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.

 

A Straight Look at the Recent Nevada Land Dispute

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Well then everyone should just say that it's about a contract and quit playing word games talking smack about how he won't pay the fines.


He's refused to pay the fines for nigh on to 20 years. I believe it can be fairly said, given that track record, that "he won't pay the fines".




Like i said if he owes money then show a legitimite avenue for payment and it will be paid by him or others that would step up.



Try this: just walk into any BLM ofice, or, failing that, the closest Federal Building (most cities have one of their own), state loudly "I'm here to pay Bundy's fines".

I'm sure they can direct you to the proper window for payment, and resolve the "cash, check, or credit" issue. I'm just not seeing any issues with the lack of a "legitimate payment avenue". It's Bundy who has refused to pay, not the Federal government who has refused his money.




This is about getting him further down the legslative hole while making him seem like a free loader.



What do they call it where you come from when someone uses other people's stuff, then refuses to pay for it or replace it? That pretty much defines a freeloader around here.




He has serious issues that should be addressed



On that, at least, we can agree. Bundy has some serious issues, and he needs to be addressed.




and that is how the blm manages said properties and their legality of owning said properties in the first place because the land serves no purpose to we the people besides costing us money because some hard headed redneck sees how they done other ranchers in the same boat as him.



Oh.

maybe we don't agree after all.

1) there are proper avenues for addresing BLM mismanagement if that is the problem. Those avenues do not involve calling in a pseudo-militia and strutting around with gun like a bunch of Bantam roosters.

2) There is no problem with land ownership. land has been owned for millennia.

3) The land doesn't have to serve any purpose at all. that would be at the option of the owner.




No fed agency needs guns except those under legitimitly fall under the dept. of defense.



Anyone and everyone needs a gun - especially when their is a high danger of being shot at by someone else with a gun, such as Bantam roosters masquerading as Militiamen.




posted on May, 6 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu It's just gov. eco terrorism. There is a serious problem with the gov. owning over 80% of a state. You are dead wrong about non dod employees needing to be armed via their employer. Now privite ownership i agree with. If the blm or other agencies need back up then the courts can justly step in to protect employees. It is very sad when the op of this thread makes a better case and goes further into detail than any single court has. It is obvious that the blm has shortfalls that have come to bite them in the arse. They just try to bully their way into land ownership for no reason that serves we the people. They sure cancelled their trip to tx. recently.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: nenothtu It's just gov. eco terrorism.


Meh.




There is a serious problem with the gov. owning over 80% of a state.



If there is a problem, you should be able to articulate it other than just saying "there's a problem". Please do so.




You are dead wrong about non dod employees needing to be armed via their employer.



I am a non-DoD employee. Have been all my life. I've been armed by my employers on multiple occasions, and here I am, still able to type. I'm good with that. If I am wrong about it, you should be able to articulate a reason as to why, other than just stating "you're wrong about it", just like above. Please do so.




Now privite ownership i agree with.



No, you don't. You either agree with the Second Amendment, or you don't. It doesn't say that only certain citizens are allowed to carry arms. It doesn't say that government employees are not allowed to carry arms. It doesn't say that life is all about shooting defenseless fish in a barrel. As a matter of fact, it's pretty clearly on the other side.




If the blm or other agencies need back up then the courts can justly step in to protect employees.



Aren't the courts filled with non-DoD emplyees? How would you expect the courts to "protect employees" against pseudo-militias? Blind 'em with their black robes?

The courts have had their say, and Bundy and gang have ignored the courts. Now what?




It is very sad when the op of this thread makes a better case and goes further into detail than any single court has. It is obvious that the blm has shortfalls that have come to bite them in the arse. They just try to bully their way into land ownership for no reason that serves we the people. They sure cancelled their trip to tx. recently.



No.

The land ownership issue was settled long ago. No one is bullying their way into land ownership ("for no reason that serves the People") other than Bundy and gang. They want to appropriate de facto ownership of the land to serve only themselves.

Its. Not. Their. Land. Not any more than it's mine.

