 |
|
The Cliff & Bertha Gardner Stories and Events
****************
CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS?
A talk by Joel F. Hansen on Feb. 20, 2001 in honor of Cliff Gardner, a great patriot and modern martyr for freedom.
WHAT IS CLIFF GARDNER, A CITIZEN OR A SUBJECT?IS HE A SOVEREIGN, OR A SERF? IS HE A FREE MAN, OR A SLAVE?
America became a nation when it announced to the world in the Declaration of Independence that in America "all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
After the War for Independence, our Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution and then, as its crowning glory, added to it our magnificent Bill of Rights. And they called upon the citizens of America to delegate some of their sovereign power to that government.And thus it is that an American Citizen has unalienable God given rights, guaranteed against tyranny by the Bill of Rights. An American citizen has the rights to life, liberty, and property.
A Subject, on the other hand, looks to the King as the source of all power in the realm. The KING owns all of the unappropriated land within the realm, which can be used only by his royal permission. Any rights which the subject may enjoy are by leave of the King, and can be revoked at any time.
The Sovereign is the person or persons who hold the ultimate power in a nation, the power over its laws, its policies, and its land. In America, the people are supposed to be sovereign.
A Serf, on the other hand, holds no power, no land, and is wholly dependent upon the king. The king decides how the land is to be used, and how many crops and animals may be raised on the land.
A Free man enjoys the benefits of liberty: ownership of property, freedom of religion and speech, the right to control his own destiny, free of excessive government regulation.
A slave has no liberty, no ownership of property, no right to control his own destiny.
AGAIN: SO WHAT IS CLIFF GARDNER? TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, WE MUST FIRST ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHAT IS NEVADA, A STATE OR A TERRITORY?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION
There is only one way mentioned in the United States Constitution wherein the Fed Gov can own land within a state. That is Article I, Sec 8, Clause 17 which states that the Fedgov can exercise exlusive jurisdiction over the DC and like authority over all places puchased by the consent of the state Legislature for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.
When this provision was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention, it did not contain the phrase that the acquisition of such land must be done with the consent of the State legislature. One of the delegates, Mr. Gerry, objected that "the power might be used to enslave a state by buying up all of its territory, thus awing the state into an undue obedience to the general government."
Another delegate, Mr. King, then proposed to add the words "by consent of the State legislature" in order to make the power safe. With that change, it was approved.
In other words, the Founding Fathers didn’t want any state to have so much land owned by the FedGov in it that the FedGov would control that state.
So why is it, and how is it, that 87 % of Nevada is ostensibly owned by the FedGov? And why is it that the Forest Service and the BLM think that they are our masters and not our servants in Nevada, and why do they think that they can imprison Cliff Gardner because he has trespassed on their royal land and because he had the audicity to challenge their authority? Let’s find out.
THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE AND THE TERRITORY CLAUSE
When the Constitution was originally written, the 13 States were asked to give up their holdings west of the Allegheny Mts, since those areas were subject to conflicting claims by various states. The agreement was to give these lands to the FedGov, who would in turn make states out of them when they had enough people, each state to enter the Union on an equal footing with the original 13 States. This plan was carried out pursuant to the famous Northwest Ordinance, and as each new state entered the Union, all of the public land was ceded to the State. Article VI of the Constitution adopts the NW ordinance by reference into the Constitution.
In article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress was given power to "dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting Territory or other property belonging to the United States" in order to provide some way of governing these lands until State governements could be set up. But once a State came into the Union, the public land in that state was ceded to the State, so that it could come into the Union on an equal footing with its sister states.
THE TERRITORY OF NEVADA
The land which is now Nevada was acquired by conquest in the war with Mexico and was ceded to the United States under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. That treaty expressly affirms the Northwest Ordinance as to the new lands acquired under the treaty. But, the principles of the NW Ordinance were not followed out here in the West.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers of Nevada, the territorial legislature, sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, and passed an ordinance disclaiming forever Nevada’s claim to the public lands in Nevada.
It is under this ordinance that the FedGov claims that it kept control of the public domain when Nevada came into the Union.
