanch?!?! Are you freaking kidding me?!?”

She went on to say, “As a former prosecutor, I can tell you the actions of Myre and these federal prosecutors are unforgivable.

Hey #Myre… YOU are a complete disgrace and evidence of the putrefaction of American Due Process. Sincerely, KrisAnne Hall, JD.”

Larry Klayman, also a former prosecutor, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and against the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, for prosecutorial misconduct. Klayman explains,

The complaint details how the the U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada – Obama Deep State holdovers who should have been removed by now by Attorney General Jeff Sessions – working in concert with the FBI and BLM under the Obama administration, systematically violated the constitutional rights of Cliven Bundy and the other defendants in the criminal prosecution, denying them due process, equal protection and other rights under the Constitution and the law in general.

Key exculpatory evidence proving Cliven’s innocence in engaging in what the Obama Justice Department called a conspiracy to threaten federal agents was shredded; material FBI 302 investigative reports were not disclosed and hidden; and the existence of three surveillance cameras showing that the Bundys surrounded government snipers positioned to possibly kill the family as they were at home were kept from defense lawyers for years. In short, the Obama Justice Department, along with its corrupt FBI then run by, you guessed it, Director James Comey, hid and/or destroyed material evidence until this obstruction of justice was discovered mostly by accident during an evidentiary hearing in the criminal prosecution just the last week.”

What Is Motivating The Federal Team To Continue The Prosecution Of The Bundy Et Al Case?

Is it ego, is it pride or is it something much deeper, much more sinister, that drives the federal team to double down, triple down and do “whatever it takes” to win this case?

Why is the federal team refusing to give up? Why is the federal team continuing to spend many millions of dollars, tying up court resources, imposing on and severely harming the lives of not only the defendants and their families, but the many dozens of jurors, juror candidates and their families?

The Stakes For The Federal Team Are Incomprehensible

Some may ask, “Why can’t the federal team just dismiss the case with prejudice against the Bundy et al defendants, and everybody go back to their lives and pick up where they left off and be happy that the trials are over?”

There are a lot of reasons why life will never be the same for any of the parties and that the slate cannot be wiped clean, that the issues are so huge and remain that way, that the parties simply cannot afford to “forgive and forget”.

As noted under the title of this article, the land owned by the federal government, not counting Alaska and Hawaii, is estimated to be worth in excess of $1.8 trillion by 2009 values. That is $1,800 billion. Throw Alaska into the equation and it far exceeds $2 trillion.

That federal land ownership, and its accompanying power, is at risk because the Bundys and others have raised the issue of the constitutionality of federal ownership of over 640 million acres of land which includes 85% of Nevada. Navarro tried to keep the constitution out of “her” courtroom, and only focus on the charges by the prosecution. However, those many constitutional issues remain unresolved.

One article, states that, “Few minds will stir when they learn that the US federal government owns a grand total of 640 million acres of land: that figure is so vast that it becomes meaningless.” Meaningless because the average person can’t get their mind around it.

The BLM created to manage that land, has over 12,000 employees whose livelihood and lifestyle depend on the continued viability and constitutionality of their agency.

 

Staring Down Stare Decisis

While many will argue that the issue of federal ownership of over 640 million acres has been well settled through numerous court cases and that it is a “dead horse” that can no longer be kicked, many will disagree, that the previous courts, based on the constitution destroying “stare decisis”, have made rulings that do not comport with the constitution or the original intent of the founders.

Stare decisis, the drifting away from the original constitution through a process of piggy backing precedent on top of precedent, is like the telephone game, where a message is relayed through a chain of people until it comes out at the other end totally different than the original intended message because each person puts their own biases and spin on the message.

The subject of land ownership by the federal government as it relates to the enumerated powers granted to the federal government as opposed to those reserved to the states and the people, was very clear at one time and needs to be revisited and the dead horse revived.

In addition to the raw subject of federal land ownership are many other tangential subjects that have to be resolved such as the constitutionality of BLM law enforcement, BLM administrative law judges, denial of bail and pretrial prison, denial of a speedy trial because the federal team declares it has a complex case, federal jurisdiction over criminal matters outside the boundaries of a territory, double jeopardy of multiple retrials, and many, many issues that have been warped and distorted over the decades by the imbalance between federal and state powers.

