Bunkerville NV escalating.

[IndyDave1776]

Wrong is Wrong, no matter who does it. (good for the goose, etc.)

So, to make sure I understand, there was a roped off area that was designated for free speech? Not allowing it elsewhere?

Still trying to understand the scope.

Exactly. It is indicative that the area which needs roped off does not involve protesters.

 

[HoughMade]

I have stated, several times, that the government's tactics were heavy-handed and unwise.

However, as for due process, Mr. Bundy had his days in court...several of them over a couple of decades and then had appeals after that. He lost each time. He did not lose because of collusion, conspiracy, bribes or chicanery. He flat out lost on the facts and law.

Now, we set this guy up as a folk hero, as some kind of an American icon, but he denied being a citizen of the United States in order to avoid paying grazing fees he and his family willingly paid for decades. Didn't work. So my question is, with the court cases being final and if there is still trespass, how SHOULD the government deal with it?

...and please, no one be dumb enough to say "give him his day in court".

 

[jamil]

I don't see Bundy as a hero. I think he has some pretty radical views that I can't support.

However, legal as it may be, the BLM decided to execute the court's orders in a provocative way. I don't think the BLM needs its own police force. When they received the court order, why can't the local police enforce it?

I think it's right for people to stand up and say that's the wrong way to go about it. I don't agree with supporting Bundy. But I agree with supporting the people who forced the BLM to back down. I hope the BLM will find a less heavy handed way to resolve this. I also wish the ****ty senator from Nevada would care as much about the rule of law in areas where he doesn't have a vested interest.

And as for the free speech zones, are you saying there were none? I first heard about it from local news reporting on Nevada governor's comments on it. Perhaps they misreported and it didn't happen.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have stated, several times, that the government's tactics were heavy-handed and unwise.

However, as for due process, Mr. Bundy had his days in court...several of them over a couple of decades and then had appeals after that. He lost each time. He did not lose because of collusion, conspiracy, bribes or chicanery. He flat out lost on the facts and law.

Now, we set this guy up as a folk hero, as some kind of an American icon, but he denied being a citizen of the United States in order to avoid paying grazing fees he and his family willingly paid for decades. Didn't work. So my questions is, with the court cases being final and if there is still trespass, how SHOULD the government deal with it?

...and please, no one be dumb enough to say "give him his day in court".

Heavy-handed and unwise? I would say a paramilitary invasion when the situation called for the arrest of one rancher is well beyond that.

I cannot take such a cut and dried approach to the situation as saying that he had is day in court and lost. I understand that he was winning until the feds bumped it into federal court, much like Lon Horiuchi did with his criminal trial which was promptly dismissed by a federal judge in spite of the fact that Ray Charles could see that the man is a cold-blooded murderer. In any event, we have a federal court determining that Bundy failed to abide by rules established by the federal government pertaining to something it should not be involved in to begin with. In the end, when Caesar's men appeal to Caesar, the outcome is very predictable.

In the end, the most important issue and outcome has little to do with Bundy anyway. That would be that the feds used this as an opportunity to go full Waco on someone they thought would gain little public sympathy, and this time they were wrong. The reason they were wrong is not because Bundy was more likeable than they thought but rather that enough people have come to understand the aforementioned practice of singling out 'easy' targets to establish precedents that they understood that allowing a paramilitary attack on Bundy this time sets them up to be the target next time.

 

[jamil]

I have stated, several times, that the government's tactics were heavy-handed and unwise.

However, as for due process, Mr. Bundy had his days in court...several of them over a couple of decades and then had appeals after that. He lost each time. He did not lose because of collusion, conspiracy, bribes or chicanery. He flat out lost on the facts and law.

Now, we set this guy up as a folk hero, as some kind of an American icon, but he denied being a citizen of the United States in order to avoid paying grazing fees he and his family willingly paid for decades. Didn't work. So my question is, with the court cases being final and if there is still trespass, how SHOULD the government deal with it?

...and please, no one be dumb enough to say "give him his day in court".

IANAL, so I don't know. But I thought Manatee had a pretty good idea. Couldn't they put a lien on his cattle? Aren't there other sanctions they could use? And if they had to use the threat of deadly force, couldn't they have asked the local sheriff to enforce the court's orders?

