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.

 

The 5th amendment (Bundy)

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

But what could a jury do in a case where the land didn't belong to Bundy?

Your going on about a whole lot of things that simply don't apply in this particular case.




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

The federal judge issued an injunction. Do you understand what that means?

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment.


When Bundy defied his injunction, rather than throwing him in prison, the government decided to just take the cattle. Likely because putting Bundy in prison wouldn't remove the cattle from the land and wouldn't really solve the problem.

Bundy really has no right to a jury in this case, even if he did, he'd still lose.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Here's an interesting view from an actual lawyer.

just one set of opinions....

A Lawyer Discusses the Constitutionality of the Cliven Bundy Ranch Saga



The following are excerpts from my interview with Guy Maisnik, a 30 year real estate lawyer and Constitutional law real property expert, regarding the Bundy’s case against the United States concerning Bundy’s rights to use real property adjacent to his ranch to graze his cattle over the objection of the United States.




and here is an article outlining the timeline (although some things are omitted)
The Turtles were the First Issue



1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."

March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government's efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Deny Ignorance. Let's find out which side you are on.

To those that are reading. Notice. The "other sides" points keep going back, back, back. There is no acknowledgement of, the fact, if it is unconstititional, it is null and void. PERIOD. That means, any "fees" the BLM is trying to impose, to steal this man's cattle, are unconstititional, and those involved are in violation of the following:

USC 18 §2382 - Misprision of treason
USC 18 §201 BRIBERY
USC 18 §241; CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS:
USC 18 §242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
USC 42 1985; CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS:
USC 42 §1986 - ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT

I'll be waiting. It has nothing to "do", with Land.

Grand Jury. Now.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized
They are not trying to steal the guys cattle. They are trying to keep it off of land that isn't his.

It has everything to do with appeasing the environmentalist voters who are being promised greater environmental control in gold butte in exchange for building a solar plant in another spot.

You can cite as many laws as you like but if you don't understand what they mean or how they apply then there isn't much point to it. Add the fact that it isn't you who gets to interpret them and you have a double whammy.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Let's call a truce. Forget the land itself. Too complex.

The cattle are not complex though. I think the man can keep his cattle with the points i presented. What say you?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Lies. Then why the reports of euthansia?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

What about them?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

If Bundy can keep his cattle on his land, then the feds have no reason or right to come after them. However, he's made no attempt to keep them on his land and made every attempt to use the federal land.

This is a long, long history of opposition in Nevada. Pipe bombs, bomb threats and physical harassment of government employees dates way before what happened this month.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Real simple.

If Bundy did something illegal, then he should be arrested.

If he didn't do anything illegal, then this is simply a story about tyrannical government.

Is there a warrant out for Bundy's arrest?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
Your logic is flawed.

Civil matters don't carry jailtime unless some action merits it, but then it is a whole different procedure.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: beezzer
Your logic is flawed.

Civil matters don't carry jailtime unless some action merits it, but then it is a whole different procedure.


So he's not doing something criminal that warrants armed BLM snipers?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
I don't know but having an armed group show up in resistance is probably a good enough reason.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: beezzer
I don't know but having an armed group show up in resistance is probably a good enough reason.




Ahhh. Now I see!

The only reason why the BLM showed up with heavily armed snipers and para-military force was because they somehow knew that people were going to protest the heavily armed BLM snipers and para-military force.




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Question of the year, isn't it?

If you are doing what i think you are doing, thank you for your service.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
There seems to be a rather long history between the parties involved.

Seems like they both believe in not bringing knives to a gunfight.

edit on 19-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Too many people care about this guy too much.

He should be thrown in jail for life for not following court orders.

I don't care if this is good for a revolution or anything of that nature. The guy has been fighting this for 20 years, lost, failed to comply, and now is showing an act of aggression.

I'm glad they will probably see all those people as terrorist, throw them all in jail for being idiots.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

Don't know what you mean.

BLM doesn't care about the well being of the cattle. They never said they did. All they have to do is show that they did the best they could to keep a countersuit at bay.
edit on 19-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
"The 5th Amendment is an old friend and a good friend, one of the great landmarks in men's struggle to be free of tyranny, to be decent and civilized. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms." --William O. Douglas

Politically correct city slicker gets owned, by a country girl.


edit on 19-4-2014 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Well...yeah. The round-up was supposed to occur in 2012.


Two years ago, the BLM threatened to send in contractors to remove the animals. But Cliven Bundy made veiled threats of violence.


With the pipe bombs found in Nevada during the 1990's and the increasing number of armed militia's promising to show up if the BLM showed up what do you think the feds should've done?




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join