Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lavoy Finicum on his side of the story

Contractual agreements are subject to the terms of the CONTRACT. Can you prove that the lease contract granted an in perpetuity use right to the Bundys and disallowed the landowner the right to transfer the land or change management protocols? No, you can't because the lease did not state that. The grazing leases have provisions in them reserving the rights of the property owner to transfer ownership of the property, change management and use protocols, and fee agreements, among other points. The Bundys signed those leases with the reserved right provisions to the landowners, and THEY (the Bundys) are now the ones that don't want to abide by the enforceable provisions of the contracts THEY voluntarily signed.

Your reductio ad abs

Ever hear of a Rancher by the Name of Wayne Hage? This is a case where a federal judge ruled in favor of the Rancher's Estate and Property Rights and against the BLM's attempted abuses of power pior to the Bundy ordeal.

A Federal Judge had already ruled on these Bundy issues.

Hage v. United States

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/final-judgment-award-the-estate-of-wayne-70273/

Now do you remember what actually started the Bundy issue? They destroyed his Water Reservoir in the name of an Endangered Species.

And the enviro wackos are sitting back laughing while the 2 strongest groups on public land are fighting each other.

After ranching BLM for many years, and knowing the full gamut of ranchers that did likewise, I never actually ran across one that thought of the land as "theirs". (some were good guys. Some I couldn't stand. Most treated the land and managed it well.)

I have however shared the knowledge that when you pay for the grazing permit per animal unit and pay the annual lease, then you do indeed own the grazing rights.

Those grazing rights can be bought, sold, traded or bartered and have a real value very comparable to deeded land.

Maybe some of you are just jealous that you didn't inherit a 10,000 acre ranch and/or grazing rights and are "stuck" living in town working a pencil pushing job.

And NO, I haven't inherited that either.

Sir, with all due respect, that Hage decision you cited is only the trial decision in what has been a very long, drawn out battle and the trial decision has been partially vacated and partially remanded on appeal. In short, the citation you provided is not binding law any more so than would be the trial court decisions ruling against the 2A in the original [i]Heller and McDonald cases.

See here for a synopsis on the Hage cases - synopsis on Hage litigation , and here for the most recent decision from the Appeals Court on the Hage litigation - link to January 2016 decision

Valsdad,

The SCOTUS has turned down appeals in that series of cases before; they aren't taking any of it. I am NO fan of the 9th, but their most recent decision (as of last month) is what stands in the Hage cases at this point. It's going back to be reheard and reconsidered (again). At this point, that's where it stands and all that is known.

That said, the trial judge in question has been, shall we say, "seriously criticized" by the appeals courts for years. He's been found to be: "dilatory"; "arrogant"; seeking an "assumption of power by one individual [] not acceptable in our judicial system"; and having "well established and inappropriately strong" feelings and bias against out of state attorneys.

The Appeals Court in the January decision was castigating in it's opinion of him as a trial judge - their degree of openness in overall opinion, in the printed decision, is striking. Their opinion on him is summarized this way: Judge Jones's rulings in the case were "plainly" and "clearly" contrary to law; that he had "grossly abused the power of contempt"; that he had "harbored animus" against federal agencies; that his "bias" was a "matter of public record"; and that he had engaged in "improper treatment of government officials" in a previous case. The Court of Appeals stated that it had "expressed concern about Judge Jones' conduct in several other recent cases." Wikipedia article with links to case citations These are several different and unrelated cases with different reviewing panels of Appellate Court judges, all castigating the same trial judge in writing, in their opinions, for his unprofessional behavior and opinions. That is simply incredible.

There is a level of decorum still present within the judicial. An open and public rebuke of a trial judge like that just doesn't happen except in extreme instances. Going even further, when a case is remanded from the Appeals Court to the trial court, it goes back to the original presiding judge, unless something extraordinary occurs. In this case, the Appeals Court remanded and specifically ordered the case to go to another judge. That's almost unheard of in any case NOT involving a conflict of interest. They have now done that with this judge at least twice within the last six months on two completely separate and unrelated cases; that's unheard of. Ditto that to the open, public, in-decision rebukes several times over by different Appeals Court panels on this same judge's opinions. It is clear that the Appeals Court no longer trusts the trial judge to be exactly what a trial judge is supposed to be most of all - unbiased.

Again, I'm no fan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are some loons on that bench (though, there is at least one great judge on it as well). However, you don't have an Appeals Court openly questioning and criticizing a trial court judge's actions and bias, in multiple cases, without merit and certainly not in the actual decisions on cases. With this trial judge, the Appeals Court is essentially saying that it no longer trusts his decisions on the merits of the case and on law, and they have done so several times over. That's simply extraordinary.

Reading it this morning Counselor, but I have to tell you I like this Judge. He is willing to buck the notion that "Government is always Right".

Bugout,

You have brought up lots of good points here.

However, your statement here seems to be that you support an "Activist Judge".

I'm not sure, but because he doesn't believe the "Government is always Right" does that mean he can rule against the law as written?

My understanding, limited as it may be, is that our three part system is designed to have the legislative branch (Congress, which we elect) write the law, the executive branch carry out the law, and the judicial branch to interpret questions on the application of the law and the Constitutionality of the law.

As a nation of laws, is it not necessary for Congress to re-write the law if it is Constitutional but not liked?

Geno