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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I'll respect your opinion while disagreeing with it.

The issue of federal control of state land, I'm 100% behind state's rights on. No question.

Where that must change is in the language of papers and digital files in Washington. It's not in a dry wash in Nevada. The language is in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Even if we went through a whole civil war over it. In the end? The language in that Act would still have to change.

Right now, it grants the management of lands to the Feds in perpetuity. Forever. That had NOT been the case, prior to that, but the authority of the land to the United States Congress predates both Nevada as a State, Nevada as a territory and absolutely, Bundy or the LDS Church in it's westward push to settlement at the end of the 19th/open of the 20th century. In fact, no settlers had even CROSSED the deserts that would become Nevada, at the time the Congress took title to the lands in the Hidalgo Treaty.

So, my focus is on changing the law the whole thing is basically locked up because of, if anything. BLM Officers in that dry wash in Nevada can't do that. They can just follow the court's lawful orders, based on that law.

In our approaches and times to pick for making a stand, we differ. Why the stand is required to eventually face and make, we'd agree without a bit of difference.
edit on 3-5-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: corrected treaty name




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

In our approaches and times to pick for making a stand, we differ. Why the stand is required to eventually face and make, we'd agree without a bit of difference.



Amen.

My dear old dad once told me "Boy, one day you're gonna die. It's a given. Happens to us all. If it ain't in a bed from old age, then make it matter."

A Rich Man's cows don't fall under that category. They might have for Cuchullain, but not for me.

There are so many serious, REAL issues that I cannot comprehend the polarization and evident attitude adjustments over this guy's cattle. if he had a legal leg to stand on, or even a moral one, if he had some kind of actual, verifiable rights to grazing that land, it might be different.

But he doesn't.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

In our approaches and times to pick for making a stand, we differ. Why the stand is required to eventually face and make, we'd agree without a bit of difference.



Amen.

My dear old dad once told me "Boy, one day you're gonna die. It's a given. Happens to us all. If it ain't in a bed from old age, then make it matter."

A Rich Man's cows don't fall under that category. They might have for Cuchullain, but not for me.

There are so many serious, REAL issues that I cannot comprehend the polarization and evident attitude adjustments over this guy's cattle. if he had a legal leg to stand on, or even a moral one, if he had some kind of actual, verifiable rights to grazing that land, it might be different.

But he doesn't.




And we already have a copy cat in Nevada not paying his bills. This is a slippery slope. The Bundy situation needs to be terminated. I won't stand for mob rule. The country will be in chaos. Bundy needs to be slapped down, and slapped down hard. We, the US citizenry, need to win this one.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000




In fact, no settlers had even CROSSED the deserts that would become Nevada, at the time the Congress took title to the lands in the Hidalgo Treaty.


Elaborate on this. You do know of Odgen the man, I presume.

So when Nevada takes back the "cow territory", can we the taxpayers take all the water and electricity that now goes to Nevada? Can we dig up I-15? Or are the Nevada citizens going to hand over a few trillion dollars to pay for all the infrastructure we the tax payers gave the state.

The politicians of Nevada agreed to the terms of joining the union. I see no escape clause. I suggest living by the legal documents rather than taking on the federal government with guns. Again, don't blame the feds if some militia member becomes well ventilated. Point a weapon at federal law enforcement, expect return fire. We the patriots would expect nothing less of our federal servants.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Well, rather than ignore your post and not reply, I'll simply say I've lost my ability to follow you in this. One moment you seem to agree, the next, not so much. I lost you totally on the 2nd amendment tangent, and I'm lost now.

So... Maybe we'll cross back over on another part of this story when I have a better sense of where you're at on all sides of it for solid position.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Well your just going off the deep end for someone who earlier stated that this thread was about Bundy and the legalities of this case.

This thread IS about whether or not Bundy is breaking the law, and you are trying to take it way off topic by somehow equating a democratic process as being on the same level as Bundy's law breaking self.

Its NOT.

This government is a government by the people, for the people and all power the federal government has is granted by the people for their benefit.

