By Joel F. Hansen, Chairman, Independent American Party of Nevada

            Cliven Bundy’s ancestors on his mother’s side came, as pioneers, to the Gold Butte area of the southern Nevada desert in 1877 and began ranching from scratch. In doing this they established grazing rights and water rights—preemptive legal rights under Nevada law which gave them permanent rights to graze cattle on that land. Those legal rights were passed down through the years to Cliven Bundy and his family.  In 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act was passed by Congress, an act designed to assist ranchers, especially in the arid American West, to raise cattle for the benefit Americans—by putting delicious and nutritious beef on their tables.   The Bundy ranch is located about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, near the town of Bunkerville. 

            These pioneers conquered this hostile, arid land and made it into a productive ranch by making water and feed available to their cattle and learning how to manage the cows so that they could survive in such an arid place, an area mostly covered by sagebrush and creosote bushes.  Because of the water and increased food made available by the ranchers’ efforts, wildlife flourished.  The most numerous animal wildlife in the area is the desert tortoise. The tortoises flourished because the cows eat woody bushes which are above the level the tortoises can reach, and then they leave a delicacy for the tortoises on the ground where they can reach it.  The tortoises’ main course and dessert is cow pies, which contain all of the nutrients and moisture the tortoises need for survival. 

            In 1946, the Bureau of Land Management was created by Congress with the mission of helping ranchers to succeed by helping them construct watering facilities, fences, and other things needed by cattle and by ranchers.  The partnership was a good one, and Cliven Bundy paid the grazing fees required by the BLM for many years.  The people who ran the BLM in the beginning were rancher friendly, having degrees in solid scientific areas like geology, range management, animal husbandry, and the like.  But beginning in the 1970’s and growing in numbers at an ever increasing rate each year was a new generation of BLM-ocrats, those with degrees in the “environmental sciences.”  This new generation saw ranchers not as fellow citizens cooperating in the effort to make the land productive, but as enemies who were destroying the environment.   They had signs on their walls—“no more moo by 92” and “cattle free by 93.” As a result, in an effort to eliminate ranching in Nevada, the BLM began raising the annual fee for each cow on the range (AUM’s) and shortening the grazing season. Thus, out of over 50 ranchers in Clark County, only Cliven Bundy survived, as one by one all of his fellow ranchers gave up and went out of business because they couldn’t make a profit under the BLM’s oppressive rules. 

But Cliven knew that the BLM was supposed to be his servant, not his master, and so, since his servant was trying to destroy him, he famously “fired” the BLM and told them he did not need their services anymore and to stay off his ranch.  The BLM didn’t take too kindly to that, and so it obtained two federal court orders that rancher Bundy had to pay the grazing fees or clear out.  Cliven responded that he would do “whatever it takes” to preserve his family’s ancestral rights in the land, rights which had existed for many years before the BLM was created.  He took the position that neither the BLM nor the federal court had any jurisdiction over that land, because it belongs to the State of Nevada. 

            To understand this claim, one must understand that when the Territory of Nevada came into the Union, all of the unappropriated land in the Territory had belonged to the federal government under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico. Under the Northwest Ordinance, passed before the US Constitution was adopted, and continued by later Congresses, as new states came into the Union, all of the federally owned land in each state was to be turned over to the State, or to the people by sale.  The philosophy was that each state should enter the union on an “equal footing” with all of the older states, none of which had federal land of any appreciable amount within their boundaries.  And so it is that East of the Rocky Mountains there is almost no federally owned land in any of the states.  But the philosophy changed out West.  As the new states of Colorado, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and 8 other western states came into the Union, Congress required the Territorial Legislatures to renounce any claim they had to the unappropriated lands within their borders.  And so it is that on average, 50% of the land in these 13 Western states is claimed by the federal government, Nevada having the greatest percentage of federally claimed land, almost 90%.

            But then in the 1970’s and 80’s there arose the “Sagebrush Rebellion” among the western people, vociferously arguing that they wanted no more to be treated as territories of the federal government, but as full-fledged states.  Westerners had long complained that Federal control had weakened these states’ economies and stifled economic growth long enough.  The spark that turned these complaints into a "rebellion" was the enactment in 1976 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that ended homesteading, which meant that the federal government would forever retain control of western public lands.   

Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of federally “owned” western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of western economies. Republican Ronald Reagan declared himself a sagebrush rebel in an August 1980 campaign speech in Salt Lake City, telling the crowd, "I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel."  Nevada led the way.  The "Sagebrush Rebellion" burst onto the Western scene in 1979, when the Nevada legislature enacted a law claiming ownership of the "unappropriated" public lands in the state.

And so when Cliven Bundy says he doesn’t recognize federal jurisdiction over his ranch, he points to the State of Nevada laws which say that Nevada owns the land under his ranch and he owns the grazing and water rights.  After he fired the BLM, Cliven paid his next bill for grazing fees to Clark County, which accepted his payment, in fact he paid several times, but then, not knowing what to do with the money, the county refunded it.  And so Cliven began putting these fees into a trust account.   

