Cliven and Carol Bundy
Po box 7175
Bunkerville NV 89007

Dave and Marylynn Bundy
Po box 814
Delta UT 84624

Ryan and Angie Bundy
Po box 7557
Bunkerville NV 89007

Ammon and Lisa Bundy

Mel and Briana Bundy

VISIT OUR BUNDYRANCHshop and purchase yourself some Bundy Ranch Items. ALL processed will be used for the mens Legal Fees.

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Hammond Family Facts & Events

Hammond Family Facts & Events

(aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.   

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge.  When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court.  The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.* 

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS. 

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock.  The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed. 

Dwight Hammond (Father)

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later. 

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries. 
(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”. 

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff's office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
Steven Hammond (Son)

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property.  Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; " I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”.  Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury.  For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later).  At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years.  He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision.  Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.

 (q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as "Terrorist" under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

(r) On January 4,2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.* 

Hammond Family
(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released. 
(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.


S*  Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

b*   Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only. 

k*  Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.


The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem.  Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.

The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.

The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.

Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.

The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.

Thank you,

Ammon Bundy

Bundy Family

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Support the Hammonds – Convoy, Rally, March & Protest

Support the Hammonds – Convoy, Rally, March & Protest

Saturday January 2nd 2016 – Burns Oregon


Convoy – 10am -Those wanting to travel together will rendezvous at Wilco in Bend on hwy 20 (Wilco, 2717 NE Hwy 20, Bend, OR 97701) Patriot Convoy from Bend to Burns

Rally – 12 pm - Meet at the Safeway in Burns. (Safeway, 246 W. Monroe St., Burns, OR 97720) arrive around 12:00pm. Bring flags, flowers, banners and homemade signs.

March – Right after rally - We'll march from Safeway, north on past the Sheriffs/County offices, head east to downtown main street (Broadway) and stop by the Hammond's home, drop off flowers in front of their home.

Protest – During the march – Bring coins (pennies, nickles & dimes), as we march past the Sheriff & County building we will flip thousands of coins on the walkways, sending the message to County leaders that they have failed to do their duty in protecting the people of Harney County from the federal government and instead have sold the people out.

 - Contact your friends and groups to plan a sign-making event in your respective areas between now and the 2nd of January. We should have a good turn out, support our neighbors, and rally once again. We will be calling media outlets to let them know that Americans will be gathering in Burns to support the ranchers that are being treated like terrorists.

For the Fact & Events in the Hammond case go to:

This event is being organized by the Oregon III% :

Friday, December 11, 2015

ACTION NEEDED - NOTICE: Redress of Grievance


To all People, Patriot groups, Militias, Coalitions, Churches, Families and other Supporting entities,

We hope all of you are having a joyful season in remembering the Lord and the great gift of his birth. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17). If we felt we could wait until after Christmas to give you this information we would. The Adversary never sleeps. We must stay aware, and act in these matters of defense. It is our duty to do so. 

We ask that you read the Notice: Redress of Grievance, and go to the links below to add your name to the document.

Please understand that we must exhaust all prudent measures before taking a physical stand against the horrific actions that the People of Harney County are enduring (including the Hammond's).  If this Notice is ignored, then one more Notice of Demand will be sent, it will list the many petitions that have been ignored and demand that the Hammond's rights be restored. If that final Notice is rejected then People across the Union will have justification to assemble and once again restore individual rights.

It is certain that what has happened to the people of Harney County and the Hammond family is a type and a shadow of what will happen to all people across these United States if we do not put an end to it. 

Please go to the link and add your name to this important document. 

Thank you,
The Bundy Family

Go to this link to view the NOTICE: Redress of Grievance:

If you support this NOTICE: Redress of Grievance, then fill in the name card below. 

