The Dork Table Podcast - 2018-12-29 - The Three-Step Plan to UNfunk the World
Channel: RealLibertyMedia
Date: 2018-12-29

The Dork Table is for those of us who don't need therapy
The Three-Step Plan to UNfunk the World

no lies/ no killing/ grow hemp – (mastery level)  required
Fair Dinkum
VinE joined Flash for tales of sales jobs of the past…VinE gives us an update on the Bundy/BLM fiasco…Flash and VinE fight for volume control…More Bundy Updates and the never ending details of the simple 3 step plan to UNfunk the World…

Egregious Intentional Misconduct: Free Pass for the Prosecution, aka “The Role of the Advocate”.

Polluting the Jury Pool.
1-way How the State sets public opinion.
I Saw these actions on TheFogBowForum in the Bruce Doucette Case.

*Federal Leviathan. (see more: Roger Roots)

Vincent Easley II
Adjudicated Civil & Administrative Matters v Prosection in Broad Generalised Regulatory Schemes by Congress.

Vincent Easley II
dismiss indictments for failure to prove the crime.

Vincent Easley II
Ethical Corruption; A Cadre of Prosecutors – “Fair Dinkum” take it or leave it.

Vincent Easley II
untainted assets. lawyer jokes

Vincent Easley II
Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors?

Vincent Easley II Freidman
thx Cowboy Tech

2nd hour
Let’s Write a Short-Story

Rural Land Rights Advocates (RLRA)
Bill Goode‎Rural Land Rights Advocates (RLRA)
25 December 2017 at 13:04 ·

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹?

To be sure no lawyer wants to lose a case, so certainly the prosecution does not want to lose in Las Vegas. However, the stakes are much broader than that for both sides. The very survival of the BLM itself is at stake.

The BLM was established in 1946, merging the US Grazing Service (est 1934) and the General Land Office (est 1812) into a single agency, presumably to manage public lands, as its name would suggest. It did that for a while, but it does very little land management today – Ask any rancher. Instead the BLM today manages other federal agencies that manage public lands, ie National Park Service, National Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service.

At a public hearing I attended about a year & a half ago, National Park and National Forest representatives acknowledged that all land improvements under their jurisdiction must be cleared through the BLM. The Fish & Wildlife Service was not represented at the hearing, but I would presume, based on experience and observations at the Malheur Refuge standoff, that the Fish & Wildlife Service would fall in line with these other agencies under the BLM.

What is commonly called BLM land are public lands outside those agencies and has not been allocated specifically for conservation and / or recreational purposes by the President or Congress. These are the primary lands that ranchers graze their cattle on, though the Forest Service and Park Service lands also have grazing allotments on their lands.

National Monuments come under the jurisdiction of any of these agencies. Thus the BLM creates its own National Monuments, including Gold Butte and Bears Ears. Additionally the the BLM has designated (on its own without Presidential or Congressional approval) some 749 BLM land areas as “Wilderness Study Areas” and “Wilderness Areas”. These areas have presumably been dedicated for conservation purposes as the category names would suggest. However mineral studies are done in those areas for potential mining activity, but the BLM disallows ranch grazing to take place on these areas.

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.

The BLM could restore the Bunkerville grazing allotment for which Cliven was declining to pay grazing fees to the BLM. So such a restoration would not resolve anything. We would simply be back at the point in 1993 when Cliven stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM and sent the fees to Clark County instead, which has declined to cash Cliven’s check.

Of course we know the area lawfully belongs to the State of Nevada per the state’s Enabling Act of 1864. But will the BLM give up control of this area easily? Not likely.

If the BLM were ordered to surrender that land to either Clark County or Nevada, just think of the precedent that would set. Just think of all th