 

[jamil]

Heavy-handed and unwise? I would say a paramilitary invasion when the situation called for the arrest of one rancher is well beyond that.

I cannot take such a cut and dried approach to the situation as saying that he had is day in court and lost. I understand that he was winning until the feds bumped it into federal court, much like Lon Horiuchi did with his criminal trial which was promptly dismissed by a federal judge in spite of the fact that Ray Charles could see that the man is a cold-blooded murderer. In any event, we have a federal court determining that Bundy failed to abide by rules established by the federal government pertaining to something it should not be involved in to begin with. In the end, when Caesar's men appeal to Caesar, the outcome is very predictable.

In the end, the most important issue and outcome has little to do with Bundy anyway. That would be that the feds used this as an opportunity to go full Waco on someone they thought would gain little public sympathy, and this time they were wrong. The reason they were wrong is not because Bundy was more likeable than they thought but rather that enough people have come to understand the aforementioned practice of singling out 'easy' targets to establish precedents that they understood that allowing a paramilitary attack on Bundy this time sets them up to be the target next time.

I suspect that this is true. I'm not sure why else they'd suit up and bring out the toys just for this. And if that kind of response is the only legal way to handle trespassing, we truly have a ****ed up system.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

When they received the court order, why can't the local police enforce it?

Ummm, because of the 10th Amendment.

You want a federal court to dragoon local police to enforce a federal court order? I am beyond words.

Don't we have the daily "enforce the Constitution" philippics on INGO? I mean in addition to the "this is about property rights" rants?

Funny, those who cry "property rights" never want to pay for them, they just want to ride free.

 

[Manatee]

We can confiscate or freeze the bank accounts of Russia and Iran (and their citizens/companies) in this country, but we aren't able to freeze the accounts of one little old desert rat? C'mon.

The Feds overreacted. It is getting to the point where the gov't is overmilitarized on our home soil. (If you have a hammer, every problem is a nail). I think this has much to do with the suspension of liberties since 9-11 under the Patriot Act, NSA spying, and a continuous war footing overseas. I want my cops to look like Andy Griffith, not ninja assassins.

Yes, there are dangerous guys out there and we need specially trained squads to deal with them. Bundy doesn't fit that bill.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ummm, because of the 10th Amendment.

You want a federal court to dragoon local police to enforce a federal court order? I am beyond words.

Don't we have the daily "enforce the Constitution" philippics on INGO? I mean in addition to the "this is about property rights" rants?

Funny, those who cry "property rights" never want to pay for them, they just want to ride free.

While those points are indeed valid, they demand some review:

We must start with the question of whether a paramilitary invasion is the correct response, which has not only been addressed, but beaten half to death, so I will leave it alone.

Then comes the question of whether or not Bundy received a fair hearing in court, particularly after it went to federal court, which for some strange reason seems to lose that predisposition toward honoring lower courts' decisions when a federal employee or agency is involved.

Then we have the question of whether or not Bundy is correct in his specific dispute regarding payment to the feds or the BLM having the right to unilaterally 're-negotiate' terms.

Then we have the question of whether or not the federal government has the authority to treat roughly 1/3 of the United States as a Crown Colony in which state law doesn't really apply and the feds, often on the whim of bureaucrats, can do whatever they damned well please.

 

[Manatee]

If you deny the role of the Federal government in what is primarily land acquisitions outside of the 13 original colonies, I think you would have a very skewed view of the Louisiana Purchase, Seward's Folly and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

For every Bundy, there have been thousands of happy ranchers who got their lands by government grants under homesteading provisions, profitable resource extraction companies under mining allotments, development of large cities under government civil engineering programs such as the Hoover Dam.

There really has been no major program in the history of this country that did not require government assistance. I've tried to think of one, but can't recall any.

