Hunting Washington Forum
Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: idahohuntr on January 10, 2018, 12:51:38 PM
-
A very good synopsis of the Bundy fiasco.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/bundy-trial-when-justice-fails
When I was a kid in Idaho, a backwoods poacher named Claude Dallas gunned down two game wardens at his remote campsite in the Owyhees. He was convicted of manslaughter, broke out of jail, and lived a while on the lam.
Dallas became a folk hero to a stubborn but misguided group who seemed to believe in a mythological West where a cowboy hat, an anti-social attitude, and a gun were what made a man. But to anyone with a lick of sense, Dallas was just a thug playing cowboy.
This week, Cliven Bundy, of Nevada, and his sons join the ranks of western pseudo folk heroes. The irony is, Bundy was let out of jail by a judge who followed the letter of the law and the Constitution, ideas that Bundy openly defied.
Bundy owns a ranch near Bunkerville, Nev., and, like thousands of other western cattlemen, grazes his stock on public land – ground owned by the American people. But unlike virtually all those other ranchers, Bundy refused to pay the modest fee charged for grazing. Federal grazing fees are a pittance compared those charged for private land, and honest ranchers accept it as a pretty cheap way to fatten up a steer.
After grazing his cattle on public land for 21 years, Bundy racked up $1 million in outstanding fees. A judge ordered his cows off public ground in 2014. When law enforcement moved to execute the judge’s order, Bundy rallied an armed mob and held the police off at gunpoint. Rather than risk bloodshed, the feds backed off.
Four years later, Bundy sat in jail, awaiting trial for conspiracy. This week, a federal judge in Nevada dismissed the charges against Bundy and his sons. Not because of anything to do with cows and public land. Rather, Bundy went free because the federal prosecutors and the FBI so bungled the case that the judge determined there was no way Bundy could get a fair trial.
The U.S. Constitution, in theory, holds that it is better to set a potentially guilty person free than to risk imprisoning an innocent man because of inept or corrupt abuse of government power. So Bundy walks. As it should be.
Bundy emerged from jail defiant, pledging to keep on his battle against public lands.
“I don’t recognize the federal government to have authority, jurisdiction, no matter who the president is,” he told reporters.
Make no mistake. Bundy is no political prisoner. Bundy thumbed his nose at a federal judge who told him to get his cows off public land. He was charged because of his actions, not his beliefs.
Bundy posed on camera waving an American flag on horseback. But that was empty symbolism. His actions put him above the law, above the Constitution for which the flag stands. Ironically, his rights in the end were protected by that Constitution.
The Bunkerville fiasco sends a message that anyone can get away with breaking the law and not paying taxes, as long as they have a bunch of friends with rifles — and as long as they wear cowboy hats instead of hooded sweatshirts.
Imagine yourself in the position of a young law-enforcement officer working to safeguard our national forests and public lands from illegal abuse. This case must send a chill down your spine. Who, exactly, has your back?
Claude Dallas went back to prison and paid his debt to society. The Bundys’ fate is different.
Americans deserve answers. Both in Nevada and later in Oregon, the Bundys filmed themselves openly defying the law. Yet federal authorities screwed the pooch so badly they could not get a conviction. Americans of all political stripes should call for a bipartisan, open investigation to determine exactly what went wrong. The viability of our public lands and rule of law depend on an open accounting.
-
I agree good synopsis. And here comes the angry crowd of "true patriots"...
-
I don't think the race baiting is accurate. If anything, the 'hooded sweatshirts' got some serious passes--even more than the cowboy hats. Baltimore "gave them space to destroy". Ferguson overlooked inciting riots, riots and looting. Law enforcement has to a degree vacated troublesome inner cities. Look up the Ferguson Effect. BLM got praises from presidential candidates, the Bundy crowd got undercover feds and all kinds of charges. Prosecutors were pressured into charging Zimmerman and Wilson because of the DOJ, after investigations found they didn't break any laws. Police get stand down orders when Antifa arrives. :dunno:
-
Bundy felt he shouldn't have to pay grazing fees because his family has been using that land for generations was his only reasoning. There is a million conspiracies surrounding more information then that but when it comes down to it that is the main reason. Doesn't wanting something for free make him a freeloader????
-
It is coming.
I supported him. I think in my mind basically because the government abused their power in this. The FBI seems to be bungling things left and right and appears to,not be held accountable in itself.
-
Taken and changed from the above article to show what I mean...
You own a house, and, like thousands of other western home owners, you have a well on private property – Water owned by the American people. But unlike virtually all those other homeowners, You refused to meter your well or pay the modest fee charged for your well. Federal water rights fees are a pittance compared those charged for municipalities/cities, and honest people who live in the country accept it as a pretty cheap way to have water.
After using public water for 21 years without a meter, you racked up $1 million in outstanding fees. A judge ordered to turn the power off to your well and irrigation pumps in 2014.
Read what is happening in Yakima County and elsewhere in the state. It is coming....
Water is liquid gold.
-
Want to make America a better place to live, raise a family and own a business?
- Stop the senseless revolving door legal system. Put them away and turn hardened criminals into worm food.
- Stop allowing progressive liberals and their anti-American legislative agenda into office where they can affect legislation.
- Stop government waste at the local, state and national levels.
-
If you want to look into our future....
Replace "grazing fees" and "grazing rights" with "water rights". Imagine you live outside of a city and have a well or "irrigation rights" on your property and then read what you wrote once again.
Anyone who has a well for their home or irrigation "rights" on property you own this will affect you or you family in the future, it is coming.....
Bundy felt he shouldn't have to pay grazing fees because his family has been using that land for generations was his only reasoning. There is a million conspiracies surrounding more information then that but when it comes down to it that is the main reason. Doesn't wanting something for free make him a freeloader????
Bingo!
The discussion should revolve around the issue on rights. What is the history of the fees? What are the concepts of precedents, and grand father clauses?
It is very astute of you to compare this to water rights as this is a battle currently being fought in this state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Taken and changed from the above article to show what I mean...
You own a house, and, like thousands of other western home owners, you have a well on private property – Water owned by the American people. But unlike virtually all those other homeowners, You refused to meter your well or pay the modest fee charged for your well. Federal water rights fees are a pittance compared those charged for municipalities/cities, and honest people who live in the country accept it as a pretty cheap way to have water.
After using public water for 21 years without a meter, you racked up $1 million in outstanding fees. A judge ordered to turn the power off to your well and irrigation pumps in 2014.
Read what is happening in Yakima County and elsewhere in the state. It is coming....
There is a big difference between what you are detailing and the Bundy fiasco. Bundy uses the grazing rights to make money by raising and selling the cattle. We use the water to be able to live. Big difference.
-
Not all water is for sustainability... Farmers use the water for livestock, irrigation and many other necessities for running a business (Farm). It is exactly the same and in some respects even more scary..
-
Not all water is for sustainability... Farmers use the water for livestock, irrigation and many other necessities for running a business (Farm). It is exactly the same and in some respects even more scary..
and growing pot, are those people called farmers? I think it's a travesty to call them farmers, but they're using a bunch of water.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pot+farm+water+usage&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS406&oq=pot+farm+water+usage&aqs=chrome..69i57.3879j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
California's 50,000 Pot Farms Are Sucking Rivers Dry
Each plant takes five gallons of water a day from legal and illegal water diversions
California lawmakers yesterday called for the regulation of marijuana farms to protect stream flows and help fish species like coho salmon and steelhead, which face possible extinction as the state's drought rages on.
In an informational hearing of the California State Senate Joint Committee of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Chairman Mike McGuire (D) of Healdsburg argued that a contingent of pot farmers in the state have disregarded the environment in favor of personal profit.
"Marijuana is literally sucking rivers dry," McGuire said.
-
Bundy was watering cattle and wildlife, so I'm not really sure how unsustainable the practices are since they have been doing it for a LOoong time.
MY point is that the discussion SHOULD have been on property rights. Instead the issues was obfuscated and side lined because it did not push the adjenda.
These issues like Tortoises and "range fees" were tools to keep the discussion away from property rights. It would appear the purpose was so some shyster politicians could sell the land to a Chinese company....
I'm not sure if the Bundies have the Rights they say they do, so that legal discussion should be had.
Regardless of how you feel on the issue now, the outcome was one of 2 choices.
You end of with what some regard as a dead beat ranger on public land, OR that public land could have been sold to some private entities... Bundy being a dead beat or not, you can still hunt, rock hound, and access that land. Could you have if it was sold off?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
I said this years ago, the Bundy's are not the champions of our rights. They went about it all wrong, but there was no right way to do it. Had they did it the right way they'd be off their ranch and none of us would have ever heard them slipping quietly away in the night like the other 72 cattle ranches that shared that grazing area.
They did bring this to the national spotlight, and perhaps history is full of imperfect martyrs, so I'll give them that. They did expose the abuses and incompetency of our government.
We all know that there used to be many ranchers utilizing that massive public land area for grazing but BLM has systematically driven each and every rancher off that area, and they used things like ESA to do it, and they did it fraudulently. The BLM was a tool used by politicians to run the cattlemen off the ranches.
Part of me disdains the Bundy's, but part of me thanks them.
The Bundy's are a product of years of governmental abuse, generations of government abuse, it's no wonder they hate the BLM and government so.
-
Compareing to water rights is apples to oranges. It would be a fair comparison if the Bundys weren’t paying for the grazing rights and one day they walked in and said now you pay??? The Bundy family paid grazing rights from the 40’s to the 90’s and then stopped paying while thousands of other ranchers still pay. Try not paying your taxes for 20 years and then pull a gun on them when they knock on your door to collect, I don’t think that would work out in your favor.
Yes there may have been mistakes made that resulted in his release. I wouldn’t be ready to award him with an innocent commendation let’s call it what it is, getting off on a technicality. Sorry I can’t support law breakers.
-
Many of our political adversaries do not hamstring them selves with the perfect test case. They take to opportunity to move the ball. Some times they only gain a yard or 2 some times they run it all the way to the end zone. You can't win a foot ball game only passing to receivers that are wide open.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Compareing to water rights is apples to oranges. It would be a fair comparison if the Bundys weren’t paying for the grazing rights and one day they walked in and said now you pay??? The Bundy family paid grazing rights from the 40’s to the 90’s and then stopped paying while thousands of other ranchers still pay. Try not paying your taxes for 20 years and then pull a gun on them when they knock on your door to collect, I don’t think that would work out in your favor.
Yes there may have been mistakes made that resulted in his release. I wouldn’t be ready to award him with an innocent commendation let’s call it what it is, getting off on a technicality. Sorry I can’t support law breakers.
I would happen to guess the reasoning for the fees in the 40s-70s was quite different than the 90s and today.
I would happen to guess there arnt all that many folks on here with extensive property right, and contract law.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Has the true reasons ever really been published about why from the BLM on thier quest to kick the Bundy’s off the land? Plus why the Bundy’s quite paying, vs taking on the BLM in court. Wonder if we’ll really ever know. :dunno:
-
Has the true reasons ever really been published about why from the BLM on thier quest to kick the Bundy’s off the land? Plus why the Bundy’s quite paying, vs taking on the BLM in court. Wonder if we’ll really ever know. :dunno:
I have not read a really good synopsis. I don't think we have seen one for a couple of reasons. The media attention revolved around all the redneck with guns and the BLM armed occupation. This is a much simpler storyline that appeals to both side on the issue. The root cause is more dry and legalize and better suited for court than a good story. A bunch of the info of the politician arm twisting to make a realistate deal has come out but isn't as interesting at this point.
I would love to see some "neutral" writer put a bunch of these facts together in a book or a youtube series.
