Bureaucrat Beat: in cerveza veritas, first amendment zone?? and promises


“From city halls to county courthouses, from the State house to the White House – bureaucrats control our lives.  Public servants who often try to become our masters.  People whose salaries we pay, but what goods and services do we get?  On Sierra Wave’s Bureaucrat Beat, we’ll report what they’re up to.”

BLM First Amendment Area

BLM First Amendment Area

We in the Bureaucrat Beat newsroom wonder how many problems have been solved over a few beers.  Take the President.  He invited more than one controversial figure to join him in the Rose garden for a brew, and it actually seemed to help calm the waters and improve communication.  After all, in vino veritas.

So we were glad to hear that some of the primaries in the Inyo water issues sat down together recently at a local pub to click glasses.  Water Director Bob Harrington, Rancher Mark Lacey, Sierra Club’s Mark Bagley and former Ag Commissioner George Milovich.  Sometimes these people stand at loggerheads but not that evening.  As Harrington said, “It’s good to talk to people.”

How true.  So when the eight Mammoth Town Council candidates talked to people the other night, they did their best to comment on issues and handle probable jitters speaking in front of a crowd.  There were some who ridiculed their performance.  We in the Bureaucrat Beat Newsroom see things differently.  These are people who got up out of their living rooms and actually filed to run for office.  They have reasons for their attempts at service.  They are not professional politicians.  Let’s give them a chance and the respect we would give a friend.  Then, before you enter the privacy of the voting booth, give careful consideration to the character of the individuals and how you think they might fill the job.

There would be nothing private about Southern California Edison shutting off your air conditioners in July, but there is a program you can sign up for to do just that and save money.  If you are so inclined, you can let Edison have the power to shut off yours and you will get a credit on your bill.  Big Brother comes home.

It was the home and cattle of a Nevada man that got everybody all riled up about grazing fees owed and property rights. BLM set up a “First Amendment Area” to control the protestors.  Even Nevada’s

Rancher Daris Moxley

Rancher Daris Moxley

Governor said BLM went too far. Okay, you can put cattle in a corral but humans who want to express their rights of free speech?!  I don’t think so.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval said,  “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists or the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.”  Sandoval advised BLM needed to “reconsider its approach.”  Apparently they did.  It all quieted down.  Cooler heads prevailed.

Martin Kleinbard of Mammoth asked a cool-headed question.  In a somewhat heated discussion about ORMAT’s plan to drill up to 16 new geothermal wells in Mammoth, Water District officials warned that these plans could jeopardize the town water supply.  They want a monitoring and mitigation plan.  Kleinbard wanted to know if DWP would be affected since LA tried to take all of Mammoth’s water rights last year.  One official said if DWP was more aware of the issue, they might say something about it but have too many other things on their plate.  Ooookay.

Owens Valley Rancher Daris Moxley jumped onto DWP’s plate at a recent press conference about DWP’s solar project.  She warned those present not to believe any DWP promise.  “We have a Long Term Water Agreement that says they have to maintain the Valley as it was in 1981 and 82,” said Moxley.  “They are drying up the Valley and we’re not getting the water they owe us.”  She said it only happens with DWP in court.

Inyo County Counsel Marge Kemp-Williams said she would not let the issue of LA’s City Charter rest.  She said DWP likes to use it “like a shield of some sort” when in fact there are legal obligations in the Long Term Water Agreement.  And, so it goes.

With that this is Benett Kessler signing off for Bureaucrat Beat where we await your word on our lives in the Eastern Sierra and beyond.


39 Responses to Bureaucrat Beat: in cerveza veritas, first amendment zone?? and promises

  1. Charles O. Jones April 23, 2014 at 3:25 pm #

    Turns out old Cliven Bundy wasn’t exactly honest about his family’s ties to the region…


    Now he’s a deadbeat and a liar. Not a dude I’d stand behind against out government.

    • Ken Warner April 23, 2014 at 6:30 pm #

      If you were a woman, you would be standing in front of him.

    • Charles O. Jones April 24, 2014 at 1:15 pm #

      And the story just keeps getting uglier and uglier…


      Now he’s shown he’s a deadbeat, a liar and a racist.

      • RAM April 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm #

        If you listened to all his words and not the medias excerpts of his words you would know he’s not a racist.

        He’s just not articulate enough in modern PC’isms to attempt to nuance his way through the minefield of race in modern America.

        The World needs a pandemic more than ever

  2. Ken Warner April 23, 2014 at 9:32 am #

    It’s all DT’s fault:


    “March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government’s efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. “Among the conservation measures required,” according to the Post’s coverage, “are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land.”


    “The stand-down was necessary to prevent bloodshed, but it must be recognized that if Bundy and a multitude of his supporters, militia friends, and even family members who broke the law, are allowed to go unpunished, anarchy will follow. Other groups, emboldened by the appearance of forcing a stand-down, will only continue to gain momentum. And furthermore, law enforcement as a whole will be rendered impotent as average people with disputes with current laws begin to wonder if they too can call a militia in to force the police to leave them alone.”


