United States vs Bundy, An American Story

A senior citizen may recall how things were, or used to be...
...if only we can talk to citizens from two centuries ago...
...or residents on land before it was called America, or Mexico, or something else...
...or to a time before citizens, but of subjects.
Whether rights will be expanded or limited will depend on tomorrow's citizens of the world.
One thing is certain: mankind has come quite far and still has far to go.

There is something important about knowing and properly defining words (a carryover from this article about words).

It is through words that rights, law, jurisdiction, and a great amount of terms related to these ideas are defined.

When these concepts are properly invoked and explained, by the use of words, these ideas can make the difference between freedom and prison.

When a war of words, and their interpretation and understanding, is that difference... it helps when mistakes are made by those trying to put you in prison.

However, no government system of men is perfect... although men do try.

One great thing about the United States of America is that when mistakes are made by those responsible for upholding, enforcing, and implementing the law, the process of justice usually cannot move forward.

This is more evident in an age where information is shared near-instantaneous.

Mistakes on the part of the government, whether purposed or done through ignorance, is conceived as a perversion of justice.

In the United States, those who are responsible for hammering out 'justice' and the policy of the law are held to strict standards in keeping the law themselves, and following the rules regarding their methods of jurisprudence.

Depending on who you ask, and their interpretation of events, it was due to mistakes that charges against Bundy and those with him were dismissed... with prejudice.

The phrase 'with prejudice' is quite notable, because it means the same charges cannot be brought against him/them again.

If the dismissal was 'without prejudice', Mr. Bundy and the others may have to stand again for the same charges.

Sounds very similar to double jeopardy (no, not the television show).

Regardless of opinion, I'd like to focus on Mr. Bundy's likely point of view.

This article is not an attempt to sway opinion of the man, or justify any beliefs he may personally have.

This is article can be considered a very simple introduction to concepts that some think are being lost or ignored or largely misunderstood.

The mass consensus by government individuals and mainstream media is that he was wrong and was released on a technicality.

Perhaps.

Perhaps also there is something to be learned.

His personal understanding of rights, law, and government may be considered old-fashioned, or noble, or misinformed, or outright ignorant (depending on who you ask).

This article challenges the common idea of rights of people and rights of government, and how these two intersect, intertwine, or intersperse.

I think all of these three things happen regarding law and government, because they are usually understood through a political veil.

Depending on your political programming, your understanding may vary.

Words and how they fit with one another is a matter of interpretation.

Regarding the law, a legislature (group of law-writing individuals) author the laws of men, while a court (law-interpreting individuals) figure out what the law means and how it applies to any particular case or situation.

Think about a puzzle that has to be figured out.

To assume you know all the steps in arriving to that puzzle's conclusion is to assume too much, I think.

Most puzzles have a perceived 'end' picture, and here there is an end assumption regarding the finish.

However, such is not the case regarding the law... or at least it shouldn't be.

For sure, there are two clear 'pictures' of an outcome for any given court case: guilty or not.

Whatever happened to 'innocent' as a 'plea' or an answer to a charge?.. is perhaps the topic of another article.

The finished picture for a defendant is ultimately freedom... from jail, or penalty, or some other harm or detriment to them.

The finished image for a prosecutor is victory... jail, or penalties, or some other form of 'justice' leveled against the defendant.

Both sides desire vindication or victory.

But the puzzle's final image is not always so clear, and less clear is the process arriving to the finish.

How the pieces fit and build the image.

The case of United States v Bundy is about two different perceptions and interpretations of the something similar, I think.

Law, its meaning, rights, land (and its use), authority, and many other terms.

For those unfamiliar, a man named Cliven Bundy was eventually arrested for a variety of 'offenses'.

One 'offense' or charge was failure to pay a fee regarding grazing rights; a fee he was previously paying for several years.

Another 'offense' or charge was an armed standoff between federal employees and supporters of Bundy on the public land his cattle grazed; land titled to the U.S. federal government.

For the entire summarized backstory, albeit written in a way that heavily leans towards the opposite interpretation of this article's premise, is found here.

A quote from Cliven Bundy upon his release after spending about 700 days in prison:

“My defense is a 15-second defense: I graze my cattle only on Clark County, Nevada, land and I have no contract with the federal government,” he said. “This court has no jurisdiction or authority over this matter. And I've put up with this court in America as a political prisoner for two years.” 

