The Bundy Trial: When Justice Fails

[idahohuntr]

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. 

[bigtex]

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!

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.

But hey what does a court ruling mean anyways...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Mudman]

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!

[bigtex]

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!

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

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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?

[KFhunter]

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. 

[Skyvalhunter]

As long as those that administer the law don't go above or beyond the law or have their own interpretation of the law.

[boneaddict]

[M_ray]

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?  this is a strange logic, sorry but they are crooks and deadbeats. What makes them better than all others that paid their bills?

[idahohuntr]

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. 

[KFhunter]

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

[idahohuntr]

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?   

[cavemann]

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.

[KFhunter]

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       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.   

[Special T]

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