Many conservatives and even libertarian leaning ones always hold back and reserve judgement till after the facts come out. In many leadership books I've read they discuss the conundrum of waiting for all the facts to make a decision. The sweet spot seems to be the 65-80% mark. Start off with 2 little info and your likely to be wrong too often. If you wait till you have 99% of the information your too late to effect meaningful change. Your batting average will be stellar but you won't actually accomplish much.
This difference in thought process is born out in the mind set of 2 group of sucessful workers who are good at what they do but are near polar opposite in thinking. The salesman and the professional tradesmen. The best salesmen embrace failure as part of the process. It is best exemplified by this mind set. A salesman makes one sale out of ten. When he hits the 8th no he says "Hurray I only need one more NO or failure to make the sale!" By the extreme opposite the professional tradesmen stews over a small % of failure. Most of us fall into to one of these catagories to some degree.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
All this talk and no one remembers Harry Ried's roll in the Nevada fiasco!!!
No one remembers the Portland trial and ITS findings and dismissal!!
If you've never been involved with "water rights", "grazing rights" and "Lease agreements"(with state or Feds), you probably don't know much about the "real" issues with the likes of the Bundy's and other cattlemen and farmers.
Short term memory loss, Bundy's tried to pay his grazing fees, the BLM refused payment(hint see Harry R.)!!
Ask yourself this question, Why would the "government" withhold(hide)evidence????? Numerous times!! :yike:
-
So...the whole reason Bundy did not pay his grazing fees was because he was having to make the check out to the Federal government rather than the state government? Because he says the constitution forbids federally owned land?
-
All this talk and no one remembers Harry Ried's roll in the Nevada fiasco!!!
No one remembers the Portland trial and ITS findings and dismissal!!
If you've never been involved with "water rights", "grazing rights" and "Lease agreements"(with state or Feds), you probably don't know much about the "real" issues with the likes of the Bundy's and other cattlemen and farmers.
Short term memory loss, Bundy's tried to pay his grazing fees, the BLM refused payment(hint see Harry R.)!!
Ask yourself this question, Why would the "government" withhold(hide)evidence????? Numerous times!! :yike:
:yeah:
Solar farms, China, Harry Reid, Water for a new housing development...
yes I remember it. I suspect the unwillingness to let THAT all come out is why the Bundy's walked.
-
Justice didn't fail, unless you consider Justice shorthand for the US Department of Justice. The DOJ failed. Personally I think the Bundys are scum and crooks, but when scum and crooks are prosecuted and the prosecution bungles prosecuting the case through incompetence and malfeasance, judges properly dismiss the charges. That is our Constitution at work. I wish they had competently and legally prosecuted both the Oregon and Nevada cases, they didn't, and as an American I support the proper actions of the judges in these cases. I also think it is a shame the crooks got off scot free, but that is solely on the US attorneys who improperly tried the cases.
I hope BLM proceeds promptly with future trespass livestock grazing cases and they are competently prosecuted. The Bundys are a cancer on the western livestock industry, and a slap in the face to honest law abiding ranchers who pay their fees to graze our federal lands.
-
Justice didn't fail, unless you consider Justice shorthand for the US Department of Justice. The DOJ failed. Personally I think the Bundys are scum and crooks, but when scum and crooks are prosecuted and the prosecution bungles prosecuting the case through incompetence and malfeasance, judges properly dismiss the charges. That is our Constitution at work. I wish they had competently and legally prosecuted both the Oregon and Nevada cases, they didn't, and as an American I support the proper actions of the judges in these cases. I also think it is a shame the crooks got off scot free, but that is solely on the US attorneys who improperly tried the cases.
I hope BLM proceeds promptly with future trespass livestock grazing cases and they are competently prosecuted. The Bundys are a cancer on the western livestock industry, and a slap in the face to honest law abiding ranchers who pay their fees to graze our federal lands.
I don't disagree with what you've said, but do you not think there were larger issues at play? Do you think that the BLM was totally legit and above reproach in the actions leading up to the Bundy revolt and non-payment?
-
Has the true reasons ever really been published about why from the BLM on thier quest to kick the Bundy’s off the land? Plus why the Bundy’s quite paying, vs taking on the BLM in court. Wonder if we’ll really ever know. :dunno:
:yeah:
I was just talking to someone about this a week or so ago. They were arguing in favor of the Bundy's and I asked why didn't they try to fight it in court first? Was it just stubbornness or....?
-
So...the whole reason Bundy did not pay his grazing fees was because he was having to make the check out to the Federal government rather than the state government? Because he says the constitution forbids federally owned land?
This argument by Bundy always makes me wonder if he understands where the land in Nevada came from? The US federal government literally owned the land as a result of the Mexican Cession treaty. If you don't believe that the US government can own land then you probably shouldn't reside or work in anything besides the original colonies. Everything else was purchased or acquired by the Federal government :dunno:
-
Unfortunately this is going to make more people feel entitled. Going unchecked and poorly prosecuted is sending a message that others should go ahead and do it too.
I know of a cattleman in NE WA who would voluntarily pay all the private land owners a fee to graze his cattle on their property. When he passed his son took over and decided he wasn’t going to pay anyone. I was told he felt as though it was his right to graze his cattle up there. The private land owner can’t demand a fee and has to build a fence to keep the cattle out. Some care others don’t.
Greed is what has driven these people, not a statement on whether or not the government can own property, or whether they can charge a fee for grazing rights. It’s “I want what you have and I’m not going to pay for it!”
-
Unfortunately this is going to make more people feel entitled. Going unchecked and poorly prosecuted is sending a message that others should go ahead and do it too.
I know of a cattleman in NE WA who would voluntarily pay all the private land owners a fee to graze his cattle on their property. When he passed his son took over and decided he wasn’t going to pay anyone. I was told he felt as though it was his right to graze his cattle up there. The private land owner can’t demand a fee and has to build a fence to keep the cattle out. Some care others don’t.
Greed is what has driven these people, not a statement on whether or not the government can own property, or whether they can charge a fee for grazing rights. It’s “I want what you have and I’m not going to pay for it!”
My family used to lease quite a bit of private land and we paid for it. Typically there was a good deal of fencing to sweeten the offer (this is where I came in :chuckle:) and we ran a lot of new fence lines etc. We never let cattle roam all around...
This is free range country though, so really (legally) it's the landowners onus to fence cattle out - rather then the other way around....but cattle end up dead doing it that way, and you end up with folks hating you, and hating your cows. I'm not sure there is a place for free range in this country anymore, too many people now.
I've always held the notion that responsible cattlemen do all they can to control where their cattle are, reach out to adjacent property owners and either lease from them or keep their cows out of their property, it's just the right thing to do regardless of legality.
Unfortunately there's a few who hold to the old notion that his cows can go wherever they darn well please. It makes all of us look bad.
-
Justice didn't fail, unless you consider Justice shorthand for the US Department of Justice. The DOJ failed. Personally I think the Bundys are scum and crooks, but when scum and crooks are prosecuted and the prosecution bungles prosecuting the case through incompetence and malfeasance, judges properly dismiss the charges. That is our Constitution at work. I wish they had competently and legally prosecuted both the Oregon and Nevada cases, they didn't, and as an American I support the proper actions of the judges in these cases. I also think it is a shame the crooks got off scot free, but that is solely on the US attorneys who improperly tried the cases.
I hope BLM proceeds promptly with future trespass livestock grazing cases and they are competently prosecuted. The Bundys are a cancer on the western livestock industry, and a slap in the face to honest law abiding ranchers who pay their fees to graze our federal lands.
I don't disagree with what you've said, but do you not think there were larger issues at play? Do you think that the BLM was totally legit and above reproach in the actions leading up to the Bundy revolt and non-payment?
No. And No. But I don't agree with Cliven Bundy's actions, at the core I think they were driven by greed and laziness. The rest was frustration and window dressing to try to justify nonpayment.
-
I'm no lawyer but my best guess is this.
The burden of proof normally resides with the person brining the lawsuit. The Bundies had 2 choices. 1 not pay and have the BLM sue them. The BLM then has the burden of proof that the Bundies are breaking the law/overstepping thier property rights. ( remember water, mining, hunting and other rights can be held without physical ownership). If the Bundies brought the suit the burden of proof would be on them. They would have to finance the lawyers, researchers and all manner of resources to make the case.
In a perfect world they would have talked to an attourney before they quit paying, started keeping records, doing research, finding supportive documents. 10 years is a long time to do part time research. It also would have made it much easier and clearer to support them.
"We" want this kind of perfect senerio. It makes it much easier to support. The Bundies situation is a mess. Part of that is thier doing, a big part of it is BECAUSE of the alternative motives that were hidden from us, that are now more apparent.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Phill I suggest you take it to the Bundy mega thread already going in Off Topics
-
Unfortunately when the people loose trust in the system bad things happen. The system is based on trust and compliance by the citizenry.
If the courts and Leo's want more a complient/trustworthy citizenry relationship some BIG heads need to roll.
With all the illegal maneuvering of politicians, DOJ, FBI, senators and such is there a bunch if surprise people are pushing back? PERHAPS peoples distrust is unfounded on this issue, but the BLM and others sure didn't earn any respect or trust on this fiasco.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Has the true reasons ever really been published about why from the BLM on thier quest to kick the Bundy’s off the land? Plus why the Bundy’s quite paying, vs taking on the BLM in court. Wonder if we’ll really ever know. :dunno:
:yeah:
I was just talking to someone about this a week or so ago. They were arguing in favor of the Bundy's and I asked why didn't they try to fight it in court first? Was it just stubbornness or....?
as I said before rudely interrupted by power hungry censors they did. the Courts ignored what they said or tried.
Read Ryan Bundies opening statement then.
So a court should just take one person's word right?
Wow if that was the case there would be a lot of "innocent" murderers wandering the streets.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
your not going to censor me
if so ban me then but I will post this and keep posting until you leave it. >:(
I asked you to take it to off topics, you ignored the request. I cleaned up this thread already once and you put the same stuff back up. If you need removed from HW so be it.
-
It is coming.
I supported him. I think in my mind basically because the government abused their power in this. The FBI seems to be bungling things left and right and appears to,not be held accountable in itself.
I still support the Bundys. One family stood up to the abuse of the corrupt government ( Bundy never rallied anybody ). They came to protect Cliven and his family from the unconstitutionally ran government, who overstepped the boundaries.
-
It is coming.
I supported him. I think in my mind basically because the government abused their power in this. The FBI seems to be bungling things left and right and appears to,not be held accountable in itself.
I still support the Bundys. One family stood up to the abuse of the corrupt government ( Bundy never rallied anybody ). They came to protect Cliven and his family from the unconstitutionally ran government, who overstepped the boundaries.
Uh no Bundies owned those water rights long before BLM stepped in. What do you call no more moo by 92 or cow free by 93 if the BLM wasn't trying to oust those Ranchers, and using practices that they knew would hurt the cattle ranchers later on.
No the true criminals are the Govt in this one.
As for technicalities go no not really... The prosecutor withheld evidence that was beneficial to the defense and they prosecutor had done it before as well, so yeah don't support law breakers, but the real law breakers are the Govt in this one not the Bundy's.
It is coming.
I supported him. I think in my mind basically because the government abused their power in this. The FBI seems to be bungling things left and right and appears to,not be held accountable in itself.
I still support the Bundys. One family stood up to the abuse of the corrupt government ( Bundy never rallied anybody ). They came to protect Cliven and his family from the unconstitutionally ran government, who overstepped the boundaries.
danged strait campmeat.
If the Govt wasn't up to anything nefarious then why fence off places they knew cattle would need to be watered. Plus why does one need a permit to Graze anyhows that they've always grazed on freely?