            Finally, a federal judge ordered the BLM to impound and remove all of Bundy’s cattle.  When sympathetic ranchers and other patriotic Americans around the country heard of this pending federal invasion of the Bundy ranch, the anger simmering throughout the West against federal bureaucratic high handedness reached a boiling point.  People gathered in large numbers on the ranch to protest the BLM’s threatened invasion. These patriotic cowboys and “militia” (which is defined in the U.S. code as all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45) were there to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  But the BLM moved in anyway, and committed atrocities in the process.  When Davey Bundy tried to video federal agents preparing the invasion, he was thrown to the ground, his iPad was confiscated, he was stomped on the neck and his face was ground into the rocks and dirt, after which he was transported to Las Vegas, held many hours with his hands handcuffed behind his back, and was later released with no charges filed and the record of his stay in the jail erased. One of the Bundy women, Aunt Margaret, was violently thrown to the ground, and Ammon Bundy was tazed.  Numerous cattle were shot, and many were secretly buried in a shallow grave.  The Feds set up a couple of “1st amendment zones,” small enclosed areas in which any protestors were supposed to confine their activities.  (The Bundy’s aptly named these “pig pens.”) This anti-Constitutional action brought forth a firestorm of protests from people of all stations, including the governor of Nevada.  The BLM was forced by public opinion to remove these ridiculous “1st amendment zones.”  But worst of all, the BLM brought in professional mercenaries, protected by body armor and armed to the teeth with military style firearms, who had specific assignments to shoot certain people immediately if violence broke out.  They proceeded to round up the Bundy cattle, scaring them half to death with helicopters and hired cowboys, and fenced them in a dry gully located partially under an I-15 bridge. 

            About 200 cowboys and others dressed in camouflage walked down the dry gulch, some on horses, some with handguns holstered cowboy fashion on their hips.  There is no evidence that any of these people ever pointed a gun at the BLM and their FBI friends who were present, despite mountains of video evidence of every moment of the stand-off.  Although there is one famous photo of one protestor pointing a rifle through a space in the barricades on top of the bridge, there is no evidence that he pointed it at anyone nor that any of the BLM invaders saw the muzzle of his rifle.  In the face of determined patriots and volunteer militia men on the other side of the cattle fence and the Clark County sheriff who pleaded with the BLM to disperse in order to prevent violence, the cowardly feds turned tail and ran. 

Over a year later, Cliven was arrested when he got off a plane in Oregon on his way to visit his sons camped on the Malheur wildlife refuge who were defending the rights of some Oregon ranchers who had been unjustly imprisoned on trumped up charges.  That stand-off, in which one of the Bundy supporters, LaVoy Finicum, was killed in cold blood by an FBI agent, went before a jury. All of the defendants were acquitted. 

Instead of the government releasing Ammon and Ryan, they were transported to Nevada and kept in federal prison with their father, Cliven.  They were held until trial on the false premise that they were a danger to their community and that they were flight risks, all of which was groundless.  Cliven has never had as much as a traffic ticket.  No criminal record.  The trial was run by Judge Gloria Navarro, (appointed on recommendation of Senator Harry Reid) who made outrageous anti-defense pro-prosecution rulings throughout the trial.  She ruled that the First and Second Amendments could not be used as defenses in the trial (pardon us, but isn’t that why the founders put those amendments into the Constitution?!).  And she even kicked one defendant off the stand when he tried to testify that he had seen federal snipers on the buttes overlooking the ranch.  She said he couldn’t testify to this because there was insufficient evidence of snipers being present. (Pardon us again, but wouldn’t his testimony have supplied that evidence?!)

The prosecution of the case in Las Vegas was headed by US Attorney Steve Myrhe, while the invasion itself had been directed by Dan Love of the BLM.  These two worked together to hide key evidence from the Defense team.  The defense lawyers kept insisting that the government was hiding exculpatory surveillance evidence and other key documents.  Myrhe and Love kept denying that.  

Then, in answer to the many prayers of the Bundy family and many others, the prosecution’s case was broken wide open.  Judge Navarro, based upon indisputable evidence presented to her by the defense attorneys, finally ordered the prosecutors to turn over exculpatory documents, the existence of which Steve Myhre had been denying all along.  And then, to make matters worse for the Prosecution, Larry Wooten, a former BLM investigator who worked on the Bundy case, filed a whistleblower complaint with the Justice Department, alleging that he’d been removed from the investigation in February after he’d raised concerns about misconduct by Love. He said that the government had failed to turn over evidence of such misconduct to defense lawyers for the Bundy’s and that BLM officials were biased against the Bundy’s, exposing the facts that during the investigation, “at any given time, you could hear the subjects of this investigation openly referred to as ‘retards,’ ‘red-necks,’ ‘overweight women with the big jowls,’ ‘d*uche bags,’ ‘tractor-face,’ ‘idiots,’ ‘in-bred,’ etc., etc.” Wooten wrote, in a 12 page memo, that during the ranch standoff Love had told agents to “kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle.”

Wooten reported that BLM officers had bragged about using excessive force during the arrest of Dave Bundy in 2014 and “grinding his face into the ground.”  More significant for the prosecution, Wooten wrote that on multiple occasions, Love “specifically and purposely ignored  orders in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large-scale, and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.”  He added, “The investigation indicated that there was little doubt there was an improper cover-up in virtually every matter that [Love] participated in or oversaw, and that [Love] was immune from discipline and the consequences of his actions.”  Wooten also stated that Steve Myhre knew about the cover up and refused to do anything about it, despite Wooten’s requests.  Thankfully, Dan Love has since been fired and Steve Myrhe has been re-assigned.   