    “But some allies of rancher Cliven Bundy were prepared to make as much of a media spectacle as possible if violence were to erupt, saying they would put women on the front lines in the event federal officials turned to deadly force. Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack told Fox News Monday, as reported by the Blaze:
    We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

  3. Ken Warner April 22, 2014 at 11:58 am #

    “If you are so inclined, you can let Edison have the power to shut off yours and you will get a credit on your bill. Big Brother comes home.”

    Nonsense. Agreeing to save power is not an instance of oppression by Big Brother. It is a simple agreement with SCE. Sometimes an agreement is just an agreement.

    You should read “1984” before you allude to it.

    • Benett Kessler April 22, 2014 at 12:03 pm #

      I have read 1984 and – news flash, Ken – other people have the freedom to express their opinions.
      Benett Kessler

      • Ken Warner April 22, 2014 at 2:25 pm #


        I didn’t say you could not express your opinion. I only pointed out that your comparison of a voluntary agreement between a customer of SCE and SCE with the total oppression of IngSoc characterised in “1984” and embodied by the idea of “Big Brother” was simply off the mark.

        • Benett Kessler April 22, 2014 at 4:39 pm #

          In your world, Ken. I guess you don’t share my creative imagination. Have some respect for other peoples’ realities and maybe they will respect yours.
          Benett Kessler

          • Trouble April 23, 2014 at 6:55 am #

            Didn’t you two just get done sharing maps?

  4. Deseret Tortoise April 22, 2014 at 9:13 am #

    Regarding free speech and protest rights, how about the protesters showing up with firearms as we saw in Nevada? Is that protected free speech or armed intimidation? I think that is a legitimate question. Is a nation obliged to condone an armed mob or does it have an obligation to everyone else to protect the public from this form of very public intimidation?

    • Benett Kessler April 22, 2014 at 9:24 am #

      Good point. Violation of laws is not expression of Constitutional rights. But none of this legitimizes a “First Amendment Area”.

      • RAM April 22, 2014 at 10:26 am #

        And neither is standing on a street corner holding a sign that says “Undocumented and Unafraid.

        Illegal is illegal

      • Desert Tortoise April 22, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

        Carrying fireams to a protest is not a peaceful protest and is not protected by our Constitution.

      • Reality Check April 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm #

        As Thomas Jefferson said:

        “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

        • sugar magnolia April 22, 2014 at 6:40 pm #

          I think your statement supports keeping our LEO in check, that’s what it means. It’s exactly the reason why we can’t let LEO stop people who they think are ‘misbehaving’ based on looks, where they’re at, or where they’re going etc., instead of having a legitimate reason to stop someone.

          People who say, ‘I don’t mind if they stop people for no reason, if they aren’t doing something wrong they shouldn’t care’. That’s is a very ignorant statement that I hear a LOT, amazingly enough,.

        • Trouble April 23, 2014 at 6:18 am #

          Reality, you just made my top ten comments of the year. Well, you and Mr. Jefferson.

        • Desert Tortoise April 23, 2014 at 7:17 am #

          Here is were your rationale failes miserably. We elect our government and the legislators who write, debate and vote on the laws we live by ultimately answer to us at election day. By definition those laws are not tyranny. They represent more or less the will of the majority of Americans. It is not defending freedom or defending liberty for an armed mob to try to usurp the laws of an elected government. That is insurrection and it is not in any way protected by our Constitution. Carrying guns to confront law enforcement is not a peaceful protest, it is armed intimidation. They should have all been arrested and tried in a court of law.

          • Benett Kessler April 23, 2014 at 7:54 am #

            I believe Reality Check referred to the crowds who were unarmed and protesting BLM.

          • Reality Check April 23, 2014 at 8:23 am #

            DT, Hitler was elected, so by your logic everything he did was legal, ethical and moral. The German Supreme Court ruled that his treatment of the Jews was legal.

            Nice try DT. The constiution is the ultimate authority, not the temporary holder of offiice and unelected officials who ordered massive firepower and unlawful force to be used against American citizens.

            If the BLM wants to be tough guys with all their expensive toys that we paid for, they should go down the the border and use it on the cartels that now control large sections of American soil and who have actually killed American ranchers.

          • Trouble April 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

            DT- “carrying guns to confront law enforcement”, truth is armed law enforcement showed up to confront peaceful protesters.

        • The Aggressive Progressive April 23, 2014 at 10:18 am #

          Sounds good, but it’s nonsense Reality Check, Thomas Jefferson made that statement before USA would spend billions and billions of dollars bloating our military and turning our country into a police state, If you really think you or some militia can compete against a drone, you lost you mind…..
          Also if violence is your answer, you forgot the question!

          Why do people keep talking about the 2nd amendment when the 1st, 4th and 5th have been dismantled to the point having the 2nd amendment in tact means nothing except intimidation without the need for rational or logic…

          • Reality Check April 23, 2014 at 7:53 pm #

            Ag Pro, My answer is Viet Nam, Iraq, Afganistan. How did that work out for us fighting the local populations?