- Cliven Bundy, as quoted, L.A. Times news article, 8 January 2018, Las Vegas, Nevada

Key words: “contract”, “jurisdiction”, “authority”.

The federal government's position is simple: they own the land, they have authority to demand fees for its use, and they decide what such land is used for and by whom... among many other things.

The concept of land ownership by government is something to ponder.

Also, the government's premise that 'the people' own the land.

This begs the question: if people 'own' the land, why do they pay fees to enjoy or use it?

One strong opinion could be that the government's interpretation of the law is that they have standing in all matters, while those not following their interpretation is likely a lawbreaker or misunderstands.

The detailed definitions of words can be quite narrow when read in a legal context.

According to specific legalese, any word's definition can be much narrower or much broader... dependent on its context and, of course, who is reading and interpreting and ideas.

For the sake of simplicity, I will quote from Wikipedia and italicize interesting words and phrases mentioned by Bundy, hoping to elaborate on his ideas and perceptions.

Contract:

A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law as a binding legal agreement. Contract is a branch of the law of obligations in jurisdictions of the civil law tradition. Contract law concerns the rights and duties that arise from agreements. 

A contract arises when the parties agree that there is an agreement. Formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. Each party to a contract must have capacity to enter the agreement. Minors, intoxicated persons, and those under a mental affliction may have insufficient capacity to enter a contract. Some types of contracts may require formalities, such as a memorialization in writing.

Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined field of responsibility, e.g., Michigan tax law. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels; e.g. the court has jurisdiction to apply federal law. 

Colloquially it is used to refer to the geographical area to which such authority applies, e.g. the court has jurisdiction over all of Colorado. The legal term refers only to the granted authority, not to a geographical area. 

Jurisdiction draws its substance from international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of society.

Authority:

(derived from the Latin word auctoritas), as a concept, can be used to mean the right to exercise power given by the State (in the form of government, judges, police officers, etc.), or by academic knowledge of an area (someone that can be an authority on a subject) or, in some societies, by higher spiritual powers or deities. 

When the word authority is used in the name of an organization, this name usually refers to the governing body upon which such authority is vested; for example, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. It can also mean the right to do something or execute an order.

One idea of America was to escape oppression and establish a place of freedom.

This is a very broad and patriotic sentiment, yet it is still popular and should be considered because from such sentiments and ideas are laws written down through specific words.

The same could be said about religious ideas.

It is my personal understanding that mankind is imbued with rights.

Man is free, according to belief in a God who created him with a free will and, according to nature's evidence that men are able to make choices.

Nature's evidence is furthered when both good and bad choices usually bring about the suffering or joys from the consequences of choice.

Man's freedom of choice demands responsibility; this is one of the consequences of freedom.

Unfortunately, not every man and woman on earth is able to conceive, perceive, or make free choices even today.

Even if individuals in certain parts of the world were able to clearly understand these concepts of freedom and responsibility, and were able to clearly express them, if such desires are currently foreign to popular cultural ideas, such efforts would likely be thwarted or not recognized.

The idea of one man's freedom can be perceived as a threat to another man.

We see this battle in politics, religions, and on the streets and alleyways of the world.

One man's freedom, or strength, or perception of these ideas may conflict with the ideas of another man.

The man who makes his living from having subjects in some fashion likely does not desire to lose such a leverage.

In speaking of the freedom granted by God to man; as I interpret and understand this, it can be explained as a concept born of faith in a Righteous, Holy, and Loving God.

The beginning of the narrative between God and the first man depicts absolute freedom of choice with a warning about a single restriction.

The test of only a single restriction, and somehow man was unable to obey this single law.

What was the consequential warning?

Certain death.

This brings us to the concept born from the idea of a Loving God that will judge people's actions after death, and not demanding men to execute their form of justice on others, namely death or undue punishment.

This brings us to rights.

Human rights:

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being", and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances; for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture and execution.

The consideration of another human being as being equal to the pondering individual, demands their treatment to be at least higher than the manner animals are treated.

Questions:

What other philosophy, or ideology, or religion, has at its core a similar definition of human rights?

You may be considering a few, and so you should... for such concepts have been evident from one time or another throughout human history.

What ideology includes no clause or justification for violence against another human being or for execution of a human being, regardless of what 'lawful' things other men may write into law in arguing for an allowance for war, fighting, or a death penalty?

You may be thinking of fewer groups.

In a strictly ideological state, only the Gospel's message exemplifies no such justification for the loss of life, or property, or anything else.