Is this ordinance legal? Binding? This was an illegal contract, because it was
a. done under duress,
b. it was with a party which had not yet attained adulthood (statehood), and c. it was unconstitutional, since the FedGov had no power delegated to it to hold vast tracts of land within a state.
In Coyle v. Smith, the U.S. S Ct ruled that the acts of a territorial legislature do not bind the State Legislature after statehood.
The Fed Courts still think that 87% of Nevada is owned by the Feds. Congress still claims the Public Lands in Nevada, even though our State Legislature in 1996 repeal the cursed admission ordinance.
(My son Jonathan, in his public lands class in law school, asked his professor where in the Constitution it authorized the Fed Gov to own vast tracts of land within a state. The answer was that there was no such place, but under court decisions and federal law, it was possible.)
FED POWER OVER TERRITORIES UNDER ARTICLE IV.
Under Article IV of the United States Constitution, The Property Clause or the Territory Clause, the Courts have held that Congress has unlimited power to govern the people who live in the Territories. Congress is not bound by the Bill of Rights or any other restrictions on its power when it legislates for the territories. Therefore, Citizens of Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico only have whatever rights Congress, in its infinite wisdom, bestows upon them. They have no rights of due process, religious freedom, jury trials, etc etc unless Congress passes a statute to that effect.
SOME US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:
"In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same Constitutional limitations as when it islegislating for the United States." Hooven v Allison (1944) . . . the guarantees of the Constitution . . .extend to them(territorial inhabitants) only as Congress, in its exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United State, has made those guarantees applicable. Balzac v Porto Rico.
"The power over the territories is vested in Congress without limitation. . . ." Downes v. Bidwell (1901)
"The power of Congress over the territories of the United States is general plenary. . . . Church of Jesus Christ of LDS v United States (about 1890)
In other words, Congress is just like a King, an absoute monarch, when it is governing the territories. There simply are no legal limits to its power to do whatever it wants. And what does that make the people who live in those territories? SUBJECTS OF KING CONGRESS. But traditionally this did not apply in admitted states of the Union, because everyone knew and understood that the people of these States are full fledged Citizens of those States and of the United States, and they have all of the unalienable God Given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
THE POWER TO GOVERN THE TERRITORIES DID NOT APPLY WITHIN AN ADMITTED STATE OF THE UNION
In American Insurance v Canter, an 1828 U.S. S. Ct. opinion, the Court stated that Article IV "bestowed upon Congress alone a complete power of government over territories not within the States that comprised the United States."
That is why the public lands owned by the FedGov within a State have traditionally been governed under State Law. In other words, the FedGov was treated as any other landowner or proprietor, and the people who lived on the public land or went upon it were under the jurisdiction of State Law.
State law applied to divorce, wills and estates, traffic laws. And State law applied to the acquisition of grazing rights and water rights and access rights, to name a few. Water rights were subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation under State law–whoever got there first and put his cattle out there owned the water rights. Even on Public, federally owned land.
A REVOLUTIONARY DECISION: KLEPPE
But then in 1976 the US S Ct made a revolutionary decision. In Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court held that the public lands held within a state by the FEDGov were governed under Article IV. This means that Congress now has unlimited power over these lands, and they can be treated just as a territory is treated. And the people on them can be treated by King Congress, and the Forest Service, and the BLM, as its subjects. They own the land, and the people can only use it at the whim and discretion of Congress and its armies of bureaucrats decide that they can use it.
(My friend Mark Andrews complains that he can’t pick up a rock on Federal land and keep it, but the BLMocrats can pick it up and take it to their place and study it forever. Why is that, he asks?)
WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO CLIFF GARDNER–CITIZEN OR SUBJECT?
FREE MAN OR SLAVE? SOVEREIGN OR SERF?
In Chisolm v. Georgia, an early US S Ct case, the CT Stated: At the revolution, sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country. . . The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in that sovereignty.
And in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Ct Ruled:
". . . . In our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. . . . For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life or the means of living or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the situation in which Cliff Gardner finds himself, and that of all us as Nevada and American citizens find ourselves, is thus, by definition, intolerable.