But yeah the Bundy's are and were the victims in this one.
And let's not forget the Hammond's, another mess created by the corrupt BLM, USFWS, etc..
I hope it is all exposed right along with Uranium One, hillary/obama corruption.
I wonder the logic of those who support open corruption.
-
Wow,
First, opening and closing statements don’t get cases dismissed. They help paint a picture to the jury in favor of the side delivering it.
Second, BLM manages the land for the people. The grass, dirt, water, etc. are owned by the people, that does not mean anyone can do as they please on that property. And if someone is locked off that property for misuse then why would their cattle be allowed to water on it?
Third, gas, mineral, oil rights are leased to the companies that want to extract them. Grazing leases are basically buying the water and grass from the people. Could you imagine what would happen if I went onto national forest property and started cutting trees down and took them to a mill? I would be thrown in the can for stealing from the people! Shooting deer or elk out of season? Stealing from the people!
If these people had water and grazing rights they would have deeded property.
-
Stop that right now. Those type of facts and logic don't apply to tgese red blooded 'Mericans that were doing the right thing over all those years by grazing without paying. I read on www.patriotsofamericalandofthefreeliaderswearingcowboyhats.org that they are really really good people. Its the gubbernants fault!
-
:sry:
Carry on
-
Stop that right now. Those type of facts and logic don't apply to tgese red blooded 'Mericans that were doing the right thing over all those years by grazing without paying. I read on www.patriotsofamericalandofthefreeliaderswearingcowboyhats.org that they are really really good people. Its the gubbernants fault!
:yeah:
Facts don't belong on hunt-wa
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Shouldn't this be in off-topics?
-
Stop that right now. Those type of facts and logic don't apply to tgese red blooded 'Mericans that were doing the right thing over all those years by grazing without paying. I read on www.patriotsofamericalandofthefreeliaderswearingcowboyhats.org that they are really really good people. Its the gubbernants fault!
:yeah:
Facts don't belong on hunt-wa
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I would love for the lawsuit to have been over property rights. It would clear up a bunchbof things. This court case wasn't about that so speaking about it with any level of authority is speaking out your bung hole.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Those are not facts, hearsay quotes from a guy trying to get off.
The trial never went to the jury so jury nullification is not a factor nor was the judge instructing the jurors to come back with a verdict.
Another fact: the BLM was established in 1946 combining the General Land Office (est. 1812) and the US Grazing Service
-
Shouldn't this be in off-topics?
There's numerous ongoing Bundy threads already in off topics, so this thread can stay here and the off topics guys can go back there.
-
Those are not facts, hearsay quotes from a guy trying to get off.
The trial never went to the jury so jury nullification is not a factor nor was the judge instructing the jurors to come back with a verdict.
Another fact: the BLM was established in 1946 combining the General Land Office (est. 1812) and the US Grazing Service
:yeah:
It's the equivalent of saying WDFW has only been around since 1994 and that's it. Failing to mention the depts of fisheries and wildlife/game that came before it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Stop that right now. Those type of facts and logic don't apply to tgese red blooded 'Mericans that were doing the right thing over all those years by grazing without paying. I read on www.patriotsofamericalandofthefreeliaderswearingcowboyhats.org that they are really really good people. Its the gubbernants fault!
:yeah:
Facts don't belong on hunt-wa
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I would love for the lawsuit to have been over property rights. It would clear up a bunchbof things. This court case wasn't about that so speaking about it with any level of authority is speaking out your bung hole.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Bundy did argue in court numerous times his property rights claims...he lost every time.
The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued pro se (without a lawyer) that the land belongs to the state. The Bureau of Land Management was represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for Nevada and the United States Department of Justice.[18] District Judge Larry R. Hicks ruled that the land on which Bundy was grazing his cattle was indeed owned by the federal government, that Bundy had not been paying to use it as he should have been, that Bundy was trespassing, and that the government had the right to enforce the injunctions against trespass. Hicks found that Bundy had repeatedly violated court orders.
-
Shouldn't this be in off-topics?
There's numerous ongoing Bundy threads already in off topics, so this thread can stay here and the off topics guys can go back there.
Thank you.
-
Stop that right now. Those type of facts and logic don't apply to tgese red blooded 'Mericans that were doing the right thing over all those years by grazing without paying. I read on www.patriotsofamericalandofthefreeliaderswearingcowboyhats.org that they are really really good people. Its the gubbernants fault!
:yeah:
Facts don't belong on hunt-wa
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I would love for the lawsuit to have been over property rights. It would clear up a bunchbof things. This court case wasn't about that so speaking about it with any level of authority is speaking out your bung hole.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Bundy did argue in court numerous times his property rights claims...he lost every time.
The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued pro se (without a lawyer) that the land belongs to the state. The Bureau of Land Management was represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for Nevada and the United States Department of Justice.[18] District Judge Larry R. Hicks ruled that the land on which Bundy was grazing his cattle was indeed owned by the federal government, that Bundy had not been paying to use it as he should have been, that Bundy was trespassing, and that the government had the right to enforce the injunctions against trespass. Hicks found that Bundy had repeatedly violated court orders.
:yeah:
But hey what does a court ruling mean anyways...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
I thank Hillary for this mess! I'm thrilled Russia got their uranium and we killed citizens in the process! If Clinton wasn't in office would any of this happened???? Hmm, sumthin to think bout. Support your Rancher or eat Tofu! :chuckle:
-
I thank Hillary for this mess! I'm thrilled Russia got their uranium and we killed citizens in the process! If Clinton wasn't in office would any of this happened???? Hmm, sumthin to think bout. Support your Rancher or eat Tofu! :chuckle:
So it started in 1993 during the Clinton admin, went thru the Bush admin, then into the Obama admin. Can't blame a single party on this one.
CitizenS? No only Lavoy Finicum died and would've done so if he pulled his antics in any other law enforcement contact but that's besides the point.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
I said this years ago, the Bundy's are not the champions of our rights. They went about it all wrong, but there was no right way to do it. Had they did it the right way they'd be off their ranch and none of us would have ever heard them slipping quietly away in the night like the other 72 cattle ranches that shared that grazing area.
They did bring this to the national spotlight, and perhaps history is full of imperfect martyrs, so I'll give them that. They did expose the abuses and incompetency of our government.
We all know that there used to be many ranchers utilizing that massive public land area for grazing but BLM has systematically driven each and every rancher off that area, and they used things like ESA to do it, and they did it fraudulently. The BLM was a tool used by politicians to run the cattlemen off the ranches.
Part of me disdains the Bundy's, but part of me thanks them.
The Bundy's are a product of years of governmental abuse, generations of government abuse, it's no wonder they hate the BLM and government so.
I have to agree with you whole heartedly KF. In spite of how you feel about people ignoring "the law", what the Bundys did was really the only choice they had to go on ranching. Anything else and they were SOL as you pointed out the result was for the other 72 ranches in the area. This wasn't about unpaid fees. That is just the way the government framed it to make the Bundys look like deadbeats and garner public support. This was about pushing them off of this land. As you said, their actual lease was small. And they paid it for 20 years before the government tried to force them out with the tortoises. The only reason the "bill" got to $1.2 million was because in 1998 there was a fine added to their lease of $200 a day per cow. That too was done to force them to leave, but I'll say one thing for them, they are stubborn.
As it turned out though, the things done by the BLM and the prosecutors were illegal and in some cases dangerous too. Now if you already have the law on your side, why would you be so ignorant and arrogant as to do something illegal and ruin your case? (Unless you think you can get away with it.) So they were either stupid or corrupt. A system that respects the law can't have the enforcers of the law breaking the law or it falls apart. The law ceases to mean anything if the ones charged with upholding it can break or disregard it at will. And that is why this case was thrown out. Believe what you want about the Bundys, but the government has a whole lot of fault here.
The big question now is, where does all this go from here and how will it be resolved?
-
That is a good question Sitka, and I agree with your take on it I don't see where we have different opinions on this. We need to respect the rule of law, those ruled by it and especially those administering the law.
-
As long as those that administer the law don't go above or beyond the law or have their own interpretation of the law.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/boneaddict/bucks2/A7B60B93-F59B-4EFE-9BDE-F5D333FD4260_zpssodci09t.jpeg)
-
Compareing to water rights is apples to oranges. It would be a fair comparison if the Bundys weren’t paying for the grazing rights and one day they walked in and said now you pay??? The Bundy family paid grazing rights from the 40’s to the 90’s and then stopped paying while thousands of other ranchers still pay. Try not paying your taxes for 20 years and then pull a gun on them when they knock on your door to collect, I don’t think that would work out in your favor.
Yes there may have been mistakes made that resulted in his release. I wouldn’t be ready to award him with an innocent commendation let’s call it what it is, getting off on a technicality. Sorry I can’t support law breakers.
I would happen to guess the reasoning for the fees in the 40s-70s was quite different than the 90s and today.
I would happen to guess there arnt all that many folks on here with extensive property right, and contract law.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sounds like you are suggesting that when fee’s increase we all should just stop paying them and hold a gun to their head when they come to collect? :dunno: this is a strange logic, sorry but they are crooks and deadbeats. What makes them better than all others that paid their bills?
-
For the folks saying this was all about the government pushing them off the land...why does the government owe anyone entitlement forever to use public resources as they see fit? Times change. With various environmental laws put in place over the years there are a whole bunch of things you can't do anymore, and while these laws are far from perfect, they do ensure protection of our public resources. Fact is private use of public lands needs to be closely regulated or we won't have much for public lands or resources with the 300 million plus people who live in this country. If an agency following the law determines grazing is not a compatible land use (as was the case here)...get your cows off the public lands.
-
For the folks saying this was all about the government pushing them off the land...why does the government owe anyone entitlement forever to use public resources as they see fit? Times change. With various environmental laws put in place over the years there are a whole bunch of things you can't do anymore, and while these laws are far from perfect, they do ensure protection of our public resources. Fact is private use of public lands needs to be closely regulated or we won't have much for public lands or resources with the 300 million plus people who live in this country. If an agency following the law determines grazing is not a compatible land use (as was the case here)...get your cows off the public lands.
You'd rather see a sea of solar farms than a few cows? Or you'd rather see an open pit uranium mine?
Hey I'm all for public benefit projects but I'm not convinced that a bunch of solar farms has a public benefit when it's shown that they are a poor investment. I think it was more about kick backs and personal benefit for Harry Reid and the mobsters in Vegas.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-reid-solar/u-s-senator-reid-son-combine-for-china-firms-desert-plant-idUSBRE87U06D20120831
-
For the folks saying this was all about the government pushing them off the land...why does the government owe anyone entitlement forever to use public resources as they see fit? Times change. With various environmental laws put in place over the years there are a whole bunch of things you can't do anymore, and while these laws are far from perfect, they do ensure protection of our public resources. Fact is private use of public lands needs to be closely regulated or we won't have much for public lands or resources with the 300 million plus people who live in this country. If an agency following the law determines grazing is not a compatible land use (as was the case here)...get your cows off the public lands.
You'd rather see a sea of solar farms than a few cows? Or you'd rather see an open pit uranium mine?
Hey I'm all for public benefit projects but I'm not convinced that a bunch of solar farms has a public benefit when it's shown that they are a poor investment. I think it was more about kick backs and personal benefit for Harry Reid and the mobsters in Vegas.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-reid-solar/u-s-senator-reid-son-combine-for-china-firms-desert-plant-idUSBRE87U06D20120831
Any use of federal lands should be subject to review and compliance with existing federal law...cows, solar farms, mines etc.