The government turned over the Wooten memo to the defense in December, and Cliven Bundy’s lawyer, Brett Whipple, who succeeded Joel Hansen as Cliven’s attorney, immediately used it to ask Navarro to dismiss the case. Judge Navarro at first declared a mistrial, and soon after that, dismissed the case.  In the dismissal hearing, Judge Navarro excoriated the prosecution and the BLM for over a half an hour because of their illegal and egregious actions in deliberately hiding evidence, calling their actions “the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct I have ever seen.”  She said federal prosecutors acted recklessly and engaged in a "deliberate attempt to mislead and distort the truth" by failing to turn over evidence that could have helped exonerate the four defendants.

Cliven Bundy, after 700 days of false imprisonment, walked out of the federal court house a free man on that very day, asking, “Since when did federal bureaucrats have an army to point their guns down the throats of ‘We the People?’ That’s not what the founding fathers intended.  We’re not done with this. If the BLM tries this again, we’ll tell them the truth.  And that’s all we’ve ever done.”  Unfortunately, the BLM and the federal prosecutors can’t say the same about themselves after their dishonest and even criminal conduct was exposed.  Let’s hope all of this helps bring back some honesty and accountability to the federal agencies.  And let’s also hope that this leads to the liberation of state lands now held by the federal bureaucrats against the will of the people of the western states.

Cliven Bundy and his sons are modern American heroes, who fought against tyranny at the peaceful battle of Bunkerville, in memory of the bloody battle against tyranny at Bunker Hill. 





            With God’s help, I have had some unexpected and unusual success lately in recruiting new IAP voters.  Let me share a few ideas with my friends of the Independent American Party on how I did this. 

            First, I prayed that I would be guided to those who were ready to hear my message.  Then, I started thinking about anyone who might be interested and then listening when a name came to mind.  And I also prayed that I would recognize and take advantage of opportunities as they arose, and that I would know how to approach people.

            My first recruit was a client of mine with whom I’ve become good friends.  I’m not going to share names here as a matter of privacy, but this gentleman is a real political activist.  His name was the first one that came to mind.  He is very interested in homeowners association issues, and I told him that I felt that homeowners associations needed to be brought under control and needed to be subject to the Bill of Rights because they are mini-governments that often turn into oppressive organizations.  I told him that running for office in the IAP would give him a platform to stand up for the rights of homeowners and for the rights of all Americans.  He was ready to sign up right then, and he did. And attended our State Central Committee meeting. 

I was at a Chuck Muth Leadership conference.  Jon Kamerath introduced me to a lady sitting next to me, and said she used to be a member of the IAP.  I asked her if she’d like to get active in the IAP again.  She said yes, and also attended our State Central Committee meeting! 

Next, I was sitting in church, and I happened to sit just behind a lady I had never met before.  I introduced myself, and she was very friendly.  She was interested in natural medicine, so I knew she was a non-main-streamer like me.  That led to the following questions and answers:

Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution is an inspired document? A: Yes, of course.

Do you think that the federal government ought to live by the Constitution?  A: Yes.

Do you believe it hasn’t been doing that for a long time?   A:  It certainly hasn’t.

Are you a Republican or a Democrat?   A: Republican.

Were you were happy with Republican Senator John McCain when he cast the key vote to block the repeal of Obamacare?  A:  I was very upset about that. 

Do you think that the Republican party has been trying to make the U.S. government live within the strictures of the Constitution?   A:  No.

Do you feel that the Republican party represents your views these days?   A: No, it certainly doesn’t. 

Do you believe that the U.S. ought to protect its borders and enforce its immigration laws.   A: Absolutely.

Do you support the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the 2nd Amendment.     A: 100%. 

Do you believe that the United States should stop trying to police the world and instead spend the money on building our own infrastructure?  A:  Yes.  

Do you feel that taxes are way too high and that the IRS is out of control?  A:  Yes, and I’m sick of it. 

Do you feel that the federal government has grown way too large and intrusive into our lives and our pocketbooks?  A: Yes, emphatically.

Do you believe that our laws should recognize same sex marriages?    A:  Absolutely not. 

Are you opposed to the so-called LGBTQ agenda?   A:  I think it’s awful. 

Well, in view of all of this, would you like to know about a political party that believes the way you do?  A:  I certainly would. 

It is the Independent America Party of Nevada, the largest third party in the United States, with over 70,000 registered voters.  Would you like to register as an Independent American?   A:  I certainly would.  How do I do it?

Well, I have some mail in voter registration applications in my truck.  I’ll go out with you after the meeting and give you one.  OK?  A: Great! While she was filling out the application, I asked if she might be interested in being a candidate so that she could promote free enterprise in medicine.  A:  I would love that!

She filled out the registration form and sent it in.  And then things really started to unfold.  Names of friends and acquaintances would come to mind and I would either talk to them in person when I saw them or call them on the phone.  Every day I would pray that I would keep on finding people, and I did.  That natural medicine lady invited me to a meeting with her chiropractor.  I signed him up and an old acquaintance who I just “happened” to sit down by, who knew all about my political career.  I had no idea she knew so much about me. She was eager to join the IAP. And was interested in running for office. 

One day I was at Court for a hearing with my brother, and he had a friend there who has been interested in the Hansen family for a long time, a young, very active man.  I spoke with him about the IAP.  He agreed on the spot to register with us.  I just couldn’t believe the way God had been guiding me and blessing the IAP! 