Cliff Gardner’s pioneer ancestors settled Ruby Valley 128 years ago. They arrived there first. They claimed the water rights by prior appropriation, they claimed the grazing rights, they claimed the rights of access–all of these were protected under State Law and recognized by State law. Those people had the right to elect their judges and the State legislature, and to be governed under the laws administered by those State officials.
Then along came the 1976 Kleppe decision, which says that the public lands in Nevada are owned by Congress under Article IV, and thus Congress is an unlimited monarch over the public lands and thus the bureaucrats have unfettered power over those lands and over all who use them. Suddenly the Forest service starts saying to Cliff Gardner, all you have out here is a license, revokable at any time. You have no rights, your ability to put your cattle out here on these lands is entirely at our wh im, and if you don’t like it, that’s just too bad.
And Cliff Gardner responds: "Wait a minute. I’m an American citizen, and a citizen of Nevada. I have rights in these lands established under State law. I have grazing rights, I have water rights, I have ditch rights. And I have the right not to have these taken away by your edicts.
"I have the right under the U.S.Constitution to live within a State which has a Republican Form of government. Which means I have the right to go to the common law courts of this state and have my rights to use of the public lands adjudicated by state judges elected by the people of Nevada. I have the right to live within a state which has control of its public lands, a state which is on equal footing with the original 13 states, and the other states east of the Mississippi, who control the public lands in their states.
"But you are treating me as though I were a subject of King Congress under Article IV, sec 3 plenary unlimited jurisdiction. You are treating Nevada as though it were your royal colony instead of a State of the Union. You are taking away my property rights without due process of law, which is required by the fifth and fourteenth amendments. And you are governing me, not thru my local elected officials, as the citizens of New Jersey or Maine are governed, but instead by federal officials chosen 2000 miles away from here, and by unelected federal judges. I feel like a colonist under King George instead of like an American citizen. How can this be?
"How can it be that the forest service and the Federal Courts have, in essence, stripped me of my citizenship and treated me as a subject, a serf, a slave?"
All of us need to ask these same questions? How can it be that an American and Nevada citizen, whose ancestors have been ranching the Rubies for 128 years, how can it be that now he is guilty of criminal trespass, charged with trespasssing on land his greatgrandfather settled and which his family has used for generations?
How it can be was clearly and prophetically explained by Thomas Jefferson: "Experience has shown, that even in the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
The FedGov has converted article IV, meant ONLY to govern territories outside of the admitted States of the Union, into an instrument of tyranny and usurpation used to govern Nevada Citizens under an unlimited dictatorship known as KING CONGRESS.
And that is why
Cliff Gardner is going to be sentenced as a criminal tomorrow. For daring to trespass on King Congresses’ royal land and daring to challenge the almighty power of Congress–a Congress which, by permission of the United States Supreme Court, has now usurped unlimited power over 87% of the land area of Nevada. Leaving Nevada law and its citizens’ rights totally at the whim of this absolute dictator.This is an outrage, because Cliff Gardner is a natural born American Citizen and a Citizen of the State of Nevada.
The 14th Amendment states clearly: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Article IV, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." In other words, the Citizens of Nevada are entitled to be treated the same way as the Citizens of New York or Massachussetts or Nebraska. They are entitled not to be treated as subjects, but as citizens.
So what will Nevada be in the future? A State or a Territory?
What will Cliff Gardner be? What will you and I be? Subjects, or citizens? Serfs, or sovereign people? Free men and women, or slaves?
The answers to those questions lie with you, and they lie with me, ladies and gentlemen. Will we speak out, or remain silent and neutral?
The great philosopher, Dante , said : "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, during periods of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
Will we silently let Cliff be imprisoned, and wait until the bureaucrats come after us? The Reverend Martin Niemoeller said this about what happened in Germany before and during WWII:
"They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Maybe one of us in the future will voice that same lament, and we’ll say:
"They came first for the ranchers, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a rancher."
Will you, will I, will we, citizens of Nevada and American Citizens, will we wait unti it’s too late to speak up? Or will we speak up now, will we speak out on behalf of Cliff Gardner, a modern American martyr and hero, who like unto our revered Founding Fathers, has pledged his life, his liberty, his property, and his sacred honor to the cause of liberty and the fight for freedom?