        • The Aggressive Progressive April 23, 2014 at 10:37 am #

          No way DT! Most legislation nowadays does NOT reflect what the majority of Americans feel, FACT! What legislation that is made up falls in line with the lobbyists, and corporate puppets point of view, FACT!

          Our country is heading down the drain, the most important constitutional amendment today is the 28th! the amendment that has yet to be ratified but is the most important today, the amendment that eliminates corporate person hood, also having publicly funded elections, not private! The amendment that gets the money out of politics!

          You remember prop 37? (in the 2012 national election), was to have GMO foods labeled, it failed, here in in inyo county it was like 25% for and 75% against, Now why would inyo county vote against a proposition that would help the consumer know what they were consuming? BECAUSE the NO campaign out spent the yes campaign by like 10 to 1… “we the people” loose and the “establishment” wins when they are given the ability to “legally” bribe our politicians…

          ..anybody that talks about politics and fails to acknowledge the corruptive influence money has on our US politics, then your in the dark and probably should talk about something else.

    • Reality Check April 22, 2014 at 11:20 am #

      DT, 200 BLM rangers, armed with assult rifles and snipers showed up to collect some cows over an unpaid grazing bill from an old rancher and his family. They tasered, asaulted and used dogs on people protesting in the middle of the desert violating their first amendment rights. The last time dogs were used on crowds was in the 1960s by Bull Conners. Dogas should never be used for crowd control.

      This type of BLM thuggery is unprecedented in BLM history. BLM snipers??? Are you kidding me? They don’t even do this on the border where drug cartels operate.

      BLM rangers should be disarmed and only be allowed to carry handguns. If they have a problem they can call the sheriiff or the FBI.

      • Desert Tortoise April 22, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

        You mean they were protesting in the middle of I-15, carrying firearms and blocking traffic on a major interstate highway. So you expect BLM to walk up to a protest with the protesters carrying long guns? The thugs are the protesters carrying weapons. That is not a peaceful protest of the sort our Constitution guarantees.

        That land does not belong to the ranchers or to the people of Nevada. It belongs to the American public, everyone in the US. We also elect our representatives. If an armed group attempts to usurp the legislative process and take our land by force of arms, I expect Federal law enforcement to make arrests and protect the interests of the whole nation, not just those of some ornery rancher and an armed mob that supports him. The protesters were out of line and richly deserved to be arrested.

        • Benett Kessler April 22, 2014 at 4:42 pm #

          There may have been armed protestors, but the videos I saw were protestors alongside the road with only camera phones – no weapons. The BLM agents attacked them with dogs and tasers.

          • Charles O. Jones April 23, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

            Perhaps the videos shot by the protesters did not show armed citizens. There were however many photos that documented armed protesters in the area including one that shows a sniper behind the cover of a k-rail with his rifle aimed towards the feds.

            While I don’t agree entirely with how the feds chose to handle this situation, they would have been foolish to show up unarmed when some of the protesters made it clear that they would be armed.

            Bundy is a nothing but a deadbeat looking to skip out on what he owes. But I would’ve preferred to see the feds take him on administratively through wage/ssi garnishments and/or liens on his property, etc. The more aggressive approach taken by the feds was unnecessary and destined to fail. I also agree with you in your opposition to the first amendment areas.

          • northmono April 24, 2014 at 7:05 am #

            attacked them with dogs? I did not see the dogs off leash in any of the video – did you? could it be more accurate that the dogs were for defense? is defense the same as “attack”?

          • Benett Kessler April 24, 2014 at 8:18 am #

            I suppose if a dog bites unarmed people on a protest line that’s a problem. As one dog went after a protestor, he kicked at the dog and
            the BLM agent then tasered the man. All an unfortunate chain of events. BK

        • Reality Check April 22, 2014 at 5:49 pm #

          Desert Tortoise, once again you fabricate your own reality that simply does not exist in the real world. Here is the entire video of the event in question. None of the protesters were armed. None of them posed a threat to BLM. The BLM Rangers finally realized they were using illegal force against loud but peaceful protestors, and would get sued for civil rights violations under color of authority, so the got in their vehicles and ran away. Before any cops can use force on a group of protestors they must give an unlawful assembly order. There was no justification for such an order in the middle if the desert so the BLM acted like undiciplined, unorganized, unprofessional thugs. Someone in authority who actually knows the law saw what they were doing, and ordered them to leave.


          I am sure that if you were the military officer in charge of the guardsmen at Kent State, you would of told you boys to keep up their rate of fire on the unarmed students because the students really pissed you off. Stick to truck driving.

    • Charles O. Jones April 22, 2014 at 11:59 am #

      Try that same stunt in the inner-city and you’ll be considered armed gang members and be dealt with accordingly by law enforcement. Those misguided “freedom fighters” are lucky they weren’t annihilated. But I was glad to see the feds use better judgment and de-escalate the confrontation. I’m not under any illusions that rancher won and the feds are done with it though.

  5. Trouble April 22, 2014 at 5:37 am #

    Daris Moxley is 100% correct.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.