The citizens of the United States can change laws as times change and new situations arise.

This trust is not something all the people are agreeing on concerning how the trust should be managed or whether or not it should be managed at all and some day this too may change, reverting back to what it once was, or simply a new way to decide the matter.

When that way is through democratic process and is representative of the desires and needs of the people it cannot ever be called theft and to act like it is very well could be the definition of insanity itself. You may or may not agree with some of the people, but this is what the democratic process is all about - your voice is represented the same as anyone elses voice is in a truly representative government.

Bundy is wrong in that he doesn't believe anyone's say but his matters and does not abide democratic process. THAT is what this thread is about. Not about the democratic processes you have something personally against for any reason.
edit on 4-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

And we already have a copy cat in Nevada not paying his bills. This is a slippery slope. The Bundy situation needs to be terminated. I won't stand for mob rule. The country will be in chaos. Bundy needs to be slapped down, and slapped down hard. We, the US citizenry, need to win this one.


I don't see it that way, at all.

I can find NO reason to "slap Bundy down hard" - he's already been through court, multiple times. It has been decided. "We, the US citizenry" don't "win" anything by slapping him down hard. What "we" (and by "we", I don't mean "We" at all, but the BLM instead) NEED to do is comply with the court order, and cause his cattle to stop grazing in the prohibited area - prohibited due to his own inactions, those of not paying his fees.

I believe what "we" need to do is bypass Bundy and his young army entirely, and just start dropping his cattle in their tracks wherever found in the prohibited area. Not remove them, not confiscate them, just kill them where they stand. Ignore the militia altogether, and just fix the grazing problem, which is what the court order deals with. If it's too much trouble to round them up and auction them off, then simply eliminate them, and any other cattle Bundy wants to send in.

By "slapping him down hard", we, in a way, legitimize his "cause". It means he, and it, is worthy of our notice. They are not. The more attention they are given, the stronger they get. That is a CLASSIC mistake that governments make in dealing with guerrillas, and one that the guerrillas intend to provoke. Don't give it to them.

Instead, just comply with the court order. Eliminate the cattle in the most efficient way possible. End the economic benefits of Bundy NOT complying with the court. After a while, he'll stop buying cattle and sending them in if the only thing he can expect to get out of them is bleached bones for his investment.

No need for a confrontation with Bundy's Army at all. Feed steak to the homeless if he wants to keep donating the cattle, and for as long as he wants to donate them.

ALL rule is "mob rule" - it's just a matter of which mob you prefer to have lording it over you. Bundy does not want "mob rule" - he wants to rule the mob, and appears to have gathered his own mob to rule. You, on the other hand, appear to be all FOR "mob rule", the "democratic process", just as long as the mob is obedient to YOUR will. In that, you are not so different from Bundy. Make the mob obey YOU, and send in the guns if they refuse.

By "copycat", I presume you mean the cat who is trying to create a new fuel source by trashing OTHER people's land. I've read the stories about it, but have yet to figure out how he's getting that done, and dumping the clippings for composting. Where I come from, if you start dumping your trash on other folks' land, and they say "stop that!" then the very next load you bring will provoke an encounter with the sheriff and his deputies which will end with you in jail if you try to dump the load.

I just can't figure it out. people appear to have gone as spineless as jellyfish. In those circumstances, the ONE who demonstrates a spine, even a rudimentary one, wins.

By engaging with Bundy, by noticing his shenanigans at all, you are pointing to his rudimentary spine and acknowledging him as King.





edit on 2014/5/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu So you believe shooting animals would be more prudent than just allowing him to pay his fees without signing a new contract. If there was a clear metheod of payment then thousands of us would make sure the bill was paid. They do not want the money or they would not have spent millions trying to collect a million.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yes. I believe that shooting the cattle would be more prudent, especially in light of the fact that Bundy has stated repeatedly that he's not going to pay the fees or fines, and doesn't recognize the owner of the property in question.

Contracts come up for renewals every so often. It's the nature of contracts. If you don't want to agree to the new one, don't try to remain in play on the old one. Find another vendor to contract with, and move your goddamned cows!

