Now that Reid says they are terrorists, they can be put on the "no fly" list and effectively stopped from travel.

I agree with you, SRS66East. No faith at all in the fed court system. Just seems to uphold, for the most part, whatever the DC crowd wants.

We've seen how the current administration handles the conservative groups via the IRS, etc. Is there any doubt that the Bundy family and friends are in the sights of the same agencies? Not in my mind. They are toast. And, congress is incapable or unwilling, probably both, to step in to handle the mess.

Yes, amagi, they own the "law" now. It is whatever they say it is and applied accordingly. The saying, "ya can't fight city hall", comes to mind. How can anyone fight the feds when they have the taxpayers money to wage a non-ending battle via the lopsided courts? Only through a gross change of the top politicians and a cleansing of the court system. Doesn't seem likely in the near future.

RevJay4, unfortunately, our enemies in high offices 'own' the law now. Forgot who said: "When there is
no justice there will be violence."

Great find. Thanks.

AND:
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators (and Presidential Directives) bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
    "The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....  A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.  No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
"To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the  acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings;

Unless and until the Feds can show the receipt and bill of sale for the sale of said lands in Nevada to the Feds with the consent of the Nevada legislators, everything appurtenant to the Bundy case is moot including the Taylor Grazing Act.

The forces of "truth and justice" will take Bundy out --- but behind the scenes --- along with all his family, friends, and supporters. The attacks will be as subtle as audits by various agencies,increasing to perhaps an outright SWAT attack. Time will tell.

We can only hope the 9th upholds the decision, which is a just one. I don't have a lot of faith in Federal Courts though. I agree that this should be handled by the state courts because I too refuse to recognize the Feds land grabs in the Western states.

Imagine that. BLM engaged in a criminal conspiracy against hard-working Americans. If the 9th circus reverses the decision, all hell will certainly break loose. Maybe it will never be heard of by most due to the collusion of the media. Criminal charges need to be brought against those who participated in this outrage, in both cases and any others in the past.
Yeah, I know, hope springs eternal.

The ruling is probably the reason behind the BLM backing down from the Bundy confrontation. If it gets overturned on appeal, expect to see the heat turned back up on Bundy.

At one time, there were more than 50 ranchers in Clark county, and they've been driven out one by one by either the state or Federal agencies, under one pretense or another. Harry Reid profited from land deals after many of these ranches were shut down.

The other interesting part of that case was the Judge's ruling against Hage for something like $180.00 and against BLM/USFS of $14million. The Hage's will never see a penny of that. I think it's been appealed to the 9th, but I don't know if it's been heard yet.

It took me awhile to recognize this: this is the estate of Wayne Hage, not Cliven Bundy. The Fox News Channel profiled Wayne Hage, the Gibson Guitar Company, the True the Vote organization, and the head of an oil-contracting firm as "Enemies of the State."

"A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may describe a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Truth.

Np, these articles aren't that easy to come by with the MSM/Govt conspiratorial atmosphere to silence opposition and dissent.

Excellent article with historical facts backing the case. Thanks for posting it AJ.