Click on the link to fill in the PERSONAL name card:

If you represent a GROUP, click on the link to fill in the GROUP name card:


NOTICE: Redress of Grievance

We the People - United Individuals of these States United: Coalition of Western States (COWS), Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), Bundy Family and Supporters, Oregon Oath Keepers, Idaho III%, Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, Oregon Tactical, Oregon Bearded Bastards, Liberty Watch Washington, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, Rural Heritage Preservation Project, Liberty For All (LFA) [continuous names below]
December 11, 2015
NOTICE: Redress of Grievance
Notice to agent is notice to principle; notice to principle is notice to agent

            Sheriff David Ward, Commissioner Dan Nichols, Commissioner Pete Runnels, Justice of the Peace Donna Thomas, District Attorney Tim Colahan, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Governor Kate Brown

Dear Sirs,

After extensive research on the Hammond case, We the People of these States United have reason to believe that Dwight and Steven Hammond were not afforded their rights to due process as protected by the United States Constitution. 

We have principled evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond committed no crime in the act of performing the prescribe burn and back fire, that the U.S. Government does not have authority to enforce Territorial law under Article Four within the State of Oregon, and that the County of Harney and State of Oregon failed to protect the Hammond's rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. USC 42.1986, 18.242, 18.121, 42.1983, 42.1985,

We hold compelling evidence that the U.S. Government abused the federal court system, situating the Hammond family into duress as effort to force the Hammond's to sell their Steen Mountain property to a federal agency.

We have substantial evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office exploited an act of Congress, imposing cruel and unusual punishment upon residents of Harney County.

We hold substantial evidence that inside the borders of Harney County the U.S. Government is acting outside the authority enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. 

We secure evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office independently prepared the indictment against Dwight & Steven Hammond, and that the Grand Jury did not properly assemble or investigate before the indictment. We have no evidence that the Grand Jury participated in the indictment altogether.

We have sure evidence that U.S. Congress does not have authority to legislate minimum sentences, requiring Dwight and Steven Hammond to serve five years in a federal penitentiary.

We hold confirming video evidence of federal agents exhibiting a culture of intimidation toward individuals and businesses within the borders of Harney County. That federal agents, by fire destroy private property, and that the Hammond family are being denied the same protection of the laws that are enjoyed by federal agents.

We have supporting evidence that Judge Hogan controlled the narrative and did not allow full disclosure in the courtroom. We have additional evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond were sentenced for something different than what they were found guilty of.

We hold sounding evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond are victims of cruel and unusual punishment, and that the U.S. Justice Department is violating the 8th Amendment. 

We hold sure evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond are being subject for the same offense twice put in jeopardy. Including that the Ninth District Court of Appeals is in violation of the 5th Amendment. 

 We have obtained appalling evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office threatened the Hammond family with early detention and further punishment, if the Hammond family continued to communicate with a certain individual. This evidence foundationally speaks against the U.S. Attorneys Office in their gross effort to infringe upon the Hammond’s right to free exercise of speech. 1st Amendment, USC 18.242

In a commitment to expose the truth and administrate justice, We the People of these States United insist that you immediately assemble an independent Evidential Hearing Board (EHB) comprised of the people of Harney County in accordance with Common Law principals.  That the Evidential Hearing Board call witnesses and investigate each of these allegations publicly.  That the Evidential Hearing Board make public conclusions in writing upon their findings.  That the Harney County Board of Commissioners and the Sheriff’s Department enforce the conclusions of the Evidential Hearing Board in support of the United States Constitution.  We further insist that the Hammond family be protected from reporting to federal prison until all allegations can be determined.

We need not remind you of your lawful duty to act on these matters as insisted, nor of the consequences if you knowingly neglected your duty. USC 18.2382, 18.2071, 18.2076, 42.1983, 42.1985, 42.1986

In light of the information presented, we require your thoughtful response within 5 days of the date of this notice.  If we do not receive your response within 5 days, we will have no choice but to understand that you do not wish to do your duty and are content in acting in negligence to your solemn oath to the people who have placed you in this fiduciary position and in defiance of your obligation to defend the Rights and Liberties of the people.  Therefore, govern yourself accordingly.


We the People - United Individuals of these States United

If you support this NOTICE: Redress of Grievance, then fill in the name card below. 