The clarity of the Gospel is valuing human life above all others things, even the individual self.

This valuing is regarding all earthly things, to the point of sacrificing one's own life for that of others.

This sacrifice, however, does not include dying over or for earthly possessions.

The ideal, and the teaching, is that mankind is created and made in the image of God.

There are other likely mirrored examples of this concept, and this is not by mistake but purposed.

This reality speaks to God's sovereignty over all things and the world over through all times.

It is, then, no surprise that rights can be traced before their initial stages in the western cultures of ancient Greece through individuals like Herodotus... and in eastern culture through individuals like Cyrus and his Cylinder.

The point is that the world's cultures have mentioned a mantra placing man above all other things.

There has been a time of maturity for mankind, with and without government, to place not only kings above governments (typically), but also all of mankind's freedom on par with laws of government.

Today a western example is the United State's government.

Since that government's inception, interpretations have battled and yet the experiment of democracy and self-governance continues, fragile in some aspects, robust in others.

There is clear evidence that men of faith were beholden to ideals much higher than ideals based on earthly pursuits when they penned certain documents pertaining to what is called the United States.

There is evidence that certain individuals who authored and signed the items that enacted ideas of this government believed in God as revealed in Yeshua the Messiah.

Here is the final portion of the U.S. Constitution before the signatures, from 1787:

...Attest William Jackson Secretary 

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names...

- U.S. Constitution with amendments to-date

The unfortunate issue (at least one of many), is that men have often times interpreted their great responsibility as a power license instead of a service to one another.

This is a historical pattern that has also blemished the American dream.

However, to invoke the Lord is to include the concepts of service, humanity, and consideration.

Yet when denial of the Lord is popularized, or frowned upon in the very halls of government upon where such fundamentals have built, one possible reason why interpretations conflict may be identified.

11 years previous to the Constitution was the Declaration of Independence.

Consider the very first portion of that writ:

In Congress, July 4, 1776. 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

- Declaration of Independence

Consider how 'Nature's God' is invoked in a writ made to declare political separation from a dominating political entity, and another writ which invokes Yeshua the Lord.

To explore these words, is to realize the manner and nature of laws that were authored and implemented.

Such an effort has not been perfect, but unfortunately at times genocidal, inhumane, reprehensible, ambiguous, fraudulent, hostile, indifferent, maniacal, and an outright offense towards God and His image in mankind.

But what of the good?

Do we not find the influencing power of an ideal that calls for peace and love also in American values?

Were these values established by writs of men over two centuries ago, or from ideals much older and with much greater standing?

Surely from ancient of times has the Ancient of Days ruled over the hearts of men, yet not all men submit to the Lord their God, but to all kinds of ideas adverse and abusive.

Considering all this, this is the manner the U.S. government was fashioned.

Hence has been the establishment of a law and order built upon Messiah as the One and only true God revealed to mankind, because of the manner of justice to be fashioned upon the earth.

The Old Testament's law and its grave parameters for offenses, and the grace revealed in the New Testament regarding humanity's frailty and the redemptive effort of God.

This is the office of the Church, which has been somewhat absent the legislative and interpretative effort of American law.

Thus why men bicker over their rights, and their interpretations of rights when contrasted and compared to the laws that men write for themselves.

Consider the list of hostile laws that previously existed, or the rights that were previously supported by such laws.

Slavery being one reprehensible and inhumane such 'right' (of ownership) and of marketability (law-supported).

Surprisingly religious arguments were behind slavery, while religious arguments were also behind its extinction.

Grace won.

What of the man that considers their current country's state of affairs as less than pleasant, or having reversed course in some fashion?

Some people read their Bible, their secular government's writs, and are confused by what certain people in government are doing.

At least there exists a mechanism to influence, affect, and change laws to match public sentiments regarding human rights and freedoms.

Although some government offices have been occupied longer than historically perceived would come about, public office is open to be occupied by more dignified individuals.

It is very possible more government offices can be occupied by the very kinds of minds that authored the original writs and the spirit of its message, without dismissing the progress and grace that has been learned.

Such an ability and opportunity is not the case in many parts of the world... but in due time, perhaps.

I personally don't agree, and actually dislike, the manner things developed regarding Bundy and his issues with the federal government.

Using weapons or showing a form of force with weapons in-hand is a cause for concern, yet this is the manner those who authored those writs I shared went about the business of voiding political affiliations with a government entity.

Is this 'good'?