The article you cite does not indicate the solar farm would be on federal lands...which is a key point. Many Bundy supporters have conflated what actually went on (illegal use of federal lands by a private citizen) with any use of any lands. If Clark County wants to sell 9,000 acres to a Chinese firm of crooked Hillary's bla bla bla...that's not applicable to Bundy. The people of Clark County can weigh in on how their county manages its lands.
Are there any reputable sources indicating BLM was going to allow private development (solar farms, Uranium mines, etc?) on the federal land Bundy's cows were trespassing?
-
I'll say this.. Isn't this were it starts?? Bundy's actions, right or wrong were directed at getting a message out. As of today we are still talking about it and I for one have learned a ton about public lands, federal vs public, uranium, water rights, grazing rights, management and why foreign investors would be tied to some swath of land in the middle of no where. They got the conversation going.. We can continue to debate how that all went down or focus on paying more attention to what is happening.. Like someone already mentioned, water rights in our state. It has made me start to pay more attention and point people in the direction of reading and seeing it as well.. Awareness is much more important than persuasion.
-
For the folks saying this was all about the government pushing them off the land...why does the government owe anyone entitlement forever to use public resources as they see fit? Times change. With various environmental laws put in place over the years there are a whole bunch of things you can't do anymore, and while these laws are far from perfect, they do ensure protection of our public resources. Fact is private use of public lands needs to be closely regulated or we won't have much for public lands or resources with the 300 million plus people who live in this country. If an agency following the law determines grazing is not a compatible land use (as was the case here)...get your cows off the public lands.
You'd rather see a sea of solar farms than a few cows? Or you'd rather see an open pit uranium mine?
Hey I'm all for public benefit projects but I'm not convinced that a bunch of solar farms has a public benefit when it's shown that they are a poor investment. I think it was more about kick backs and personal benefit for Harry Reid and the mobsters in Vegas.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-reid-solar/u-s-senator-reid-son-combine-for-china-firms-desert-plant-idUSBRE87U06D20120831
Any use of federal lands should be subject to review and compliance with existing federal law...cows, solar farms, mines etc.
The article you cite does not indicate the solar farm would be on federal lands...which is a key point. Many Bundy supporters have conflated what actually went on (illegal use of federal lands by a private citizen) with any use of any lands. If Clark County wants to sell 9,000 acres to a Chinese firm of crooked Hillary's bla bla bla...that's not applicable to Bundy. The people of Clark County can weigh in on how their county manages its lands.
Are there any reputable sources indicating BLM was going to allow private development (solar farms, Uranium mines, etc?) on the federal land Bundy's cows were trespassing?
You can go to off topics, click on any of the bundy threads there and find all the "proof" you want :chuckle: lotta proof there!
I'm not getting into the weeds here, if there was a conspiracy to drive the bundy's off the range they're not going to document their fraud, it's all speculation and what you want to believe.
I know you don't like cows on public lands, we've went round and round and round on that. I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine on that.
-
I think KF& Sitkas statements are on point.
Should people quit paying fees rent what have you because they disagree? No. It should be obvious to many that many agencies have been weaponized for political purposes. It's not an R vs D thing it's a control issue.
Perhaps I've done a poor job at explaining myself. The reason WHY I think this case is important and interesting from a law/contract/property rights issue is because of the lenght of time the Bundy family has been ranching that land. Think of the kinds of issues we discuss on here about tribal rights. They highlight the kinds of problems that are incured with a right or contract between 2 parties that do not end or have some kind of sunset clause in them. There arnt that many businesses that have out lasted the increases in regulation. The Bundies are one of a few.
This issue with the Bundies, right or wrong, has the potential to open a big can of worms. It is why I think the ESA has been used as a weapon so often, and I also belive it could be part of the reason why shady/ illegal stuff has been done.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
SUMMARY. Where is the middle ground. This is where the story should go but it never does. Bundy’s Are at one extreme which at one time was the norm. The federal government has moved the line way way to the opposite side. Will it come to a common center. Of course not. The rules are made where one size fits all and we know that never works. At least the Bundys pushed back.
-
SUMMARY. Where is the middle ground. This is where the story should go but it never does. Bundy’s Are at one extreme which at one time was the norm. The federal government has moved the line way way to the opposite side. Will it come to a common center. Of course not. The rules are made where one size fits all and we know that never works. At least the Bundys pushed back.
:yeah:
-
the Mueller thing has really tainted congressional investigations, but this is a good purpose for that. I wouldn't mind seeing a real investigation by congress through a joint committee, get to the bottom of this. Might as well wait for a stiff wind, and pee in it :(
-
I think KF& Sitkas statements are on point.
Should people quit paying fees rent what have you because they disagree? No. It should be obvious to many that many agencies have been weaponized for political purposes. It's not an R vs D thing it's a control issue.
Perhaps I've done a poor job at explaining myself. The reason WHY I think this case is important and interesting from a law/contract/property rights issue is because of the lenght of time the Bundy family has been ranching that land. Think of the kinds of issues we discuss on here about tribal rights. They highlight the kinds of problems that are incured with a right or contract between 2 parties that do not end or have some kind of sunset clause in them. There arnt that many businesses that have out lasted the increases in regulation. The Bundies are one of a few.
This issue with the Bundies, right or wrong, has the potential to open a big can of worms. It is why I think the ESA has been used as a weapon so often, and I also belive it could be part of the reason why shady/ illegal stuff has been done.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
No you are being heard and its still a strange logic that my mind just cannot comprehend. I have been paying my tax's for 40 years, a number similar to that of which the Bundy family paid the proper fee to graze. I cannot just decide to stop paying based on the amount of time I have paid in. If we decide to stop paying or bills or tax's we face late charges and increased fee's and or possible jail time. This is no different for the Bundy's, they stopped paying and that is simply called "Theft of services" which is a felony above a certain dollar amount. This doesn't even touch on the armed occupation that terrorized innocent workers at the wildlife facility in Ore that only adds to the crimes. Your argument would hold more weight had they not been paying the fee originally but to the contrary they stopped paying while others still paid their share for the same service.
-
What if the government regulated you out of a job, but demanded the same taxes still be paid.
A closer analogy would be if the government kept piling on regulation after regulation crippling your old family business yet the same taxes must be paid even though you can no longer stay in the black. To loose this business is to loose a family legacy dating back generations.
-
Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.
Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.
Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.
I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.
It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.
Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.
Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.
I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.
It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The grazing fee is just that ... a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me. He has the right to access those lands if he chose to hike or bird watch or take pictures but that same right doesn't transfer to each head of cattle. Think of it this way ... they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.
-
The grazing fee is just that ... a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me.
they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.
That's not true at all, if it were the grazing fee's would be a lot higher. The fee is to offset infrastructure work that goes along with having cattle. The fee's are to do projects like putting in additional water sources, fencing off stream beds to prevent erosion or fencing out critical habitat like wet land areas. All of these things benefit wildlife as a whole, in dry areas putting in a water tank helps out everything from antelope to elk, you name it. Even frogs, snakes and birds as the water can create a tiny wetland oasis. The grazing contracts today have property improvement projects right in the contract, have you read any? I have.
Responsible grazing can and does improve land but you never hear about that, probably never see it either. People just buy into the tired old line of over grazing and welfare ranching. I see a lot of misinformed hunters on here buying into the same tired old lines. If overgrazing is happening then ask the BLM, DNR, USFWS responsible for that particular area whats up. There are ranchers who've been running the same property for generations and some of them perhaps get a little lax on making sure the cattle don't sit in one spot too long, the BLM or whomever needs to make sure that isn't happening too.
Some of the best deer hunting is in cattle grazed leases, the fall grasses will green up and there'll be a new growth for the deer, then in the winter months they'll paw trough it. Cattle make nice trails through the brush allowing the rabbits, deer and other critters better access instead of just having a jungle of old rot that doesn't renew without a massive fire..cattle also reduce fire loads. So in don't know where you get your information but perhaps you could study up on it.
-
The grazing fee is just that ... a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me.
they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.
That's not true at all, if it were the grazing fee's would be a lot higher. The fee is to offset infrastructure work that goes along with having cattle. The fee's are to do projects like putting in additional water sources, fencing off stream beds to prevent erosion or fencing out critical habitat like wet land areas. All of these things benefit wildlife as a whole, in dry areas putting in a water tank helps out everything from antelope to elk, you name it. Even frogs, snakes and birds as the water can create a tiny wetland oasis. The grazing contracts today have property improvement projects right in the contract, have you read any? I have.
Responsible grazing can and does improve land but you never hear about that, probably never see it either. People just buy into the tired old line of over grazing and welfare ranching. I see a lot of misinformed hunters on here buying into the same tired old lines. If overgrazing is happening then ask the BLM, DNR, USFWS responsible for that particular area whats up. There are ranchers who've been running the same property for generations and some of them perhaps get a little lax on making sure the cattle don't sit in one spot too long, the BLM or whomever needs to make sure that isn't happening too.
Some of the best deer hunting is in cattle grazed leases, the fall grasses will green up and there'll be a new growth for the deer, then in the winter months they'll paw trough it. Cattle make nice trails through the brush allowing the rabbits, deer and other critters better access instead of just having a jungle of old rot that doesn't renew without a massive fire..cattle also reduce fire loads. So in don't know where you get your information but perhaps you could study up on it.
:yeah:
I’ve been in areas that were a total waste land due to lack of water, but the rancher had installed a trough for water supplied from a spring, thus water was stored for all types of fauna, instead of just running down hill and evaporating into thin air where nothing could benefit from it. :tup:
-
Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.
Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.
Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.
I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.
It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You keep stating the Bundy's have rights on public land that simply never existed. This is why they owe millions and have numerous court orders against them.
There is no big property rights implication here. It is extremely simple: his cow were trespassing, he was told to get them off the land since he didn't want to pay for a new grazing permit, and he refused to do so.
He's probably really fortunate the land he was trespassing on was the federal governments...if it was another private landowner this clown of a family would probably be laying in some shallow graves in the Nevada desert somewhere.
There are no legally recognized inherited grazing rights, preemptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public-domain land-use rights held by the Bundy family or Bundy's ancestors. Bundy lost his special-rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases. Bundy had only base property and normal AUM grazing-allotment permits, like the permits of thousands of other ranchers throughout the western United States. The court found that Bundy and his father actually first began grazing their cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment in 1954 and used it for several years. They paid for cattle grazing again from 1973 until 1993, when Bundy paid the last fees for his final grazing application for the period from December 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. On January 24, 1994, the Bureau of Land Management delivered a Proposed Decision Order to Remove and Demand for Payment to Bundy by placing it on the dashboard of Bundy's vehicle while he was in the vehicle. BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, descended from his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him. He then returned to his truck, threw the proposed order out of the window and drove away. One of Bundy's sons then picked up the document, tore it to pieces and threw it on the ground. On February 17, 1994, the BLM issued a final decision canceling Bundy's range-grazing permit. Bundy subsequently informed the BLM in several administrative notices that he intended to graze cattle "pursuant to my vested grazing rights". Bundy failed to demonstrate the existence of any such special rights when given an opportunity to do so in court.
And here is the actual court order spelling this all out.
https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835
-
Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.
Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.
Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.
I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.
It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You keep stating the Bundy's have rights on public land that simply never existed. This is why they owe millions and have numerous court orders against them.
There is no big property rights implication here. It is extremely simple: his cow were trespassing, he was told to get them off the land since he didn't want to pay for a new grazing permit, and he refused to do so.
He's probably really fortunate the land he was trespassing on was the federal governments...if it was another private landowner this clown of a family would probably be laying in some shallow graves in the Nevada desert somewhere.