Doesn't matter whether they want the money or not - it's THEIR land to make the calls on usage of.

Luckily, it's the feds he's dealing with. If it were my land, I'd be eating steak after the 3rd incursion and warning to keep the cattle off my land. I don't say that without some experience of the matter.

After the 4th incursion involving the "Great Cow Disappearance", the cattle never "got out" again. The problem with letting your cattle get out to graze on other folks' land is that they are OUT, and sometimes just wander off, never to be seen again.



edit on 2014/5/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
You may enjoy KABC's Bryan Suits broadcast on Bundy. Suits is ex-Army and very conservative.
Bryan Suits KABC



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu You made points but mine was why not allow him to pay then settle future contracts. So you would rather take lives than see the feds get their money. You spin it into if it were my land but it is your land so go start shootin.


You know you are missing the point if your reasoning for trying to get contracts signed before payment is well other people do it. I imagine a metaphor of a 10yo that made his way up a ladder onto a roof and the ladder fell. Now it is supper time and his mom demands him to come eat supper but he does not because he can not fly. Mom says just jump other children have jumped. Boy says but they are all dead now because of the fall. mom i'm gonna shoot you if you don't eat supper tonight. That is my version of idiotic spin the feds and supporters play on message boards.


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



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Because they tried to get him to renew the contract and he refused, even without asking for up-front payment. he tore up the new contract and threw it on the ground..

he had 5 years to change his mind and get into another contract which he refused to do, so then his own county (Clarke County, Nevada) purchased the contract that prior to that he had first dibs on, because he did not want it.

I guess I don't understand your point in light of the above. After 21 years you think he should be able to change his mind? I think at this point he would have to take it up with those who purchased his permit... clarke county.



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



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB 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. 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. This is about getting him further down the legslative hole while making him seem like a free loader. He has serious issues that should 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. No fed agency needs guns except those under legitimitly fall under the dept. of defense. You have agreed yourself the blm is using the fees to get rid of him he seen a way to prolong it with a fight that has in turn opened eyes to their dealings and saved 90,000 acres in tx from going the same way.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick


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.


For the record, the fines and totals were established in the 1998 court ruling which set the specific amount of $200 per head of cattle, per day of violation across the public lands of that area. That was a decade and a half ago for the time between he's continued to graze his cattle.

It was about contacts and renewels, up to the point the court decided it wasn't anymore, and made it about liability for damages and whatever else they rolled into that fine amount.....still adding up as we speak, for that matter.

The court, within that ruling, also made clear who it was to be paid to. The United States. Which, in this case, was represented by the Department of the Interior. At the local level, I believe that is the BLM as point of contact, tho I could be mistaken on the specific address to send a check.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIVEN BUNDY, Defendant.

The actions and decisions of the 2012 and 2013 actions in court come from the 1998 case, where each issue Bundy raised was addressed and examined in turn. He lost them all, without exception. There are many who disagree with the outcome, no doubt. The record of what that outcome was, however, is simply fact of the official transcripts.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Do me a favor if you would. If you find anywhere these fees can be paid then could you post that for all to see. Not just something pointing to some agency or some dead end. I'm talking a person with their hand out waiting or an account number. Just something real that will accept money on his account that needs to be paid. If you can't find that then just admit that no amount of money will be enough for the blm because it's about under handed tactics that usually work.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

The case was brought by the United States, represented by the Department of the Interior on behalf of the People of the United States. (See link below for "Bundy II" May-2012 Ruling, Page 3, under "Parties" for one location where that is detailed)

Since we want to be extremely technical, I'll be happy to get technical on it. I've sure put the time in on this one.

The individual people who would take his money on behalf of the US Government would vary across two decades.

Now, in a serious effort to show this for anyone who may be curious, it does get a bit long and technical, but it wouldn't be much of a thread without factual support, as needed, for the debate it's started.

