Bunkerville NV escalating.

[jamil]

Yep, what about the people on their bicycles, scooters, or just running in the road. And of course it is against the law to have horses and buggies unless you are Amish so that isn't even an option

That's because it's not our roads. We don't have a government of the people. Paying taxes to build and maintain roads don't entitle us to use the roads we pay for. Federal roads belong to DoT secretary, Anthony Foxx. The roads in IN belong to INDOT commissioner, Karl Browning. We have to have permission tags from the state, mounted in the proper place on our motor vehicles, to operate them on their roads.

 

[tfouty]

JetGirl, love that pic. . . . . still laughing!

 

[billt]

I don't think that the gov is conspiring to buy up all the ammo to cause shortages. I took it that he meant that the government was buying the ammo to use on citizens.

Isn't that what every police force in the United States buys ammunition for? They don't all carry weapons to shoot stray dogs.

 

[jamil]

Isn't that what every police force in the United States buys ammunition for? They don't all carry weapons to shoot stray dogs.

That's kinda the point. Why does every federal agency have to have its own armed police force? Why do these agencies see citizenry as something to be armed against? Really. The Department of Education has armed agents, for crying out loud. If these agencies think they need something enforced at gunpoint, they need to go through the same process that we have to go through to have something enforced at gunpoint. Call the local police.

I want all these agencies to disband their armed gang of mercenaries and turn in their weapons. They're completely antithetical to a free society.

 

[billt]

I want all these agencies to disband their armed gang of mercenaries and turn in their weapons. They're completely antithetical to a free society.

Good luck. There is about as much of a chance of that happening as "free health care". The people have let this go far too long for any of it to stop now. The time for "outrage" has long passed. Now it's like trying to stop a freight train with a golf cart.

 

[Darral27]

Very interesting take on the "de-escalation" from the ground. 30 minute video but well worth watching.

ALERT Sheriff Gillespie Seeks Slaughter - YouTube

 

[Kutnupe14]

Very interesting take on the "de-escalation" from the ground. 30 minute video but well worth watching.

ALERT Sheriff Gillespie Seeks Slaughter - YouTube

Certainly interesting, certainly outlandish. If the feds wanted an armed engagement, they wouldve had an armed engagement. They technically had the law on their side, and anyone who interfered, would be subject to arrest. I don't see a rag tag bunch of protesters being a legitimate hinderance to accomplishing whatever directive they were ordered to follow. I think they stood down precisely because they didn't want an armed confrontation.

 

[printcraft]

Interesting take on all of this.............

I know there is MUCH more to this but you had this kind of push back and support....... over cattle.........

And people are worried nobody will stand up if Americans are being rounded up and put into "reeducation" camps?

 

[Darral27]

Certainly interesting, certainly outlandish. If the feds wanted an armed engagement, they wouldve had an armed engagement. They technically had the law on their side, and anyone who interfered, would be subject to arrest. I don't see a rag tag bunch of protesters being a legitimate hinderance to accomplishing whatever directive they were ordered to follow. I think they stood down precisely because they didn't want an armed confrontation.

Did you bother to watch the video? If so you missed the point.

 

[HoughMade]

Have fun reading....but don't let it get in the way of your ideological stance.

1998_U_S__Dist__LEXIS_23835

Cliven p Bundy

 

[Manatee]

Have fun reading....but don't let it get in the way of your ideological stance.

1998_U_S__Dist__LEXIS_23835

Cliven p Bundy

BINGO. But facts never got in the way of ignorance.

 

[Darral27]

What exactly have your facts proven? I for one have never questioned whether or not the fed's won against Mr. Bundy in court. That is a given. I have not seen anybody question whether or not Mr. Bundy had legal authority to have his cattle on the land in question. The questions that I have are still unanswered.
1. Why did Mr. Bundy stop paying his grazing fees to the BLM?
Is what he is saying true, was the BLM using the fee money from him and other ranchers to buy them out. The federal gov't using their power to muscle out private ranchers hardly seems just. If that is the case many would like to know.
2. Why does the federal government have such an interest in this land?
We all know it has nothing to do with turtles. Is it something to do with politics, the Chinese, wind farms, water rights? I have no clue myself. I am sure it is not reason the being stated.
3. Why spend over 1 million dollars so far (figure going around, sure it is close) on seizing cattle to auction for a fine that is less than 1 million dollars?
This makes no sense. I don't care how you add it up. Spending 1 million to collect 900,000. It does sound like our gov't but you gotta admit there is a problem here.
4. This judgement was issued in 1998, Why has it taken 16 years to get to this point?

There are many more questions but this is a good start. I don't consider questioning the government an "ideological stance" or "ignorance". There is much more at play here than 1 man's cattle ranch.