There are no legally recognized inherited grazing rights, preemptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public-domain land-use rights held by the Bundy family or Bundy's ancestors. Bundy lost his special-rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases. Bundy had only base property and normal AUM grazing-allotment permits, like the permits of thousands of other ranchers throughout the western United States. The court found that Bundy and his father actually first began grazing their cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment in 1954 and used it for several years. They paid for cattle grazing again from 1973 until 1993, when Bundy paid the last fees for his final grazing application for the period from December 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. On January 24, 1994, the Bureau of Land Management delivered a Proposed Decision Order to Remove and Demand for Payment to Bundy by placing it on the dashboard of Bundy's vehicle while he was in the vehicle. BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, descended from his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him. He then returned to his truck, threw the proposed order out of the window and drove away. One of Bundy's sons then picked up the document, tore it to pieces and threw it on the ground. On February 17, 1994, the BLM issued a final decision canceling Bundy's range-grazing permit. Bundy subsequently informed the BLM in several administrative notices that he intended to graze cattle "pursuant to my vested grazing rights". Bundy failed to demonstrate the existence of any such special rights when given an opportunity to do so in court.
And here is the actual court order spelling this all out.
https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835
:yeah:
Bundy keeps saying their relatives grazed on the land so they should be able to. Well should I go back to the family farm my gramps had in the 20s and take up stake? Most of you would probably laugh and say no, well it's the same thing for Bundy.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Soooooooo. When the Bundys act outside of the rules set forth by the Federal Government they are wrong. But. When Natives act n accordance it’s their federal laws. Treaty Laws. They are wrong too. Consistency fellow HW members. And no. It’s not apples and oranges. :stirthepot: there are huge similarities. Do I have any experience in this. Yes. Working with my uncle in south central Oregon. Watching the fed government take over State land. Understanding that the Bundys war was against the feds. Not the State. Look carefully. The states are locked in a loosing struggle with the feds. Lots more I could say. The Bundys are a pawn in States vs Feds. Sorry. RATTLE AND RANT.
-
Soooooooo. When the Bundys act outside of the rules set forth by the Federal Government they are wrong. But. When Natives act n accordance it’s their federal laws. Treaty Laws. They are wrong too. Consistency fellow HW members. And no. It’s not apples and oranges. :stirthepot: there are huge similarities. Do I have any experience in this. Yes. Working with my uncle in south central Oregon. Watching the fed government take over State land. Understanding that the Bundys war was against the feds. Not the State. Look carefully. The states are locked in a loosing struggle with the feds. Lots more I could say. The Bundys are a pawn in States vs Feds. Sorry. RATTLE AND RANT.
Your mention of treaties has no bearing on this case. Many tribes in the Northwest have treaties with the United States...in exchange for land they reserved many rights including fishing and hunting.
The Bundys do not have any treaty with the US...sorry, but it is apples and oranges.
-
Farming 4U states that the "Feds" are taking over "State" land in Oregon.
As a surveyor in WA, OR and ID I seriously doubt this is indeed fact.
As for Bundy, all this clown had to do was pay his grazing fees like any other responsible rancher and things would have been fine.
No, this idiot wants sell the ides that some sort of "Prescriptive Right" has ripened which is not the case.
There is no provision for Adverse Possession or Prescriptive Right against the sovereign AKA, The United States Government.
This is how the BLM, FS and the US Government protects "Our" land from the likes of Mr. Bundy.
I can see the day when Bundy would put up "No Trespassing" signs on land that he does not own.
Imagine suing an area for 20 years and then posting it as your own.
This is stealing from the rest of the people in the country.
Bundy has used the land for free, refused to pay his bill and cost the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars with his BS.
He is not a hero, he is a thief and no better than someone ripping of the government by collecting welfare while able to work.
The whole families a joke.
-
Yyyyyyyuuup!
-
The Federal Government is in fact taking over State Land in the West. That is one of the underlying issues in this case. What do you think the Antiquities Act is all about. It’s the Feds taking millions of acres from the States. I have friends in the Columbia Gorge. They were a multigeneration farming/ranching operation that could not compete in the era of new federal rules once their land was moved from state to federal control. Their land is now owned by a conservation group. Grand Staircase Escalante. I Jeeped there last year. It was a huge land grab by the feds and President Clinton President Trump realized this and is greatly reducing its size. The Bundys are the pawn that states wanted to push back on an overzealous conservation movement that started under good intentions It’s a struggle for balance. It’s States vs Antiques Act.
-
4U
I stand corrected, with regards to placing the land in "Monument" or similar status, I believe you are correct.
Also, did the State of Utah have any say in the Grande Staircase situation?
I do not believe that the Feds can "Take" land from the States for no particular reason.
Now the question is...
Did the State of Nevada own the land that the Bundy Clan made claim to prior to the Feds owning it?
And if so, how was it acquired and did the Bundy's have rights prior to the acquisition?
Rob.
-
The Federal Government is in fact taking over State Land in the West. That is one of the underlying issues in this case. What do you think the Antiquities Act is all about. It’s the Feds taking millions of acres from the States. I have friends in the Columbia Gorge. They were a multigeneration farming/ranching operation that could not compete in the era of new federal rules once their land was moved from state to federal control. Their land is now owned by a conservation group. Grand Staircase Escalante. I Jeeped there last year. It was a huge land grab by the feds and President Clinton President Trump realized this and is greatly reducing its size. The Bundys are the pawn that states wanted to push back on an overzealous conservation movement that started under good intentions It’s a struggle for balance. It’s States vs Antiques Act.
The antiquities act only applies to current federal land.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
The Federal Government is in fact taking over State Land in the West. That is one of the underlying issues in this case. What do you think the Antiquities Act is all about. It’s the Feds taking millions of acres from the States. I have friends in the Columbia Gorge. They were a multigeneration farming/ranching operation that could not compete in the era of new federal rules once their land was moved from state to federal control. Their land is now owned by a conservation group. Grand Staircase Escalante. I Jeeped there last year. It was a huge land grab by the feds and President Clinton President Trump realized this and is greatly reducing its size. The Bundys are the pawn that states wanted to push back on an overzealous conservation movement that started under good intentions It’s a struggle for balance. It’s States vs Antiques Act.
The antiquities act only applies to current federal land.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
:yeah:
The Antiquities Act takes current "regular" fed land and turns in into a National Monument. It has no effect on non-federal land.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Well there ya go, I was right to start with.
As a surveyor, I deal primarily with land boundaries and easements.
The actual laws pertaining to the acquisition of lands is a bit beyond my area of expertise.
I took a short course on the surveying of "National Monument" lands, but the means of acquisition were not discussed in detail.
It is my understanding that certain lands were ceded to the States upon admission to the Union, however those retained by the Feds have mostly remained in Fed ownership. There is some lands in southern Oregon (west side) that were initially set aside for the RRs, but when the RR was not built the Feds took them back and they are now controlled by the BLM in the Medford/Roseburg area. I am sure that this situation has occurred in other areas as well.
-
He feds will make a National Monument out of both state and federal land. Then they will start negotiations with the state to trade for land outside if the monument. Seems fair on paper......
-
That's all fine and well regarding "Monument".
What was the situation regarding Bundy, did he have a legitimate legal claim?
Was it always Federal Land or federal lands without formerly established rights?
If so, there should be no argument that he had any "Rights" to the land, do you agree?
-
The grazing fee is just that ... a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me.
they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.
That's not true at all, if it were the grazing fee's would be a lot higher. The fee is to offset infrastructure work that goes along with having cattle. The fee's are to do projects like putting in additional water sources, fencing off stream beds to prevent erosion or fencing out critical habitat like wet land areas. All of these things benefit wildlife as a whole, in dry areas putting in a water tank helps out everything from antelope to elk, you name it. Even frogs, snakes and birds as the water can create a tiny wetland oasis. The grazing contracts today have property improvement projects right in the contract, have you read any? I have.
Responsible grazing can and does improve land but you never hear about that, probably never see it either. People just buy into the tired old line of over grazing and welfare ranching. I see a lot of misinformed hunters on here buying into the same tired old lines. If overgrazing is happening then ask the BLM, DNR, USFWS responsible for that particular area whats up. There are ranchers who've been running the same property for generations and some of them perhaps get a little lax on making sure the cattle don't sit in one spot too long, the BLM or whomever needs to make sure that isn't happening too.
Some of the best deer hunting is in cattle grazed leases, the fall grasses will green up and there'll be a new growth for the deer, then in the winter months they'll paw trough it. Cattle make nice trails through the brush allowing the rabbits, deer and other critters better access instead of just having a jungle of old rot that doesn't renew without a massive fire..cattle also reduce fire loads. So in don't know where you get your information but perhaps you could study up on it.
You know what my point is. Grazing is not a right and your right to access public lands does not transfer to your cattle or business. We can argue back and forth the Semantics of every example here but the bottom line is they simply went about their objection to the fee's the wrong way. Laws are put in place in this country to avoid this very thing, it would be total martial-law if we all did things this way. Just pay your bill and object in the proper manner.
-
M-Ray nails it.
If grazing fees are outrageous, don't buy them.
It seems as if the Bundy's felt entitled to run cattle for free.
What's next?
Blow past the toll booth at the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?
I don't want to pay.
Write your Congressman if you don't like the laws.
Or better yet, in the Bundy's case, leave the Country.
Good Riddance.
-
The grazing fee is just that ... a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me.
they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.
That's not true at all, if it were the grazing fee's would be a lot higher. The fee is to offset infrastructure work that goes along with having cattle. The fee's are to do projects like putting in additional water sources, fencing off stream beds to prevent erosion or fencing out critical habitat like wet land areas. All of these things benefit wildlife as a whole, in dry areas putting in a water tank helps out everything from antelope to elk, you name it. Even frogs, snakes and birds as the water can create a tiny wetland oasis. The grazing contracts today have property improvement projects right in the contract, have you read any? I have.
Responsible grazing can and does improve land but you never hear about that, probably never see it either. People just buy into the tired old line of over grazing and welfare ranching. I see a lot of misinformed hunters on here buying into the same tired old lines. If overgrazing is happening then ask the BLM, DNR, USFWS responsible for that particular area whats up. There are ranchers who've been running the same property for generations and some of them perhaps get a little lax on making sure the cattle don't sit in one spot too long, the BLM or whomever needs to make sure that isn't happening too.
Some of the best deer hunting is in cattle grazed leases, the fall grasses will green up and there'll be a new growth for the deer, then in the winter months they'll paw trough it. Cattle make nice trails through the brush allowing the rabbits, deer and other critters better access instead of just having a jungle of old rot that doesn't renew without a massive fire..cattle also reduce fire loads. So in don't know where you get your information but perhaps you could study up on it.
You know what my point is. Grazing is not a right and your right to access public lands does not transfer to your cattle or business. We can argue back and forth the Semantics of every example here but the bottom line is they simply went about their objection to the fee's the wrong way. Laws are put in place in this country to avoid this very thing, it would be total martial-law if we all did things this way. Just pay your bill and object in the proper manner.
Can't disagree with that at all, and you know what my point was. Grazing isn't all bad. I never discussed the Bundy's "grazing rights" if ever there was such a thing so I'll give my opinion on that here.
As for the Bundy's I have no idea what rights the Bundy's are claiming, it was dealt with in court so that's that, their only recourse is hire a better lawyer and try again in court. I've never heard of any rights such as they're claiming, but that doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't existed before, I'll defer to the courts who should have access to historical records. There must have been something tangible for it to go to court in the first place? I've no idea :dunno: Like I said I'll defer to the court in this, where redress is properly handled, not under an interstate overpass with lot's of guns.
-
The grazing fee is just that ... a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me.
they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.