Then I thought of a Hispanic family that I had become friends with through the Boy Scouts of America.  I had helped this lady’s son become an Eagle Scout.  I knew that she was very conservative and did not go along with the liberalism of most of her Hispanic friends.  I called her, went thru my spiel, and she asked me to send her three voter applications, one for her and one for each of her two sons.  I was amazed and happy. She was also interested in being an IAP candidate.  

Then an old friend of mine came to mind, a man who had been my bishop in my church.  I just had a feeling that he would be interested, and I knew just enough about him to think he was very conservative.  I called him.  At the end of the conversation, he asked me to send him an application for himself and two for his family members.  Incredible! 

I saw some old friends at church, had a strong feeling that I should talk to them, and started talking politics.  To my astonishment, the wife reminded me that we had worked together in the American Independent Party at BYU many years ago—I had forgotten all about that.  I asked if she wanted to join the IAP of Nevada and she enthusiastically said yes and so did her husband.  Amazing!

Next, Gary Bergman from Pahrump called me.  He had agreed to be the County Chairman out there but then had to decline because of health problems in his family that were occupying all of his time.  He said he knew a man out there who was on the Republican Central Committee and who had organized a weekly men’s club breakfast who was interested in the IAP and might serve as county chairman.  I called him and went through some of my questions.  He didn’t need to hear them all.  He said he was going to get as many of his Republican friends as he could to agree to go with him to the County Registrar’s office and announce to the news media that all of them were quitting the Republican party and registering with the IAP.  I said that as the State Chairman I would be there and that we would hold a county convention out there right afterwards where he would probably be elected the Nye county chairman.  That’s coming up.  Astounding!!

I thought of my life insurance man.  He was registered in the IAP many years ago and supported me in one of my campaigns.  I called him and asked him if he was ready to re-up.  He said he was, and that he’d bring his wife with him.  Happy days!

When I came into my office one morning, I felt like I should talk to my receptionist, a very nice lady with whom I’ve become friendly.  I asked her the questions, she agreed with all of them, so I gave her a registration application, and she very enthusiastically joined up!  I just couldn’t believe what was happening! 

I went to a natural medicine doctor to whom I was referred by my natural medicine friend.  It was very easy to recruit him—he agreed with everything I said!  His nurse, my friend, reported to me that he was talking at work about running for office. 

The latest one is a good friend of mine in our “empty nesters club.”  He is quite well to do.  I happened to make a few political comments at dinner, and from his short comments I became aware that he would be a good prospect with whom to speak.  I called him, reviewed my questions with him, and he said, “I do not feel that the Republican Party represents my interests or beliefs anymore.  Send me five of those applications for me and my family!” I brought them to our church Christmas party and gave them to him after serving as Santa at the Party.  That was Santa’s Christmas present to him and to the IAP. 

            What else can I say?  It’s all amazing, astounding, incredible, and wonderful!  I’m still praying and thinking of people.  The voters are prepared to join our party because Donald Trump has proven to them that the establishment parties do not represent their views.  They are nothing but hypocrites and are only interested in keeping the establishment parties’ insiders in power.  The people are being impoverished by high taxes and are having to fight their own parties to protect their jobs from a swarm of illegal immigrants.

So start praying to think of people you can talk to, and ask them those questions. Once they see that they agree with you on most or all of these points, they’ll want to sign up.  So let’s start recruiting.  The time is ripe and the voters are ready

Very enthusiastically, your State Chairman,

Joel F. Hansen  --   And  Merry Christmas!











       We, free Citizens of the United States of America, do hereby exercise our God given right, protected by the First Amendment, to petition the government for redress of grievances.   Our grievances are as follows: 

           The Bundy family pioneered the ranching industry in Southern Nevada, having raised cattle in the Gold Butte area since the 1850's. They did this successfully without government assistance or interference for many decades.  In doing so, they transformed an unproductive wilderness into a successful ranching operation, raising millions of pounds of beef to feed a hungry America.  And in so doing, they improved the natural environment, providing water and food for the native plants and animals, in particular for the desert tortoises, which thrive and grow in the presence of cattle, whose cow pies are the tortoises' favorite dessert.  

          In 1934, Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act, which directed the BLM to assist ranchers in raising cattle for the American consumer by building fences, developing water sources, distribution networks, etc.  This worked well for many years until the BLM-ocrats gradually assumed the role of adversaries of the ranchers, taking the attitude that ranching was bad for the environment.  The BLM gradually raised grazing fees, limited the ranchers' allotment of cows, and shortened the grazing season until they put over 50 ranchers in Clark County, Nevada out of business, leaving Cliven Bundy the last man standing.   Cliven realized that the BLM was no longer doing its job of assisting him, but instead was bent on destroying him, and so he fired the BLM for incompetence, malfeasance, and insubordination.  (Remember, the government is supposed to be our servant, not our master.). 

        Undaunted, the BLM obtained several federal court orders telling Rancher Bundy and his family to abandon his ancestral land, based upon the false premise that his cattle were endangering the desert tortoise.  When Cliven Bundy continued to recognize Nevada's claim to the land rather than that of the federal usurpers, the BLM invaded the Bundy ranch with its private army of mercenary soldiers, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and body armor.   

        Hearing of this unlawful assault on American liberties, ranchers, farmers, and other patriotic citizens gathered from around the country to Bunkerville (rhymes with Bunker hill) to exercise their  First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They stood bravely before the menacing federal invaders, who, when they saw the courage and determination of these peaceful cowboys to stand up for liberty, turned tail and ran like scared jack rabbits. And the "cowboys" did all of this without ever firing a shot.  