 

[Manatee]

Have you bothered to use Google satellite view to look at the area?

Maybe it's just me, but if I am going to defend the "rights" of a fellow citizen with my life (potentially), I'd like to make sure that I'm fighting for a righteous cause. In this case, I wouldn't help a scruffy old desert rat raise cattle on public land he doesn't own and has never owned just because he doesn't like BLM.

 

[vitamink]

Have fun reading....but don't let it get in the way of your ideological stance.

1998_U_S__Dist__LEXIS_23835

Cliven p Bundy

That certainly cleared up a bunch of misconceptions. Thanks for the facts.

 

[HoughMade]

I linked decisions from 1998 for context and from 2013 which deals with the particular property at issue.

I believe that the feds unnecessarily escalated the situation and came very close to striking a match they would regret striking. Mr. Bundy litigated through court and lost, but the feds started down a dangerous road with the manner they were going to go about enforcing the order.

But Mr. Bundy's arguments, which mainly claimed that the federal government didn't own the land and that federal courts had no jurisdiction over him, hold no water. Really, this is the guy we're setting up as a folk hero?

From the 1998 decision:

Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue.

In his Reply, Bundy explains this action started in 1992 when he received a "Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment" from the BLM... The letter to which Bundy refers is in fact dated January 28, 1993. Bundy claims this "decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented, would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County," and his ranching days would be over... The decision from the BLM does not inform Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month, February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision. The decision informed Bundy the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing permit for the Bunkerville Allotment.... The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example, if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount.Bundy alleges the BLM does not have "Constitutional authority" to make the full force and effect decision. The Property Clause of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."... This Congressional power over the public lands is without limitations... Congress enacted the FLPMA, which instructs the Secretary of the Interior to manage through the BLM the public lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield..
The FLPMA provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to regulate grazing and issue grazing permits that require permittees to adhere to the terms and conditions of such permits... The Allotment is administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, thus the BLM had authority to issue the full force and effect decision. The Allotment where Bundy and his father before him have been grazing livestock is classed as an ephemeral region, which does not consistently produce forage. The BLM has authority under the FLPMA to place restrictions on grazing when the forage declines to a level that would defeat the goals of multiple use and sustained yield.

From the 2013 decision:

Bundy principally opposes the United States' motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), "the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States."

Nor is there a legitimate dispute that Bundy has grazed his cattle on the New Trespass Lands without federal authorization. The United States has submitted Bundy's deposition excerpts indicating that Bundy has grazed livestock on the New Trespass Lands and further evidence of the trespass of Bundy's cattle in those areas. Notwithstanding Bundy's contentions that the observed cattle bearing his brand may not in fact be his own, such a denial does not controvert Nevada law regarding prima facie evidence of ownership of branded cattle. In sum, in this most recent effort to oppose the United States' legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Have fun reading....but don't let it get in the way of your ideological stance.

1998_U_S__Dist__LEXIS_23835

Cliven p Bundy

Is citing actual court orders permitted under the INGO Rules of Evidence?

.gov fumbled badly and now weakened their position with the next free rider.

Why can't the Republicans be saavy enough to introduce legislation now to sell BLM land off to the highest bidder to stop this nonsense?

 

[Libertarian01]

To HoughMade or Kirk,

From reading the 1998 case Mr. Bundy would owe $200 / day / head of cattle grazed. This does not include interest from years Mr. Bundy has refused to pay.

Why couldn't the Fed just put a lien or something like it against the cattle or any proceeds from their sale? This would put Mr. Bundy into a financial corner from which he would find it most difficult to extract himself. I mean, who cares if he has 10,000 cattle IF HE CANNOT SELL THEM for a profit?

This would give the Feds their win and have zero boots on the ground. Simply boots in the bank ready to seize the proceeds from their sale?

Regards,

Doug

 

[hornadylnl]

Is citing actual court orders permitted under the INGO Rules of Evidence?

.gov fumbled badly and now weakened their position with the next free rider.

Why can't the Republicans be saavy enough to introduce legislation now to sell BLM land off to the highest bidder to stop this nonsense?

Those land socialists will never stand for it. I gots to haves me a place to hunt and choot.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I gots to haves me a place to hunt and choot

A fair point. I just wish the Republican Party would see this as an opportunity to educate the populace as to the Tragedy of the Commons. Yeah, I know, they call it The Stupid Party for a reason.

 

[hornadylnl]

A fair point. I just wish the Republican Party would see this as an opportunity to educate the populace as to the Tragedy of the Commons. Yeah, I know, they call it The Stupid Party for a reason.

We have a constitutional right to a free place to shoot. Just ask INGO.