George Washington, during the War for American Independence, inspired his Continental army in these words: "The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves, whether they are to have any property they can call their own, whether their houses and farms (and ranches) are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage of this army. Our cool and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance or the most abject submission. We have, therefor, to resolve to conquer or die."
I pray that we may unite together to stop this federal monster before it gobbles up all of our property, our liberty, and our lives. If we don’t act legally and politically now, if we don’t give of our time and our fortunes to this great cause, then someday we may well be called upon to give up our lives to restore the freedoms which have been lost to federal tyranny. Please give of your support to this great and humble man, Cliff Gardner, in any and every way that you can.
I pray to our Lord and Creator, the bestower of our unalienable rights, that Cliff Gardner may conquer, and live. I pray that we may support him, that we all may be not serfs, but sovereigns. Not subjects, but citizens. Not slaves, but free men and women.
SO PLEASE ANSWER ME NOW: WHAT OUGHT NEVADA TO BE? A TERRITORY? OR A STATE?
AND WHAT OUGHT CLIFF GARDNER TO BE? A SUBJECT, OR A CITIZEN? A SERF, OR A SOVEREIGN? A SLAVE, OR A FREE MAN?
**************************
Nevada Committee for Full Statehood Alert - Oct. 2001
Cliff Gardner Court Hearing - Tuesday, November 20th at 8:30am
Cliff and Bertha Gardner ask everyone who possibly can attend the hearing to come.
This is an extremely important hearing because to a great extent the court will be on trial even more than Cliff Gardner. The question is whether citizens who are made subject to Article IV jurisdiction are to be afforded the full protection of the Constitution. This question will be placed squarely before the court in such a manner that the court cannot avoid answering.
Article IV was originally included in the Constitution by the founders for the purpose of governing territories belonging to the union. In numerous instances the Supreme Court has said that Article IV jurisdiction is without limitation and does not afford citizens their constitutional rights and protections. Mistakenly, it is now assumed that Article IV jurisdiction can be applied to citizens within sovereign and admitted states to the union. Hence, all basic God-given constitutional rights and guarantees are denied citizens who are made subject to the authority under which the BLM and Forest Service operate namely Article IV. In other words, they are treated like citizens of a territory without Constitutional rights instead of citizens of a sovereign and admitted state of the union with the full protection of the Constitution.
As an example, if the Congress suspended the Constitution in 89% of Nevada tomorrow, people would understand how serious the circumstances we face today have become. This is precisely what has happened and what the Gardners are challenging.
During the Constitutional Convention it was expressed by Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts (who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, delegate of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention and Vice-President under Madison) that one of the greatest fears was that the federal Government would someday buy up so much land within the states that they would awe the states into undo obedience and destroy their independence. Without the federal government even buying the land just usurping control over it, this is precisely what citizens of the state of Nevada face today. In reality, many of our elected representatives are much more concerned about representing the federal government agencies’ interests than the average citizen’s.
*****************************************
December 6, 2001
FOREST SERVICE ABUSES ENDANGER LIFE AND PROPERTY
For Immediate Release:
Today Cliff Gardner, Ruby Valley Rancher, appeared before Federal District Judge Howard McKibben. Gardner was found guilty of willfully violating the unilaterally imposed grazing restrictions of the Forest Service. The arbitrary and capricious rule and enforcement of the Forest Service has left the Gardners with the alternatives of giving up their 129 year-old family ranch or opposing the Forest Service. Below is their story.
Bertha Gardner presented the following testimony to the Judge today, December 6, 2001. Your Honor: I am Bertha Gardner, Cliff Gardner’s wife. The outcome of this trial will effect me as much as it will Cliff. All is at stake right here and now, including our health, safety and the future of our ranching operation. In 1996, I came close to losing part of my family while they were helping to defend a neighbor’s house and property during a range fire. Our neighbor was burnt over his face and hands trying to defend his home. This is what happens when the range is not grazed. When you live in such an area as we do you have no choice, you must defend your property the best you can. You have everything to lose, including your home, the ranch itself, your livestock, everything, and you must defend your property even if it means risking your lives.