That's not true at all, if it were the grazing fee's would be a lot higher. The fee is to offset infrastructure work that goes along with having cattle. The fee's are to do projects like putting in additional water sources, fencing off stream beds to prevent erosion or fencing out critical habitat like wet land areas. All of these things benefit wildlife as a whole, in dry areas putting in a water tank helps out everything from antelope to elk, you name it. Even frogs, snakes and birds as the water can create a tiny wetland oasis. The grazing contracts today have property improvement projects right in the contract, have you read any? I have.
Responsible grazing can and does improve land but you never hear about that, probably never see it either. People just buy into the tired old line of over grazing and welfare ranching. I see a lot of misinformed hunters on here buying into the same tired old lines. If overgrazing is happening then ask the BLM, DNR, USFWS responsible for that particular area whats up. There are ranchers who've been running the same property for generations and some of them perhaps get a little lax on making sure the cattle don't sit in one spot too long, the BLM or whomever needs to make sure that isn't happening too.
Some of the best deer hunting is in cattle grazed leases, the fall grasses will green up and there'll be a new growth for the deer, then in the winter months they'll paw trough it. Cattle make nice trails through the brush allowing the rabbits, deer and other critters better access instead of just having a jungle of old rot that doesn't renew without a massive fire..cattle also reduce fire loads. So in don't know where you get your information but perhaps you could study up on it.
You know what my point is. Grazing is not a right and your right to access public lands does not transfer to your cattle or business. We can argue back and forth the Semantics of every example here but the bottom line is they simply went about their objection to the fee's the wrong way. Laws are put in place in this country to avoid this very thing, it would be total martial-law if we all did things this way. Just pay your bill and object in the proper manner.
Can't disagree with that at all, and you know what my point was. Grazing isn't all bad. I never discussed the Bundy's "grazing rights" if ever there was such a thing so I'll give my opinion on that here.
As for the Bundy's I have no idea what rights the Bundy's are claiming, it was dealt with in court so that's that, their only recourse is hire a better lawyer and try again in court. I've never heard of any rights such as they're claiming, but that doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't existed before, I'll defer to the courts who should have access to historical records. There must have been something tangible for it to go to court in the first place? I've no idea :dunno: Like I said I'll defer to the court in this, where redress is properly handled, not under an interstate overpass with lot's of guns.
:tup:
-
I gurantee even though bunch was innocent I the eyes of the law, which I don't care either because if he has to pay fees like the rest of us then pay the damn things, but if I was a local I would NEVER buy beef again,I would just go shoot one of this clowns cows, I mean they are on PUBLIC land and all !!! Pretty simple fix if you ask me , he would get tired if losing cattle pretty fast !!!
-
I gurantee even though bunch was innocent I the eyes of the law, which I don't care either because if he has to pay fees like the rest of us then pay the damn things, but if I was a local I would NEVER buy beef again,I would just go shoot one of this clowns cows, I mean they are on PUBLIC land and all !!! Pretty simple fix if you ask me , he would get tired if losing cattle pretty fast !!!
If rural NV is anything like N I'D you wouldn't last very long doing that...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Some states cattle rustling is a pretty serious offense.
-
How's it cattle rustling when he isn't paying to graze in public land, oh and there is that PUBLIC land thing again !!
-
The cattle are still private property.
If there is a car parked at a national forest trailhead that didn't pay the parking fee, can you just take the car? (I'm assuming you're not like bigtex.)
-
It's not the first or last time someone's thought about shooting cattle when they get to where they don't belong, it's rustling, it's a felony and it's very serious.
http://www.beefmagazine.com/management/cattle-rustling-still-big-issue-west
A team effort
The Malheur County Sheriff’s Department stepped in and Skinner says they put so much pressure on the area that cattle rustling, for the most part, stopped.
Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe says slowing down cattle theft in the area was a team effort by several different agencies, including BLM, Oregon State Police, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the local ranchers who participated in meetings with counterparts in Idaho and Nevada.
Wolfe says his department increased backcountry and aircraft patrols. And, local producers who own aircraft, including the Skinners, fly a deputy over the area several times a week. Funding from BLM helps pay for the flights and the remainder of the costs come out of the Malheur County budget.
About 63 search-and-rescue volunteers also perform backcountry and livestock patrols using county vehicles and ATVs, up to seven days/ week.
Whenever other areas such as highway patrols are fully covered, Wolfe says full-time deputies are rerouted to the backcountry roads.
The Sheriff’s Department developed cards for ranchers to fill out with license plate numbers, dates and times when they spot an unattended vehicle in grazing areas. The card includes a section that can be torn off and placed on the vehicle’s windshield stating that the vehicle had been observed by the Malheur County Sheriff’s Department.
Many producers have winter grazing permits so the air and land patrols take place year around.
Several motion-sensing cameras have also been set up to monitor areas where gates have been previously left open or vandalism to private property has taken place, and in areas where small bales of hay have been stolen. Hay theft, Wolfe says, hasn’t been a huge problem, but it does happen, usually 4-5 bales at a time.
As added incentive, pledges from livestock producers, which as of December 2011 totaled $63,000, are being offered as a reward for information leading to convictions.
Although the incidence of cattle rustling has lessened – from several hundred head to the occasional 10-15 – Wolfe says everyone remains diligent.
“It’s best to use preventive methods rather than react to the crime,” he says. “An ounce of prevention is definitely worth a pound of cure.”
-
The Federal Government is in fact taking over State Land in the West. That is one of the underlying issues in this case. What do you think the Antiquities Act is all about. It’s the Feds taking millions of acres from the States. I have friends in the Columbia Gorge. They were a multigeneration farming/ranching operation that could not compete in the era of new federal rules once their land was moved from state to federal control. Their land is now owned by a conservation group. Grand Staircase Escalante. I Jeeped there last year. It was a huge land grab by the feds and President Clinton President Trump realized this and is greatly reducing its size. The Bundys are the pawn that states wanted to push back on an overzealous conservation movement that started under good intentions It’s a struggle for balance. It’s States vs Antiques Act.
Trump’s Utah monuments decision restores lands taken in past thefts
Reducing Antiquities Act Land Grabs
"In reality, the actual thefts were masterminded and conducted by previous White House officials, in cahoots with radical environmentalists. Employing the immense power of the federal government, they took valuable state lands, multiple private lands and property rights, and a private company’s most valuable asset (America’s largest clean coal deposit) without any compensation whatsoever.”
http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/12/18/utah-monuments-decision-restores-lands-taken-in-past-thefts/
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
LAND TRUSTS OR LAND AGENTS?
https://www.perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents
In the Bundy case Harry Reid and crew were after a large swath of land for mining and a Chinese Solar farm.
The Bundy's were the last ranch that stood in the way of Harry Reid and the Chinese...
The Bundy's stood against Corruption and Won. :tup: :tup:
The Hammonds didn't fare as well:
Flashback: Ammon Bundy explains video of BLM agents burning private ranches
http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/01/11/flashback-ammon-bundy-explains-video-of-blm-agents-burning-private-ranches/
This is how YOU can help free the Hammonds
http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/01/09/this-is-how-you-can-help-free-the-hammonds/
Scathing letter from Congress to BLM director cites Bundy Ranch debacle, Steinle murder
http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/01/13/scathing-letter-from-congress-to-blm-director-cites-bundy-ranch-debacle-steinle-murder/
-
Good job Wolfbait. :yeah:
-
The irony of this thread. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
-
The irony of this thread. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So I'm not the only one that sees the similarities to these situations and tribes?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
The irony of this thread. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So I'm not the only one that sees the similarities to these situations and tribes?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I seen it a few days ago, but forgot my login and couldn't post.
-
Lol
I see several. There are many similarities when agreements are entered into when there is not an explicit contract termination.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Lol
I see several. There are many similarities when agreements are entered into when there is not an explicit contract termination.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Can you post the agreement you reference? The court order I posted contradicts any suggestion of an agreement or a right. Not even a small comparison between Bundy and Tribes.
-
The irony of this thread. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
YEP. :yeah: :yeah:
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
-
Lol
I see several. There are many similarities when agreements are entered into when there is not an explicit contract termination.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Can you post the agreement you reference? The court order I posted contradicts any suggestion of an agreement or a right. Not even a small comparison between Bundy and Tribes.
In the second paragraph of the background it sounds like they applied for a permit from the BLM in 54 that they had already been grazing.
If you want to make the point that they should not have entered into that agreement be cause that gave up his previous rights, then we would need to see that agreement, and how that agreement has changed over time, and how it would effect a previous right. I don't see anywhere in that legal document where it denies that the Bundies had not run cattle before the the first agreement in 54. its possible I missed something so feel free to point it out.
People seem to infer that because I would like to see this adressed regarding property rights that I'm some kind of Big Bundy supporter. I'm not per say, but I haven't seen an Article that lays it out.
If I wanted to go rent land now to start up ST cattle it would be under whatever kind of agreement was put in front of me.
Are you saying that the Bundies had not Ranches that area before the agreement? I belive I had read that they had been ranching since the 1880s or something to that effect.
I'd love to see a time line of the issues at hand, and I belive it starts way before 1954. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
-
Lavoy didn't have to let himself be "assassinated", had he not fled, declared on TV he wouldn't go to jail and make it known that he was packing then nearly ram a road block then jump out of the vehicle yelling to shoot him then reach for his pockets, well he'd probably be out of jail now along with Bundy and everyone else hugging his kiddies and doing what he was doing before this whole fiasco.
but he choose do all those things, and got himself "assassinated" for it, if the plan was for the police to to kill him...he sure made it easy to get away with it.
-
Lavoy didn't have to let himself be "assassinated", had he not fled, declared on TV he wouldn't go to jail and make it known that he was packing then nearly ram a road block then jump out of the vehicle yelling to shoot him then reach for his pockets, well he'd probably be out of jail now along with Bundy and everyone else hugging his kiddies and doing what he was doing before this whole fiasco.
but he choose do all those things, and got himself "assassinated" for it, if the plan was for the police to to kill him...he sure made it easy to get away with it.
The corrupt government pulled the trigger, they assassinated him. They gave no commands when stopped originally and he told them he was going to meet the Sheriff. The corrupt government already had the wheels of justice rolling and it was to kill everyone in the truck. It's all provided in evidence. Anybody and everybody can say, you'll have to kill me, I'm not going to jail. You can't shoot someone for saying that, It's our 1st amendment right.
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
-
Was not murdered nor assassinated. He was another coward that committed suicide by cop.
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.
-
Speculation. How about don't try and run over an officer of the law.
-
Lol good one. They were shooting at the truck when it first came around corner anyways This has already been discussed on the other lavoy topic and since I only use my phone and only a 1 finger typer 😂I have to refer to all I've posted over there
-
It's no wonder people get convicted for crimes they didn't commit. They don't or won't see the evidence that is presented. This is why the Bundy's got off, innocent of all charges.
-
It's no wonder people get convicted for crimes they didn't commit. They don't or won't see the evidence that is presented. This is why the Bundy's got off, innocent of all charges.
They were not found innocent, they were not found guilty, they were not acquitted. The case was dismissed. Legally there is a big difference.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
It's no wonder people get convicted for crimes they didn't commit. They don't or won't see the evidence that is presented. This is why the Bundy's got off, innocent of all charges.
They were not found innocent, they were not found guilty, they were not acquitted. The case was dismissed. Legally there is a big difference.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quo
They were not found innocent, which means guilty then. They were not found guilty, which means innocent then. They were not acquitted, means they get off of the charges. The case was dismissed, which means innocent. Please explain all the differences and not, well, it's supposed to mean, XXXX. I want specifics of law.
-
Their was land in question. It doesn't matter if they were guilty or innocent, if the government wants your land they'll take it. History proves this fact. :tup:
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.
