It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Mamatus
I do not and did not support Bundy. IMO he is still a deadbeat. However the BLMS Behavior was/is reprehensible.
Killing and animal and not using the meat is a crime for a hunter. IMO BLM should be held accountable. Although if they deduct the value of the cattle from his million dollar bill then perhaps it is "fair". Unless of course you are a cow then, not so much.
Dear BLM You are jackasses of the tenth order.
originally posted by: nugget1
I thought the whole point of the swat-style raid was to confiscate the cattle, and SELL them, using the money gendered to deduct from what Bundy supposedly owed on back taxes.
Slaughtering the cattle puts everything on an entirely different page; one I hope all Americans are reading.
Only time will tell just how close Reid is to the top echelons of corruption. I will be watching who sides with Reid VERY closely.
originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Peekingsquatch
I hear what you're saying..and I hear what is being said on his behalf. I'm also reading court transcripts and source documents both sides refer to for the media, to see what they REALLY say...and Bundy isn't making that claim for owning direct rights to the land outside the court of public opinion. Near as I can tell, his mumblings about Homestead exception were thrown out summarily and quite some time back. Since then, he's been shotgunning causes, with those being important points for each, but in his approach? Whatever sticks...and that is where a man fighting on principle, isn't about principle anymore. Winning at any cost is what the people he's fighting do....and aside from the argument regarding becoming what we fight? You can't out-scum the scum of the U.S.G....tho he's trying hard.
First tho.. WHICH land is supposedly his? To read the court transcripts and compare to statements? You'd think the man believes he owns the whole Virgin River Valley. Umm.... I think not.
In its complaint, the United States alleges that, not only has Bundy failed to comply with the court’s orders that he remove his cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment and pay the financial penalties, but that Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The United States seeks an order enjoining Bundy’s unauthorized grazing on the New Trespass Lands.
Check the BLM maps for action areas I linked above to see what these areas are and, as it mentioned, Gold Butte isn't even all BLM land. He's violating more than one line of property which is not his. More important tho...his actual claim.
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).
That's the thrust of his point and fight as it's been made in any official sense, where it matters to make it.
US vs. Bundy - District Court of Nevada / July 2013
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 face regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands.
That's as source as it gets, in being his own case and one of the major legal defeats, across the board, which led to the scheduled removal of his cattle. I could even see people getting mad if they surprised him...but they gave notice on the Federal Register, which is as public as ad space in Times Square. Bundy had many chances to fight..and he lost on merit, every time he did. Now he's choosing to play on passions to build his own "People's Resistance" or something... I'll fight for principle. I'll NEVER fight for a man. This man seems wrong, IMO.
This is notice that any UNAUTHORIZED livestock grazing upon public lands and/or other federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the National Park Service is a violation of 43 CFR § 4140.1(b)(1)(i) and/or of 16 CFR § 2.60(a) and (b) and may be impounded.
The BLM may impound UNAUTHORIZED livestock without further notice anytime within the twelve (12) month period that begins five (5) days after the publication and posting of this notice within the local area (43 CFR § 4150.4-1(a) and (b) and 43 CFR § 4150.4-2). The NPS may impound UNAUTHORIZED livestock without further notice (36 CFR § 2.60(c)).
Source: BLM Public Notice / March 19 2014
The areas affected by this notice are comprised of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and Park lands administered by the National Park Service within the Gold Butte area, including the following allotments or areas.
Mesquite Community Allotment
Toquop Sheep Allotment
Hen Springs Allotment
Billy Goat Peak Allotment
Gold Butte Allotment
Lower Mormon Mesa Allotment
Upper Mormon Mesa
Flat Top Mesa
Virgin River Bottom
Lake Mead National Recreation Area (Lake Mead NRA)
originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: butcherguy
I take it you didn't actually watch the fox news piece on this or what?
I smell some stink in your post if you didn't even watch the video to know that was exactly what I was quoting!