The fines and assessments of violations issued by the BLM and other federal entities prior to the 1998 ruling and what was described within it for notices served and violation notices issued, would be payable under the terms of the United States District Court - District of Nevada CVB. The notices he received (and in one situation described in the '98 record, he tore up and littered a roadway with) would take payment at the following address:

CVB
PO Box 70939
Charlotte, NC, 28272-0939

CVB stands for the Central Violations Bureau and more can be found here: US District Court: Nevada

Once he got entangled with losing major judgments orders by the court, it would seem, the money was payable to the Bureau of Land Management as the representative office of the Dept of Interior (and with an Officer assigned, whom Bundy would have been aware of). This is how it reads. Now, Bundy can produce the exact Judgements he was served with, for the address on that. He was served with a number of them through 1998, 1999 and onward.

(Article with timelines of events and directory of links to critical source documents)

In finding the answers to some of that, I came across a good deal more I hadn't been aware of in specifics, including the fact that whole area has been shut down to grazing, period. Not just him. I kept coming across references of "former" Bunkerville allotment when used to describe some of the lands Bundy came to describe simply as "Bundy Ranch", according to court records.


The majority of public land acres comprising the former grazing allotment are located within one of the seven ACECs in Gold Butte, known as the Gold Butte (Part A) ACEC. Mr. Bundy’s father at one time held a grazing preference and permit for the Bunkerville Allotment, and Mr. Bundy was an authorized representative for that permit. Following Mr. Bundy’s failure to apply for renewal of the permit in 1993 and failure to pay the requisite grazing fees, BLM cancelled the permit in 1994. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, all of the public lands within the Gold Butte area (with the exception of the Lower Mormon Mesa), including the former Bunkerville Allotment, are now closed to grazing.


I also hadn't seen this in any credible source before, to have really noted..but it changes my feelings from neutral and interested in the goings on...to very much against the damage his cows are doing.


Archeological resources located within the Gold Butte ACECs include rock shelters with blackened roofs, charcoal remnants, broken pottery, rock tools, and world-renowned petroglyphs.


That's just one element of several for why the BLM and National Parks Service, by order of the Department of Interior, closed that land to grazing in general and Bundy's trespass cattle in particular. Source for above information: "Bundy II Complaint - May 2012"

In terms of amounts, the BLM and NPS didn't set those. They are set by U.S. Code/Federal Law. Now he violated a good number of things, and across several code sections. It's a lot of serious time just following the section and subsection references to read it all. However, this is a representative sample of what is literally a dozen or more codes to run down in seeing all of it. This one is also a primary one having been used in calculations. It's mentioned in more than one year's court proceedings. Part B was essentially done in 1994, following attempts to gain compliance in 1992 and 1993.


43 CFR 4170.1-1 - Penalty for violations.

(b) The authorized officer shall suspend the grazing use authorized under a grazing permit, in whole or in part, or shall cancel a grazing permit or lease and grazing preference, in whole or in part, under subpart 4160 of this title for repeated willful violation by a permittee or lessee of § 4140.1(b)(1) of this title.

(c) Whenever a nonpermittee or nonlessee violates § 4140.1(b) of this title and has not made satisfactory settlement under § 4150.3 of this title the authorized officer shall refer the matter to proper authorities for appropriate legal action by the United States against the violator.
Source: 43 CFR 4170.1-1

and to jump to what that referred to, to understand it's contextual meaning:


43 CFR 4150.3 - Settlement.

Where violations are repeated willful, the authorized officer shall take action under § 4170.1-1(b) of this title. The amount due for settlement shall include the value of forage consumed as determined in accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

(a) For nonwillful violations: The value of forage consumed as determined by the average monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on privately owned land (excluding irrigated land) in each State as published annually by the Department of Agriculture. The authorized officer may approve nonmonetary settlement of unauthorized use only when the authorized officer determines that each of the following conditions is satisfied:

(b) For willful violations: Twice the value of forage consumed as determined in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) For repeated willful violations: Three times the value of the forage consumed as determined in paragraph (a) of this section.
Source: 43 CFR 4150.3

To help with other references that will be found in the documents linked by just this post, let alone thread, here are a few other laws to save the hunt and sort I did in collecting them.