I have no idea why you keep going on about Texas. I'm not in Texas, and neither is Bundy. I can't say that I give a rats ass about what happens in Texas - Texas ain't the topic here. What the hell has Texas got to do with the situation at hand?




edit on 2014/5/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Generally if you seize an asset in liu of payment, you actually have to generate cash to cover your payment. Say some contractor puts a lien on your house to insure he gets paid. If the situation got to the point where the house is actually used to pay the bill, the contractor doesn't get the house. He has to sell it to cover his bill, perhaps cover legal expenses depending on the contract, then give the remainder of the money back to the owner.

So the cattle couldn't be given to the homeless. Rather that ugly herd of his would be sold to slaughter to generate cash. If there was money left over, it would go to Bundy.

Note also that just about anything can happen other than Bundy getting the land. The feds could simply not collect the fees. There is prosecutorial discretion. If Bundy wasn't such a bodily orifice, it is totally possible the feds would let him walk with his cattle, as long as they are off our land.

It would be totally frustrating to be Bundy's lawyer. There are so many ways to settle and not go bust, but Bundy will nuke himself instead. He has tied up his deeded property in a trust, but Bundy impresses me as the kind of person that wouldn't pay a top notch lawyer to make a bust proof trust. Courts look at assets that are transferred while the person is subject to legal sanctions as a way of hiding/protecting said assets, and the court just busts the contract. The buzzword is fraudulent conveyance. [OK, two words.]



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

However, this is not a matter of seizing an asset in lieu of payment. Payment is not the issue here. The cattle being on land they are not allowed to be on is the issue at hand.

With the cattle being on land they are not allowed to be on, and with asking bundy to remove his cattle nicely not producing results, and with the BLM simply siezing the cattle being met with armed militia working for Bundy, the next step is to find a way to remove those cattle with no loss of life.

Loss of human life that is. And that is key. Remove the cattle without killing people. (I think people are worth more than cattle in my personal opinion, but perhaps Bundy thinks differently)

The only way to do that is covert operations by a handful of trained men at night killing cattle. That would solve the issue. Bundy paying up can be confronted another day, in another way... and is not the main issue. The extra fines etc was to encourage Bundy to remove his cattle a bit quicker. Didn't work. Now we find a way that involves no loss of human life.

Anything else and any other concerns is not the main issue.
edit on 7-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

You assume it is legal for the cattle to be killed by the feds. What the feds don't want is to give Bundy a chance to sue the government.

Presume you kill the cattle in dark of night. Do you think there are enough coyotes to eat a thousand cows promptly? Remember a coyote doesn't gorge itself. The dead cattle would be a health issue.

If you try to render the dead cattle, how do you do this safely?

What it comes to is this: the feds can't be as lawless as Bundy.
edit on 7-5-2014 by gariac because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't pretend to be able to change your mind with words if your head has been stuck most of your life. The thing in common with bundy and tx would be a 90,000 acre tract of land that was about to be taken by the blm until this situation came up. Obiviously the land ownership issue has not been settled long ago or we would not have this situation. I agree with the second and i don't believe non dod or law enforcement should be issued weapons. It is pretty simple it is called thuggery and any just actions by departments of gov. can be backed by law enforcement at local levels with help of feds. if needed.

let's say twenty yrs. from now you and most employees that have been supplied with weapons form time to time and have had enough self restraint to acceptably deal with certain situations are gone what would be the chances or what would stand in the way of the kind of thuggery that a group of people could force upon the u.s. When common sense and clear legal chains are gone then we have problems and the current direction is heading that way. Do you have any idea of how much federal ownership of land is enough? Where should the line be drawn? Personally i see it as needing just the essentials and that clear plans should be held on all tracts.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't pretend to be able to change your mind with words if your head has been stuck most of your life.



Meh. It probably has. Are you familiar with my posting history at ATS?




The thing in common with bundy and tx would be a 90,000 acre tract of land that was about to be taken by the blm until this situation came up.



I don't know about that, and this probably isn't the thread to educate me in, but just a couple of points to ask:

1) Did the feds already own the 90k Acres in Texas, or were they "about to take it"? It can't be both, has to be one or the other, and that answer will determine just how much impact it has on this case.