Umm.... No.
Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.
Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck..... He'd be alive.
He was out of control. Period.
-
Quit bringing logic into this dan-o. :chuckle:
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.
Umm.... No.
Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.
Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck..... He'd be alive.
He was out of control. Period.
Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff. Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them. Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it. Period
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.
Umm.... No.
Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.
Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck..... He'd be alive.
He was out of control. Period.
Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff. Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them. Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it. Period
I guess I'll just agree to disagree.
As far as I'm concerned, he did so many things that caused him to get shot, it's practically a suicide.
I figure you're trying to die if you:
* Take over a Federal Facility by armed force
* Wander around telling anyone with a camera that you'll never be taken alive
* Keep telling people that you won't go down without a fight and that you're prepared to die
* Flee a lawful stop
* Speed out of control into a road block
* Jump out of your car ranting like a lunatic
It boggles my mind that some of you want to make him into a folk hero.
A Black kid in a city pulling these pranks would be called a punk and a thug.
-
Quit bringing logic into this dan-o. :chuckle:
Ruh Roh!
-
Dan-o, Indians did exactly that and we were murdered. But he's a folk hero and we were bloody savages being greedy by not sharing our land.
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.
Umm.... No.
Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.
Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck..... He'd be alive.
He was out of control. Period.
Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff. Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them. Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it. Period
I guess I'll agree to disagree.
As far as I'm concerned, he did so many things that caused him to get shot, it's practically a suicide.
I figure you're trying to die if you:
* Take over a Federal Facility by armed force
* Wander around telling anyone with a camera that you'll never be taken alive
* Keep telling people that you won't go down without a fight and that you're prepared to die
* Flee a lawful stop
* Speed out of control into a road block
* Jump out of your car ranting like a lunatic
It boggles my mind that some of you want to make him into a folk hero.
A Black kid in a city pulling these pranks would be called a punk and a thug.
:yeah:
-
Their was land in question. It doesn't matter if they were guilty or innocent, if the government wants your land they'll take it. History proves this fact. :tup:
In 100% agreement.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Lol
I see several. There are many similarities when agreements are entered into when there is not an explicit contract termination.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Can you post the agreement you reference? The court order I posted contradicts any suggestion of an agreement or a right. Not even a small comparison between Bundy and Tribes.
In the second paragraph of the background it sounds like they applied for a permit from the BLM in 54 that they had already been grazing.
If you want to make the point that they should not have entered into that agreement be cause that gave up his previous rights, then we would need to see that agreement, and how that agreement has changed over time, and how it would effect a previous right. I don't see anywhere in that legal document where it denies that the Bundies had not run cattle before the the first agreement in 54. its possible I missed something so feel free to point it out.
People seem to infer that because I would like to see this adressed regarding property rights that I'm some kind of Big Bundy supporter. I'm not per say, but I haven't seen an Article that lays it out.
If I wanted to go rent land now to start up ST cattle it would be under whatever kind of agreement was put in front of me.
Are you saying that the Bundies had not Ranches that area before the agreement? I belive I had read that they had been ranching since the 1880s or something to that effect.
I'd love to see a time line of the issues at hand, and I belive it starts way before 1954. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I read something about Bundy claiming grazing rights from 1880s based on some distant relative or some such. But Bundy put up every argument he could in multiple court proceedings and no legal right exists according to every judge in every case he was involved. Someone claiming they have a right on federal land is different than actually having one. You keep making the point that you wish this had been a property rights case, but what I'm seeing is Bundy argued this in court many times...and never prevailed. So it's not as though he never tried to maked this claim and bring evidence..he did, he just did not have any such right as multiple court proceedings confirmed.
-
Dan-o, Indians did exactly that and we were murdered. But he's a folk hero and we were bloody savages being greedy by not sharing our land.
I just reread my post and it sounds as if I'm lashing out at you, :sry: which I'm not. I was merely providing substance to your post. :tup:
-
Their was land in question. It doesn't matter if they were guilty or innocent, if the government wants your land they'll take it. History proves this fact. :tup:
In 100% agreement.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
X2 and I seen it first hand with a freeway through a relatives ranch and also flooding a homestead for a reservoir . They “buy” your property for their price and you don’t have much to say about it. So much for personal property rights
-
Dan-o, Indians did exactly that and we were murdered. But he's a folk hero and we were bloody savages being greedy by not sharing our land.
I just reread my post and it sounds as if I'm lashing out at you, :sry: which I'm not. I was merely providing substance to your post. :tup:
I knew where you were headed. :tup:
-
I don't have any white guilt, none.
-
Lol
I see several. There are many similarities when agreements are entered into when there is not an explicit contract termination.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Can you post the agreement you reference? The court order I posted contradicts any suggestion of an agreement or a right. Not even a small comparison between Bundy and Tribes.
In the second paragraph of the background it sounds like they applied for a permit from the BLM in 54 that they had already been grazing.
If you want to make the point that they should not have entered into that agreement be cause that gave up his previous rights, then we would need to see that agreement, and how that agreement has changed over time, and how it would effect a previous right. I don't see anywhere in that legal document where it denies that the Bundies had not run cattle before the the first agreement in 54. its possible I missed something so feel free to point it out.
People seem to infer that because I would like to see this adressed regarding property rights that I'm some kind of Big Bundy supporter. I'm not per say, but I haven't seen an Article that lays it out.
If I wanted to go rent land now to start up ST cattle it would be under whatever kind of agreement was put in front of me.
Are you saying that the Bundies had not Ranches that area before the agreement? I belive I had read that they had been ranching since the 1880s or something to that effect.
I'd love to see a time line of the issues at hand, and I belive it starts way before 1954. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I read something about Bundy claiming grazing rights from 1880s based on some distant relative or some such. But Bundy put up every argument he could in multiple court proceedings and no legal right exists according to every judge in every case he was involved. Someone claiming they have a right on federal land is different than actually having one. You keep making the point that you wish this had been a property rights case, but what I'm seeing is Bundy argued this in court many times...and never prevailed. So it's not as though he never tried to maked this claim and bring evidence..he did, he just did not have any such right as multiple court proceedings confirmed.
If his family has not in fact been ranching the same land in question, then my intrigue on the subject is irrelevant.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
It's no wonder people get convicted for crimes they didn't commit. They don't or won't see the evidence that is presented. This is why the Bundy's got off, innocent of all charges.
They were not found innocent, they were not found guilty, they were not acquitted. The case was dismissed. Legally there is a big difference.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
They were not found innocent, which means guilty then. They were not found guilty, which means innocent then. They were not acquitted, means they get off of the charges. The case was dismissed, which means innocent. Please explain all the differences and not, well, it's supposed to mean, XXXX. I want specifics of law.
You're statement shows how little you know about law.
Dismissed certainly does not mean innocent. To take it to an easy to understand level. Lets say you get cited for going 50 in a 35 (and you really were doing 50), you go to court and ask for a deferment where if you don't get cited/arrested for 12 months the case gets dismissed. Does this mean you are innocent? No. Does it mean you are not guilty? No. Will a guilty conviction be on your record? No.
Judges dismiss cases all the time, either as part of a plea deal, due to a lack of probable cause, etc. The big thing to look at is how is it dismissed; with prejudice or not. The vast majority are dismissed without prejudice which means the govt. can re-file charges. Maybe there just wasn't enough to prove probable cause, the govt. can go back and re-investigate the crime. When a case is dismissed with prejudice (like this Bundy case) it's almost always due to negligence on the government side. For Bundy, it was the US Attorney's Office failing to fulfill discovery rules.
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.
Umm.... No.
Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.
Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck..... He'd be alive.
He was out of control. Period.
Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff. Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them. Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it. Period
The law considers driving away from the police when they are trying to stop you fleeing. Doesn't matter what you consider fleeing, only what the law says.
-
Its only murder if the law says so. Or not... Throw the moral compass in the trash along with the Constitution. To argue with people who ONLY view life through the Laws eyes is a fools folly. :twocents: Voting and more importantly $ is the only way to fight/change etc. Too bad we so broke.
-
Its only murder if the law says so. Or not... Throw the moral compass in the trash along with the Constitution. To argue with people who ONLY view life through the Laws eyes is a fools folly. :twocents: Voting and more importantly $ is the only way to fight/change etc. Too bad we so broke.
Well considering murder is a legal term.....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Has any one of the people on this thread ever really inspected Clive Bundy's birith certificate.
He may not have even been born in this country.
Him trying to take our property makes him look like a thief from some Sh%$*&@e country.
We need to get Sherrif Joe Arripao to investigate, he'll find the truth!
There are lot of Conspiricy Theorists on this thread.
Kinda scary.
Can anyone say "birther"?
Have a nice day!
Rob.
-
I don't have any white guilt, none.
I'm happy for ya.
I don't have any white guilt either, and I'm as white as they come.
Seems kind of irrelevant unless you're just looking for someone to take the bait.
-
I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis. Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.
LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.
I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told. Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong. I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.
Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.
Umm.... No.
Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.
Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck..... He'd be alive.
He was out of control. Period.
Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff. Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them. Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it. Period
The law considers driving away from the police when they are trying to stop you fleeing. Doesn't matter what you consider fleeing, only what the law says.
They did stop and the cops didn't do squat because the informant was in the other vehicle. They didn't to want kill the informant. The cops give zero instructions to the pickup and LaVoy told them they had meeting in John Day, with the Sheriff and left. Remember ?
-
Remember the movie Cool Hand Luke?
When Martin Struthers (The Boss) stated that Luke "Got what he wanted" when Luke ended up in the cooler?
Lavoy got what he wanted, justice.
He stated that he would not be taken alive, and he was correct.
Campmeat, as a side note,
The phase typically used is this:
"I COULDN'T care less about what anybody says"
By saying "I could care less about what anybody says" you indicate that you have some consideration for what that other person says.
Semantics, I know, but still important.
Have a nice week.
Rob.
-
Has any one of the people on this thread ever really inspected Clive Bundy's birith certificate.
He may not have even been born in this country.
Him trying to take our property makes him look like a thief from some Sh%$*&@e country.
We need to get Sherrif Joe Arripao to investigate, he'll find the truth!
There are lot of Conspiricy Theorists on this thread.
Kinda scary.
Can anyone say "birther"?
Have a nice day!
Rob.
If you are going to lecture campmeat on semantics might want to check on the correct pronoun usage and correct spelling. Regarding birth certiciates, if you're born to US citizens abroad, especially if on a military base to a service member, you are generally qualify for US citizen status even if your birth certificate states born in foreign country.
See Mc cain and Romney:chuckle:
-
I don't have any white guilt, none.
I'm happy for ya.
I don't have any white guilt either, and I'm as white as they come.
Seems kind of irrelevant unless you're just looking for someone to take the bait.
That was a small part of a big long rant, and that was the only sentence to survive the self censor :chuckle:
-
I don't have any white guilt, none.
I'm happy for ya.
I don't have any white guilt either, and I'm as white as they come.
Seems kind of irrelevant unless you're just looking for someone to take the bait.
That was a small part of a big long rant, and that was the only sentence to survive the self censor :chuckle:
No problem, brother.
And I apologize for throwiong out bait.
It's a contentious issue for sure, and I know people that I greatly respect on both sides. :tup:
-
Just How Bad Is The BLM?
https://newswithviews.com/just-how-bad-is-the-blm/
-
Remember the movie Cool Hand Luke?
When Martin Struthers (The Boss) stated that Luke "Got what he wanted" when Luke ended up in the cooler?
Lavoy got what he wanted, justice.
He stated that he would not be taken alive, and he was correct.
Campmeat, as a side note,
The phase typically used is this:
"I COULDN'T care less about what anybody says"
By saying "I could care less about what anybody says" you indicate that you have some consideration for what that other person says.