Click on the link to fill in the PERSONAL name card:

If you represent a GROUP, click on the link to fill in the GROUP name card:


Monday, December 7, 2015

The Constitution of the United States on Federal Land Ownership

The Constitution of the United States on Federal Land Ownership

We the People, being free, have need to defend our freedom from time to time against those who would violate our rights as defined by our Creator. It is an arduous task to constantly be on guard in the protection of our life, our family, and our means of providing a living.

 Therefore, “We the People” as neighbors, create government and laws to protect our lives, liberties, properties, and our pursuant of happiness, from those who would take them away.
Our federal government is created and receives its authority from the people as outlined in Constitution of the United States. The Constitution specifies how and what the federal government is and what powers those that hold office have. We have given the federal government specific duties to perform and granted it the power to fulfill only those duties and nothing else.

The Constitution of the United States, created by “We the People” established a government for the protection of individuals. Government in and of itself has no power or authority.

We the People of the United States of America have stated in article VI of the U.S. Constitution that, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land ...”  This ensures that no other document or law created can supersede the Constitution. No case law, no code, no regulation, no foreign law, no act of congress … nothing can supersede the Constitution when it comes to governing the people. It must be pursuing the purpose and intent of the original Constitution or it is not lawful.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution further restricts and clarifies that the central government (federal) we have created is our servant, and not our master. That it does not have authority to make or take any authority or power that the people did not specifically give.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These two amendments simply clarify that the federal government does not have unlimited power, that the powers have been granted from the People, and that those powers are limited to performing specific functions.

So now the question can be asked. Where in the Constitution have we given Congress, (i.e. the Federal Government) the right to control or administer land, and under what conditions may they do it?

Let us go to article IV sec. 3 of the Constitution which states: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ... This section of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make needful rules and regulations while the land is still a Territory (capital T) and grants Congress the power to dispose of the land. It does not grant unto congress the power to retain the land, only to dispose of it. This means that the federal government does not and never will OWN the land, which is a Territory. They can make the rules while it is a Territory, but they have the obligation, duty and authority to dispose of it. In other words, the people OWN the land and have charged the Federal government to be administrators until it can be disposed of.

So how does Congress dispose of the land?  It can be done in several ways: they can sell it, they can give it away (such as they did with the Homestead act), but however, the ultimate tool of disposal is Statehood. By accepting a State into the Union, Congress is disposing (relinquishing rights) of the land to the people of that particular State. At the moment of Statehood, no longer does Congress have the constituted authority to administrate the land or resources within the borders of that State.

So, what is a State?

The definition of a State is the same as that of a Nation. The two terms are synonymous. Evidence of this is the signing of the Treaty of Paris, named after the city where it was signed. This is the official treaty that ended the Revolutionary war.  The treaty was signed by 14 states. But wait, there were only 13 original colonies! So, who was the 14th State that signed the treaty? The answer is, Great Britain! This is significant. Before the treaty the separate areas of land in America were known as Colonies. These Colonies were under the control of Great Britain and the people subjects of the king. They were not States.

By winning the Revolutionary War, the American people won their independence from the crown. They became equals to Great Britain as thirteen Nations, separate and independent, equal in every respect. Each Nation signed the Treaty of Paris. Great Britain, the fourteenth State, also signed. The most powerful Nation in the world at that time, Great Britain, considered the thirteen States as equals in every respect.

The people of the thirteen States always intended to be united in some sort of a Union. Under the Articles of Confederation, they attempted this Union and perfected it later by organizing a central government (federal) to take care of specific maters. The Constitution of the United States outlines what authorization the Unified States granted to this central government. The thing to remember is that each independent State had the choice to join the Union or not, they were independent and separate Nations that chose to enter into a Union with each other.


In 1789, the thirteen States were united under the newly signed Constitution. The original thirteen States had land that extended west of the Allegany Mountains, mostly unsettled. The States voluntarily and collectively decided to allow the central government (federal) to administer these lands. They called them Territories. The plan was for the federal government to administrate the Territories until they could become States. When a Territory is populated to the point that it could stand on its own, jurisdiction would be turned over to the people of that Territory and it would become an Independent State and part of the Union.

