It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'll bet my bottom pound that MOM are full of S###...where and when have they been tested???
QuietSpeech
reply to post by buster2010
From what I read, they took his lands, then they wanted to charge him to let his livestock graze there. Something to do with preservation of a turtle?
TKDRL
reply to post by Soloprotocol
I'll bet my bottom pound that MOM are full of S###...where and when have they been tested???
Your first line in the thread, that don't sound like insults to you?
Then you go on to take a swipe at all US vets......
Like I said, out of nowhere. I figured maybe it was a pissing match carried over from some other thread and wouldn't look as nuts with some context.edit on Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:21:09 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)
UxoriousMagnus
his family owned that land before Nevada was a state.....signed over the land out of love for the new state of Nevada but they were given grazing and water rights FOR EVER because of it.
Then the federal government took control of the land which is unconstitutional (research that too little fella) and the Feds gave them the continued deal that Nevada gave them.....both the feds and Nevada tried to purchase these grazing and water rights off of the Bundy's but to no avail.
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) (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.” CV-S-98-531 at 8 (citing United States v. Gardner,
107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997)). Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the
Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at
1320; that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands
outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320; that the United States‘ exercise of ownership
over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319; that the United States
is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the
Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that
Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass. See e.g., Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320
(under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze
would be trumped)
nerdyclutzyblonde
This is a situation the fed govt can't win. Unless they don't want to "win" it.
The govt needs to back down & let this guy be.
Southern Nevada BLM
All healthy tortoises at the Center will be relocated to sites that will support the recovery of the species. Healthy tortoises will not be euthanized.
BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws
Olivine
reply to post by roaland
Roaland, your 1st two links are from August 2013. The BLM has changed their plans.
The Daily Paul article exemplifies that site's lack of journalism--they couldn't be bothered to check the source.
Southern Nevada BLM
All healthy tortoises at the Center will be relocated to sites that will support the recovery of the species. Healthy tortoises will not be euthanized.
Soloprotocol
UxoriousMagnus
Soloprotocol
UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by gladtobehere
All I am saying is that MOM is on the way down (militia of montana)
say what you want about militia in this country.....but MOM don't play games.....they are the real deal.
They would not get involved unless they were sure the Bundy's were in the right....
I'll bet my bottom pound that MOM are full of S###...where and when have they been tested???
Where and when have YOU been tested my friend....
silly silly wabbit
Northern Ireland...twice in the 80's.edit on 11-4-2014 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)
because Bundy's cattle have caused and continue to cause damage to natural and cultural resources and pose a threat to public safety. The United States has also demonstrated that the equities and the public interest strongly favor an injunction. The public interest is best served by having the federal lands managed without the presence of trespassing cattle on lands that are closed to grazing. The public interest is also best served by removal of trespassing cattle that cause harm to natural and cultural resources or pose a threat to the health and safety of members of the public who use the federal lands for recreation
SpaDe_
reply to post by WhatTheory
Well at least they haven't said it's for the children yet, so it's only moderate desperation. It's all a bunch of BS, and they are just making it up as they go along.
buster2010
HanzHenry
I wish the grieving families of every BLM agent were making funeral plans.
and this commissioner.
Are you saying that the families of these BLM agents who are doing their job should be attacked? Surely you cannot be that stupid.
Soloprotocol
Galvatron
reply to post by Soloprotocol
Did it ever occur to you that many Militia members are former military? Some decorated veterans? Considering the late unpleasantness in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot have seen combat, too.
As a dual Brit American citizen, I'm surprised at you. You're behaving, well, like an American... and in the context of this statement, it ain't a compliment.
I'm going to go so far as to say you were a Territorial... part time soldier... full time going on about it.
I say this stand-off will raise quire a few eyebrows nation-wide... and for the better hopefully.edit on 11-4-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)edit on 11-4-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
Bollocks!!!
No-one has the right to call themselves a decorated vet in the USA since Omaha 1944....after that it's all been girly wars for the US...take us Brits....tumbledown, Longdon, goose green, bluff cove, mount kent...we still class them as skirmishes. not a WAR as such.
Scots Guard...full time.