         Now, for their courageous acts, many of these brave, liberty loving men are being held without bail as political prisoners, while the government, refusing to give up in the face of a complete acquittal in the related Oregon case and a hung jury in Las Vegas, interminably drags out their prison time, while the federal judge, determined to see them convicted, rules astoundingly that the First and Second Amendment are no defense to the charges against them. 

         It is clear from the above that Cliven Bundy and his sons Ryan, Ammon, Mel, and Davey and their co-prisoners, are, like Nelson Mandela, political prisoners of a government which has been bent on stifling all dissent against its unconstitutional and tyrannical policies.

         After the above paragraphs were written, the second trial of the first group tried ended in an acquittal on almost all charges.  Steven Stewart and Ricky Loveland were acquitted on all charges, while Eric Parker and Scott Drexler were acquitted of all but four charges.  All were acquitted of conspiracy.  Of the four charges remaining against Parker and Drexler, two were identical--Count Six and Count Nine were for "Use and carry of a firearm."  Pardon me--read that again, please. "Use and carry of a firearm."  That's right--directly in the face of the Second Amendment the federal government charged all four of these patriotic citizens with the "use and carry of a firearm."  It's no wonder Judge Navarro ruled before the second trial that the First and Second Amendments could not be used as defenses against these charges. In the first case the defendants were allowed to use the First Amendment Right to Peaceably Assemble and the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms as defenses to the charges.  So in the second trial, having learned her lesson, incredibly Judge Navarro threw out the Constitution and prevented any mention of the First or Second Amendment before the jury!!!  She also ruled that all of the witnesses the defense wanted to call could not testify because they had nothing to add that was relevant.  Eric Parker, the subject of the famous photograph where he is pointing his rifle through a narrow space in the barricades on the side of the bridge over the freeway (no evidence was ever presented that any of the government agents were ever aware of his presence, and no evidence was presented that he actually pointed his rifle at anyone)--Eric Parker was only allowed to testify as to what he actually did--the actions he took.  He could not testify about what he saw, what he heard, or what his intentions were.  And he was summarily yanked off the witness stand because of not answering the questions within the judge's illegal parameters.  What little testimony he gave was stricken from the record. Scott Drexler was the only defense witness the jury heard, and his testimony was very limited.  The judge sustained all prosecution objections to his testimony, whereupon his answer would be stricken.  No other defense witnesses were allowed to testify.  None.    

       The defense attorneys, having been prevented from presenting a defense by a judge determined to see the defendants convicted, refused to give a closing argument.  What's the point when you have not been allowed to present any evidence?

       And then the miracle happened.  The Bill of Rights, not to be dismissed so easily, came to the rescue.  The Sixth Amendment requires that all criminal cases be tried before a jury.  The jurors, seeing the hypocrisy of the judge who consistently sustained all of the prosecutions objections and overruled all of the defense's objections, and obviously knowing that the defendants had not received a fair trial, voted to acquit on all charges as to two defendants, voted to acquit Drexler and Parker on all but four charges, and voted 11 to 1 to acquit on the remaining charges.  We need to thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in requiring jury trials in all criminal cases.  Juries are one of the last bastions of freedom in America.  We can't control the judges, we can't control the prosecutors, but we have juries whose job it is to stand between these honest patriotic men and the most powerful government in the world.  And the jurors did their job.  All but one, who refused on four counts.   

       And then the evidence that these men are political prisoners of the Amerikan government, and that the judge and the prosecution are determined to "get" these innocent men at all costs, became even clearer when U.S. attorney Steve Myhre announced that the prosecution is going forward with the remaining charges and will try Scott Drexler and Eric Parker for the THIRD TIME!!  It   appears that the real criminals here are not the remaining defendants. The real bad guys occupy other seats in the court room.  

       Now that Barack Obama has been turned out of office, we are petitioning President Trump to free these innocent political prisoners by directing the department of justice to dismiss all charges against them and/or by pardoning them of any and all crimes alleged against them. The holding of innocent men on political charges has no place in the American Republic. All they are guilty of is relying on the First and Second Amendments.  Since when did that become a crime?  Please join us in this great American cause to  "FREE THESE POLITICAL PRISONERS" by signing the petition.  - 

by Joel F. Hansen, Esq.,State Chairman, Independent American Party of Nevada

Download Petition

SIGN PETITION or contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.




Dear Independent Americans,  
                      In reading Ryan Bundy's opening statement given at his federal trial in Las Vegas for alleged crimes in peacefully defending his ancestral ranch in Clark County, you will see as I did that Ryan Bundy is among the greatest patriotic statesmen of our time.  He has articulated the liberty issues involved in this politically motivated trial in a most moving and marvelous way.  I pray that you will read his words and be inspired to become a stronger warrior in the cause of freedom.  Because the liberty you save may be your own. 


Thanks to the jurors for being here. I told you a little about myself at voir dire, but I’d like to introduce myself a little more, and tell you about my heritage and how that affects my case. (Projects a picture of his family – AND leaves it up throughout his statement!)

[Note: the picture shown above.]

This is my ID! Not my driver’s license. This is who I am, a man with a family and I’ll do whatever it takes to provide for them. I want you to picture in your minds…you’re out on the land… I’ll take you to our ranch, you can see all the beauty of the land, the fresh air, sunsets and sunrises, the brush, you’re on a horse in front of the cattle – place yourself there – feel the freedom – out of the congestion of the cars – that’s how I was raised, playing in the river, we were called river-rats and that is where my life began and I hope ends.