 

[JRPLANE]

This is not about Bundy, He was wrong, Its about abuse of power. The BLM doesn't need full blown military capabilities, or the many other Federal agencies. TSA, CPS, Look at the abuse by the cops in general. It has become the norm. When in doulbt, scream stop resisting and stand on there neck. What happened to serve and protect?
Look at the WACO murders. David Koresh could have been put into costody a day later buying smokes and a squishy at the corner store. But the gunho mentality of Feds that sit around waiting on any opportunity to play with there high end toys. They do not care who they hurt or who's rights they step on, its all a show of power and the minnions should bow down to the all mighty.

 

[smokingman]

New filing in the Bundy case.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/fcab32c001b...5267540F94B96551E&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 

[HoughMade]

New filing in the Bundy case.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/fcab32c001b...5267540F94B96551E&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Yep, that'll help the Bundy supporters NOT look like crackpots.

 

[hornadylnl]

This is why the country is in the mess it's in. Rather than seek the root cause of this issue, the majority take sides and rail against the opposing side. The root cause is the government in the real estate business and using their land to pick winners and losers. Bundy isn't entitled to the use of public property at the expense of the rest of us and the government has no damn business owning it in the first place. Put it up for sale and Bundy will have the opportunity to buy it just like anyone else. Taxpayers save money and government is shrunk. Can't have that now, can we.

 

[JettaKnight]

New filing in the Bundy case.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/fcab32c001b...5267540F94B96551E&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Wow.
My favorite part:

Michael Joseph Kearns, a man, created by Nature and Nature's God and the laws thereof, ...

So stirring!

It goes off the rails soon after that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The problem is that Bundy's agreement with BLM required them to help "manage" the land for which he was paying grazing fees. The BLM stopped doing their part, so in protest, Bundy stopped paying land fees. Furthermore, the federal government was supposed to, as per terms of its agreement with the state when it was admitted to the Union, turn over title to all public lands in the state. It has not done so. So there are all sorts of legal issues here that aren't being addressed here.

 

[JettaKnight]

This is why the country is in the mess it's in. Rather than seek the root cause of this issue, the majority take sides and rail against the opposing side. The root cause is the government in the real estate business and using their land to pick winners and losers. Bundy isn't entitled to the use of public property at the expense of the rest of us and the government has no damn business owning it in the first place. Put it up for sale and Bundy will have the opportunity to buy it just like anyone else. Taxpayers save money and government is shrunk. Can't have that now, can we.

Being East of the Mississippi, I don't fully comprehend the dynamics of this.

Personally, I'd rather focus on the Gov't selling off the massive amount of real estate they have in populated areas. Empty office builds, warehouses, etc.
Government's Empty Buildings Are Costing Taxpayers Billions : NPR

 

[BogWalker]

The problem is that Bundy's agreement with BLM required them to help "manage" the land for which he was paying grazing fees. The BLM stopped doing their part, so in protest, Bundy stopped paying land fees. Furthermore, the federal government was supposed to, as per terms of its agreement with the state when it was admitted to the Union, turn over title to all public lands in the state. It has not done so. So there are all sorts of legal issues here that aren't being addressed here.

If one wants to press the broken contract issue then Bundy still should have stayed off the land. Let's say your rent contract says that your landlord has to handle any repairs on the property. He doesn't, so he is in breach of the contract. Do you move out or just squat in the rental you now don't pay for?

I could get behind selling federal lands.

I've been studying a bit on the western frontier safety valve theory. It really seems like it may be what we need to jump start out of our current stagnation.

I don't think the land should be sold off all in bulk, that would destroy the real estate market and more than likely wreck the economy. Sell it off bits at a time for an affordable, though not rock bottom price, to lower and middle class individuals. Drain some of the overcrowding in cities with attractive western real estate prices. I wouldn't let it all fall to speculators though, the process only works when the poorer segments of society are directly receiving the land. I would make an exception for businesses that would provide jobs for newcomers. Has to be something to get them to stay there once they settle.

Would deflate land prices a bit in currently settled areas; I'm not sure if that would cause problems. Lowering population density in urban areas would lessen job competition as laborers moved west.

Idea needs refining, but a viable option in my book.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yep, that'll help the Bundy supporters NOT look like crackpots.

Not a problem that this is a crackpot filing. We just need a new trial and demand a jury of crackpots.

 

[public servant]

We just need a new trial and demand a jury of crackpots.

I know where I'd look for the jury pool.