43 CFR 4140.1 - Acts prohibited on public lands.
43 CFR 4150.4 - Impoundment and disposal.
43 CFR 4150.2 - Notice and Order to Remove.

§4130.8- 1 Payment of fees. (Formula to calculate base rate being multiplied above)
Subpart 4130—Authorizing Grazing Use


I Hope that helps.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
To add a little more to the above, it has to be noted that quotes are edited for sections between what is quoted. This is done for space, as some could exceed a post character allowance in one paste, depending on which document set or item it may be. The above have more. That isn't words or sentences INSIDE the paragraphs, as that would tend to change context and meaning. It's details of additional points or paragraphs that add to or clarify meaning. So, I'd encourage anyone interested by what is shared, to follow the source links to see all of it.

Also, there were additional fines levied later, however.... These 3 are the high points of the late 1990s actions.



Source: Court Docket 3/1998 - 9/1999 / PDF File



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: ManFromEurope


I do not care what the rest of the world's opinion is about we Americans.

And if you purport to be speaking on behalf of the rest of the citizens of the world,
then I take it the superiority and haughtiness was not trounced out of you
by American servicemen during WWII?



Yeah, not caring about anyone else is as American as it can be..


Ooooooh, WW2, now that is a very good argument. I nearly feel defeated. NOT. Because this argument doesn't work anymore. Neither did it at any time before.

But really, all I was trying to do was try to bring some sense in the discussion to have a look at it from out of the gameboard - it seems like such a small and tiny affair, really. Yet, it is blown to completely unneeded proportions in this board.

But yes, this is the view of just another person on earth. Feel free to ignore the unbiased view on this affair, your choice completely.

Just... try to take a step back and look at it. Just look at it, without having the paroles and voices of MSM and comments from "News" and so on in your head.

It will look different.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000 Well that's pretty awesome research and brings up more points that need to be looked into. There is a serious need for truth here because grazing has been going on for many years there. So in your opinion how much to date does he owe and what agency will accept payment?


Something kinda off topic but i do get feelings that the reason spiritually is that the land needs to go back native. That the tumble weeds and cows are not welcome there. There is something there that is making no sense. Either god is working through an ahole named reid to lie and try to reclaim the area through the blm or perhaps there is something under the ground there. Common sense says that any damage to the area caused by cows could be noted and upheld understandably in court but they choose lies about a turtle.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: nenothtu You made points but mine was why not allow him to pay then settle future contracts.


Nothing is stopping him from paying and settling up. Future contracts would probably be a little trickier than previously, given his actions and slack payment record. There are always at least two parties to a contract, and if one of those doesn't want to contract, then there IS no contract.




So you would rather take lives than see the feds get their money.



Get a grip, man! They're cows! They exist to be eaten! That's better done - both for eater and eatee - after their lives have been taken rather than before! It looks like the Fed isn't going to get their money either way, so might as well eat the abandoned cows and get something out of the deal.

900 head of abandoned cattle would feed a LOT of homeless folks!




You spin it into if it were my land but it is your land so go start shootin.



No, it isn't. It's not my land at all - I have no deed to it whatsoever. It belongs to the US Federal Government. I can't go shooting stuff on other folks' property without their permission any more than I could, for example, run my cattle on someone else's land without their permission.

There are property rights involved on property that isn't mine.




You know you are missing the point if your reasoning for trying to get contracts signed before payment is well other people do it. I imagine a metaphor of a 10yo that made his way up a ladder onto a roof and the ladder fell. Now it is supper time and his mom demands him to come eat supper but he does not because he can not fly. Mom says just jump other children have jumped. Boy says but they are all dead now because of the fall. mom i'm gonna shoot you if you don't eat supper tonight. That is my version of idiotic spin the feds and supporters play on message boards.



????

What?

That was so random, nonsensical, and inapplicable that even I couldn't grasp it - and that's some kind of random!

No spin. It's real simple. You don't graze another man's pasture without his permission.

It really doesn't get much simpler.




top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join