Even on dry years there is a lot of cheat grass and that is just like an open can of gasoline. If you graze these areas it cuts down on the fuel and the danger. It is necessary that we graze our range for health and safety and protection of property and family. When it comes to protecting my family I will do whatever it takes to prevent a disastrous situation.
Cliff and I have been married for over 33 years and have raised 4 upstanding law abiding adults. Nevada is a Community Property State, so the cows, equipment, ranch and debt are all in my name as well as his, so when you fine him you are punishing me as well. Cliff is the fourth generation in the valley. The Gardners have been ranching in Ruby Valley for over 100 years, 129 years to be exact. The Gardners have been ranching on the ranch that we now own for 99 years.
My husband is an excellent range manager. Our neighbors and even most Forest personnel have acknowledged that fact. He watches the plants as to what animals eat what and how we can better manage the range to benefit both livestock and wildlife. When there is a range fire it kills most of the bitter brush, that deer depend on and a lot of the annual grasses, let alone the danger it puts all the people in.
We had a good working relationship with the Forest Service until about 1988, when we supported people in central and Southern Nevada that were being targeted for removal by the government. From then on, we couldn’t do anything right. Our neighbors who kept quite and acted as political allies were benefited while persons like my husband were persecuted.
In the spring of 1991 we received two letters, one dated April 10th signed by both John Inman, Supervisor of the Humboldt National Forest and R.M. "Jim" Nelson, Supervisor of the Toiyabe National Forest, and the other dated May 9th, signed by Mont E. Lewis, Ranger for the Wells Resource Ranger Station, informing us of their decision to administratively amend our permit to comply with the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan standards and guidelines.
You see, up until that time, it was the policy of the Forest Service and BLM, before they made any changes in an allotment management plan or the terms and conditions of a grazing permit they had to sit down with the permittee and try to negotiate the change they wanted, and only in the event that the agency had absolute proof that resource damage was occurring, and the rancher could not be talked into a change would they issue a decision amending the terms and conditions of a grazing permit or allotment management plan without permittee approval.
There were many reasons for our decision to turn our cattle onto the Forest Reserve without a permit in 1994. But more than anything, we did it for health, safety and to protect our property and family from wildfire. Never in our lives have we been faced with the danger of wildfire as we have been these last few years. In 1993 when we had the Dawley Creek fire we had grazed our cattle on the foothills for a short time. The Forest Service called and said it was a dry year, we needed to take our cattle off. We complied. It was only a short time later when lightening struck and the fire started. I yelled at Cliff that there was a fire at the mouth of the canyon. He ran to the barn, just a short distance to get Walt, our oldest boy and told him to go south to Medicine Rock and put in a firebreak there. By the time Walt drove the tractor up there, the fire had already traveled that quarter of a mile.
It is a great worry wondering if all your family is safe and alive. You cannot be every place at the same time and yet your family is spread out trying to protect your property. It was only by the grace of God that the entire Ranch did not burn that day. I called all the neighbors and the Division of Forestry to report the fire. Where we had NOT had cattle, the fire burned with great intensity but fortunately there had been sufficient grazing along the fence lines to help suppress the fire. On adjacent allotments where average grazing had occurred, the Agencies could not even get their backfires to burn.
This is not to mention the fact that to lose our use of our allotment is to destroy us financially. We have debt and in order to service our debt we must make use of all of our ranching operation and not just a portion of it. Another great concern to us is that, if we do not use the mountain for our cattle to show beneficial use on our VESTED WATER RIGHTS we lose it. Also it has been proven by studies, that if cattle or large unguents do not graze an area, the big woody vegetation increases and the flow of water DECREASES.
Your Honor, we had no choice but to turn out cattle out on Forest land, not only for protection from wildfires but for our health and safety as well as our Vested Water Rights. If you don’t have water on your ground, it is of little value.