2) was there a rancher in the Texas case illegally running cattle on land already owned by the feds?

As I said, just a couple of questions, but they are crucial in determining the relevance to this Nevada case.




Obiviously the land ownership issue has not been settled long ago or we would not have this situation.



Yeah, it WAS settled long ago. that doesn't always keep people from trying to take what isn't theirs, however, as Bundy is trying to do. Not much different from a home invasion thief, when it comes right down to it. My house is mine, and it was settled, but that didn't keep a couple of folks from breaking in and trying to take what wasn't theirs, either. Too bad for their plans that I was home at the time.




I agree with the second and i don't believe non dod or law enforcement should be issued weapons. It is pretty simple it is called thuggery and any just actions by departments of gov. can be backed by law enforcement at local levels with help of feds. if needed.



There is a logical disconnect with saying "I believe in the Second Amendment... well, except for those people over there. they should be disarmed". You're either for it for everyone, or against it. "Thuggery" is not limited to government agents - for proof, just look at the pseudo-miiltias, armed to the teeth to force their will on the rest of us, "thugging" it out.

Either law rules, or it dos not, and in this case the Law has spoken, and said it's piece, placing Bundy squarely in the wrong, and his private army, too. One cannot say "I believe in the rule of law, unless the government is involved". That sort of negates law altogether, and leaves us with mob rule and thuggery.




let's say twenty yrs. from now you and most employees that have been supplied with weapons form time to time and have had enough self restraint to acceptably deal with certain situations are gone what would be the chances or what would stand in the way of the kind of thuggery that a group of people could force upon the u.s. When common sense and clear legal chains are gone then we have problems and the current direction is heading that way. Do you have any idea of how much federal ownership of land is enough? Where should the line be drawn? Personally i see it as needing just the essentials and that clear plans should be held on all tracts.



Nothing stands in the way of thuggery, even now (much less twenty years from now) other than other armed thugs. "Thugs" is kind of subjective, and as I've always maintained, one man's terrorist (or thug) is another man's freedom fighter. it all depends on your own perspective. Bundy's pseudo-militias are no less a "group of people trying to force their will on the US" than the federals are. It's a matter of your perspective. It all comes down to whose holding the guns, who they are pointing them at, and where you stand in that mix.

For my take on what the "clear legal chain" means, see my discourse above on the rule of law - whether we want it, or whether we don't. Whether we would prefer the anarchy of Bundy over the Rule of Law. That, too, is a matter of perspective, where you stand in the mileu of combat.

There is still a lot of land owned by the Feds. Once upon a time, it was parceled out for homesteads, and given away in 400 acre allotments for war service and whatnot, but that seems to have slowed down considerably. leaving the feds holding the bag - a bag with a lot of landscape still in it. So, if at 9 am tomorrow morning, they suddenly said "we don't want it any more. if there isn't a military base on it, it's yours for the taking, and have at it" what do you reckon the result would be?

Whether one likes that result or not depends on his perspective, where he stands in the matter of anarchy.

We know where Bundy and his private goons stand in the matter.




edit on 2014/5/7 by nenothtu because: Spelling and grammar



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
tx and blma reply to: nenothtuI have read and starred in agreement with many of your post. The deal in tx is that a farmer in tx became involved in a state land dispute because of the changing coarse of the red river. It was basicaly tx vs ok. and the blm ended up with the property in 98. So based on that outcome new stretches of land are up for dispute. If the decisions are just then the states have plenty of fire power. You assume that any land that the feds not needing and reverting back to the people could not be dealt with on a state by state basis. Done correctly it would not mean anarchy. Simply keeping the land because we can't handle it is short sided. Forcing every fed agency is to be armed would result in undo death but allowing them to personally carry to defend theirselves is much different than giving them athority to brandish weapons at work is not a good idea and will go much further dowm the road of anarchy than putting more responsibility on the states to manage their land. This would all be much different if the state of nevada were in agreement about the tract one direction or another.




edit on 7-5-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

The Daily Mail and the Mooney, oh I mean Washington Times are dubious references. Then within the article it reads:



The BLM, for its part, told Fox News that it’s “categorically not expanding federal holdings along the Red River.”