Only if you have your eyes focused on the things of this world and not Above.

I am personally not one to fight over things of this world, but I cannot speak for others who may agree with my view of the Lord, yet have other ideas as to how to achieve temporal goals.

What I do see is evidence of God's hand and grace despite the carnal efforts of men, religious or irreligious, and how God's will come about regardless of man's will.

This is why it is possible to submit even to tyranny, having full confidence that life continues beyond this material dimension.

The Lord revealed such a piercing of the material veil of this earthly life.

The details in Bundy's struggle with his ideas and the ideas of others reveal some very important things.

In law, it is a matter of 'what came first'... but this is not always recognized by those who sit in positions of power and influence.

Bundy's argument has been considered by legal experts as insufficient and incorrect.

What of a a decent respect to the opinions of mankind as mentioned in the Declaration?

What of the man that desires not to recognize the efforts of certain organizations because he see a limiting of freedoms, or actions not conducive to the promotion of their welfare? (as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution's first paragraph)

When an individual, or a group of people, perceive their government to be lacking authority in due to their lacking in other areas of service (morality, or ethics), with an ever-increasing litany of codes that usually mean more money for them and less for the individual, what is one to do?

Submission and obedience is the way of peace.

But not everyone is tolerable or desiring to submit to manners they view as unjust.

What is surprising is how technicalities can convict, or exonerate, someone.

In this case, the technicality upheld the rights of people over the attempts of an organization working under color of law, and the actions of the BLM and prosecutors were found to have violated the rights and standing of this man and others with him.

At least this is the information share.

If it was another greater precedent, like the government somehow admitting a greater fault, would such things we easily perceived?

Maybe, maybe not.

If it was made evident in the case, it would likely not be something popularized... or is a matter for those with a greater understanding to be able to 'see'.

What if certain individuals in government were to realize the role of their office is to ensure public prosperity and not their own job security?

Or the purpose of government was to ensure full employment of private citizens, but not by increasing more government employees or increasing taxes to assist, but instead promoting more independent employment and entrepreneurship?

What if individuals in government were to see more clearly how they act through the color of law, and not the actual definition of law in regards to rights?

Would they turn themselves in?

Color of law:

In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law adjusts (colors) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law. Under color of authority is a legal phrase used in the U.S. indicating that a person is claiming or implying the acts he or she is committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power, especially if the acts are unlawful... 

...The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire willfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority.

It all comes down to firstly understanding, and secondly interpretation according to an understanding.

But understandings are not mutual, but at times opposed.

An individual who is employed by any government agency or office may believe themselves to have certain authorities over another human being.

This may be very true and the case in many instances.

However, due to ignorance of the rules within the law, or lacking greater consideration of the rights of others, very often rights are easily and frequently violated in pursuit of the job description.

There is also a note to be made regarding the public's lack of knowledge regarding their rights... and the responsibility inherent in such rights.

This is one reason why the job of law enforcement (police officers) is extremely fragile when it comes to laws and rights, both for the good-willed police officer and the good-willed citizen.

But woe to the wayward individual, whether in public or private settings.

In a more honorable society, everything can be discussed without threat of violence from any and all parties (regardless of private position or public office or the issue being discussed).

For people better versed in legal vernacular, they may be able to decipher the court hearings and proceedings regarding this case of the United States vs Bundy.

All too often very important details, and specifics in legalese, is not summarized in news stories... for reasons of sophistication and the absence of an exhaustive understanding behind the greater body of law, jurisdictions, rights and so forth.

Far too many people view government not as public servants, but policy agents working through color of law.

Far too many government employees are constantly working through a coloring of law of sorts, and are absolutely ignorant of their criminal activities.

Far too many common people are absolutely ignorant of their rights, and their responsibilities in being a dignified and honorable example beyond the injuries if a wayward state, or wayward individuals acting as employees of a legitimate government.

Isn't it surprising how a common individual can often sense when they are wronged... and their surprise that the sense of violation is somehow either 'legal', or allowed, or otherwise acceptable by society at-large.

Consideration of rights is a responsibility dependent on an individual honorable character.

I shared ancient writs for a reason (so they may be read).

I shared legal vernacular and certain words with definitions (so they may be read).

I praised the Lord as thy God so you too may believe and praise His Holy Name, and experience the divine nature that is purposed in Him, the Way that surpass the petty conflicts of men, even these low issues of politics, money, and argument over man's words when they ignore God's Word.