When we were before you a year ago, Your Honor, you stated that we needed to fence our private land away from the Forest Service land. You see, our property goes up to a point in the canyon or up on the mountain and corners and comes back down. It’s really rough terrain, steep and rocky. Every time you have a corner, it creates an abuse area. Such a fence would cross the deer migration trail many times and would be disruptive of the natural migration pattern of our deer herd. In addition, your Honor, there is no proof that the line as is recognized by the Forest Service is correct. When the survey crew were putting in the markers, my husband, our two boys and a neighbor went up on the mountain to talk to the head individual that was working for the cadastral survey. They were told by him that he was using a small willow stick he found laying on the ground that was to have been a section corner put in the ground in 1869. It was in 1993 that he was doing his survey. Now you cannot tell me that in 124 years that the willow that was just laying on the ground would be the same corner marker in the same spot. What has happened to honesty? What has happened to telling the truth and nothing but the truth?
The Forest Personnel have not acted honestly, Your Honor. They have lied to us. They have broken agreement after agreement that they have had with us. They knew that they were placing us in a position where we could either abandon our permit or defy them.
Cliff Gardner also presented the following to the judge: For more than twenty years, the Forest Service people have been intentionally implementing regulations that they knew would force ranching families out of business. Stalin once said that if you tell lies often enough and long enough people will believe them. This is precisely what the federal agencies have been doing for the last 30 years. The agency people have been lying to the public. Now they claim that agriculture and ranching in particular are destructive to natural resources when in fact after this nation was settled and livestock were put on the land, wildlife of every description increased in number including all bird life, even songbirds. Even the agency’s own scientific studies and information support this truth. Yet the agency people have successfully suppressed that information and intentionally replaced it with bogus science and reports, altered data and outright lies.
I had the reputation, even among government officials, of being one of the best range managers in the state of Nevada. I had a good working relationship with the Forest Service people until the mid-1980’s when my wife and I stepped forward to stand up against the intentional efforts on the part of the government to take out all small ranching operators in southern and central Nevada. From that point forward the government agents targeted me. Nothing my family and I could do would satisfy or appease them. The government’s persecution resulted in us taking over a 75% reduction in use of our range while our neighbors who acted as political allies of the federal government received 25% increases in their grazing use.
Not only has this resulted in extreme economic hardship for my family, but it has placed us in a situation where we are extremely vulnerable to wildfire and the destruction of all our property. Since so many livestock have been removed from the lands in Nevada making it vulnerable to wild fire, vast amounts of winter habitat for mule deer and other species have been destroyed by fire. Where the government manages the land in Ruby Valley--wild fires have destroyed the bitterbrush range. Throughout the western rangelands the greatest production of mule deer was where there were large areas of bitterbrush rangeland. Today in Ruby Valley and other communities throughout northern Nevada the best bitterbrush range remaining is on private land, where intense wildfire can not occur because of proper levels of livestock grazing.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management people have been intentionally ignoring the direct correlation that exists between the decline of livestock grazing with the corresponding decreasing mule deer and sage grouse production.
Federal management of resources works no better in the United States than it did in the Soviet Union. Not only are they driving productive and law-abiding ranching families from the land in the name of protecting resources, but in their insatiable thirst to do so is destroying the productiveness and health of our lands and wild life.
The Forest Service and the Courts have already caused considerable financial harm to the Gardner family. Now with Judge McKibben’s ruling, it will cause the complete destruction of the Gardner ranching operation. We have been living on between $12,000 and $14,000 a year in order to protect what it has taken five generations on the family ranch to put together. This is because of the incredible cost of defending ourselves and our livelihood from the government.
If I lose one of my sons trying to defend our ranch from wildfire who will be held responsible? Will it be the Forest Service officials? Will it be Judge McKibben? Will it be U.S. Attorney Brian Sullivan? Of course not, government officials never hold themselves responsible for anything. Only prudent management of the resources and sufficient grazing can protect us and keep our ranch economically viable. Judge McKibben is determined to penalize us for trying to protect our lives and livelihood.
Our family has been living in Ruby Valley for 129 years. Judge McKibben has destroyed it all with callous disregard for everything this country has stood for.
