Sheriff Tony DeMeo

[Bondhead88]

I haven't been on in a while. There have been some big changes in my life recently. Most of it has been difficult (But a cool one is I did join the Ontario Libertarian Party last night), But I digress.

I am not sure if anyone has posted on Shriff Tony DeMeo. He is in the neighboring county to where the Bundy's and Bunkerville are in Nevada. But unlike the Bundy's sheriff. Sheriff Tony DeMeo handled the BLM in a totally Constitutional matter. I think he is my new hero. When the sheriff is threatened with arrest and armed BLM agents (their version of SWAT) the sheriff told them they would be met by his SWAT team.

There is a 3 part video on the incident. The Sheriff is a little dry in his speech but hat he had to say could light your fire (in a good way) better than any windbag orator.

See the blog here and go to the video.

There is also a great write up on the Hage family here

If this is a dupe in anyway I am sorry like I said I have been dealing with things.

Missing ya'll up in this frozen tundra!

 

[rgrimm01]

From the article, it seems like he would be a good guy to have in one's corner.

 

[saberstar]

Watched the videos. He seems very down to earth and honorable. Right man for the job.

 

[T.Lex]

Looks like the Hage family still got screwed. After an initial win in the Claims court, the Federal circuit reversed most of the decision.

Bloomberg Law - Document - Estate of Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012), Court Opinion

The Hages' claim, however, is flawed because there is no evidence that the government actually took water that they could have put to beneficial use. For example, the Hages do not allege or point to evidence that the fences prevented the water from reaching their land. Likewise, the Hages do not allege that there was insufficient water for their cattle on the allotments or that they could have put more water to use. Because there is no evidence that the government's actions resulted in taking the Hages' water rights, the Claims Court erred in holding that the construction of fences amounted to a physical taking.
...
The Hages' regulatory takings claim and claim for compensation pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 1752(g) are not ripe, and we therefore vacate the Claims Court's award of damages. To the extent the Hages' claim for a physical taking relies on fences constructed in 1981-1982, this claim is un-timely. To the extent the physical takings claim relies on fences constructed in 1988-1990, we reverse because there is no evidence that water was taken that the Hages could have put to beneficial use.

The US Supreme Court declined to take the case last year.

Frankly, it looks to me like the appellate court did not defer to the trial court. (Shout out to the Indiana thread about deference.)

Edit:

Whoops! There's even MORE to this story.

It looks like parts of the case were split off. Before the USSC denial of cert, a federal trial court found for the Hages:
http://www.tsln.com/agliving/farmingandranching/6881368-111/story.html

On May 30, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada issued a historic 104-page ruling protecting western ranchers’ grazing preferences and finding conspiracy by federal agents to deprive ranchers of vested property rights. The decision stems from a 2007 trespass case, U.S. v. Hage, brought by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) against embattled central Nevada rancher Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of his father, well-known property rights activist, E. Wayne Hage.
...
The Court found, “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court…”. This finding, coupled with the Court’s finding that agents of the BLM and the USFS engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the Hage family of their vested property rights, opens the door to potential lawsuits against the individual agents personally for their unconstitutional actions.

The case is actually far from over.

Interestingly, I can't find any mention of the Feds appealing the more recent decision. Anyone have PACER access?

 

[Bondhead88]

I understand and agree with you this was far from over. I had this thread more leaning towards the sheriff and his actions, his following the law of the land (The Constitution) and not being bullied by the feds.

But I think you make excellent point and added great information to the discussion.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh - indeed - and apologies if this is a thread-jack. :beer: If this deserves its own thread, I completely understand.

Can't say enough positive things about Sheriff DeMeo. Looks like he is absolutely dedicated to enlightened and even-handed law enforcement.

 

[Bondhead88]

No beer necessary and I don't consider it a thread jack. cheers