THIS Is What The Feds Are Fighting To Keep –
Control Over Public Lands And The Very Existence Of The BLM Itself.” ~Bill Goode

In an excellent article by Bill Goode, he states,

When the Bundys are finally declared innocent in the Las Vegas trial, that will only conclude the legal status of individuals involved in the Bunkerville standoff. Then there is Cliven’s suit and the suits of other standoff defendants against the DOJ that must be decided in court.

However, the most significant issue after the current Las Vegas trial will be the legal status of the Bundy Ranch itself. The legal status of the Bundy Ranch is now held in abeyance, despite the return of the Bundy cattle. The Bunkerville grazing allotment was officially closed by the BLM after the standoff, though the Bundy cattle do still graze on that land. So that’s a conflict that must be resolved.”

An Injustice Against One, Is An Injustice Against All

Morgan Philpot, attorney for Ammon Bundy, in one of his meetings with the media, made the comment, “An injustice against one, is an injustice against all”

The stakes really are incomprehensible, not only for the Deep State and the federal team, but for all of us. The injustices against the Bundys et al, are injustices against all of us, and they need to be resolved

Because losing is not an option, for either side, we can expect to see many more legal battles to come. The outcome of the legal war will determine the future of America and its rising generations.

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

 

10 Comments on For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option

  1. Great article. Time to put civics back in schools and educate the people on their rights according to the Constitution and their God given rights not granted by government to freedoms the courts seem to forget or don’t understand.

  2. Looking at the “Who owns the west” map, anyone would be struck by the contrast – small Fed lands in the east and huge Fed lands in the west. There appears to be a sharp division starting with the States of ND,SD,Nebraska, Kansas,Oklahoma and Texas, who have only small fed holdings compared to the large fed holdings to the west of them. A drastic change in federal policy towards new states would seem to be apparent, but it’s not so simple. California, who’s gold carried it through the statehood process in record time, was admitted in 1850,well before the Civil War, and has large fed lands. Oklahoma, admitted in 1907, has little fed land. What gives ? I feel that if we could trace back the causes of this disparity, we’d be on a firm basis for correcting our problems.

    • If you think about it in terms of resources…rather than just land…the picture will become clearer.

      Other than a few blocks of DC the US Federal government should own no land.
      Federal military bases can be leased from states. Federal buildings – of which there are far too many – can be rented on a month to month basis, depending on how well behaved Federal employees are in each state. This is assuming the monstrous parasite Federal government isn’t reduced to 10% of its current size and its 3 letter agency “employees” (petit tyrants) are confined to DC where they are free to roam, with ankle bracelets.

    • The reason that some states, particularly those in the West, have so much federal land is that at a certain point the Fed government realized that they could hold statehood hostage until the territorial government acquiesced to giving all “unclaimed” land to the feds. In California the Spaniards and Mexicans had a system of ranchos so much of California was claimed. In Oklahoma much of the land was homesteaded and therefore claimed. Not so in Nevada and Utah.

  3. Quoting —
    “The subject of land ownership by the federal government as it relates to the enumerated powers granted to the federal government as opposed to those reserved to the states and the people, was very clear at one time and needs to be revisited and the dead horse revived.”
    ______________

    That is a powerful and timely statement, to which I offer an emphatic “AMEN!”
    Salute!
    Elias Alias

  4. You are are comparing lands on each side of tge 100th meridian west. The U.S. bought lands such as the Louisiana Purchase, Florida, Alaska, etc. for future distribution to private individuals and companies for settlement, agriculture, mining, timber resources and other productive purposes.

    Around the 100th meridian the lack of natural rainfall diminishes to the point that 19th century agriculture was much less profitable. Western lands were the most recently acquired, and the industrial revolution came into full swing. Those factors combined to make new settlements a generally less favorable prospect. Many of tge settlement efforts failed, with the land frequently being returned to the government. So the government stopped issuing homestead rights in 1976 (1986 in Alaska).

    See Wikipedia “Homestead Acts”.

    In short, eventually fewer people wanted to live the difficult life of a new homesteader.

4 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Sessions Appoints New FEDERAL PROSECUTORS. Bundy Ranch Trial: What to Expect. | Alternative Media
  2. Myhre Gets Demoted in US Attorneys Office – A-1 Sentry
  3. For The Federal Team, Losing Is Not An Option – A-1 Sentry
  4. Dismissal With Prejudice – Bunkerville Standoff Trial – A-1 Sentry

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*