My family has been on that land 141 years, my pioneer ancestors settled there in 1877 – there was nothing there. They carved out a living… they brought a horse and wagon and some provisions… this case, the government mentioned is “not about rights”, but it is – those rights do mean something – rights are created through beneficial use. When my ancestors arrived, undoubtedly the horse would need a drink, so they led him to the water and that is beneficial use. The horse and perhaps a cow that had been led behind the wagon need to eat some brush in the hills, that is beneficial use. That established rights. The water rights are real! So real, the State of Nevada has a water rights registry including livestock watering rights. A law was created to protect those rights. The water rights that my father owns were first registered in 1891 by the State of Nevada – the State of Nevada is important, a sovereign state, its own unit, which entered the union in 1864. It entered equal to the original states, it is its own entity and state laws are important.

My family and I are charged with some grievous things and they are not true and evidence will show they are not; force, manipulation, extortion, violent—my family is not a violent family and I am not a violent man. For 20+ years we turned to local law enforcement. Rights are real property. The fact is that we create government to protect rights.

To have rights you must claim, use and defend… man only has rights he is willing to claim, use and defend. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Rights you own. Privilege is afforded. Like renting or owning a house. Government asserts there are no rights, only privileges and unless we pay, we can’t be there. The State of Nevada says differently. These are my father’s rights. Everything we have comes from the land. That is wealth, not the dollar bill. The things we use all come from the land. Who controls the land, controls the wealth.

We create government to preserve and serve us. These are some of the beliefs of my family. That we have said we will do whatever it takes to defend is not a threat, it is a statement. Being right here before you today is part of doing whatever it takes. The Founding Fathers pledged whatever it would take… their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to defend rights. With the evidence you will see that is what we were doing; there was no conspiracy to impede, to harm… but, to protect our heritage that our pioneer ancestors established. We were attacked, surrounded by what appeared to be mercenaries, snipers pointed directly at me. You will hear a report from a sniper that he was keeping watch of me in my van, with my wife and two of my daughters with me.

Our ranch – children are always welcome – it is a place to play, play in the river, the pond, chase or hunt rabbits, burn your toes in the hot sand in summer—always free. Never before did we feel like someone was always watching. In early spring of 2014 we felt like someone was always watching… the dogs were watching the hills, when you are always with a dog you get to know what they are saying with their bark… you can tell by their bark what they are seeing… surveillance cameras on one hill, but the dog looking at another and growling… (tearfully) This is not what America is supposed to be. Supposed to be a land of liberty. The Founding Fathers fought and bled so we wouldn’t have to and now we find ourselves in a similar situation.

They say this issue is over grazing fees… it’s terrible, terrible, he must be a freeloader – it’s only rhetoric – I’ll tell you why – You don’t pay rent when you own your home! We own those rights! Not the land, I know we don’t own the land, but access…you and others have rights on that land. We own water and grazing rights. We don’t pay rent for something we own.

The BLM was formed in 1960. Our rights were established in 1877, long before BLM. The original states own 100% of their land and all states were to come in on equal footing. The crux of the issue is,  are we a state or not? They say grazing is a privilege they can revoke and charge fees. If it is only a matter of money it is no problem. In fact, Mr. Whipple showed a copy of a check made out to Clark County. If the whole purpose is to show we owe a fee, then we’ll pay to the proper owner of the land. That was not the only check written to Clark County, we sent several. Also, in Clark County, there were 53 ranchers who owned rights. There is only a single one still out on the range. The BLM is not gaining revenue, it’s not important to them. My father could see they were there to manage him out of business. It’s not about grazing fees. In the BLM office there were signs that read: No more Moo by ‘92 and Cattle Free by ‘93! If it were only about the grazing fees, the fees would have been under $100,000 over 25 years. It is rumored, it may not be seen in evidence, but it is rumored that they spent $6 million on the operation. Who spends that and court costs rumored to be over $100 million to collect $100,000?

What is this about? The court orders. They say my father had an opportunity in the courts. The court wouldn’t consider states rights. They have forgotten they are servants of the people. We the people are the sovereign and ultimately, we the people are the government formed to meet needs that are better met by a group than by individuals. We are not slaves. We need to remember that. I think that’s forgotten. The definition of freedom is lost in America. When we have to have a license or ask permission to do everything, we are subjects.

Back to the charges – they claimed I went to Richfield and that the sheriff had to be called because we were causing such a ruckus—evidence will show otherwise—we boycott to influence to change ways – we protest to cause a change – these are first amendment rights – we do not get rights from the Bill of Rights – we have rights to begin with – it should be called the Prohibition of Government – we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, we can petition for a redress of grievances—rights we don’t want the government to mess with.

A redress is to find an answer, find a solution – one way to protest. The BLM put up first amendment zones – not much bigger than this courtroom – we called them pig pens – by creating that area, they were denying our right everywhere else – that’s what they used to arrest my brother – he was outside the pig pens. The first amendment has been protected over and over again in our history. There’s lots of media in the gallery today, they wouldn’t be happy to have their right to free speech taken. First amendment was put in the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution – they shall make no law restricting these things… as you saw in the video yesterday, my brother was not impeding, not blocking, he was on a state road, on its right-of-way, simply to take pictures with his ipad of them stealing our cattle – they attacked him, threw him to the ground, rubbed his face in the ground. (emotional) The American public saw this and came not to impede or do harm. They came because they felt the spirit of the Lord, spirit of freedom and felt “we the people are not going to put up with that behavior”. It was not pointed out there were snipers on the hill, I witnessed that through binoculars and the evidence will show this.