Semantics, I know, but still important.
Have a nice week.
Rob.
LaVoy had 1st Amendment rights, period. Just because you say, kill me, go ahead and kill me, doesn't give the corrupt government AGENCIES a right to shoot anybody.
I couldn't care less either.
I always have a nice week since I moved out of the elohtihs state of Washington.
Enjoy what you had Rob, because it's going that way real quick.
-
Sounds like Cliven is headed to western montana to speak about "freedom and property". Perhaps he can elaborate on why he thinks its ok to trespass and steal from neighboring property owners...better yet - maybe he will give a seminar: "making a living as a welfare rancher" :chuckle:
http://missoulian.com/news/local/cliven-bundy-set-to-speak-in-sanders-county-this-saturday/article_0b303e6c-d02d-5c74-b562-7782db4b29c7.html
-
So standing up to a tyrannical government who has stripped most of our rights away and sold them back to us as a privilege and then heavily regulate everyone to the point of failure makes you a thug? I bet i can guess who you voted for...
-
:chuckle: Haha, and there is the Hillary trump card! When all else fails, accuse them of voting for Hillary.
-
:chuckle: Haha, and there is the Hillary trump card! When all else fails, accuse them of voting for Hillary.
Well it says alot about what kind of person you are...
-
When all else fails, accuse them of voting for Hillary.
Well it says alot about what kind of person you are...
Indeed it does....
-
So standing up to a tyrannical government who has stripped most of our rights away and sold them back to us as a privilege and then heavily regulate everyone to the point of failure makes you a thug? I bet i can guess who you voted for...
So you don't like the United States. Why don't you go live in a country that isn't so horrible...take Bundy with you. I don't believe there is a BLM in North Korea...sounds like your dream location! :chuckle:
-
Shouldn't this be in off-topics?
There's numerous ongoing Bundy threads already in off topics, so this thread can stay here and the off topics guys can go back there.
Thank you.
Let's not garbage up this thread with incendiary remarks.
-
@Special T
Here is what you've been asking for, a land use/ownership trial. This should cover possible grazing rights, state ownership and whatnot.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/bundy-sues-to-have-feds-booted-from-nevada-land/
-
@Special T
Here is what you've been asking for, a land use/ownership trial. This should cover possible grazing rights, state ownership and whatnot.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/bundy-sues-to-have-feds-booted-from-nevada-land/
Imagine the ramifications of what is to come....
I've never pretended to fully understand the situation or taken the time to research it. I think the Bundies almost screwed this situation up coming to light because of thier hamfisted approach.. dispite thier many short comings they have SAND.
Imagine IF the Fed had succeeded in wiping everyone with a historical claim off the land/out of business?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
You non-believers should read what KF posted for Special T. Then you might understand something you don't.
-
So is Bundy's point that the US can't own any land in a state? Or just that the US can't own land in quantities or areas that are inconvenient to him and other ranchers? I just don't understand why these people that hate the United States so much continue to live here...I would love to put Bundy and Colin Kaepernick on the same direct flight out of here...both are so unpatriotic and disrespectful towards this country.
Anyways, its such a stupid claim it has zero chance of going anywhere.
-
They don't hate the United States or the corrupt Government. They want the Corrupt Government to follow the Constitution, that's what they stand for. This is what people don't understand. They got fed up and stood up.
-
Thank you, :yeah:. This USA has always belonged to the PEOPLE. Not to the elite or Gov. Seems pretty clear to me. Someday we may have to remind them of that... Certainly it doesn't belong to Russias Putin Uranium co. The Const was pretty clear on this before liberal Case Law became the new Const written by the Judges. :twocents:
-
Read the article... The Feds were just supposed to hold the lands in trust while Nevada was becoming a state. There was a supreme court decision on it.
I love this country because it embraces the rule of law, property rights, and freedom. Moving us closer to the original intent in not UnAmerican.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
When you quote a WND.com article you lose all credibility in a discussion. This is by far the worst "news" source online. "The shocking news about Jesus' imminent return" is an article they are running right now. Hate and Fear mongering is all that website does. Nothing factual comes from them, just rumors and lies .
And the previous article from newswithviews.com , that doesn't sound biased at all. They are running an article called "Feminism, Americas second greatest threat.... behind illegal immigration"
-
This one better?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/recently-freed-rancher-cliven-bundy-sues-nevada-clark-county/
WND just happened to come out with it first, the relevant part is that a new case has been filed. geesh
-
The Bundy’s are grasping at straws at this point.
This guy, however, seems to have a pretty legit case!
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/aug/31/who-really-has-rights-nevada-land/
-
The Bundy’s are grasping at straws at this point.
This guy, however, seems to have a pretty legit case!
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/aug/31/who-really-has-rights-nevada-land/
Wow, an illegal immigrant drug dealer....... Politics does make strange bedfellows.
-
The Bundy’s are grasping at straws at this point.
This guy, however, seems to have a pretty legit case!
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/aug/31/who-really-has-rights-nevada-land/
Wow, an illegal immigrant drug dealer....... Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Would have deported for drug running if he was illegal. The US let a lot of Cubans in during the 80’s seeking asylum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Not saying he’s an angel. Ever made bad decisions when you were younger? It shouldn’t matter, if he had paid his dues he should be able to buy property and not have the government divert a stream that runs across his land.
-
The Bundy’s are grasping at straws at this point.
This guy, however, seems to have a pretty legit case!
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/aug/31/who-really-has-rights-nevada-land/
Wow, an illegal immigrant drug dealer....... Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Would have deported for drug running if he was illegal. The US let a lot of Cubans in during the 80’s seeking asylum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Not saying he’s an angel. Ever made bad decisions when you were younger? It shouldn’t matter, if he had paid his dues he should be able to buy property and not have the government divert a stream that runs across his land.
OK so just to get this straight, it's ok to smuggle yourself across the border in some situations? Why does a Cuban drug runner deserve asylum over a Mexican farm worker who keeps his nose clean?
-
The Bundy’s are grasping at straws at this point.
This guy, however, seems to have a pretty legit case!
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/aug/31/who-really-has-rights-nevada-land/
Wow, an illegal immigrant drug dealer....... Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Would have deported for drug running if he was illegal. The US let a lot of Cubans in during the 80’s seeking asylum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Not saying he’s an angel. Ever made bad decisions when you were younger? It shouldn’t matter, if he had paid his dues he should be able to buy property and not have the government divert a stream that runs across his land.
OK so just to get this straight, it's ok to smuggle yourself across the border in some situations? Why does a Cuban drug runner deserve asylum over a Mexican farm worker who keeps his nose clean?
People from Cuba and North Korea (and I think there is another place) get to stay once they get here due to laws regarding escaping communist regimes.
-
The Bundy’s are grasping at straws at this point.
This guy, however, seems to have a pretty legit case!
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/aug/31/who-really-has-rights-nevada-land/
Wow, an illegal immigrant drug dealer....... Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Would have deported for drug running if he was illegal. The US let a lot of Cubans in during the 80’s seeking asylum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Not saying he’s an angel. Ever made bad decisions when you were younger? It shouldn’t matter, if he had paid his dues he should be able to buy property and not have the government divert a stream that runs across his land.
OK so just to get this straight, it's ok to smuggle yourself across the border in some situations? Why does a Cuban drug runner deserve asylum over a Mexican farm worker who keeps his nose clean?
I feel an asylum seeker should get a little more benefit of the doubt.
-
The preacher can have water delivered or pack himself. The Bundy story is totally different.
-
I read the article about the Cuban preacher, it looks as if that stream was diverted before by cattle ranchers, so I wonder where the original stream bed is :dunno:
-
I read the article about the Cuban preacher, it looks as if that stream was diverted before by cattle ranchers, so I wonder where the original stream bed is :dunno:
That's not how I read it. This "On his side of the berm, a sloping wash lined with the husks of withered plants is carved into the dusty terrain.
On the other is the federal government, which says it needed to divert the water to protect a fragile ecosystem home to 26 endangered species, including the 3-inch-long Ash Meadows speckled dace, a grayish-green fish found only here, in a network of spring-fed creeks surrounded by the Mojave Desert."
And this.... "In court filings, Fish & Wildlife has asserted a prior claim on the water. The agency’s 2009 conservation plan included a diversion of the stream, as well as several others. Refuge managers eventually rerouted a dozen waterways."
I read this as the Federal government diverted the water.
-
When Fuentes and his wife, Annette, arrived in 2006, water from the nearby Longstreet Spring filled the now dry arroyo, winding through a corner of their property before feeding into a downstream reservoir left over from the ranching of previous decades.
It's not clear to me where the water went prior to ranching, I could just see this used against the Cuban dude.
-
Wayne Hage and the sagebrush rebellion. Another heavy handed action by the feds that was finally resolved when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the 9th circuit courts appeal.
In may of 2013 US district judge Robert Clive Jones issued a 104 page opinion detailing what he called the federal governments vindictive actions against the ranching family.
Over alleged cattle trespass , grazing and water rights.
The 9th circuit, the fed agents ,prosecutors and agency supervisors after years of litigation fell flat on their face.
Ranchers in the western U.S. are well aware of this case and the taking of 100+ head of cattle by the feds. And the heavy handed way it was handled.
Just to clarify that the Bundy's were
not the 1st in our modern time to have to argue the facts with the government for the ability to continue a way of life. Whether you agree or not
The government employees are not always right.
,
-
Wayne Hage and the sagebrush rebellion. Another heavy handed action by the feds that was finally resolved when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the 9th circuit courts appeal.
In may of 2013 US district judge Robert Clive Jones issued a 104 page opinion detailing what he called the federal governments vindictive actions against the ranching family.
Over alleged cattle trespass , grazing and water rights.
The 9th circuit, the fed agents ,prosecutors and agency supervisors after years of litigation fell flat on their face.
Ranchers in the western U.S. are well aware of this case and the taking of 100+ head of cattle by the feds. And the heavy handed way it was handled.
Just to clarify that the Bundy's were
not the 1st in our modern time to have to argue the facts with the government for the ability to continue a way of life. Whether you agree or not
The government employees are not always right.
,
You do realize this means SCOTUS agreed with the Feds and not the Hage's.....
The District Court Judge agreed with Hage, the Ninth Circuit overruled the District Court Judge, Hage appealed to SCOTUS which declined to take the case (essentially meaning they agree with the Ninth Circuit)
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/us-supreme-court-closes-book-on-wayne-hage-sagebrush-rebellion-court-case/
-
However the point was in fact the years of litigation involved, and the tactics used..
Not to mention the cattle were seized in 1991.
-
And no mention of the 4.2 million+17 years of interest awarded to the Hage family in 2008 by a federal claims judge.
Did they get it :dunno:,
So there was a lot of division within the fedeal judiciary, through the decades this case was ongoing.
Money not well spent.
-
You do realize this means SCOTUS agreed with the Feds and not the Hage's.....
The District Court Judge agreed with Hage, the Ninth Circuit overruled the District Court Judge, Hage appealed to SCOTUS which declined to take the case (essentially meaning they agree with the Ninth Circuit)
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/us-supreme-court-closes-book-on-wayne-hage-sagebrush-rebellion-court-case/
Not necessarily true. The high court limits itself to about 80 cases a year out of 10,000 cases presented to it. The reasons they take cases are many and varied. Agreeing or disagreeing with a particular case is not high on the list of reasons. For starters, that would mean they had their minds made up before hearing a case. And a bunch of law clerks have more to do with deciding which cases will be heard than the justices do. The clerks research cases that are presented and make recommendations and the justices make the final decisions based sometimes on personal whims.
http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html