As the population grew due to westward expansion, Territorial lands were created into States. The process to become a State is established on the "Equal footing Doctrine" where all future States would be treated sovereign and equal. New States entering the Union would enter on an equal footing with the original thirteen States. According to Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution, all new States would be equal to the other States, in every regard. There is no question that the people in the original thirteen States owned the land within the State borders. There is no question that the central, or federal government, had no right to any land within the several States. It is absurd to think that a newly created State, equal to the original thirteen, must give up their lands to the central government.

So is there any place in the Constitution of the United States that allows Congress to administrate land inside a State?  

Article IV, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution records that, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; ..."

So what is this "other property"? Where is it found in the Constitution? The answer is found in Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17. This is the only other place in the Constitution that gives power to Congress regarding administration or control of land.

Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 states, The Congress shall have power: To exercise exclusive Legislation 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Through this section of the Constitution We the People granted unto congress an area of land 10 miles x 10 miles, so 100 square miles for the purpose of being the seat of government. We know this area as Washington DC. This land had to be carved out of existing States. Notice that it was not taken by force but “…as may by Cession of particular States ... become the Seat of Government..." The States from which it came voluntarily ceded the land to Congress; they did this only for the purpose of it becoming the seat of government, and no other purpose.

We also give Congress the opportunity to use land within a State. It is not done by force, but must be done with the "Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be" (land within a State includes all the land within borders of the State, public or private. Congress cannot purchase private land without the consent of the State Legislator). This purchased land cannot be used for any purpose that Congress whishes. We only authorize Congress to use the land for five purposes, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."  Four of the five are strait forward uses, military uses and shipping. Other needful building’s is a bit open-ended but is restricted to a building and not of vast lands.

So consider these questions:

If the State does not own the land, then why would Congress have to get permission from the State to purchase it?

If the State does not own the land how could the States sell it?

When our founders created the Constitution they were trying to protect the People’s rights to the ownership and control of the land and resources. They just fought a hard and bloody war to ensure these rights. They were not about to create another monster, tyrannical government like the one they just freed them selves from. It was their original intent to create a small general government with power enough to defend against outside enemies and create peace within. They never intended government to own mass amounts of land. The United States of America is a Union of States. Union by definition is many or at least more than one who have come together for a specific purpose. The United States is not one nation, but many, 50 Nations that have United for specific purposes as constituted.

We the People have never granted to congress the right to administrate land inside States except for the limited purposes outlined in Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. All the land that the federal government now claims, i.e., BLM, Forest Service, Monuments, Recreation areas, Wilderness, Reclamation areas, Wildlife refuges, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), National parks, etc., are all unconstitutional! None of them fit within the boundaries of the Constitution. It is simple; the land belongs to the People! 

Additionally, We the People have never given Congress the power or authority to control our resources; water, lumber, minerals, petroleum, forage, or wildlife of any kind. These all fall under the 10th Amendment and are reserved to the State, or to the People. Any act of Congress stating otherwise, is not in pursuance of the Constitution.

We, the Bundy family urge each government body to uphold the Constitution of the United States, uphold its original intent and disregard unconstitutional entities, acts, codes, etc., that circumvent the freedom of the individual.  A State is not a Territory and is not subject to Territorial laws once it becomes a State. The Constitution is very clear on this matter.

 We strongly encourage each State to act like a State and stop being subjugated and controlled like a Territory. As State leaders, it is time to start doing what the People expect of you, and that is to protect their lives, protect their liberty, protect their property, and allow the pursuit of happiness. In other words, protect their God given rights.

It is time to stop allowing the federal government to violate these sacred liberties. We the People desperately need your protection. If you will not fulfill your constitutional duties the people are exposed to suffer oppression, and the power of the State reverting to an all-powerful central government becomes a reality, more than it already is. If you, as leaders of a sovereign State will not protect the people’s rights, then We the People will have to do it ourselves and replace you with others who will stand for our future.

Ryan Bundy