The primary purpose of the court was to protect the rights of the individual from the majority interest from using government to suppress and enslave individuals and minority interests.
Upon conclusion of the trial Cliff Garner stated, "The judge could not have made it more clear to us that the Constitution and its protections are completely suspended. There could never have been a more cold-blooded demonstration of disregard for constitutional principles and individual rights than was exhibited by Judge McKibben this morning in his courtroom. Thomas Jefferson’s warning that the germ of America’s destruction lies in its judiciary, was realized today in Judge McKibben’s courtroom."
The judge set Cliff Gardner’s sentencing for March 11, 2001 at 4pm.
********************************************
By SCOTT SONNER Friday, December 7, 2001, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Ruby Valley man could face prison time for illegally grazing cattle on national forest land
RENO -- A Nevada rancher battling what he considers government tyranny was convicted for the second time in a year Thursday of illegally grazing his cattle on national forest land.
Cliff Gardner, 63, could face up to six months in prison for his latest conviction in a dispute that began in 1994 when the U.S. Forest Service revoked his grazing permit.
"We were targeted and we were persecuted because we stood up against the tyranny of the government," said Gardner, a fourth-generation rancher who maintains that a "socialistic government" is eroding rights of landowners across the West.
U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben found him guilty despite emotional claims by Gardner and his wife, Bertha, that government restrictions on grazing have allowed a dangerous buildup of rangeland grasses. The grass, they said, poses a severe fire threat to the Ruby Valley ranch their family has run for 129 years.
"If we want to remain on the land, we don't have a choice but to put those animals out there," Gardner said.
"You've already destroyed us. It's cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. ... Who's going to be responsible if my son gets killed fighting a fire? Is it you, your honor?" he shouted at the judge.
Gardner was jailed briefly last month after he walked out of trial proceedings and McKibben issued a bench warrant for his arrest. He was released later that day on $5,000 bail and remains free pending his scheduled sentencing March 11.
McKibben fined Gardner $1,000 in February for a conviction last year on the same charge. The judge refused the Justice Department's request at that time to impose the maximum penalty of $5,000 and six months in prison but warned a stiffer penalty awaited Gardner if he broke the law again.
Gardner acted as his own attorney at the unorthodox trial Thursday. He refused to pass through railing dividing the audience from the proceedings, saying he did not recognize the federal court's jurisdiction.
McKibben initially ordered two bailiffs to bring Gardner forward to the defense table and a bailiff put a hand on Gardner's arm before the judge agreed to let him speak from the front row.
At one point, the judge asked Gardner again to come forward so he could see a map being discussed by a witness. But Gardner replied, "I'm not a part of this proceeding."
Bertha Gardner later took the witness stand, crying with hands trembling as she read from a piece of paper. "Everything is at stake right here and now, including our health and safety and the future of our ranching operation," she said, adding her son was nearly killed and her neighbor badly burned while fighting a 1996 rangeland wildfire. "This is what happens when the range is not grazed. This is what happens when the Forest Service ignores the safety of ranchers, persecuting ranchers because they oppose federal bureaucratic tyranny," she said.
Forest Service officials testified they spotted at least 90 cattle with Gardner's "slash-J" brand in August on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands where Gardner once held a grazing permit.
Gardner lost his permit in 1994 when he refused to comply with the agency's decision to reduce the size of his grazing area. He maintains the Forest Service has no power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate the lands where his family has been ranching for more than a century.
"It is abundantly clear he does not recognize the jurisdiction of this court," Deputy U.S. Attorney Brian Sullivan said Thursday. "It is unfortunate he has taken this position and dug himself in. ... But they have taken certain actions and they have to live with those actions." Gardner said he has produced overwhelming evidence since 1994 that government regulations on livestock grazing "have been based on bogus science."
***************************************
FEDS ENGAGED IN A WAR OVER PUBLIC LANDS
By Scott Sonner, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 12/23/2001
Federal cattle seizures. Gun-toting ranchers. Government surveillance cameras in the desert.
A decade of conflict over public lands management in the West has led to increasing confrontation between the U.S. government and disaffected Westerners who say their property rights are being denied in an overzealous effort to protect the environment.