Still, local farmers and land owners are worried.


Still, some people are loony. You say up and they hear down. There isn't much that can be done about such people, other than ignore them.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Good news. The FBI is investigating the militia. Hopefully arrests will follow.
FBI investigating militia



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Well now, that is a surprise. Has anyone looked at who runs the FBI these days? I mean, really looked and considered dates for a few moments on his bio?

Wiki Bio

#2 to Ashcroft during the early war years. When those...interesting things were being justified.

I'd never noticed a Bush appointee had stayed over so long for that.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It should come as no surprise that military type enforcement is being used. I recall screams and cries of FOUL from the left when the same type of tactics were used against the OCCUPY folks. I see none of that outrage by those same folks here.

10 Scary Weapons



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: rockflier

Well, as you've probably seen me mention, I was in Occupy and by stroke of fate or bad luck, just HAD to choose the one Obama and Binden's wife would be staying within a couple blocks of. I know what you're saying and trust me..the President isn't the only one traveling with a small army (quite literally, as it happens). We saw police, state troopers and most importantly...what I've taken to be Secret Service teams in some of the buildings around us and Busch Stadium. There as much for it, as us, but certainly watching both through optics I'd prefer not be aimed at me quite how I experienced it.

Bundy is entirely different, in my opinion, and from my reading of the court records dating back.

Now the FBI is involved..and this is a REAL simple thing now. He's cooked or he isn't. If he is, it's only a question of time now before he and his supporters are rolled up and prosecuted.

See....They made the same mistake we made at Occupy (I use we loosely..since there were a few million others involved..lol). They filmed everything and in every direction. One of the primary media shots is of a militia member on an overpass and behind the rest of the militia...looking down sights of an AR-15 like rifle, aimed right over his own side and at the other. That was front page stuff and no one apparently thought at the time...it could become evidence to a major felony prosecution. Well.. oops... surprise?

Also... Occupy brought it's own problems on and I knew no one in STL, anyway, who suggested we weren't breaking the laws. We all KNEW we were and knew the price we may have to pay for it. Breaking the law was the point of protest in that case, although in St Louis, that basically extended to curfew and assembly without a permit. Law is Law though and protest is empty without a willingness to stand for consequence in the name of our beliefs.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I forgot to mention that the FBI always investigates crime on federal property. This would be the case in a national park.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Have you seen the series of Forbes articles chronicling the Bundy saga? The link above is to part 4. Parts 1-3 can be found here: one, two, and three.
The author specializes in sovereigns and anti-government movements. It's a good read.


a reply to: gariac
From the bottom of www.8newsnow.com... article you linked:

It is illegal to point loaded weapons at federal agents, and most people know what would happen, if a suspect pointed a gun at a Metro officer in the Las Vegas valley.

Bundy supporters have been adamant in saying no weapons were aimed at the feds or police, that the BLM rangers were the ones pointing guns.


So who was this dude aiming at?


edit on 5/9/2014 by Olivine because: add reply to gariac



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

In hind sight, I'm sure the feds regret dropping the case against Ryan.

These sovereigns are easy to arrest. The law should stop being so lenient with them. The sovereigns often write bad checks since they are their own bank. The make their own license plates.

KDWN back in the day was ground zero for these loonies. There was a guy that explained how to become sovereign. You can still find the public storage facilities in Nevada that operate like Swiss numbered bank accounts.

Incidentally, nothing Harry Reid said in that quote was incorrect.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I forgot to mention that the FBI always investigates crime on federal property. This would be the case in a national park.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the folks were on Bundy land and highway right of way and not on NPS land.
edit on 591414 by rockflier because: added: I believe



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

The guns probably weren't loaded.

And the "photos" were for publicity.

It worked.

Any genuine "threat" would have been addressed at the time I would think.

Big psy-ops on both sides imo.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

No need to guess... That photo was taken from more than one angle. That's precisely the one I was thinking of.





top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join