Back to Richfield, Utah, evidence and witness testimony will show there was not a ruckus there that disrupted or shut down that auction. I called the sheriff – that’s the pattern – the local law enforcement and state brand inspectors in Nevada, Arizona and Utah and I had contact with the highway patrol, county commissioners in several counties and state officials – not all face to face, but some through phone calls. Is this what a criminal does? No. We were there protecting life, liberty, property. You saw the video of them hip chucking my Aunt Margaret, 50+ years of and just finished with cancer treatments, the mother of 11 children. They call these BLM guys law enforcement, but they are just BLM employees. All authority comes from we the people, we delegate authority to the county sheriff who we elect and he hires deputies and we then have a sheriff’s department to protect our life, our liberty, our property. Choosing for yourself is freedom and we have no right to impede or harm others. That’s God’s law. Man-made law is to follow that. Man is supposed to be free, not controlled, serfs or slaves. Government is to be our servant. The government went in and shut down 600,000 acres – not one of us ever went into their enclosed area and never impeded them. Even my brother driving into the dump truck… isn’t that impediment? The court order did not allow destruction of water infrastructure. What was a dump truck doing out there? Since that was beyond the scope of the supposed court order, we had a right to know. They could have stopped and answered our questions, but no, they set out attack dogs and tazers and threw Aunt Margaret to the ground. Every incident they are charging us with happened on property that belonged to the State of Nevada. Even if BLM had authority to close public land, they have no authority to close State of Nevada public land. The fence was on the State of Nevada land. Except by invitation, you will not see one of us breach that fence or impede the gather. We did not violate the court order. Dave went over the fence by the invitation of Dan Love and then the sheriff took over and asked for our help to take down the fence and then the cowboys, led by sheriffs squad cars went to release the cattle. The sheriff honored his oath and did his job. He should have done it sooner.

I love my family. I love them. I love this land. I love freedom. I am from the State of Nevada. I’m a true Nevadan. I mentioned before that Nevada became a state on Oct. 31st and we always got out of school on that day… I always thought we got out because it was my birthday. I’m a true Nevadan. I believe you are, too, and love freedom as much as I do. Freedom’s not being lost overseas – it’s lost right here at home in our back yards, our front yards. Until we are willing to do whatever it takes, liberty will be, is being lost. We are not anti-government! Government has its proper place and duties to perform. I want government to do its job. Nothing more. Nothing less. When government does more or less than its job, it becomes the criminal. When government damages our rights, it becomes the criminal. When someone harms or damages another’s life, liberty or property that is the definition of a criminal. Extortion, violence, pointing guns – everything we are charged with, they were doing and thousands of people came running – the world knew about this – China, Ireland (they sent us a flag), New Zealand and other countries – why? Because America stood for freedom and has for years and the world is interested in seeing how America (emotional) will deal with freedom. The world wants to know. The American people said, “yes, we will stand for freedom. Government, you’ve gone too far and we will put a stop to it.”

The courts have a place. It is said that We the People are the fourth branch of government. I say we are the first. The legislature to make laws, the executive to execute laws and the judicial to judge. All three branches are to protect your rights, our rights, freedom, liberty. Government does not have the authority in and of itself – man creates government to fulfill and protect rights. We the people give government the authority through the Constitution. The tenth amendment insures state’s rights.

Evidence will show my father and my brothers are innocent men. We need you to put on that paper that we are not guilty. You are the twelve to represent us, peers, equals, people…we the People.

Guns…lots of guns…scary…camo…freedom of speech…also, the right to bear arms, the second amendment…a militia was necessary. What is a militia? It is defined in the law. U.S. Code defines militia: “all able bodied men 17-45 years of age”. How many of you are a member of the militia? State of Nevada extended that and includes men up to the age of 64. How many of you now are a member of the Nevada militia? There is the organized militia, the National Guard and the unorganized militia – everyone else. Why did the Founding Fathers include the second amendment? Was it for duck hunting? No…no! Militia is mentioned six times in the Constitution. Such a small document and few things are mentioned more than the militia; the central government of this union and yet media or whatever wants to put a bad face on militia. Why did militia come to Bundy Ranch? To peacefully assemble, redress of grievances. No one was harmed except Davey, Ammon and Margaret. You will not see in evidence that we ever harmed anyone! They attack and we turned the other cheek. We were peaceful—insistent? Yes! And, Yes! Demanding. These men, these people did not come to seek an opportunity to point guns at the government. Hundreds, even thousands of people we didn’t know. That’s exemplary. These people came to do good. To protect me, to save my life. I had a sniper pointing at me, 200 armed men surrounding my home, my family (tearfully) Ryan Payne has been portrayed as a bad man. Evidence will show otherwise. He saved my life. He saved my life. Others came. I didn’t even meet most of them until I was in jail with them, may have seen them in passing, but I didn’t know them until jail. I honor and thank them now! I thank all who came. We only have rights we are willing to fight for. You’ll see evidence that I was nearly always with the sheriff or a deputy – always in communication with them – I was side-by-side with Lombardo.