Disputes rage over irrigation water in Oregon, logging in northern California and livestock grazing in Utah and Idaho. But nowhere is there more animosity than in Nevada. –continued next page-
The militancy shown by ranchers, county politicians and state’s rights activists recalls the protests of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and 1980s, when miners and ranchers across the West rallied in defiance of the federal government and pushed state lawmakers to take control of public lands.
"This is what the Revolutionary War was fought about, standing up against tyranny to defend life and liberty," said Janine Hansen, a longtime conservative activist who is aligned with the ranchers as an organizer of the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood.
At a recent rally in front of the federal courthouse in Reno, Hansen and dozens of others waved the Nevada state flag in protest against Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management livestock grazing policies.
They wore shirts that read "87 percent" — the amount of Nevada owned by the federal government. Their slogan: "Nevada is a state, not a territory."
"You’re going to see a lot more of this," said Don Alt, a rancher from Silver Springs who says he’s witnessed growing discontent with the federal government in recent years.
"The ones who don’t want any conflict are already gone. The ones who are left, want to fight," he said. "All we are saying is ‘let us have our property rights.’ "
Their battle is being waged on several fronts in Nevada:
*Rancher Cliff Gardner of Ruby Valley was jailed briefly by a federal judge in Reno this month after he and 40 state’s rights backers disrupted his trial that grew out of a seven-year dispute over his cattle’s unauthorized grazing on Forest Service land.
*The BLM seized 62 cattle from rancher Ben Colvin of Goldfield this summer, saying he was trespassing on federal land and owed the government $73,000 in back fines and fees. The agency auctioned off the cattle over the protests of activists. At one point, a BLM law officer drew a gun on a protester who also was armed.
*Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Reno, is demanding a review of the BLM’s use of camouflaged surveillance cameras set up to try to catch the thieves of more than 100 signs marking the boundary of the new Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area 100 miles north of Reno, a 1.2 million-area designation opposed by neighboring property owners.
*The so-called Shovel Brigade of Elko County continues its six-year-long effort to force the Forest Service to rebuild a washed out road near Jarbidge that the agency says would harm the threatened bull trout. Animosity stemming from that dispute prompted the resignation in 1999 of national forest supervisor Gloria Flora, who said she feared for the safety of her workers in the region.
At 70 million acres overall, Nevada is more than twice as large as Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, combined. But only 10 million acres are in private hands.
Nevada has the highest percentage of federal land of any state and its 60 million acres under federal stewardship are second only to Alaska.
Unwanted during the homesteading era, the land fell by default into federal ownership, and the government for decades tended to give locals access and use as desired.
But a wave of national environmental laws in the 1970s changed management objectives on those public lands. And a crush of Western population migration in the 1980s and 1990s brought new users of public land — people interested in recreation and preservation — who challenged the traditional uses of logging, mining and grazing.
Trying to accommodate new and traditional users, federal land managers tend to anger both.
Gardner and Colvin are among ranchers — many the descendants of 19th-century pioneers — who maintain the federal government has no real authority to keep them off public land in Nevada, or to place requirements on its use, or to make them pay for using it.
The BLM confiscated Colvin’s cattle in July, accusing him of grazing without a permit and being in violation of regulations intended to stem overgrazing that damages the range, especially around streams.
Gardner was convicted this month for the second time in a year of illegally grazing his cattle on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest without a permit. He faces up to six months in prison at his March 11 sentencing.
"They’ve got the hammer on me," Gardner said. "Our property, our livelihood, our ranch which has been in the family since 1862 is on the Forest Service chopping block. These federal agents are obviously taking my property rights."
Gardner, who is appealing last year’s conviction, doesn’t deny grazing his livestock without a permit on federal land. He argues the Forest Service has no authority to require one.
"It’s been my objective since 1994 to get this question before the U.S. Supreme Court but I realize to accomplish that is almost impossible," he said. "We’re trying to make people understand that in dealing with the public lands, the Constitution has in effect been suspended."
Note: These AP Stories were taken from the Las Vegas Review Journal and Reno Gazette Journal
******************************************