Thank you for coming, for being here. I will still do whatever it takes. This is not a threat, it is determination. I love my freedom. Listen to the still small voice to discern between truth and error. The indictment and grand jury testimony is full of lies. Truth has been blocked in previous trials. Listen closely – we will try to get you the truth. The truth will set me free and I’m counting on you to help me see that.

I invite you to our ranch. I recognize your right to use the land. We want you to come and enjoy it. I thank you for this time. Please find me not guilty and these other men not guilty. Stand up for freedom. Thank you.

In liberty,  Your State Chairman,   Joel F. Hansen 
                        PS:  Please sign the on line petition to President Trump to free the Bundy political prisoners, and urge others to do so.  You can down load and print this petition and get friends, family, acquaintances, and anyone else to sign a  hard copy of the petition.  Please gather signatures and send them to the address listed on the petition.  But at the very least, please sign the on line petition.  

Download Petition

SIGN PETITION or contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


        I hope all of you will read this excellent article by a well respected Judge with impeccable credentials.   We are not alone in our fight against tyranny.  
Joel F. Hansen.  Chairman.  
Taxation is Theft

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano


Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is Distinguished Scholar in Law and Jurisprudence at the Mises Institute, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, and Senior Judicial Analyst at Fox News. He is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame Law School. He has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and numerous other publications.


With a tax code that exceeds 72,000 pages in length and consumes more than six billion person hours per year to determine taxpayers’ taxable income, with an IRS that has become a feared law unto itself, and with a government that continues to extract more wealth from every taxpaying American every year, is it any wonder that April 15th is a day of dread in America? Social Security taxes and income taxes have dogged us all since their institution during the last century, and few politicians have been willing to address these ploys for what they are: theft.


During the 2012 election, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry caused a firestorm among big-government types during the Republican presidential primaries last year when he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He was right. It’s been a scam from its inception, and it’s still a scam today.


When Social Security was established in 1935, it was intended to provide minimal financial assistance to those too old to work. It was also intended to cause voters to become dependent on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Democrats. FDR copied the idea from a system established in Italy by Mussolini. The plan was to have certain workers and their employers make small contributions to a fund that would be held in trust for the workers by the government. At the time, the average life expectancy of Americans was 61 years of age, but Social Security didn’t kick in until age 65. Thus, the system was geared to take money from the average American worker that he would never see returned.


Over time, life expectancy grew and surpassed 65, the so-called trust fund was raided and spent, and the system was paying out more money than it was taking in – just like a Ponzi scheme. FDR called Social Security an insurance policy. In reality, it has become forced savings. However, the custodian of the funds – Congress – has stolen the savings and spent it. And the value of the savings has been diminished by inflation.


Today, the best one can hope to receive from Social Security is dollars with the buying power of 75 cents for every dollar contributed. That makes Social Security worse than a Ponzi scheme. You can get out of a Ponzi investment. You can’t get out of Social Security. Who would stay with a bank that returned only 75 percent of one’s savings?


The Constitution doesn’t permit the feds to steal your money. But steal, the feds do.


Also in 2012, during a Republican presidential debate, a young man asked the moderator to pose the following question to the candidates: “If I earn a dollar, how much of it am I entitled to keep?” The question was passed to one of the candidates, who punted, and then the moderator changed the topic. Only Congressman Ron Paul gave a serious post-debate answer to the young man’s question: “All of it.”


Every official foundational government document – from the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution to the oaths that everyone who works for the government takes – indicates that the government exists to work for us. The Declaration even proclaims that the government receives all of its powers from the consent of the governed. If you believe all this, as I do, then just as we don’t have the power to take our neighbor’s property and distribute it against his will, we lack the ability to give that power to the government. Stated differently, just as you lack the moral and legal ability to take my property, you cannot authorize the government to do so.


Here’s an example you’ve heard before. You’re sitting at home at night, and there’s a knock at the door. You open the door, and a guy with a gun pointed at you says: “Give me your money. I want to give it away to the less fortunate.” You think he’s dangerous and crazy, so you call the police. Then you find out he is the police, there to collect your taxes.


The framers of the Constitution understood this. For 150 years, the federal government was run by user fees and sales of government land and assessments to the states for services rendered. It rejected the Hamiltonian view that the feds could take whatever they wanted, and it followed the Jeffersonian first principle that the only moral commercial exchanges are those that are fully voluntary.


This worked well until the progressives took over the government in the first decade of the 20th century. They persuaded enough Americans to cause their state legislatures to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, which was designed to tax the rich and redistribute wealth. They promised the American public that the income tax would never exceed 3 percent of income and would only apply to the top 3 percent of earners. How wrong – or deceptive – they were.


Yet, the imposition of a federal income tax is more than just taking from those who work and earn and giving to those who don’t. And it is more than just a spigot to fill the federal trough. At its base, it is a terrifying presumption. It presumes that we don’t really own our property. It accepts the Marxist notion that the state owns all the property and the state permits us to keep and use whatever it needs us to have so we won’t riot in the streets. And then it steals and uses whatever it can politically get away with. Do you believe this?


There are only three ways to acquire wealth in a free society. The inheritance model occurs when someone gives you wealth. The economic model occurs when you trade a skill, a talent, an asset, knowledge, sweat, energy or creativity to a willing buyer. And the mafia model occurs when a guy with a gun says: “Give me your money or else.”


Which model does the government use? Why do we put up with this?

Had Enough? Make a Difference!

Let your voice be heard. Register as an Independent American Party Voter.

IAPN Clark County



Go to top